Preview
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
CAUSE NO. C-2259-23-J
LOCAL REHAB & CONSTRUCTION, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LLC; FLYING PUPPY, LLC §
Plaintiffs §
§
VS. § 430TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
AUSTIN ANDRUS INVESTMENTS, §
LLC; ROBERT SAENZ; VANESSA §
SAENZ; ESMERALDA ESCAMILLLA §
Defendants § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ AUSTIN INVESTMENTS,
LLC, ROBERT SAENZ, VANESSA SAENZ PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA IN ABATEMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:
COME NOW, Local Rehab & Construction, LLC and Flying Puppy, LLC, (hereinafter
“Plaintiffs”), and file this, Plaintiffs’ Verified Response to Defendants’ Plea to the Jurisdiction or
In The Alternative Plea In Abatement, and respectfully asks this Honorable Court to deny both
the Plea to the Jurisdiction and Plea In Abatement (“Plea”) filed by Defendants Austin
Investments, LLC, Robert Saenz, Vanessa Saenz (“Defendants”), and retain jurisdiction over all
claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. In support thereof, and pursuant to the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs would show this Honorable Court the following:
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendants filed this frivolous Plea in an attempt to further delay this matter in a last
ditch effort to “muddy up” the very serious allegations that are pending against them in this case.
Defendants’ Plea attempts to sidestep the crux of Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants received
$120,000.00 (One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars) and failed to deliver title AND
1
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
possession of the property in interest to Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendants Plea To the
Jurisdiction admits assertions of fact that establish their very own liability in this case.
Most importantly, Defendants have also failed to produce any evidence that would strip this
Honorable District Court of its lawful subject matter jurisdiction over the claims filed by
Plaintiffs in this matter. Further, this matter involves numerous parties (specifically five separate
and distinct parties) that are not parties in the divorce proceeding, and independent and separate
causes of action (based on breach of contractual obligations between these parties, deceptive
trade practices, fraud, and actual title to the property), which have not been pled in the divorce
proceedings.
This Honorable Court should deny the Plea to the Jurisdiction and the Plea In Abatement
and retain jurisdiction over all claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition.
II.
BACKGROUND
On or about May 31, 2022, Vanessa Saenz, as member of Austin Andrus Investments
LLC, executed a General Warranty Deed by which Plaintiffs were to receive Lot 137,
LAKEWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, better known as 3501 Grandora Street, San Juan,
Texas (hereinafter the “Property”). See General Warranty Deed (Document No.: 3348745),
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference.
As seen by the General Warranty Deed, Austin Andrus Investments LLC represented and
warranted that it “grants, sells, and conveys to Grantee the Property, together with all and
singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in any way belonging, to have and to hold it to
Grantee and Grantee’s heirs, successors, and assigns forever.” Id.
In addition, Austin Andrus Investments LLC agreed to warrant and forever defend all of
the Property to Grantee. Specifically, the General Warranty Deed states as follows:
2
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
Grantor binds Grantor and Grantor’s heirs and successors to warrant and forever
defend all and singular the Property to Grantee and Grantee’s heirs, successors,
and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming the same or any
part thereof, except as to the Reservations from Conveyances and the Exceptions
to Conveyance and Warranty.
Id.
In consideration for the General Warranty Deed, and the representations and warranties
incorporated into said General Warranty Deed, Plaintiffs paid a sales price of $120,000 to Austin
Andrus Investments, LLC. See Settlement Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and
incorporated by reference.
In accordance with the Residential Contract, Austin Andrus Investments, LLC was to do
the following:
9. CLOSING:
…
B. At closing:
(1) Seller shall execute and deliver a general warranty deed
conveying title to the Property to Buyer and showing no
additional exceptions to those permitted in Paragraph 6 and furnish
tax statements or certificates showing no delinquent taxes on the
Property.
….
(3) Seller and Buyer shall execute and deliver any notices,
statements, certificates, affidavits, releases, loan documents and
other documents reasonably required for the closing of the sale and
issuance of the Title Policy.
(4) There will be no liens, assessments, or security interests against
the Property which will not be satisfied out of the sales proceeds
unless securing the payment of any loans assumed by Buyer and
assumed loans will not be in default.
10. POSSESSION:
3
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
A. BUYER’S POSSESSION: Seller shall deliver to Buyer possession of
the Property in its present or required condition, ordinary wear and tear
excepted: upon closing and funding…
19. REPRESENTATIONS: All covenants, representations and warranties in
this contract survive closing…
See Residential Contract attached hereto as Exhibit 3 at pgs 5, 6, & 7 and incorporated by
reference.
However, as detailed below, possession of the Property was not delivered, nor was the
Property conveyed free of any claims or alleged liens on the Property. Specifically, Esmeralda
Escamilla, (who appears to be married to the brother of Defendant Robert Saenz and brother-in-
law of Defendant Vanessa Saenz), is claiming superior title over Plaintiffs to the Property. As
such, Austin Andrus Investments LLC, Robert Saenz, and Vanessa Saenz had a duty to fully
disclose this information to Plaintiffs, and to refrain from false, misleading, and deceptive
business practices.
In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants Robert Saenz and Vanessa Saenz
knew of the fact that their sister-in-law, Esmeralda Escamilla, claimed possession over the
Property at the time the General Warranty Deed was executed. Further, Plaintiffs contend that
Defendants Robert Saenz and Vanessa Saenz intended to and did in fact use Austin Andrus
Investments LLC to perpetrate the fraud on Plaintiffs for their own personal benefit.
Plaintiffs relied upon the representations of Austin Andrus Investments LLC, Robert
Saenz and Vanessa Saenz to their detriment. The representations and warranties were material to
the extent that Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property had such claims to title been
made known to them.
4
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
Austin Andrus Investments LLC, Robert Saenz and Vanessa Saenz wrongful actions have
caused substantial harm and damage to Plaintiffs.
For the following reasons, this Honorable Court should deny the Plea to the Jurisdiction
and the Plea In Abatement filed by Defendants and retain jurisdiction over all claims asserted by
the Plaintiffs.
This response is verified by the affidavit of Plaintiffs’ counsel, which is attached hereto.
III.
ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON A PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
The trial court must have jurisdiction over the parties. State ex. rel. v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d
484, 485 (Tex. 1995); Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985). When a defendant
asks a court to dismiss a suit, the court must overrule the motion unless the pleadings and the
parties’ evidence clearly demonstrate that the court lacks jurisdiction. See Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v.
Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578, 587–88 (Tex. 2015); Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137,
150 (Tex. 2012); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000).
A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, the purpose of which is to defeat a cause of
action without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue,
34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); Big Rock Investors Ass’n v. Big Rock Petroleum, Inc., 409
S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. denied).
B. PLAINTIFFS HAVE LEGAL STANDING
Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction. Williams v. Lara, 52 SW3d 171
(Tex 2001); Bland Independent School Dist. v. Blue, 34 SW3d 547, 553-54 (Tex 2000). A
plaintiff has standing when it is personally aggrieved, regardless of whether it is acting with legal
authority. Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1996).
5
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
Plaintiffs have clearly pled in their Original Petition their personal aggrievances in this
matter. Plaintiffs have also pled a real controversy that will actually be determined by this Court.
Specifically, that the Defendants breached the General Warranty Deed and committed fraud in
the process. Defendants are willfully ignoring the fact that they received $120,000 from the
Plaintiffs yet the Defendants have failed to deliver title and possession to the property in interest.
Defendants, unilaterally and without citing any case law nor statutory law, declare that
there is no real controversy before this Court. Defendants, unwittingly, state that ALL of the
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Austin Andrus Investments, LLC, Robert Saenz and
Vanessa Saenz completely depend on a ruling from the Judge in Hidalgo County Court #6 where
a divorce case has been laying dormant for years. Defendants do not cite any law for this legal
declaration. Moreover, in doing so, Defendants have judicially admitted that they did not
legally possess the right to convey title and possession of the property in interest to
Plaintiffs because they now state that the issue of rightful title and possession is pending in
a County Court at Law, almost twenty-four months after the Defendants purported to
convey title and possession to the Plaintiffs in consideration for $120,000. Plaintiffs not only
have standing in this matter but also now have judicial admissions by the Defendants that they
did not convey legal title or possession, in breach of the General Warranty Deed, wherein they
represented and warranted that they were conveying a full fee simple title in and possession of
the property. These admissions of fact go to the core of Plaintiffs’ very claims that Defendants’
are trying to dismiss in their Plea To the Jurisdiction.
C. RIPENESS
In their Plea To the Jurisdiction, Defendants deliberately misstate that an injury has not
occurred. Specifically, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for the past 23 months and are still
6
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
currently suffering injuries as a result of the Defendants’ failure to convey title and possession to
the property. Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs are supposed to wait for an unknown amount of
time for “facts to develop” to determine if they actually have a cause of action against
Defendants. It is important to note that the General Warranty Deed at issue in this case did not
make the conveyance contingent on waiting for “facts to develop” or for a County Court to make
a ruling in a divorce. The Defendants took the Plaintiffs money without any stipulations,
contingencies, or subject to any pending court rulings.
Texas Courts have also ruled that Ripeness does not require actual injury -- only the
likelihood thereof. [Texas Dept. of Banking v. Mount Boulivet Cemetery Assoc., 27 SW3d 276
(TexApp -- Austin 2000, pet den) (citing Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 SW2d 439 (Tex
1998).]
D. Texas State District Court Has Jurisdiction
A Texas District Court is a court of general jurisdiction. Our Constitution provides that
the jurisdiction of a District Court "consists of exclusive, appellate, and original jurisdiction of
all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original
jurisdiction may be conferred by this Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or
administrative body." TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8.
By statute, District Courts have "the jurisdiction provided by Article V, Section 8, of the
Texas Constitution," TEX. GOV'T CODE § 24.007, and "may hear and determine any cause that
is cognizable by courts of law or equity and may grant any relief that could be granted by either
courts of law or equity." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 24.008. For "courts of general jurisdiction, . . .
the presumption is that they have subject matter jurisdiction unless a showing can be made to the
contrary."
7
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
The legislature has reaffirmed the reach of District Courts' purview, Tex. Gov't Code §§
24.007-24.008, including emphasizing that family district courts do "not limit the jurisdiction of
other district courts nor relieve them of responsibility for handling cases involving family law
matters." Id. § 24.601(c). Against this backdrop, "all claims are presumed to fall within the
jurisdiction of the district court unless the Legislature or Congress has provided that they must be
heard elsewhere." Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex. 2000).
Defendants are misguided in their contention that Texas Family Code Section 7.001
provides exclusive jurisdiction to County Court at Law 6 in this matter. Section 7.001 is specific
to divorce decrees or annulments and the division of the estate of the parties. Defendants once
again fail to cite any pertinent case law that gives County Court at Law 6 exclusive jurisdiction
over the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants in this matter: Breach of General Warranty
Deed, Fraud, DTPA, Cloud on Title. None of these claims are included in any pleadings
currently on file in the divorce action pending in County Court at Law #6. Moreover, there is
nothing preventing County Court at Law #6 from issuing a divorce decree in that matter as per
Texas Family Code Section 7.001.
E. Abatement Is Not Warranted
Defendants seek an abatement in this matter “until and unless the court presiding over
Defendant Escamilla’s divorce makes a final determination upon whether Defendant Escamilla’s
possesses an ownership or other interests in the Subject Property”. Defendants are seeking an
indefinite abatement that is based on the incorrect assumption that all of Plaintiffs’ claims are
completely dependent on a final determination by County Court #6. Plaintiffs’ claims against
Defendants Austin Investments, LLC, Robert Saenz, Vanessa Saenz are based on the Defendants
representations and actions. Defendants are simply seeking to further delay this matter for an
8
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
indefinite and unknown period of time despite not conveying title and possession of the Subject
Property for almost two years after they were paid $120,000 as per the agreement.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ pleadings establish that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims
against Defendants and that Defendants’ arguments are without any legal merit. As the pleadings
establish this Court’s jurisdiction, it should retain jurisdiction over all claims asserted in
Plaintiff’s Original Petition. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that they be allowed to amend
their petition to comply with any court rulings, and/or the Plaintiffs request that the court allow it
to conduct discovery on these issues.
PRAYER
For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny Defendants’ Plea to the Jurisdiction
and the Plea In Abatement, and retain Plaintiffs’ suit on the Court’s docket.
Respectfully submitted,
ELLIS, KOENEKE & RAMIREZ, LLP
1101 Chicago Avenue
McAllen, Texas 75801-4822
(956) 682-2440 Telephone
(956) 682-0820 Facsimile
By: /s/ Thomas Daniel Koeneke
THOMAS DANIEL KOENEKE
State Bar No. 24083320
daniel@ekrattorneys.com
ATTORNEYS FOR LOCAL REHAB
& CONSTRUCTION, LLC and FLYING
PUPPY, LLC
9
Electronically Filed
3/20/2024 3:26 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has on
March 20, 2024, been forwarded to all counsel of record in the manner prescribed as follows:
Esmeralda Escamilla.
3501 Grandora St.
San Juan, Texas
Via E-Service
Carlos Escobar
Escobar Law Firm, PLLC
100 S. Bicentennial Blvd.
McAllen, Texas 78501
Via E-Service
/s/ Thomas Daniel Koeneke
THOMAS DANIEL KOENEKE
10
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.
Claudia Fuentes on behalf of Daniel Koeneke
Bar No. 24083320
claudia@ekrattorneys.com
Envelope ID: 85772805
Filing Code Description: Notice
Filing Description: Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Plea to the
Jurisdiction or in the Alternative Plea in Abatement
Status as of 3/21/2024 7:40 AM CST
Associated Case Party: Local Rehab & Construction, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Daniel Koeneke daniel@ekrattorneys.com 3/20/2024 3:26:39 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Austin Andrus Investments, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Laura Garcia laura@escobarlawfirm.com 3/20/2024 3:26:39 PM SENT
Carlos Escobar carlos@escobarlawfirm.com 3/20/2024 3:26:39 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Esmeralda Escamilla
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Esmeralda Escamilla eescamilla33@yahoo.com 3/20/2024 3:26:39 PM SENT
Preview
Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal CAUSE NO. C-2259-23-J LOCAL REHAB & CONSTRUCTION, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT LLC; FLYING PUPPY, LLC § Plaintiffs § § VS. § 430TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § AUSTIN ANDRUS INVESTMENTS, § LLC; ROBERT SAENZ; VANESSA § SAENZ; ESMERALDA ESCAMILLLA § Defendants § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ AUSTIN INVESTMENTS, LLC, ROBERT SAENZ, VANESSA SAENZ PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA IN ABATEMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE: COME NOW, Local Rehab & Construction, LLC and Flying Puppy, LLC, (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), and file this, Plaintiffs’ Verified Response to Defendants’ Plea to the Jurisdiction or In The Alternative Plea In Abatement, and respectfully asks this Honorable Court to deny both the Plea to the Jurisdiction and Plea In Abatement (“Plea”) filed by Defendants Austin Investments, LLC, Robert Saenz, Vanessa Saenz (“Defendants”), and retain jurisdiction over all claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. In support thereof, and pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs would show this Honorable Court the following: I. INTRODUCTION Defendants filed this frivolous Plea in an attempt to further delay this matter in a last ditch effort to “muddy up” the very serious allegations that are pending against them in this case. Defendants’ Plea attempts to sidestep the crux of Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants received $120,000.00 (One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars) and failed to deliver title AND 1 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal possession of the property in interest to Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendants Plea To the Jurisdiction admits assertions of fact that establish their very own liability in this case. Most importantly, Defendants have also failed to produce any evidence that would strip this Honorable District Court of its lawful subject matter jurisdiction over the claims filed by Plaintiffs in this matter. Further, this matter involves numerous parties (specifically five separate and distinct parties) that are not parties in the divorce proceeding, and independent and separate causes of action (based on breach of contractual obligations between these parties, deceptive trade practices, fraud, and actual title to the property), which have not been pled in the divorce proceedings. This Honorable Court should deny the Plea to the Jurisdiction and the Plea In Abatement and retain jurisdiction over all claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. II. BACKGROUND On or about May 31, 2022, Vanessa Saenz, as member of Austin Andrus Investments LLC, executed a General Warranty Deed by which Plaintiffs were to receive Lot 137, LAKEWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, better known as 3501 Grandora Street, San Juan, Texas (hereinafter the “Property”). See General Warranty Deed (Document No.: 3348745), attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference. As seen by the General Warranty Deed, Austin Andrus Investments LLC represented and warranted that it “grants, sells, and conveys to Grantee the Property, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in any way belonging, to have and to hold it to Grantee and Grantee’s heirs, successors, and assigns forever.” Id. In addition, Austin Andrus Investments LLC agreed to warrant and forever defend all of the Property to Grantee. Specifically, the General Warranty Deed states as follows: 2 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal Grantor binds Grantor and Grantor’s heirs and successors to warrant and forever defend all and singular the Property to Grantee and Grantee’s heirs, successors, and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming the same or any part thereof, except as to the Reservations from Conveyances and the Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty. Id. In consideration for the General Warranty Deed, and the representations and warranties incorporated into said General Warranty Deed, Plaintiffs paid a sales price of $120,000 to Austin Andrus Investments, LLC. See Settlement Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference. In accordance with the Residential Contract, Austin Andrus Investments, LLC was to do the following: 9. CLOSING: … B. At closing: (1) Seller shall execute and deliver a general warranty deed conveying title to the Property to Buyer and showing no additional exceptions to those permitted in Paragraph 6 and furnish tax statements or certificates showing no delinquent taxes on the Property. …. (3) Seller and Buyer shall execute and deliver any notices, statements, certificates, affidavits, releases, loan documents and other documents reasonably required for the closing of the sale and issuance of the Title Policy. (4) There will be no liens, assessments, or security interests against the Property which will not be satisfied out of the sales proceeds unless securing the payment of any loans assumed by Buyer and assumed loans will not be in default. 10. POSSESSION: 3 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal A. BUYER’S POSSESSION: Seller shall deliver to Buyer possession of the Property in its present or required condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted: upon closing and funding… 19. REPRESENTATIONS: All covenants, representations and warranties in this contract survive closing… See Residential Contract attached hereto as Exhibit 3 at pgs 5, 6, & 7 and incorporated by reference. However, as detailed below, possession of the Property was not delivered, nor was the Property conveyed free of any claims or alleged liens on the Property. Specifically, Esmeralda Escamilla, (who appears to be married to the brother of Defendant Robert Saenz and brother-in- law of Defendant Vanessa Saenz), is claiming superior title over Plaintiffs to the Property. As such, Austin Andrus Investments LLC, Robert Saenz, and Vanessa Saenz had a duty to fully disclose this information to Plaintiffs, and to refrain from false, misleading, and deceptive business practices. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants Robert Saenz and Vanessa Saenz knew of the fact that their sister-in-law, Esmeralda Escamilla, claimed possession over the Property at the time the General Warranty Deed was executed. Further, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Robert Saenz and Vanessa Saenz intended to and did in fact use Austin Andrus Investments LLC to perpetrate the fraud on Plaintiffs for their own personal benefit. Plaintiffs relied upon the representations of Austin Andrus Investments LLC, Robert Saenz and Vanessa Saenz to their detriment. The representations and warranties were material to the extent that Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property had such claims to title been made known to them. 4 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal Austin Andrus Investments LLC, Robert Saenz and Vanessa Saenz wrongful actions have caused substantial harm and damage to Plaintiffs. For the following reasons, this Honorable Court should deny the Plea to the Jurisdiction and the Plea In Abatement filed by Defendants and retain jurisdiction over all claims asserted by the Plaintiffs. This response is verified by the affidavit of Plaintiffs’ counsel, which is attached hereto. III. ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES A. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON A PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION The trial court must have jurisdiction over the parties. State ex. rel. v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1995); Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985). When a defendant asks a court to dismiss a suit, the court must overrule the motion unless the pleadings and the parties’ evidence clearly demonstrate that the court lacks jurisdiction. See Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578, 587–88 (Tex. 2015); Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tex. 2012); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000). A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, the purpose of which is to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); Big Rock Investors Ass’n v. Big Rock Petroleum, Inc., 409 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. denied). B. PLAINTIFFS HAVE LEGAL STANDING Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction. Williams v. Lara, 52 SW3d 171 (Tex 2001); Bland Independent School Dist. v. Blue, 34 SW3d 547, 553-54 (Tex 2000). A plaintiff has standing when it is personally aggrieved, regardless of whether it is acting with legal authority. Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1996). 5 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal Plaintiffs have clearly pled in their Original Petition their personal aggrievances in this matter. Plaintiffs have also pled a real controversy that will actually be determined by this Court. Specifically, that the Defendants breached the General Warranty Deed and committed fraud in the process. Defendants are willfully ignoring the fact that they received $120,000 from the Plaintiffs yet the Defendants have failed to deliver title and possession to the property in interest. Defendants, unilaterally and without citing any case law nor statutory law, declare that there is no real controversy before this Court. Defendants, unwittingly, state that ALL of the Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Austin Andrus Investments, LLC, Robert Saenz and Vanessa Saenz completely depend on a ruling from the Judge in Hidalgo County Court #6 where a divorce case has been laying dormant for years. Defendants do not cite any law for this legal declaration. Moreover, in doing so, Defendants have judicially admitted that they did not legally possess the right to convey title and possession of the property in interest to Plaintiffs because they now state that the issue of rightful title and possession is pending in a County Court at Law, almost twenty-four months after the Defendants purported to convey title and possession to the Plaintiffs in consideration for $120,000. Plaintiffs not only have standing in this matter but also now have judicial admissions by the Defendants that they did not convey legal title or possession, in breach of the General Warranty Deed, wherein they represented and warranted that they were conveying a full fee simple title in and possession of the property. These admissions of fact go to the core of Plaintiffs’ very claims that Defendants’ are trying to dismiss in their Plea To the Jurisdiction. C. RIPENESS In their Plea To the Jurisdiction, Defendants deliberately misstate that an injury has not occurred. Specifically, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for the past 23 months and are still 6 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal currently suffering injuries as a result of the Defendants’ failure to convey title and possession to the property. Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs are supposed to wait for an unknown amount of time for “facts to develop” to determine if they actually have a cause of action against Defendants. It is important to note that the General Warranty Deed at issue in this case did not make the conveyance contingent on waiting for “facts to develop” or for a County Court to make a ruling in a divorce. The Defendants took the Plaintiffs money without any stipulations, contingencies, or subject to any pending court rulings. Texas Courts have also ruled that Ripeness does not require actual injury -- only the likelihood thereof. [Texas Dept. of Banking v. Mount Boulivet Cemetery Assoc., 27 SW3d 276 (TexApp -- Austin 2000, pet den) (citing Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 SW2d 439 (Tex 1998).] D. Texas State District Court Has Jurisdiction A Texas District Court is a court of general jurisdiction. Our Constitution provides that the jurisdiction of a District Court "consists of exclusive, appellate, and original jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body." TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8. By statute, District Courts have "the jurisdiction provided by Article V, Section 8, of the Texas Constitution," TEX. GOV'T CODE § 24.007, and "may hear and determine any cause that is cognizable by courts of law or equity and may grant any relief that could be granted by either courts of law or equity." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 24.008. For "courts of general jurisdiction, . . . the presumption is that they have subject matter jurisdiction unless a showing can be made to the contrary." 7 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal The legislature has reaffirmed the reach of District Courts' purview, Tex. Gov't Code §§ 24.007-24.008, including emphasizing that family district courts do "not limit the jurisdiction of other district courts nor relieve them of responsibility for handling cases involving family law matters." Id. § 24.601(c). Against this backdrop, "all claims are presumed to fall within the jurisdiction of the district court unless the Legislature or Congress has provided that they must be heard elsewhere." Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex. 2000). Defendants are misguided in their contention that Texas Family Code Section 7.001 provides exclusive jurisdiction to County Court at Law 6 in this matter. Section 7.001 is specific to divorce decrees or annulments and the division of the estate of the parties. Defendants once again fail to cite any pertinent case law that gives County Court at Law 6 exclusive jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants in this matter: Breach of General Warranty Deed, Fraud, DTPA, Cloud on Title. None of these claims are included in any pleadings currently on file in the divorce action pending in County Court at Law #6. Moreover, there is nothing preventing County Court at Law #6 from issuing a divorce decree in that matter as per Texas Family Code Section 7.001. E. Abatement Is Not Warranted Defendants seek an abatement in this matter “until and unless the court presiding over Defendant Escamilla’s divorce makes a final determination upon whether Defendant Escamilla’s possesses an ownership or other interests in the Subject Property”. Defendants are seeking an indefinite abatement that is based on the incorrect assumption that all of Plaintiffs’ claims are completely dependent on a final determination by County Court #6. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Austin Investments, LLC, Robert Saenz, Vanessa Saenz are based on the Defendants representations and actions. Defendants are simply seeking to further delay this matter for an 8 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal indefinite and unknown period of time despite not conveying title and possession of the Subject Property for almost two years after they were paid $120,000 as per the agreement. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ pleadings establish that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants and that Defendants’ arguments are without any legal merit. As the pleadings establish this Court’s jurisdiction, it should retain jurisdiction over all claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Original Petition. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that they be allowed to amend their petition to comply with any court rulings, and/or the Plaintiffs request that the court allow it to conduct discovery on these issues. PRAYER For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny Defendants’ Plea to the Jurisdiction and the Plea In Abatement, and retain Plaintiffs’ suit on the Court’s docket. Respectfully submitted, ELLIS, KOENEKE & RAMIREZ, LLP 1101 Chicago Avenue McAllen, Texas 75801-4822 (956) 682-2440 Telephone (956) 682-0820 Facsimile By: /s/ Thomas Daniel Koeneke THOMAS DANIEL KOENEKE State Bar No. 24083320 daniel@ekrattorneys.com ATTORNEYS FOR LOCAL REHAB & CONSTRUCTION, LLC and FLYING PUPPY, LLC 9 Electronically Filed 3/20/2024 3:26 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Arlene Villarreal CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has on March 20, 2024, been forwarded to all counsel of record in the manner prescribed as follows: Esmeralda Escamilla. 3501 Grandora St. San Juan, Texas Via E-Service Carlos Escobar Escobar Law Firm, PLLC 100 S. Bicentennial Blvd. McAllen, Texas 78501 Via E-Service /s/ Thomas Daniel Koeneke THOMAS DANIEL KOENEKE 10 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. Claudia Fuentes on behalf of Daniel Koeneke Bar No. 24083320 claudia@ekrattorneys.com Envelope ID: 85772805 Filing Code Description: Notice Filing Description: Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction or in the Alternative Plea in Abatement Status as of 3/21/2024 7:40 AM CST Associated Case Party: Local Rehab & Construction, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Daniel Koeneke daniel@ekrattorneys.com 3/20/2024 3:26:39 PM SENT Associated Case Party: Austin Andrus Investments, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Laura Garcia laura@escobarlawfirm.com 3/20/2024 3:26:39 PM SENT Carlos Escobar carlos@escobarlawfirm.com 3/20/2024 3:26:39 PM SENT Associated Case Party: Esmeralda Escamilla Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Esmeralda Escamilla eescamilla33@yahoo.com 3/20/2024 3:26:39 PM SENT