Complaint,Petition: Southern Luxury Motorcars, LLC, D/B/A Crave Luxury Auto: and Andrew Powers v. KARL STOMBERG a/k/a KARL C. STOMBERG a/k/a KARL CONRAD STOMBERG a/k/a KARL CHRISTOPHER STOMBERG; KRISTIN STOMBERG; MATTHEW STOMBERG; SYDNEY WALSH; WILLIAM P. REID; 54 DYER, L.P.; ZELMA REID; PATRICK KELLY; PATRICK KELLY HOLDINGS LLC; EPK HOLDINGS, LP; EPK MANAGEMENT, INC.; FINIS E. COWAN III, ESQUIRE; and FINIS COWAN INC. PC,

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                CAUSE NO. 20-09-10625

ANDREW POWERS,                                IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

PLAINTIFF,




KARL STOMBERG a/k/a KARL C.
STOMBERG a/k/a KARL CONRAD
STOMBERG a/k/a KARL
CHRISTOPHER STOMBERG; KRISTIN                 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
STOMBERG; MATTHEW STOMBERG;
SYDNEY WALSH; WILLIAM P. REID;
54 DYER, L.P.; ZELMA REID;
PATRICK KELLY; PATRICK KELLY
HOLDINGS LLC; EPK HOLDINGS, LP;
EPK MANAGEMENT, INC.; FINIS E.
COWAN, III, ESQUIRE; AND FINIS
COWAN INC. PC

                                                 TH
DEFENDANT.                                            JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 DEFENDANTS KARL C. STOMBERG AND KRISTIN N. STOMBERG’S VERIFIED
     FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO 54 DYER, L.P.’S FOURTH AMENDED
 COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD AMENDED CROSSCLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

       COME NOW Defendants Karl C. Stomberg and Kristin N. Stomberg, (hereinafter

“Stombergs”) and file their Verified First Amended Answer to 54 Dyer, L.P.’s (hereinafter

“Dyer”) Fourth Amended Counterclaim and Third Amended Crossclaim and Counterclaim and

respectfully shows the Court as follows:

                                     GENERAL DENIAL

              Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Stombergs generally

deny each and every allegation contained in Dyer’s Fourth Amended Counterclaim and Third
Amended Crossclaim (“Dyer’s Counterclaim”). Since there are allegations of fact in Dyer’s

Counterclaim, Stombergs demand strict proof thereof.

                                  AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

       2.       In addition to their general denial, Stombergs assert the following defenses, some

of which may be affirmative in nature:

               Dyer’s claims are barred by failure of consideration.

               Dyer’s claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds.

               Dyer’s claims are barred by waiver.

               Dyer’s claims are barred by laches.

               Dyer’s claims are barred because Dyer is not the owner of the Guaranty upon which

                Dyer brings suit against the Stombergs.

               Dyer’s claims are barred because Stombergs did not execute nor authorize the

                execution of the Guaranty upon which Dyer brings suit against the Stombergs.

               Stombergs are not liable to Dyer because the conditions precedent that would cause

                payment of the 2019 Guaranty to be due, upon which Dyer bases its claims, have

                not yet occurred, due to Dyer not making demand upon Crave for said amounts.

 STOMBERGS’ COUNTERCLAIM UNDER TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §9.011

       The Stombergs file this counterclaim for relief under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§9.011 and respectfully shows as follows:

                                            PARTIES

   3. Cross-Plaintiff 54 Dyer, L.P. (“Dyer”) is a Texas limited partnership that has appeared in

       this proceeding.

   4. Cross-Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Karl Stomberg is a Texas resident who has appeared in


                                                 2
   this proceeding.

5. Cross-Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Kristin Stomberg is a Texas resident who has appeared

   in this proceeding.

                            DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

6. Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 2 pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil

   Procedure 190.3.

                               JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter as the parties are all Texas residents or conduct

   business in Texas and all have waived their right to contest personal jurisdiction. This

   Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Karl Stomberg and Kristin Stomberg

   (collectively, the “Stombergs”) have been sued in this Court by Dyer for over $10,000,000

   upon the basis of claims that are groundless and brought in bad faith or brought for the

   purpose of harassment or groundless and interposed for an improper purpose so as to cause

   unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation under Tex. Civ. Prac. &

   Rem. Code §9.011.

8. Venue of this action properly lies in Montgomery County, Texas under Texas Civ. Prac. &

   Rem. Code §15.062, which provides that venue of a main action shall establish venue of a

   properly joined counterclaim and crossclaim.

                                   CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

9. The Stombergs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth completely herein.

10. The Stombergs counterclaim against Dyer for their reasonable and necessary attorney’s

   fees incurred for defending this lawsuit. Dyer’s claims are groundless and brought in bad

   faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment in violation of Tex. Civ.



                                             3
        Prac. & Rem. Code §9.011. Further, Dyer’s claims are brought for an improper purpose,

        including to harass the Stombergs, are not warranted by existing law, do not have

        evidentiary support or are unlikely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable

        opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

    11. More specifically, Dyer obtained in discovery from Finis Cowan, the Stombergs’

        accountant, a draft unauthorized Guaranty Agreement with alleged signatures of the

        Stombergs on it.     The signature shown on the Guaranty Agreement is not Kristin

        Stomberg’s signature. The document was never intended to be sent or delivered to Dyer

        and Dyer knows this and knew it prior to filing this claim. The document was contemplated

        by the Stombergs for tax purposes but was never used. Further, the Stombergs would never

        have authorized its use without the execution of it by Defendant Andy Powers, and Andy

        Powers never executed the document.

                                           JURY DEMAND

    12. The Stombergs request a trial by jury on all triable issues of fact.

                                             PRAYER

        WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, KARL STOMBERG AND KRISTIN

STOMBERG, cross-defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, respectfully request that after a trial to a

jury, cross-plaintiff 54 Dyer, L.P. take nothing by its claims, the Stombergs recover their

reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs of court as a sanction against 54 Dyer, L.P.,

and the Court grant the Stombergs such other and further relief to which they may show themselves

entitled.

                                               Respectfully Submitted,


                                               SEILER RAPP & GUERRA, PLLC

                                                  4
                                                                            ________
                                           Kenna M. Seiler
                                           State Bar No. 13944250
                                           kseiler@srg-law.com
                                           Tiffany M. Wrkich
                                           State Bar No. 24117493
                                           twrkich@srg-law.com
                                           2700 Research Forest Drive, Suite 100
                                           The Woodlands, Texas 77381
                                           Telephone: (281) 419-7770
                                           Telecopier: (346) 223-0283

                                           ATTORNEYS FOR KARL STOMBERG AND
                                           KRISTIN STOMBERG


                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Rules 21. and 21a. of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that
Defendants Karl C. Stomberg and Kristin N. Stomberg’s Verified First Amended Answer to 54
Dyer, L.P.’s Fourth Amended Counterclaim and Third Amended Crossclaim and Counterclaim
has been delivered to all interested parties on April 8, 2024.

       Kyle R. Watson
       Rusty Sewell
       Nicholas Stevens
       Winstead PC
       24 Waterway Avenue, Suite 500
       The Woodlands, Texas 77380




                                                  Kenna Seiler




                                              5