Preview
FILED
11/10/2023 3:51 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Lauren Beavers DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-01073
TREZ CAPITAL FUNDING II, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TREZ CAPITAL WINSTON, LP, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§ 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
v. §
§
RANDY CRAIG NORTON, §
§
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Trez Capital Funding II, LLC and Trez Capital Winston, LP
(collectively “Trez”) and file these Objections to and Motion to Strike Defendant’s Summary
Judgment Evidence (the “Objections and Motion to Strike”). In support of these Objections and
Motion to Strike, Trez would show this Honorable Court the following:
I.
OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
A. TREz’s OBJECTION To EXHIBIT 2.
l. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Exhibit “2” attached to Defendant’s Response because
it is inadmissible hearsay or inadmissible hearsay within hearsay. This exhibit is an audit report
prepared by Construction Management & Development — Nevada, LLC, (“CMD”), a non-party,
and includes out of court statements made by CMD which are offered into evidence to prove the
truth of the matters asserted therein, and are thus hearsay. Therefore, Trez hereby moves to
STRIKE Exhibit “2” attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
PLAINTIFFs’ OBJECTIONS To AND MOTION To STRIKE DEFENDANT’s
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 1
B. TREz’s OBJECTIONS To EXHIBITS 3, 4, 5, AND 6.
2. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Exhibits “3,” 4,” “5,” and “6” attached to Defendant’s
Response because they are not relevant and are also directly contrary to the Court’s findings in
MGP APEX 582 MULTIFAMILY, LLC et a]. v. TREZ CAPITAL WINSTON LP et al., Case No. A-
23-863 508-B, District Court Clark County Nevada, (the “Nevada Case,”) which already
adjudicated these issues. First, each of the exhibits have nothing to do with Defendant’s personal
liability under the guarantee agreement. The exhibits instead pertain to alleged misrepresentations
made by Trez related to the underlying loan agreement and performance thereof, which is not
relevant to Defendant’s performance and ultimate breaches under the guarantee. It is undisputed
that Defendant breached the Guarantee by misapplying loan proceeds and allowing the MGP
Parties into bankruptcy. Trez’s representations are unrelated to those undisputed facts.
3. Second, and most importantly, the District Court in Nevada has already
conclusively established that Trez did not make any misrepresentations. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit
10, Pg. l3 at 119. And yet, Defendant attempts to once again re-litigate this issue before this Court
after the State Court in Nevada already established these facts. Defendant is collaterally estopped
from relitigating that issue.1 Therefore, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Exhibits “3,” 4,” “5,” and
“6” attached to the Response in their entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
C. TREZ’S OBJECTIONS To EXHIBIT 10.
4. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Defendant’s Exhibit “10” because factual statements
1
Collateral Estoppel precludes relitigation of ultimate issues of fact actually litigated and essential to a
judgment in a prior suit. Farmland Partners Inc. v. First Sabrepoint Capital Mgmt., L. P. , No. 05-22-00010-
CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4743, at *1 l (Tex. App—Dallas June 30, 2023, pet. filed). Defendant’s claim
that Trez made misrepresentations was fully litigated in the Nevada State Court in reference to the MGP
Parties’ negligent misrepresentation claims. Thus, Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating that
issue in this Court.
PLAINTIFFs’ OBJECTIONS To AND MOTION To STRIKE DEFENDANT’s
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 2
contained in one’s own pleadings are not credible summary judgment evidence. See Hidalgo v.
Surety S&L Ass’n, 462 S.W.2d 540, 545 (Tex. 1971) (holding that pleadings, even if sworn, are
not summary judgment evidence.) Exhibit “10” is the Verified Complaint of MGP APEX 5 82.
5. MULTIFAMILY, LLC, MGP APEX 582 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and MGP
APEX 582 GUARANTY, LLC (collectively the “MGP Parties”) filed in Nevada Case. Defendant
is the signatory of the verified complaint and is the Manager for the MGP Parties. Therefore, the
statements made in his own pleadings are not evidence and should be excluded.
6. Additionally, the statements made in Exhibit “10” are inadmissible hearsay or
inadmissible hearsay Within hearsay as they are out of court statements offered for the truth of the
matter asserted. Consequently, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Defendant’s Exhibit 10 of
Defendant’s Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
D. TREz’s OBJECTIONS To EXHIBIT 13.
7. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Exhibit “13” attached to Defendant’s Response as it is
irrelevant. Exhibit “13” is the Temporary Restraining Order that was entered in the Nevada Case.
The Temporary Restraining Order, however, was dissolved by the Court at the subsequent
injunction hearing. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10. The fact that a Temporary Restraining Order was
in place at one time is in no way relevant to the claims in this lawsuit related which relate solely
to Defendant’s personal guarantee. Therefore, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Exhibit “13”
attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
E. TREz’s OBJECTIONS To EXHIBIT A.
8. Trez hereby OBJECTS to the following paragraphs of Defendant’s Exhibit “A.”
9. Paragraph 5. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraph 5 in Exhibit “A” attached to
Defendant’s Response because the statements contained therein are directly contradicted by the
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS T0 AND MOTION T0 STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 3
Court in the Nevada Case, and thus Defendant is collaterally estopped from stating otherwise?
Defendant’s statement that Trez delayed negotiations with the city is directly contrary to the
Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law in the Nevada Case which found specifically that
any delays were caused by Defendant Norton and the City. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 at pg. 7 at 1]
23, pg. 8 at 11 29, and 11 31, and pg. 15 at 11 27. Thus, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Paragraph 5
in Exhibit “A” attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
10. Paragraphs 8 and 9. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraphs 8 and 9 in Exhibit “A”
attached to Defendant’s Response because the statements therein directly contradict the Court’s
findings in the Nevada Case, and thus Defendant is collaterally estopped from claiming otherwise.
Once again Defendant attempts to claim Trez made misrepresentations related to extending the
payment due dates. However, the Court in the Nevada Case was clear that these statements are
not factual:
8. Plaintiffs allege that Trez misrepresented to BH&G that it would extend the July 14,
2022 payment date.
9. Trez made no false representations to BH&G.
See Plaintiff‘s Exhibit 10 at pg. 13. Therefore, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Paragraphs 8 and
9 in Exhibit “A” attached to the Response in their entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
11. Paragraphs 10 and 11. Similarly, Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraphs 10 and
1 1 in Exhibit “A” attached to Defendant’s Response for the same reason. The Nevada Case already
adjudicated whether or not Trez made false representations related to payment extensions.
2
Defendant’s claim that the delays were cause by Trez was fully litigated in relation to the MGP
Parties’ breach of contract claims against Trez.
PLAINTIFFs’ OBJECTIONS To AND MOTION To STRIKE DEFENDANT’s
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 4
Therefore, Trez herby moves to STRIKE Paragraphs 10 and 11 in Exhibit “A” attached to the
Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
12. Paragraph 12. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraph 12 in Exhibit “A” attached to
Defendant’s Response because the statements contained therein also directly contradict the Court’s
findings in the Nevada Case. Defendant’s Declaration claims several governmental entities ceased
communication with BH&G as a result of communications sent by Trez. However, the Court in
the Nevada Case found:
l9. Trez’ July 29, 2022 letter to the City of Henderson and the Clark County Regional
Flood Control District regarding the exercise of the power of attorney provision in the Loan
Agreement had no effect, as the City of Henderson continued to communicate with BH&G and its
representatives regarding the Property.
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10, Pg. 14. The statements by the Court directly conflict with Defendant’s
Declaration. Therefore, Trez hereby moves to strike Paragraph 12 in Exhibit “A” attached to the
Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
13. Paragraph 13. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraph 13 in Exhibit “A” attached to
Defendant’s Response because it contains inadmissible hearsay or inadmissible hearsay within
hearsay. Defendant offers the out of court statements of the City for the truth of the matters
asserted therein. Therefore, Trez herby moves to STRIKE to Paragraph 13 in Exhibit “A” attached
to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, for the reasons stated herein, Trez
respectfully request that this Court sustain the objections asserted above, strike the objectionable
items from the Summary Judgment Record, and for such other and further relief that Trez may be
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS T0 AND MOTION T0 STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 5
awarded at law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John C. Sokatch
John C. Sokatch
Texas Bar No. 24083889
jsokatch@dykema.com
Jeffrey R. Fine
Texas Bar No. 07008410
j fine@dykema.com
Christopher D. Kratovil
Texas Bar No. 24027427
ckratovil@dykema£om
Alexandria M. Twiss
Texas Bar No. 2408251 1
atwiss@dykema.com
José M. (Joe) Rubio
State Bar No. 24084576
JRubiodeykemacom
Alexandria R. Rahn
State Bar No. 24110246
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
1717 Main Street, Suite 4200
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 462-6400
Facsimile: (214) 462-6401
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF S
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
in accordance with the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, on this the 10th day of November
2023.
/s/ John C. Sokatch
John C. Sokatch
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION T0 STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 6
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Jennifer Schmitt on behalf of John Sokatch
Bar No. 24083889
jschmitt@dykema.com
Envelope ID: 81532860
Filing Code Description: Objection
Filing Description: AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY
JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
Status as of 11/13/2023 10:01 AM CST
Associated Case Party: RANDYCRAIGNORTON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Walker Field Crowson 24012480 wcrowson@swlaw.com 11/10/2023 3:51 :57 PM SENT
Docket PHX docket@swlaw.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Jackie Lundgren jlundgren@swlaw.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Richard C.Gordon rgordon@swlaw.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: TREZ CAPTIAL WINSTON, LP
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Cristy Brenneman cbrenneman@dykema.com 11 /10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Jennifer Schmitt jschmitt@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Jose M.Rubio JRubio@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: TREZ CAPITAL FUNDING ll, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Christopher Kratovil ckratovil@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
John CSoktach jsokatch@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Alex Twiss atwiss@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Jeffrey Fine JFine@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Lina Null Inull@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Jennifer Schmitt on behalf of John Sokatch
Bar No. 24083889
jschmitt@dykema.com
Envelope ID: 81532860
Filing Code Description: Objection
Filing Description: AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY
JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
Status as of 11/13/2023 10:01 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email Timestam pSubmitted Status
Alex Rahn arahn@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51 :57 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 11/10/2023 3:51 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Lauren Beavers DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-01073 TREZ CAPITAL FUNDING II, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT TREZ CAPITAL WINSTON, LP, § § Plaintiffs, § § 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT v. § § RANDY CRAIG NORTON, § § Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, Plaintiffs Trez Capital Funding II, LLC and Trez Capital Winston, LP (collectively “Trez”) and file these Objections to and Motion to Strike Defendant’s Summary Judgment Evidence (the “Objections and Motion to Strike”). In support of these Objections and Motion to Strike, Trez would show this Honorable Court the following: I. OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE A. TREz’s OBJECTION To EXHIBIT 2. l. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Exhibit “2” attached to Defendant’s Response because it is inadmissible hearsay or inadmissible hearsay within hearsay. This exhibit is an audit report prepared by Construction Management & Development — Nevada, LLC, (“CMD”), a non-party, and includes out of court statements made by CMD which are offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein, and are thus hearsay. Therefore, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Exhibit “2” attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. PLAINTIFFs’ OBJECTIONS To AND MOTION To STRIKE DEFENDANT’s SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 1 B. TREz’s OBJECTIONS To EXHIBITS 3, 4, 5, AND 6. 2. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Exhibits “3,” 4,” “5,” and “6” attached to Defendant’s Response because they are not relevant and are also directly contrary to the Court’s findings in MGP APEX 582 MULTIFAMILY, LLC et a]. v. TREZ CAPITAL WINSTON LP et al., Case No. A- 23-863 508-B, District Court Clark County Nevada, (the “Nevada Case,”) which already adjudicated these issues. First, each of the exhibits have nothing to do with Defendant’s personal liability under the guarantee agreement. The exhibits instead pertain to alleged misrepresentations made by Trez related to the underlying loan agreement and performance thereof, which is not relevant to Defendant’s performance and ultimate breaches under the guarantee. It is undisputed that Defendant breached the Guarantee by misapplying loan proceeds and allowing the MGP Parties into bankruptcy. Trez’s representations are unrelated to those undisputed facts. 3. Second, and most importantly, the District Court in Nevada has already conclusively established that Trez did not make any misrepresentations. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10, Pg. l3 at 119. And yet, Defendant attempts to once again re-litigate this issue before this Court after the State Court in Nevada already established these facts. Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating that issue.1 Therefore, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Exhibits “3,” 4,” “5,” and “6” attached to the Response in their entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. C. TREZ’S OBJECTIONS To EXHIBIT 10. 4. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Defendant’s Exhibit “10” because factual statements 1 Collateral Estoppel precludes relitigation of ultimate issues of fact actually litigated and essential to a judgment in a prior suit. Farmland Partners Inc. v. First Sabrepoint Capital Mgmt., L. P. , No. 05-22-00010- CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4743, at *1 l (Tex. App—Dallas June 30, 2023, pet. filed). Defendant’s claim that Trez made misrepresentations was fully litigated in the Nevada State Court in reference to the MGP Parties’ negligent misrepresentation claims. Thus, Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating that issue in this Court. PLAINTIFFs’ OBJECTIONS To AND MOTION To STRIKE DEFENDANT’s SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 2 contained in one’s own pleadings are not credible summary judgment evidence. See Hidalgo v. Surety S&L Ass’n, 462 S.W.2d 540, 545 (Tex. 1971) (holding that pleadings, even if sworn, are not summary judgment evidence.) Exhibit “10” is the Verified Complaint of MGP APEX 5 82. 5. MULTIFAMILY, LLC, MGP APEX 582 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and MGP APEX 582 GUARANTY, LLC (collectively the “MGP Parties”) filed in Nevada Case. Defendant is the signatory of the verified complaint and is the Manager for the MGP Parties. Therefore, the statements made in his own pleadings are not evidence and should be excluded. 6. Additionally, the statements made in Exhibit “10” are inadmissible hearsay or inadmissible hearsay Within hearsay as they are out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Consequently, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Defendant’s Exhibit 10 of Defendant’s Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. D. TREz’s OBJECTIONS To EXHIBIT 13. 7. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Exhibit “13” attached to Defendant’s Response as it is irrelevant. Exhibit “13” is the Temporary Restraining Order that was entered in the Nevada Case. The Temporary Restraining Order, however, was dissolved by the Court at the subsequent injunction hearing. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10. The fact that a Temporary Restraining Order was in place at one time is in no way relevant to the claims in this lawsuit related which relate solely to Defendant’s personal guarantee. Therefore, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Exhibit “13” attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. E. TREz’s OBJECTIONS To EXHIBIT A. 8. Trez hereby OBJECTS to the following paragraphs of Defendant’s Exhibit “A.” 9. Paragraph 5. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraph 5 in Exhibit “A” attached to Defendant’s Response because the statements contained therein are directly contradicted by the PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS T0 AND MOTION T0 STRIKE DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 3 Court in the Nevada Case, and thus Defendant is collaterally estopped from stating otherwise? Defendant’s statement that Trez delayed negotiations with the city is directly contrary to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law in the Nevada Case which found specifically that any delays were caused by Defendant Norton and the City. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 at pg. 7 at 1] 23, pg. 8 at 11 29, and 11 31, and pg. 15 at 11 27. Thus, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Paragraph 5 in Exhibit “A” attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. 10. Paragraphs 8 and 9. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraphs 8 and 9 in Exhibit “A” attached to Defendant’s Response because the statements therein directly contradict the Court’s findings in the Nevada Case, and thus Defendant is collaterally estopped from claiming otherwise. Once again Defendant attempts to claim Trez made misrepresentations related to extending the payment due dates. However, the Court in the Nevada Case was clear that these statements are not factual: 8. Plaintiffs allege that Trez misrepresented to BH&G that it would extend the July 14, 2022 payment date. 9. Trez made no false representations to BH&G. See Plaintiff‘s Exhibit 10 at pg. 13. Therefore, Trez hereby moves to STRIKE Paragraphs 8 and 9 in Exhibit “A” attached to the Response in their entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. 11. Paragraphs 10 and 11. Similarly, Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraphs 10 and 1 1 in Exhibit “A” attached to Defendant’s Response for the same reason. The Nevada Case already adjudicated whether or not Trez made false representations related to payment extensions. 2 Defendant’s claim that the delays were cause by Trez was fully litigated in relation to the MGP Parties’ breach of contract claims against Trez. PLAINTIFFs’ OBJECTIONS To AND MOTION To STRIKE DEFENDANT’s SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 4 Therefore, Trez herby moves to STRIKE Paragraphs 10 and 11 in Exhibit “A” attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. 12. Paragraph 12. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraph 12 in Exhibit “A” attached to Defendant’s Response because the statements contained therein also directly contradict the Court’s findings in the Nevada Case. Defendant’s Declaration claims several governmental entities ceased communication with BH&G as a result of communications sent by Trez. However, the Court in the Nevada Case found: l9. Trez’ July 29, 2022 letter to the City of Henderson and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District regarding the exercise of the power of attorney provision in the Loan Agreement had no effect, as the City of Henderson continued to communicate with BH&G and its representatives regarding the Property. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10, Pg. 14. The statements by the Court directly conflict with Defendant’s Declaration. Therefore, Trez hereby moves to strike Paragraph 12 in Exhibit “A” attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. 13. Paragraph 13. Trez hereby OBJECTS to Paragraph 13 in Exhibit “A” attached to Defendant’s Response because it contains inadmissible hearsay or inadmissible hearsay within hearsay. Defendant offers the out of court statements of the City for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Therefore, Trez herby moves to STRIKE to Paragraph 13 in Exhibit “A” attached to the Response in its entirety from the Summary Judgment Record. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, for the reasons stated herein, Trez respectfully request that this Court sustain the objections asserted above, strike the objectionable items from the Summary Judgment Record, and for such other and further relief that Trez may be PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS T0 AND MOTION T0 STRIKE DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 5 awarded at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John C. Sokatch John C. Sokatch Texas Bar No. 24083889 jsokatch@dykema.com Jeffrey R. Fine Texas Bar No. 07008410 j fine@dykema.com Christopher D. Kratovil Texas Bar No. 24027427 ckratovil@dykema£om Alexandria M. Twiss Texas Bar No. 2408251 1 atwiss@dykema.com José M. (Joe) Rubio State Bar No. 24084576 JRubiodeykemacom Alexandria R. Rahn State Bar No. 24110246 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 1717 Main Street, Suite 4200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 462-6400 Facsimile: (214) 462-6401 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served in accordance with the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, on this the 10th day of November 2023. /s/ John C. Sokatch John C. Sokatch PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION T0 STRIKE DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE PAGE 6 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Jennifer Schmitt on behalf of John Sokatch Bar No. 24083889 jschmitt@dykema.com Envelope ID: 81532860 Filing Code Description: Objection Filing Description: AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE Status as of 11/13/2023 10:01 AM CST Associated Case Party: RANDYCRAIGNORTON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Walker Field Crowson 24012480 wcrowson@swlaw.com 11/10/2023 3:51 :57 PM SENT Docket PHX docket@swlaw.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Jackie Lundgren jlundgren@swlaw.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Richard C.Gordon rgordon@swlaw.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Associated Case Party: TREZ CAPTIAL WINSTON, LP Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Cristy Brenneman cbrenneman@dykema.com 11 /10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Jennifer Schmitt jschmitt@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Jose M.Rubio JRubio@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Associated Case Party: TREZ CAPITAL FUNDING ll, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Christopher Kratovil ckratovil@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT John CSoktach jsokatch@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Alex Twiss atwiss@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Jeffrey Fine JFine@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Lina Null Inull@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51:57 PM SENT Case Contacts Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Jennifer Schmitt on behalf of John Sokatch Bar No. 24083889 jschmitt@dykema.com Envelope ID: 81532860 Filing Code Description: Objection Filing Description: AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE Status as of 11/13/2023 10:01 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email Timestam pSubmitted Status Alex Rahn arahn@dykema.com 11/10/2023 3:51 :57 PM SENT