Preview
FILED
11/29/2023 8:20 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Elizabeth Ferguson DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-07776
JESUS HERNANDEZ, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
vV DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
SOUTHERN SOLAR, LLC, AND
GOODLEAP, LLC F/KA/ PARAMOUNT
EQUITY MORTGAGE D/B/A LOANPAL
Defendants. 95th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE FIRST AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO
MOVE FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
Defendant Southern Solar, LLC (“Southern”) hereby files its Response Opposing
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Petition (the “Motion”) after trial
concluded, and Notice of Intent to Move for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and would
respectfully show the Court as follows:
A. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
1 A court may refuse a trial amendment if the opposing party presents evidence of
surprise or prejudice. State Bar of Tex. v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1994). The
party opposing the trial amendment bears the burden of showing surprise or prejudice. /d..;
Harrah Travel and Tours v. Adhanom (Tex. Appl. 5th Dist. 2008).
2 In addition, under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6(a), a party who fails to
make, amend, or supplement a discovery response, including a required disclosure, in a timely
manner may not introduce in evidence the material or information that was not timely disclosed,
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE1
or offer the testimony of a witness (other than a named party) who was not timely identified,
unless the court finds that:
(1) The failure was substantially justified; or
(2) The other parties will not be unfairly prejudiced.
This rule imposes a duty upon parties to make a complete response to written discovery
based upon all information reasonably available, subject to objections and privileges.
Under 193.6(b), “The burden of establishing good cause or the lack of unfair surprise or
unfair prejudice is on the party seeking to introduce the evidence or call the witness. A finding of
good cause or of the lack of unfair surprise or unfair prejudice must be supported by the record.”
3 The disclosure rules have to mean something or why do they exist? They exist to
prevent unfair surprise.
B. THE COURT MUST DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
4 Plaintiff correctly cites surprise and prejudice as the primary reason to deny a
motion like Plaintiff's Motion. And Plaintiff has wholly failed to carry its burden under Rule
193.6 so Mr. Hernandez’s testimony “ballparking” his alleged electricity payments, to which the
undersigned objected but was overruled, should have been stricken from the record and the
objection granted. The Court and all counsel had a back hallway sidebar about this very issue
but the objections were overruled.
5 No one could have been more surprised or prejudiced at trial than the undersigned
and his client when Plaintiff's counsel finally revealed Plaintiff's damage model with its huge
and completely insupportable numbers. And when Plaintiff sought exemplary damages after
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 2
promising in pre-trial emails and conferences that Plaintiff would not be seeking exemplary
damages.
6. The primary disclosure rule in every case in Texas when seeking economic
damages is “the amount and method of calculating” them. TRCP 194.2.b(4).
7 Plaintiff never disclosed actual damage numbers in his Initial Disclosures nor, by
extension, any method for calculating these non-existent and undisclosed numbers. Plaintiff
never amended or supplemented his Initial Disclosures.
8 In addition, Plaintiff's Original Petition (which was never amended at any time
prior to verdict) expressly stated that Plaintiff was seeking damages of less than $250,000.
9 Thus, prior to trial, in the more than two years of this case’s existence, Plaintiff
never once disclosed any damage figures at all with the possible exception of two pre-trial
conference emails. In the first of those, Plaintiff's counsel informed the undersigned that
Plaintiff would not be pursuing exemplary damages, see Exhibit A hereto. In the second,
Plaintiff's counsel provided a breakdown of Plaintiff's “expenses” as the basis of Plaintiffs
alleged damages, Exhibit B hereto.
10. The total amount of “expenses”/damages set forth in counsel’s emailed pre-trial
spreadsheet are less than $29,000. Yet in closing argument, counsel ambushed Southern and the
Court by claiming enormous damages in excess of $200,000 and exemplary damages (which
counsel expressly told the undersigned Plaintiff would not seek) of $300,000. The ultimate jury
verdict came back with a total damage amount of $496,662.
DE Looked at from the perspective of what Plaintiff's counsel said in closing—that
Plaintiff would incur (inappropriately “ballparking it”) $500 electricity bills on average in the
past and in the future—this total damage figure literally gives Plaintiff $500 worth of monthly
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 3
electricity payments for 993 months. That is a total of 83 years-worth of free electricity.
Preposterous.
12. Plaintiff's failure to disclose his damage model prior to closing was in total
violation of the disclosure rules of the TRCP 193.6(a), all applicable pre-trial disclosure rules
and patent abuse of process. Moreover, Plaintiff has not proved the lack of unfair surprise or
prejudice to Southern with the admission of that testimony, as required by TRCP 193.6(b).
13. The disclosure rules have to mean something or why do they exist? They exist to
prevent unfair surprise, as Plaintiff's Motion for Leave repeatedly recognizes. Obviously
Southern has shown surprise in this case and the Motion for Leave must be denied.
B. SOUTHERN WILL BE FILING A MOTION FOR JNOV TO SET ASIDE WHAT
WAS CLEARLY AN IMPROPER AND UNJUSTIFIED JURY VERDICT WITH NO
EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT AT ALL
14. At trial, Plaintiff never introduced any actual evidence to support his claims.
15. Plaintiffs only attempt at introducing “evidence” came in the form of totally self-
serving, conclusory and potentially perjurious testimony. All of these statements were mere ipse
dixit, which is defined as follows:
The term "ipse dixit" originated from the Latin phrase meaning "he
himself said it." In legal terms, it refers to a statement or argument
that is accepted as true solely because of the authority of the person
who made it, rather than based on any supporting evidence or
logic. This is often viewed as a fallacy in legal reasoning, as it
lacks a sound foundation for drawing any conclusions. Legal-
Explanations.com (Emphasis supplied).
16. Plaintiff's only purported proof was testimony from his client. Throughout the
trial and especially in his closing, counsel consistently and vehemently told the jury and this
Court that Oral testimony is evidence so written proof is not required. Maybe in another case
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE4
that might be true but not this one. This case required written, admissible, authentic proofs. All
of Plaintiff's testimony was obvious ipse dixi without supporting evidence or logic.
17. As Plaintiff has repeatedly indicated, this case was and has always been about the
cost of electricity and the solar system’s workings, along with some tax credit allegations.
The following is damages Question No. 3 from the Jury Charge (emphasis supplied):
QUESTION 3:
What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably
compensate Jesus Hernandez for his damages, if any, that resulted from such conduct?
Consider the following elements of damages, if any, and none other.
Expenses. The payments, including interest, paid by Jesus Hernandez for the
olar panels.
Loss of the benefit of the bargain. The difference between the monthly power
bills promised by Southern Solar and the actual power bills incurred. The
difference between the tax credits promised by Southern Solar and the actual tax
credits received.
In answering questions about damages, answer each question separately. Do not
increase or reduce the amount in one answer because of your answer to any other
question about damages. Do not speculate about what any party’s ultimate recovery may
or may not be. Any recovery will be determined by the court when it applies the law to
your answers at the time of judgment. Do not add any amount for interest on damages, if
any.
Answer separately in dollars and cents for damages, if any.
1 Expenses sustained in the past.
Answer:
2. Expenses that, in reasonable probability, Jesus Hernandez will sustain in the
future.
Answer:
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE5
3. Loss of the benefit of the bargain sustained in the past.
Answer:
4. Loss of the benefit of the bargain that, in reasonable probability, Jesus
Hernandez will sustain in the future.
Answer:
18. The defined damage terms in the Charge were not satisfied by Plaintiff because he
did not introduce any “actual power bills incurred.”
19. The damage terms also precluded any recovery regarding the tax credit because
Plaintiff did not introduce any tax returns to demonstrate the “actual tax credits received.”
20. The damage terms also required Plaintiff to prove the “payments paid by Jesus
Hernandez” for the solar panels. Plaintiff did not introduce any evidence at all that Mr.
Hernandez_ever paid anything to anyone for this solar system. No receipts. No bank records.
No records from alleged payees. Nothing. And Plaintiff literally nonsuited his claims against
the lender which would tend to indicate that Plaintiff's loan obligations were terminated at some
point for some reason.
21. Plaintiff also wholly failed to prove that the solar system did not work, or never
worked, or is not working currently. It was Plaintiffs burden to prove that by a preponderance
of the evidence and he failed miserably.
22. The Court recognized these huge obstacles to any recovery in the hearing on
Southern’s Motion for Directed Verdict. There simply cannot be any kind of liability or damage
findings for the Plaintiff without any power bills or tax returns in evidence. The Court’s
admission of struggling to find that Plaintiff had introduced “more than a scintilla” of evidence
was telling.
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 6
23. Southern believes that Mr. Hernandez perjured himself on the stand when he
brazenly testified that the solar system does not work. If counsel knew that it has worked and is
still working yet did not tell the Court, that would be very problematic for Plaintiff's counsel.
24. The Motion for JNOV will point out the following in addition to other problems
with Plaintiffs case. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof entirely:
a. Plaintiff did not introduce any electricity bills.
b. Plaintiff did not introduce his tax returns to support the tax credit claims.
Plaintiff did not introduce any other evidence of income, income taxes, pay stubs
or income information of any kind to establish Plaintiffs tax burdens or lack
thereof.
Plaintiff did not introduce any evidence to show that the solar system does not
work, or never worked, or is not currently working. This despite the fact that
Plaintiff admitted on cross (after first denying it) that he had been given a
computer application (“app”) which monitors solar production and that he used it.
He simply testified that the app, like the solar system itself, “did not work.”
1 Did Plaintiffs counsel ever once think to inquire about how to measure
solar production or get records from the company which runs the app?
IL. Did Plaintiff's counsel ever review Plaintiff's electricity bills to see the
actual costs to Plaintiff and the solar system’s input to reduce those costs?
Both would be shown by the electricity bills.
e Plaintiff did not introduce any of his own banking records to prove that he ever
made a single payment to anyone for anything related to either electricity or the
loan he took to buy the solar system.
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE7
f. The uncontroverted testimony regarding the tax credit from Southern’s
representative Joshua Moore was that it lasts for 5 years and is thus still alive to
be claimed, and that it can be assigned to someone else living in the household.
As such, it wasn’t even ripe for consideration as any element of liability or
damages.
On cross, Mrs. Hernandez admitted Southern gave Plaintiff $36,000 worth of
extra solar panels and 22 months’ worth of solar loan payments in an effort to
“make things right” with herself and her husband, Southern’s customer. Then
Mrs. Hernandez was asked “Did Southern make things right with you our
customer?” Mrs. Hernandez said “Yes.”
i That answer completely vitiates Plaintiffs claims of pre-contractual bad
acts and misrepresentations, since those measures by Southern took place
months after the contract was signed. Southern did not just disappear and
fail to respond. Instead, Southern affirmatively acted to fix perceived
issues raised by Plaintiff and made things right by Mrs. Hernandez’s own
admission.
h Mrs. Hernandez’s answers in that regard also 100% established Southern’s
defense of Accord and Satisfaction. The PJC on that doctrine instructs that the
defense is established if the parties agree on a different performance than that
for which the parties initially contracted. In this case, the different performance
was the extra $36,000 worth of panels and loan payments by Southern, and both
were accepted by Plaintiff and his wife in satisfaction of their complaints. Of this
there can be no doubt.
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE8
. It must be noted that subtracting the extra $36,000 provided by Southern
from the original purchase price of $60,000 means that Plaintiff ended up
with 68 solar panels, not the original 43, for the total price of $24,000.
Interestingly, that number is eerily close to what Plaintiff's counsel
promised in his only pre-trial disclosure email regarding alleged damages.
25) Finally, Plaintiff never pled breach of contract or breach of warranty. These
complaints about the capacity and performance of the system are obviously mere breach of
contract or warranty claims, but Plaintiff has never made such claims in this case nor provided
any documentation or evidence to back them up. The only live causes of action Plaintiff had at
trial were two naked DTPA claims. Plaintiff even dropped his fraudulent inducement and
declaratory judgment claims, and never pled Rescission to void the contract. Thus, the
Installation contract was in evidence and it affirmatively negates Plaintiff's claims. And the 25-
year warranty in the contract was never called upon by Plaintiff, who simply just sued instead of
asking Southern to fix any perceived problems.
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 9
D. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
26. For the reasons stated above, Defendant Southern Solar requests that the Court
deny Plaintiff’s Motion to File a First Amended Petition Post-Trial, grant Southern’s JNOV after
a hearing on it, and for such other and further relief as may be warranted in the circumstances.
Respectfully Submitted,
THE AVERILL FIRM
/s/ Martin P. Averill
Martin P. Averill, Founder
State Bar No.: 24025231
Attorneys for Plaintiff
verillfirm@gmail.com
ce: averillfirm.asmith@gmail.com
2619 Hibernia Street #4
Dallas, Texas 75204
Tel: 214-878-9822
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SOUTHERN
SOLAR, LLC
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of record by Efile
on the 29"" day of November, 2023.
/s/ Marty Averill
Martin P. Averill
DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 11
THE AVERILL FIRM
Martin P. Averill, Founder
The Michael F. Dougherty House, State Thomas
2619 Hibernia Street #4
Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 878-9822
averillfirm@gmail.com
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:57 AM Chris Arnell wrote:
Martin,
Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, let me know when you have time to discuss pre-trial matters.
I'm going to submit the standard PJC questions and instructions for the DTPA liability and damages. | don't think
we'll submit fraud or exemplary damages. | attached a rough draft of our proposed charge.
| also attached a copy of my exhibits and exhibit list | intend to use. | haven't finished creating the payment
summaries, but it'll be based on the amount of money my client has spent on the solar panels and electricity. Let
me know if you have any objections.
The only motion in limine | foresee on our end is if you guys have any expert testimony on electrical usage, current
loads, etc.
| don't believe you guys filed your pre-trial disclosures, but let me know if we missed anything. Hard for me to have
a meaningful discussion on possible objections to your evidence if | don't know what you intend to offer.
-Chris
-
Chris Arnell
Arnell Law, PLLC
450 Century Pkwy, Ste 250
Allen, TX 75013
Phone: (972) 516-4385
Fax: (972) 637-9415
www.arnelllaw.com
-
Chris Arnell
Arnell Law, PLLC
450 Century Pkwy, Ste 250
Allen, TX 75013
Phone: (972) 516-4385
Fax: (972) 637-9415
www.arnelllaw.com
Hernandez - Expenses.pdf
49.3kB
EXHIBIT A
Hernandez, Jesus
Total Amount Paid $28,880.59
Payment for Solar Panels Date Paid Amount Paid
Payment for Solar Panels 9/22/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 8/21/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 7/28/23 $778.06
Payment for Solar Panels 6/20/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 4/24/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 2/28/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 1/19/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 12/19/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 11/21/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 10/26/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 10/14/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 8/23/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 7/25/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 6/24/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 3/25/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 3/1/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels W17/11 $239.03
Payment for Solar Panels 1/3/22 $150.00
Payment for Solar Panels 11/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 10/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 9/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 8/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 7/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 6/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 5/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 4/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 2/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 1/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 12/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 11/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 10/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 9/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 8/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 7/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 6/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 5/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 4/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 2/19/20 $270.58
Green Mountain Energy 11/23/20 $353.83
Green Mountain Energy 12/23/20 $446.15
Green Mountain Energy 1/22/21 $460.08
Green Mountain Energy 2/22/21 $451.78
Green Mountain Energy 3/23/21 $181.43
Green Mountain Energy 4/22/21 $200.32
Green Mountain Energy 5/24/21 $270.78
Green Mountain Energy 6/23/21 $432.59
Green Mountain Energy 7/26/21 $622.46
Green Mountain Energy 8/24/21 $574.70
Green Mountain Energy 9/23/21 $553.36
Green Mountain Energy 10/22/21 $327.47
Green Mountain Energy 11/22/21 $278.12
Green Mountain Energy 12/7/21 $135.25
Rhythm 12/29/21 $231.45
Rhythm 1/30/22 $398.82
Rhythm 2/27/22 $365.77
Rhythm 3/30/22 $213.24
Rhythm 4/28/22 $121.24
Rhythm 5/30/22 $283.85
Rhythm 6/29/22 $453.85
Rhythm 7/28/22 $587.55
Rhythm 8/30/22 $597.96
Rhythm 9/29/22 $486.72
Rhythm 10/30/22 $350.33
Rhythm 11/29/22 $414.51
Rhythm 12/30/22 $457.61
Rhythm 1/30/23 $429.26
Rhythm 2/27/23 $475.27
Rhythm 3/30/23 $356.52
Rhythm 4/27/23 $342.73
Rhythm 5/30/23 $422.70
Rhythm 6/29/23 $537.18
Rhythm 7/30/23 $729.42
Rhythm 8/30/23 $734.14
Rhythm 9/29/23 $665.57
From: Chris Arnell
Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2023, 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Hernandez v. Southern Solar - Pre-Trial Conference
To: Martin Averill
Martin,
Here's our summary of the expenses my client paid. This will be our Exhibit 10. Let me know if you have any objections
to us using this summary as an exhibit.
Tomorrow is fine for your exhibits; however, | want to see if we can come to an agreement on the rest of the exhibits in
the meantime. Let me know if you have any objections to ours.
| haven't seen your motion in limine get file yet, but I'll be sure to review it once | receive it.
-Chris EXHIBIT B
Hernandez, Jesus
Total Amount Paid $28,880.59
Payment for Solar Panels Date Paid Amount Paid
Payment for Solar Panels 9/22/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 8/21/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 7/28/23 $778.06
Payment for Solar Panels 6/20/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 4/24/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 2/28/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 1/19/23 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 12/19/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 11/21/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 10/26/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 10/14/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 8/23/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 7/25/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 6/24/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 3/25/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 3/1/22 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels W17/11 $239.03
Payment for Solar Panels 1/3/22 $150.00
Payment for Solar Panels 11/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 10/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 9/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 8/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 7/19/21 $389.03
Payment for Solar Panels 6/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 5/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 4/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 2/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 1/19/21 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 12/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 11/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 10/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 9/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 8/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 7/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 6/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 5/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 4/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/20 $270.58
Payment for Solar Panels 2/19/20 $270.58
Green Mountain Energy 11/23/20 $353.83
Green Mountain Energy 12/23/20 $446.15
Green Mountain Energy 1/22/21 $460.08
Green Mountain Energy 2/22/21 $451.78
Green Mountain Energy 3/23/21 $181.43
Green Mountain Energy 4/22/21 $200.32
Green Mountain Energy 5/24/21 $270.78
Green Mountain Energy 6/23/21 $432.59
Green Mountain Energy 7/26/21 $622.46
Green Mountain Energy 8/24/21 $574.70
Green Mountain Energy 9/23/21 $553.36
Green Mountain Energy 10/22/21 $327.47
Green Mountain Energy 11/22/21 $278.12
Green Mountain Energy 12/7/21 $135.25
Rhythm 12/29/21 $231.45
Rhythm 1/30/22 $398.82
Rhythm 2/27/22 $365.77
Rhythm 3/30/22 $213.24
Rhythm 4/28/22 $121.24
Rhythm 5/30/22 $283.85
Rhythm 6/29/22 $453.85
Rhythm 7/28/22 $587.55
Rhythm 8/30/22 $597.96
Rhythm 9/29/22 $486.72
Rhythm 10/30/22 $350.33
Rhythm 11/29/22 $414.51
Rhythm 12/30/22 $457.61
Rhythm 1/30/23 $429.26
Rhythm 2/27/23 $475.27
Rhythm 3/30/23 $356.52
Rhythm 4/27/23 $342.73
Rhythm 5/30/23 $422.70
Rhythm 6/29/23 $537.18
Rhythm 7/30/23 $729.42
Rhythm 8/30/23 $734.14
Rhythm 9/29/23 $665.57
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.
Marty Averill on behalf of Marty Averill
Bar No. 24025231
averillfirm@gmail.com
Envelope ID: 82078507
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: OPPOSING PLTF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE AND
NOTICE OF INTENT
Status as of 11/30/2023 8:42 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Ashley Burch averillfirm.asmith@gmail.com 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM SENT
Philip DRacusin eservicehou@cwlaw.com 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM SENT
Giao Arnell giao@arnelllaw.com 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM SENT
Karin Alonzo kalonzo@dallascourts.org 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: SOUTHERN SOLAR, LLC
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Martin PAverill averillfirm@gmail.com 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM | SENT
Associated Case Party: JESUS HERNANDEZ
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
MARCUS FIFER MARCUS@FIFER.LAW | 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM | SENT
Preview
FILED 11/29/2023 8:20 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Elizabeth Ferguson DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-07776 JESUS HERNANDEZ, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, vV DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS SOUTHERN SOLAR, LLC, AND GOODLEAP, LLC F/KA/ PARAMOUNT EQUITY MORTGAGE D/B/A LOANPAL Defendants. 95th JUDICIAL DISTRICT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO MOVE FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT Defendant Southern Solar, LLC (“Southern”) hereby files its Response Opposing Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Petition (the “Motion”) after trial concluded, and Notice of Intent to Move for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and would respectfully show the Court as follows: A. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD 1 A court may refuse a trial amendment if the opposing party presents evidence of surprise or prejudice. State Bar of Tex. v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1994). The party opposing the trial amendment bears the burden of showing surprise or prejudice. /d..; Harrah Travel and Tours v. Adhanom (Tex. Appl. 5th Dist. 2008). 2 In addition, under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6(a), a party who fails to make, amend, or supplement a discovery response, including a required disclosure, in a timely manner may not introduce in evidence the material or information that was not timely disclosed, DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE1 or offer the testimony of a witness (other than a named party) who was not timely identified, unless the court finds that: (1) The failure was substantially justified; or (2) The other parties will not be unfairly prejudiced. This rule imposes a duty upon parties to make a complete response to written discovery based upon all information reasonably available, subject to objections and privileges. Under 193.6(b), “The burden of establishing good cause or the lack of unfair surprise or unfair prejudice is on the party seeking to introduce the evidence or call the witness. A finding of good cause or of the lack of unfair surprise or unfair prejudice must be supported by the record.” 3 The disclosure rules have to mean something or why do they exist? They exist to prevent unfair surprise. B. THE COURT MUST DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 4 Plaintiff correctly cites surprise and prejudice as the primary reason to deny a motion like Plaintiff's Motion. And Plaintiff has wholly failed to carry its burden under Rule 193.6 so Mr. Hernandez’s testimony “ballparking” his alleged electricity payments, to which the undersigned objected but was overruled, should have been stricken from the record and the objection granted. The Court and all counsel had a back hallway sidebar about this very issue but the objections were overruled. 5 No one could have been more surprised or prejudiced at trial than the undersigned and his client when Plaintiff's counsel finally revealed Plaintiff's damage model with its huge and completely insupportable numbers. And when Plaintiff sought exemplary damages after DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 2 promising in pre-trial emails and conferences that Plaintiff would not be seeking exemplary damages. 6. The primary disclosure rule in every case in Texas when seeking economic damages is “the amount and method of calculating” them. TRCP 194.2.b(4). 7 Plaintiff never disclosed actual damage numbers in his Initial Disclosures nor, by extension, any method for calculating these non-existent and undisclosed numbers. Plaintiff never amended or supplemented his Initial Disclosures. 8 In addition, Plaintiff's Original Petition (which was never amended at any time prior to verdict) expressly stated that Plaintiff was seeking damages of less than $250,000. 9 Thus, prior to trial, in the more than two years of this case’s existence, Plaintiff never once disclosed any damage figures at all with the possible exception of two pre-trial conference emails. In the first of those, Plaintiff's counsel informed the undersigned that Plaintiff would not be pursuing exemplary damages, see Exhibit A hereto. In the second, Plaintiff's counsel provided a breakdown of Plaintiff's “expenses” as the basis of Plaintiffs alleged damages, Exhibit B hereto. 10. The total amount of “expenses”/damages set forth in counsel’s emailed pre-trial spreadsheet are less than $29,000. Yet in closing argument, counsel ambushed Southern and the Court by claiming enormous damages in excess of $200,000 and exemplary damages (which counsel expressly told the undersigned Plaintiff would not seek) of $300,000. The ultimate jury verdict came back with a total damage amount of $496,662. DE Looked at from the perspective of what Plaintiff's counsel said in closing—that Plaintiff would incur (inappropriately “ballparking it”) $500 electricity bills on average in the past and in the future—this total damage figure literally gives Plaintiff $500 worth of monthly DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 3 electricity payments for 993 months. That is a total of 83 years-worth of free electricity. Preposterous. 12. Plaintiff's failure to disclose his damage model prior to closing was in total violation of the disclosure rules of the TRCP 193.6(a), all applicable pre-trial disclosure rules and patent abuse of process. Moreover, Plaintiff has not proved the lack of unfair surprise or prejudice to Southern with the admission of that testimony, as required by TRCP 193.6(b). 13. The disclosure rules have to mean something or why do they exist? They exist to prevent unfair surprise, as Plaintiff's Motion for Leave repeatedly recognizes. Obviously Southern has shown surprise in this case and the Motion for Leave must be denied. B. SOUTHERN WILL BE FILING A MOTION FOR JNOV TO SET ASIDE WHAT WAS CLEARLY AN IMPROPER AND UNJUSTIFIED JURY VERDICT WITH NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT AT ALL 14. At trial, Plaintiff never introduced any actual evidence to support his claims. 15. Plaintiffs only attempt at introducing “evidence” came in the form of totally self- serving, conclusory and potentially perjurious testimony. All of these statements were mere ipse dixit, which is defined as follows: The term "ipse dixit" originated from the Latin phrase meaning "he himself said it." In legal terms, it refers to a statement or argument that is accepted as true solely because of the authority of the person who made it, rather than based on any supporting evidence or logic. This is often viewed as a fallacy in legal reasoning, as it lacks a sound foundation for drawing any conclusions. Legal- Explanations.com (Emphasis supplied). 16. Plaintiff's only purported proof was testimony from his client. Throughout the trial and especially in his closing, counsel consistently and vehemently told the jury and this Court that Oral testimony is evidence so written proof is not required. Maybe in another case DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE4 that might be true but not this one. This case required written, admissible, authentic proofs. All of Plaintiff's testimony was obvious ipse dixi without supporting evidence or logic. 17. As Plaintiff has repeatedly indicated, this case was and has always been about the cost of electricity and the solar system’s workings, along with some tax credit allegations. The following is damages Question No. 3 from the Jury Charge (emphasis supplied): QUESTION 3: What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Jesus Hernandez for his damages, if any, that resulted from such conduct? Consider the following elements of damages, if any, and none other. Expenses. The payments, including interest, paid by Jesus Hernandez for the olar panels. Loss of the benefit of the bargain. The difference between the monthly power bills promised by Southern Solar and the actual power bills incurred. The difference between the tax credits promised by Southern Solar and the actual tax credits received. In answering questions about damages, answer each question separately. Do not increase or reduce the amount in one answer because of your answer to any other question about damages. Do not speculate about what any party’s ultimate recovery may or may not be. Any recovery will be determined by the court when it applies the law to your answers at the time of judgment. Do not add any amount for interest on damages, if any. Answer separately in dollars and cents for damages, if any. 1 Expenses sustained in the past. Answer: 2. Expenses that, in reasonable probability, Jesus Hernandez will sustain in the future. Answer: DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE5 3. Loss of the benefit of the bargain sustained in the past. Answer: 4. Loss of the benefit of the bargain that, in reasonable probability, Jesus Hernandez will sustain in the future. Answer: 18. The defined damage terms in the Charge were not satisfied by Plaintiff because he did not introduce any “actual power bills incurred.” 19. The damage terms also precluded any recovery regarding the tax credit because Plaintiff did not introduce any tax returns to demonstrate the “actual tax credits received.” 20. The damage terms also required Plaintiff to prove the “payments paid by Jesus Hernandez” for the solar panels. Plaintiff did not introduce any evidence at all that Mr. Hernandez_ever paid anything to anyone for this solar system. No receipts. No bank records. No records from alleged payees. Nothing. And Plaintiff literally nonsuited his claims against the lender which would tend to indicate that Plaintiff's loan obligations were terminated at some point for some reason. 21. Plaintiff also wholly failed to prove that the solar system did not work, or never worked, or is not working currently. It was Plaintiffs burden to prove that by a preponderance of the evidence and he failed miserably. 22. The Court recognized these huge obstacles to any recovery in the hearing on Southern’s Motion for Directed Verdict. There simply cannot be any kind of liability or damage findings for the Plaintiff without any power bills or tax returns in evidence. The Court’s admission of struggling to find that Plaintiff had introduced “more than a scintilla” of evidence was telling. DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 6 23. Southern believes that Mr. Hernandez perjured himself on the stand when he brazenly testified that the solar system does not work. If counsel knew that it has worked and is still working yet did not tell the Court, that would be very problematic for Plaintiff's counsel. 24. The Motion for JNOV will point out the following in addition to other problems with Plaintiffs case. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof entirely: a. Plaintiff did not introduce any electricity bills. b. Plaintiff did not introduce his tax returns to support the tax credit claims. Plaintiff did not introduce any other evidence of income, income taxes, pay stubs or income information of any kind to establish Plaintiffs tax burdens or lack thereof. Plaintiff did not introduce any evidence to show that the solar system does not work, or never worked, or is not currently working. This despite the fact that Plaintiff admitted on cross (after first denying it) that he had been given a computer application (“app”) which monitors solar production and that he used it. He simply testified that the app, like the solar system itself, “did not work.” 1 Did Plaintiffs counsel ever once think to inquire about how to measure solar production or get records from the company which runs the app? IL. Did Plaintiff's counsel ever review Plaintiff's electricity bills to see the actual costs to Plaintiff and the solar system’s input to reduce those costs? Both would be shown by the electricity bills. e Plaintiff did not introduce any of his own banking records to prove that he ever made a single payment to anyone for anything related to either electricity or the loan he took to buy the solar system. DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE7 f. The uncontroverted testimony regarding the tax credit from Southern’s representative Joshua Moore was that it lasts for 5 years and is thus still alive to be claimed, and that it can be assigned to someone else living in the household. As such, it wasn’t even ripe for consideration as any element of liability or damages. On cross, Mrs. Hernandez admitted Southern gave Plaintiff $36,000 worth of extra solar panels and 22 months’ worth of solar loan payments in an effort to “make things right” with herself and her husband, Southern’s customer. Then Mrs. Hernandez was asked “Did Southern make things right with you our customer?” Mrs. Hernandez said “Yes.” i That answer completely vitiates Plaintiffs claims of pre-contractual bad acts and misrepresentations, since those measures by Southern took place months after the contract was signed. Southern did not just disappear and fail to respond. Instead, Southern affirmatively acted to fix perceived issues raised by Plaintiff and made things right by Mrs. Hernandez’s own admission. h Mrs. Hernandez’s answers in that regard also 100% established Southern’s defense of Accord and Satisfaction. The PJC on that doctrine instructs that the defense is established if the parties agree on a different performance than that for which the parties initially contracted. In this case, the different performance was the extra $36,000 worth of panels and loan payments by Southern, and both were accepted by Plaintiff and his wife in satisfaction of their complaints. Of this there can be no doubt. DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE8 . It must be noted that subtracting the extra $36,000 provided by Southern from the original purchase price of $60,000 means that Plaintiff ended up with 68 solar panels, not the original 43, for the total price of $24,000. Interestingly, that number is eerily close to what Plaintiff's counsel promised in his only pre-trial disclosure email regarding alleged damages. 25) Finally, Plaintiff never pled breach of contract or breach of warranty. These complaints about the capacity and performance of the system are obviously mere breach of contract or warranty claims, but Plaintiff has never made such claims in this case nor provided any documentation or evidence to back them up. The only live causes of action Plaintiff had at trial were two naked DTPA claims. Plaintiff even dropped his fraudulent inducement and declaratory judgment claims, and never pled Rescission to void the contract. Thus, the Installation contract was in evidence and it affirmatively negates Plaintiff's claims. And the 25- year warranty in the contract was never called upon by Plaintiff, who simply just sued instead of asking Southern to fix any perceived problems. DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 9 D. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 26. For the reasons stated above, Defendant Southern Solar requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to File a First Amended Petition Post-Trial, grant Southern’s JNOV after a hearing on it, and for such other and further relief as may be warranted in the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, THE AVERILL FIRM /s/ Martin P. Averill Martin P. Averill, Founder State Bar No.: 24025231 Attorneys for Plaintiff verillfirm@gmail.com ce: averillfirm.asmith@gmail.com 2619 Hibernia Street #4 Dallas, Texas 75204 Tel: 214-878-9822 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR, LLC DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of record by Efile on the 29"" day of November, 2023. /s/ Marty Averill Martin P. Averill DEFENDANT SOUTHERN SOLAR’S RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION POST-TRIAL PAGE 11 THE AVERILL FIRM Martin P. Averill, Founder The Michael F. Dougherty House, State Thomas 2619 Hibernia Street #4 Dallas, Texas 75204 (214) 878-9822 averillfirm@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:57 AM Chris Arnell wrote: Martin, Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, let me know when you have time to discuss pre-trial matters. I'm going to submit the standard PJC questions and instructions for the DTPA liability and damages. | don't think we'll submit fraud or exemplary damages. | attached a rough draft of our proposed charge. | also attached a copy of my exhibits and exhibit list | intend to use. | haven't finished creating the payment summaries, but it'll be based on the amount of money my client has spent on the solar panels and electricity. Let me know if you have any objections. The only motion in limine | foresee on our end is if you guys have any expert testimony on electrical usage, current loads, etc. | don't believe you guys filed your pre-trial disclosures, but let me know if we missed anything. Hard for me to have a meaningful discussion on possible objections to your evidence if | don't know what you intend to offer. -Chris - Chris Arnell Arnell Law, PLLC 450 Century Pkwy, Ste 250 Allen, TX 75013 Phone: (972) 516-4385 Fax: (972) 637-9415 www.arnelllaw.com - Chris Arnell Arnell Law, PLLC 450 Century Pkwy, Ste 250 Allen, TX 75013 Phone: (972) 516-4385 Fax: (972) 637-9415 www.arnelllaw.com Hernandez - Expenses.pdf 49.3kB EXHIBIT A Hernandez, Jesus Total Amount Paid $28,880.59 Payment for Solar Panels Date Paid Amount Paid Payment for Solar Panels 9/22/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 8/21/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 7/28/23 $778.06 Payment for Solar Panels 6/20/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 4/24/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 2/28/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 1/19/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 12/19/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 11/21/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 10/26/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 10/14/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 8/23/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 7/25/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 6/24/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 3/25/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 3/1/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels W17/11 $239.03 Payment for Solar Panels 1/3/22 $150.00 Payment for Solar Panels 11/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 10/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 9/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 8/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 7/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 6/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 5/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 4/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 2/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 1/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 12/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 11/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 10/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 9/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 8/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 7/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 6/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 5/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 4/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 2/19/20 $270.58 Green Mountain Energy 11/23/20 $353.83 Green Mountain Energy 12/23/20 $446.15 Green Mountain Energy 1/22/21 $460.08 Green Mountain Energy 2/22/21 $451.78 Green Mountain Energy 3/23/21 $181.43 Green Mountain Energy 4/22/21 $200.32 Green Mountain Energy 5/24/21 $270.78 Green Mountain Energy 6/23/21 $432.59 Green Mountain Energy 7/26/21 $622.46 Green Mountain Energy 8/24/21 $574.70 Green Mountain Energy 9/23/21 $553.36 Green Mountain Energy 10/22/21 $327.47 Green Mountain Energy 11/22/21 $278.12 Green Mountain Energy 12/7/21 $135.25 Rhythm 12/29/21 $231.45 Rhythm 1/30/22 $398.82 Rhythm 2/27/22 $365.77 Rhythm 3/30/22 $213.24 Rhythm 4/28/22 $121.24 Rhythm 5/30/22 $283.85 Rhythm 6/29/22 $453.85 Rhythm 7/28/22 $587.55 Rhythm 8/30/22 $597.96 Rhythm 9/29/22 $486.72 Rhythm 10/30/22 $350.33 Rhythm 11/29/22 $414.51 Rhythm 12/30/22 $457.61 Rhythm 1/30/23 $429.26 Rhythm 2/27/23 $475.27 Rhythm 3/30/23 $356.52 Rhythm 4/27/23 $342.73 Rhythm 5/30/23 $422.70 Rhythm 6/29/23 $537.18 Rhythm 7/30/23 $729.42 Rhythm 8/30/23 $734.14 Rhythm 9/29/23 $665.57 From: Chris Arnell Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2023, 2:42 PM Subject: Re: Hernandez v. Southern Solar - Pre-Trial Conference To: Martin Averill Martin, Here's our summary of the expenses my client paid. This will be our Exhibit 10. Let me know if you have any objections to us using this summary as an exhibit. Tomorrow is fine for your exhibits; however, | want to see if we can come to an agreement on the rest of the exhibits in the meantime. Let me know if you have any objections to ours. | haven't seen your motion in limine get file yet, but I'll be sure to review it once | receive it. -Chris EXHIBIT B Hernandez, Jesus Total Amount Paid $28,880.59 Payment for Solar Panels Date Paid Amount Paid Payment for Solar Panels 9/22/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 8/21/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 7/28/23 $778.06 Payment for Solar Panels 6/20/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 4/24/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 2/28/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 1/19/23 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 12/19/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 11/21/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 10/26/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 10/14/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 8/23/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 7/25/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 6/24/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 3/25/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 3/1/22 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels W17/11 $239.03 Payment for Solar Panels 1/3/22 $150.00 Payment for Solar Panels 11/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 10/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 9/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 8/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 7/19/21 $389.03 Payment for Solar Panels 6/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 5/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 4/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 2/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 1/19/21 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 12/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 11/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 10/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 9/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 8/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 7/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 6/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 5/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 4/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 3/19/20 $270.58 Payment for Solar Panels 2/19/20 $270.58 Green Mountain Energy 11/23/20 $353.83 Green Mountain Energy 12/23/20 $446.15 Green Mountain Energy 1/22/21 $460.08 Green Mountain Energy 2/22/21 $451.78 Green Mountain Energy 3/23/21 $181.43 Green Mountain Energy 4/22/21 $200.32 Green Mountain Energy 5/24/21 $270.78 Green Mountain Energy 6/23/21 $432.59 Green Mountain Energy 7/26/21 $622.46 Green Mountain Energy 8/24/21 $574.70 Green Mountain Energy 9/23/21 $553.36 Green Mountain Energy 10/22/21 $327.47 Green Mountain Energy 11/22/21 $278.12 Green Mountain Energy 12/7/21 $135.25 Rhythm 12/29/21 $231.45 Rhythm 1/30/22 $398.82 Rhythm 2/27/22 $365.77 Rhythm 3/30/22 $213.24 Rhythm 4/28/22 $121.24 Rhythm 5/30/22 $283.85 Rhythm 6/29/22 $453.85 Rhythm 7/28/22 $587.55 Rhythm 8/30/22 $597.96 Rhythm 9/29/22 $486.72 Rhythm 10/30/22 $350.33 Rhythm 11/29/22 $414.51 Rhythm 12/30/22 $457.61 Rhythm 1/30/23 $429.26 Rhythm 2/27/23 $475.27 Rhythm 3/30/23 $356.52 Rhythm 4/27/23 $342.73 Rhythm 5/30/23 $422.70 Rhythm 6/29/23 $537.18 Rhythm 7/30/23 $729.42 Rhythm 8/30/23 $734.14 Rhythm 9/29/23 $665.57 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. Marty Averill on behalf of Marty Averill Bar No. 24025231 averillfirm@gmail.com Envelope ID: 82078507 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: OPPOSING PLTF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE AND NOTICE OF INTENT Status as of 11/30/2023 8:42 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Ashley Burch averillfirm.asmith@gmail.com 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM SENT Philip DRacusin eservicehou@cwlaw.com 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM SENT Giao Arnell giao@arnelllaw.com 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM SENT Karin Alonzo kalonzo@dallascourts.org 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM SENT Associated Case Party: SOUTHERN SOLAR, LLC Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Martin PAverill averillfirm@gmail.com 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM | SENT Associated Case Party: JESUS HERNANDEZ Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status MARCUS FIFER MARCUS@FIFER.LAW | 11/29/2023 8:20:10 PM | SENT