Preview
FILED
4/15/2024 9:17 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-24-03218
ER OF TEXAS, LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v. 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MPT OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE FCER,
LLC, MPT OF LITTLE ELM FCER,
LLC, and MEDICAL PROPERTIES
TRUST, INC.,
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, ER of Texas, LLC (“ER of Texas”), files this First Amended Application for
Temporary Injunction against MPT of Highland Village FCER, LLC, MPT of Little Elm FCER,
LLC, and Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
IL Facts
1 ER of Texas provides full-service emergency rooms at various state of the art
facilities throughout the DFW area. These emergency rooms are available 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, 365 days year—including weekends and holidays. Each ER of Texas facility is staffed
with Board Certified Physicians capable of treating anything from the flu to skull fractures and
severe trauma injuries. On any given day, ER of Texas treats hundreds of DFW residents.
A. THE CONTRACTS
2. On September 16, 2020, Defendants and ER of Texas executed the Master Lease
Agreement (“Lease Agreement”). Under the Lease Agreement, ER of Texas agreed to make
payments to Defendants for rent and, among other things, to pay property taxes for two of ER of
Texas’ facilities.
3 In conjunction with the Lease Agreement, Defendants and ER of Texas executed a
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE 1
Security Agreement (“Security Agreement”). Under the Security Agreement, if ER of Texas
obtains a bona fide commitment for accounts receivable financing from a third-party lender, with
such financing secured by a lien on ER of Texas’ accounts, then ER of Texas shall give Defendants
written notice thereof. Furthermore, if Defendants can enter into an intercreditor agreement with
such third-party lender in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Defendants and
Defendants retain a second priority lien in ER of Texas’ accounts, then Defendants will
subordinate their first priority security interest in ER of Texas’ accounts to such third-party lender
and amend the Security Agreement accordingly.
B DEFENDANTS’ BREACH
4 ER of Texas and Defendants were aware of outstanding payments due pursuant to
the Lease Agreement. On January 19, 2024, Defendants provided notice to ER of Texas about its
failure to pay rent and to deliver certain monthly financial statements. ER of Texas had received
similar notices in previous months but always cured its failures. Indeed, ER of Texas believed it
was in good standing with Defendants notwithstanding a few late payments.
5 ER of Texas proactively set out to discuss funding options with third-party lenders
in early January 2024 and executed a letter of intent with Healthcare Receivables Funding, LLC
(“HRF”) on January 15, 2024, with a proposed closing date of January 31, 2024.
6. On January 25, 2024, ER of Texas informed Defendants it was working on a deal
that would improve its financial standing, and the subordination portion of the deal with
Defendants was the only open item before funding could be secured. ER of Texas introduced HRF
to Defendants on January 31, 2024, and the parties set out to negotiate an intercreditor agreement
(“ICA”). ER of Texas informed Defendants that ER of Texas intended to pay its past-due rent after
the deal with HRF was executed.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE2
7. Over the next three weeks, representatives from HRF and Defendants discussed
atious provisions and exchanged several draft versions of the ICA. Meanwhile, however, and
unbeknownst to ER of Texas or HRF, Defendants decided they would terminate the Lease
Agreement.
8 ER of Texas did not pay rent in February 2024 because Defendants and HRF were
still negotiating the ICA. As they had in previous months, on February 21, 2024, Defendants issued
a Notice of failure to pay rent. The February 2024 notice also included a notice that ER of Texas
owed real estate taxes and needed to submit a letter of credit.
9. Notwithstanding the February 2024 notice, Defendants continued discussions with
HRF about the ICA. Defendants also entertained discussions with ER of Texas about ideas for the
short term and long term that would solidify the relationship. Nevertheless, on February 26, 2024,
ER of Texas was informed of Defendants’ decision to immediate and improper terminate the Lease
Agreement. Immediately following receipt of Defendants’ inexplicable and improper Termination
Notice, ER of Texas demanded that Defendants restore the Agreement, and all associated
agreements, to their prior status. But Defendants have failed to respond to ER of Texas.
10. On February 28, 2024, ER of Texas was informed that one of their facilities faced
immediate and irreparable harm because of Defendants’ egregious breach. Specifically, ER of
Texas was informed that, unless the outstanding property tax payments were made, their business,
including all of the patients seeking medical care, would be forcibly vacated and the doors locked.
11. Due to Defendants’ repeated failures and breaches of contract, ER of Texas has
faced repeated threats of having their businesses shuttered, patients forced out of treatment, and
has incurred substantial and irreparable harm that is sure to continue. Defendants’ breaches are
also causing interference with ER of Texas’ existing and prospective business relationships, the
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE3
impact of which is felt by ER of Texas throughout the DFW area. Further, Defendants’ breaches
are interfering with ER of Texas’ ability to provide medical services to Dallas residents.
I. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
12. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject
matter of the litigation pending final trial of the case on its merits.' The status quo is often defined
as the last actual peaceable, non-contested status that preceded that controversy.” For a temporary
injunction to be issued, a party must plead and prove three specific elements: (1) a cause of action
against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and
irreparable injury in the interim.> ER of Texas may show a probable right of relief by alleging a
cause of action and presenting evidence that tends to sustain it.4 The showing of irreparable harm
requires proof that the injury is of such a nature that the injured party cannot be adequately
compensated for it in damages.>
A. CAUSE OF ACTION AND PROBABLE RIGHT TO RELIEF SOUGHT
13. ER of Texas has a tortious interference with prospective business relations and
breach of contract cause of action against Defendants.® ER of Texas made, or is willing and able
to make, its payments to Defendants under the Lease Agreement. Any alleged breach by Plaintiffs
should be excused because Defendants breached the Lease Agreement first when they told ER of
Texas it did not have to pay its rent and other amounts due pursuant to the Lease Agreement,
negotiated with HRF in bad faith, and ultimately terminated the Lease Agreement citing unpaid
' NMTC Corp. v. Conarroe, 99 S.W.3d 865, 867 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2003, no pet.); Tex. R. Civ. P. 680; Tex. Civ.
P. & Rem. Code § 65.011.
? Texas Aeronautics Commission y. Betts, 469 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tex. 1971).
3 Butnaru y. Ford Motor Co., 84 8.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002).
4 T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 18, 23-24 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1998,
pet. dism’d).
5 Loye v. Travelhost, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 615, 619 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2004).
® Exhibit A.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE4
rent and other defaults. ER of Texas now faces irreparable harm by having its facilities evicted and
locked down.’ All requisite factors and elements for ER of Texas’ causes of action against
Defendants are present. This means there is more than a probable right to the relief sought by ER
of Texas.®
B NECESSITY OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
14. ER of Texas seeks temporary injunctive relief pending trial to avoid irreparable loss
and injury to its business, employees, and most importantly, its patients. ER of Texas seeks an
injunction to ensure that ER of Texas can continue providing necessary medical care to its patients
without fear that its doors will be closed due to Defendants’ inexplicable failures and breach of the
Agreement.
15. Defendants’ repeated breach of the Agreement is subjecting ER of Texas to the
imminent threat of having its business disrupted and its doors closed indefinitely.? Defendants’
tortious interference with prospective business relations and breach of contract is allowing ER of
Texas to face this irreparable harm and business disruption in violation of ER of Texas’ rights
under the Lease Agreement and Security Agreement. If injunctive relief is not granted, the damages
ER of Texas will sustain would render any judgment based on ER of Texas’ tortious interference
with prospective business relations and breach of contract claims ineffectual.
16. ER of Texas will suffer irreparable harm unless Defendants’ conduct complained
of is enjoined. For example, an individual undergoing medical treatment could suffer inadequate
or only partial medical treatment should Defendants continue their failure to pay the requisite
Property taxes and have ER of Texas vacated and shuttered during treatment. Patients’ loss of
‘Id.
8 A probable right of recovery is shown by alleging a cause of action and presenting evidence tending to sustain it, all
of which are included herein.®
° Id.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGES
medical services cannot be compensated. Similarly, Defendants’ breaches threaten to put dozens
of ER of Texas’ employees, staff, and physicians out of work with no way to provide for their
families. A disruption in ER of Texas’ business would have irreversible impact as it would initiate
a domino effect forcing ER of Texas to breach various contracts with its other business
relationships associated with each of ER of Texas’ locations.!? Thus, should Defendants have ER
of Texas’ doors closed, ER of Texas will suffer severe and irreparable harm.!!
17. ER of Texas requests the Court to issue a declaratory judgment holding that
Defendants breached the Lease Agreement first, any breach of the Lease Agreement by Plaintiff
is excused because of Defendants’ prior breach, and Plaintiff is in full compliance with its
obligations under the Lease Agreement. ER of Texas further requests that this Court issue a
temporary injunction, which will remain in force until a trial on the merits, restraining Defendants,
any of their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, or any persons in
active concert or participate with them who receive actual notice of the Order from:
a. Terminating the Master Lease Agreement ER of Texas, LLC entered with
Defendants on September 16, 2020;
Evicting or vacating of ER of Texas’ from any of its locations;
Locking ER of Texas’ out of any of its locations;
Restrict or precluding ER of Texas from accessing its locations; and
Preventing ER of Texas from providing medical services at any of its locations.
18 Further, ER of Texas requests that this Court set a date for a final trial on the merits.
10 4 legal remedy is inadequate if the award of damages may come too late. GTE Mobilnet of South Tex. Ltd.
Partnership v. Cellular Max, Inc., 123 S.W.3d 801, 804 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2003, pet dism’d).
™ Tex. Civ. P. & Rem. Code § 65.011(5).
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE 6
Ii. NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
19. This application for temporary injunction is set for hearing in-person on Thursday,
April 18, 2024, at 8:00 a.m., before the Honorable Dale Tillery, in the 134" Judicial District Court,
Dallas County, Texas.
PRAYER
ER of Texas, LLC respectfully asks for any relief to which ER of Texas may be justly
entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James M. Stanton
JAMES M. STANTON
Texas Bar No. 24037542
jms@stantonllp.com
STANTON LLP
6125 Luther Lane #250
Dallas, TX 75225
T: 972-233-2301
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
ER OF TEXAS, LLP
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the forgoing Plaintiff's First Amended Application for Temporary
Injunction was served in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to all counsel of
record on April 15, 2024.
/s/ James M. Stanton
JAMES M. STANTON
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE7
Exhibit A
CAUSE NO. DC-24-03218
ER OF TEXAS, LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v. 134" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MPT OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE FCER,
LLC, MPT OF LITTLE ELM FCER,
LLC, and MEDICAL PROPERTIES
TRUST, INC.,
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION
Plaintiff, ER of Texas, LLC, (“ER of Texas”) files this First Amended Petition against
MPT of Highland Village FCER, LLC, MPT of Little Elm FCER, LLC, and Medical Properties
Trust, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
I DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1 ER of Texas seeks monetary relief exceeding $1,000,000 and non-monetary relief
under TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 47. ER of Texas requests that this Court order discovery
for this matter to be conducted under Level 3 of TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 190.4.
Il. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff ER of Texas, LLC is a Texas limited liability company having its principal
office at 7700 Windrose Avenue, Plano, Texas 75024.
3 Defendant MPT of Highland Village FCER, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability
Company having its principal office at 1000 Urban Center Drive, Suite 501, Birmingham,
Alabama 35242. Defendant has made an appearance in this lawsuit.
4 Defendant MPT of Little Elm FCER, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company
having its principal office at 1000 Urban Center Drive, Suite 501, Birmingham, Alabama 35242.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 1
Defendant has made an appearance in this lawsuit.
> Defendant Medical Properties Trust, Inc. is a Delaware Limited Liability Company
having its principal office at 1000 Urban Center Drive, Suite 501, Birmingham, Alabama 35242.
Defendant has made an appearance in this lawsuit.
Ii. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6 The Court has jurisdiction over this case and the parties because the relief sought
is within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants under choice of
venue provision in the Agreement fully described herein.
7
Venue is proper in Dallas County under TEXAS. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Dallas
County.
IV. Facts
8 ER of Texas provides full-service emergency rooms at various state of the art
facilities throughout the DFW area. These emergency rooms are available 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, 365 days year—including weekends and holidays. Each ER of Texas facility is staffed
with Board Certified Physicians capable of treating anything from the flu to skull fractures and
severe trauma injuries. On any given day, ER of Texas treats hundreds of DFW residents.
A. THE CONTRACTS
9 On September 16, 2020, Defendants and ER of Texas executed the Master Lease
Agreement (“Lease Agreement”). Under the Lease Agreement, ER of Texas agreed to make
payments to Defendants for rent and, among other things, to pay property taxes for two of ER of
Texas’ facilities.
10. In conjunction with the Lease Agreement, Defendants and ER of Texas executed a
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE2
Security Agreement (“Security Agreement”). Under the Security Agreement, if ER of Texas
obtains a bona fide commitment for accounts receivable financing from a third-party lender, with
such financing secured by a lien on ER of Texas’ accounts, then ER of Texas shall give Defendants
written notice thereof. Furthermore, if Defendants can enter into an intercreditor agreement with
such third-party lender in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Defendants and
Defendants retain a second priority lien in ER of Texas’ accounts, then Defendants will
subordinate their first priority security interest in ER of Texas’ accounts to such third-party lender
and amend the Security Agreement accordingly.
B DEFENDANTS’ BREACH
11. ER of Texas and Defendants were aware of outstanding payments due pursuant to
the Lease Agreement. On January 19, 2024, Defendants provided notice to ER of Texas about its
failure to pay rent and to deliver certain monthly financial statements. ER of Texas had received
similar notices in previous months but always cured its failures. Indeed, ER of Texas believed it
was in good standing with Defendants notwithstanding a few late payments.
12. ER of Texas proactively set out to discuss funding options with third-party lenders
in early January 2024 and executed a letter of intent with Healthcare Receivables Funding, LLC
(“HRF”) on January 15, 2024, with a proposed closing date of January 31, 2024.
13. On January 25, 2024, ER of Texas informed Defendants it was working on a deal
that would improve its financial standing, and the subordination portion of the deal with
Defendants was the only open item before funding could be secured. ER of Texas introduced HRF
to Defendants on January 31, 2024, and the parties set out to negotiate an intercreditor agreement
(“ICA”). ER of Texas informed Defendants that ER of Texas intended to pay its past-due rent after
the deal with HRF was executed.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE3
14. Over the next three weeks, representatives from HRF and Defendants discussed
various provisions and exchanged several draft versions of the ICA. Meanwhile, however, and
unbeknownst to ER of Texas or HRF, Defendants decided they would terminate the Lease
Agreement.
15. ER of Texas did not pay rent in February 2024 because Defendants and HRF were
still negotiating the ICA. As they had in previous months, on February 21, 2024, Defendants issued
a Notice of failure to pay rent. The February 2024 notice also included a notice that ER of Texas
owed real estate taxes and needed to submit a letter of credit.
16. Notwithstanding the February 2024 notice, Defendants continued discussions with
HRF about the ICA. Defendants also entertained discussions with ER of Texas about ideas for the
short term and long term that would solidify the relationship. Nevertheless, on February 26, 2024,
ER of Texas was informed of Defendants’ decision to immediate and improper terminate the Lease
Agreement. Immediately following receipt of Defendants’ inexplicable and improper Termination
Notice, ER of Texas demanded that Defendants restore the Agreement, and all associated
agreements, to their prior status. But Defendants have failed to respond to ER of Texas.
17. On February 28, 2024, ER of Texas was informed that one of their facilities faced
immediate and irreparable harm because of Defendants’ egregious breach. Specifically, ER of
Texas was informed that, unless the outstanding property tax payments were made, their business,
including all of the patients seeking medical care, would be forcibly vacated and the doors locked.
18. Due to Defendants’ repeated failures and breaches of contract, ER of Texas has
faced repeated threats of having their businesses shuttered, patients forced out of treatment, and
has incurred substantial and irreparable harm that is sure to continue. Defendants’ breaches are
also causing interference with ER of Texas’ existing and prospective business relationships, the
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE4
impact of which is felt by ER of Texas throughout the DFW area. Further, Defendants’ breaches
are interfering with ER of Texas’ ability to provide medical services to Dallas residents.
Vv. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS
19. ER of Texas hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as set forth
fully herein.
20. There was a reasonable probability that ER of Texas would have entered into a
business relationship with a third-party, HRF, as evidenced by the January 15, 2024, letter of intent
and the extensive communications among and between the parties during January and February
2024.
21. The Defendants intentionally interfered with the prospective relationship when they
refused to enter the ICA despite the terms of the proposed agreement being objectively reasonable.
Furthermore, Defendants actions show that they never intended to enter the ICA despite leading
ER of Texas and HRF to believe the opposite. The Defendants’ conduct in dealing with HRF was
independently tortious and amounted to fraud. As a result of the Defendants fraudulent actions,
ER of Texas’ deal with HRF was scuttled, thereby preventing ER of Texas from securing funding
the Defendants knew ER of Texas intended to use to pay its obligations under the Lease
Agreement. ER of Texas suffered actual damage or loss when Defendants terminated the Lease
Agreement.
B REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
22s ER of Texas hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as set forth
fully herein.
23. A party to a contract whose rights are affected by a contract may have determined
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGES
any question of construction or validity arising under the contract and obtain a declaration of rights,
status, or other legal relations thereunder. § 37.004 TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE.
24. ER of Texas seeks a declaratory judgment asking the Court to make a finding that
Defendants breached the Lease Agreement first, any breach of the Lease Agreement by Plaintiff
is excused because of Defendants’ prior breach, and Plaintiff is in full compliance with its
obligations under the Lease Agreement.
Cc. BREACH OF CONTRACT
25. ER of Texas hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as set forth
fully herein.
26. The Lease Agreement and Security Agreement are valid, enforceable contracts and
ER of Texas performed its contractual obligations under the contracts. Although ER of Texas owed
rent and other amounts under the Lease Agreement, the Defendants informed ER of Texas to not
worry about the past due amounts because the parties knew that ER of Texas intended to pay the
amounts once the deal with HRF was closed. Indeed, the Defendants and HRF traded drafts of the
ICA over several weeks. Instead of finalizing the ICA with HRF, the Defendants purposely stalled
the process, misrepresented its intentions, sent ER of Texas another notice of default, and then
terminated the Lease Agreement. The Defendants breached the contracts by failing to enter the
ICA it was negotiating with HRF when commercially reasonable terms for the ICA were presented.
Any alleged breach of the Lease Agreement by ER of Texas should be excused based on the
Defendants bad acts and prior breach.
Die The Defendants’ breach caused ER of Texas injury when Defendants used ER of
Texas’ lack of funding to terminate the Lease Agreement on February 26, 2024.
28. Defendants sudden rug pull interferes with ER of Texas’ existing and prospective
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 6
business relationships and is impacting ER of Texas’ ability to provide necessary medical care to
Dallas residents.
29. Defendants’ breaches have damaged ER of Texas in an amount that ER of Texas
cannot reasonably calculate the dollar value of at this time but exceeding $1,000,000.
Vi ATTORNEYS’ FEES
30. ER of Texas is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and
expenses under Chapters 37 and 38 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE.
VIL. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
aie All conditions precedent to recovery for the claims asserted herein have occurred.
PRAYER
ER of Texas respectfully requests the Court to declare that Defendants breached the Lease
Agreement first, any breach of the Lease Agreement by Plaintiff is excused because of Defendants’
prior breach, and Plaintiff is in full compliance with its obligations under the Lease Agreement.
ER of Texas further requests that it be granted judgment against Defendants for any and all
damages, of any type, in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, pre and post
judgment interest as allowed by law, and all attorney’s fees and costs of court.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James M. Stanton
JAMES M. STANTON
Texas Bar No. 24037542
jms@stantonllp.com
STANTON LLP
6125 Luther Lane #250
Dallas, TX 75225
T: 972-233-2301
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
ER OF TEXAS, LLC
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the forgoing Plaintiff's First Amended Petition was served in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to counsel of record on April 15, 2024.
/s/ James M. Stanton
JAMES M. STANTON
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGES
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.
James Stanton on behalf of James Stanton
Bar No. 24037542
jms@stantonllp.com
Envelope ID: 86686862
Filing Code Description: Miscellanous Event
Filing Description: 1ST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION
Status as of 4/16/2024 10:36 AM CST
Associated Case Party: ER OF TEXAS, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
James M.Stanton jms@stantonllp.com | 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM | SENT
Kinsey Lakey kdl@stantonllp.com | 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM | SENT
Associated Case Party: MPT OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE FCER, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Kenneth CStone kstone@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT
Kathy Calvert kcalvert@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT
Trevor C. Lawhorn tlawhorn@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT
D. ScottFunk sfunk@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT
Leigh Malinowski Imalinowski@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT
Russell EJumper rjumper@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT
Christi Lillie clillie@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org | 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM | SENT
Preview
FILED 4/15/2024 9:17 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-24-03218 ER OF TEXAS, LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, v. 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MPT OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE FCER, LLC, MPT OF LITTLE ELM FCER, LLC, and MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST, INC., Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff, ER of Texas, LLC (“ER of Texas”), files this First Amended Application for Temporary Injunction against MPT of Highland Village FCER, LLC, MPT of Little Elm FCER, LLC, and Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), and alleges as follows: IL Facts 1 ER of Texas provides full-service emergency rooms at various state of the art facilities throughout the DFW area. These emergency rooms are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days year—including weekends and holidays. Each ER of Texas facility is staffed with Board Certified Physicians capable of treating anything from the flu to skull fractures and severe trauma injuries. On any given day, ER of Texas treats hundreds of DFW residents. A. THE CONTRACTS 2. On September 16, 2020, Defendants and ER of Texas executed the Master Lease Agreement (“Lease Agreement”). Under the Lease Agreement, ER of Texas agreed to make payments to Defendants for rent and, among other things, to pay property taxes for two of ER of Texas’ facilities. 3 In conjunction with the Lease Agreement, Defendants and ER of Texas executed a PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE 1 Security Agreement (“Security Agreement”). Under the Security Agreement, if ER of Texas obtains a bona fide commitment for accounts receivable financing from a third-party lender, with such financing secured by a lien on ER of Texas’ accounts, then ER of Texas shall give Defendants written notice thereof. Furthermore, if Defendants can enter into an intercreditor agreement with such third-party lender in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Defendants and Defendants retain a second priority lien in ER of Texas’ accounts, then Defendants will subordinate their first priority security interest in ER of Texas’ accounts to such third-party lender and amend the Security Agreement accordingly. B DEFENDANTS’ BREACH 4 ER of Texas and Defendants were aware of outstanding payments due pursuant to the Lease Agreement. On January 19, 2024, Defendants provided notice to ER of Texas about its failure to pay rent and to deliver certain monthly financial statements. ER of Texas had received similar notices in previous months but always cured its failures. Indeed, ER of Texas believed it was in good standing with Defendants notwithstanding a few late payments. 5 ER of Texas proactively set out to discuss funding options with third-party lenders in early January 2024 and executed a letter of intent with Healthcare Receivables Funding, LLC (“HRF”) on January 15, 2024, with a proposed closing date of January 31, 2024. 6. On January 25, 2024, ER of Texas informed Defendants it was working on a deal that would improve its financial standing, and the subordination portion of the deal with Defendants was the only open item before funding could be secured. ER of Texas introduced HRF to Defendants on January 31, 2024, and the parties set out to negotiate an intercreditor agreement (“ICA”). ER of Texas informed Defendants that ER of Texas intended to pay its past-due rent after the deal with HRF was executed. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE2 7. Over the next three weeks, representatives from HRF and Defendants discussed atious provisions and exchanged several draft versions of the ICA. Meanwhile, however, and unbeknownst to ER of Texas or HRF, Defendants decided they would terminate the Lease Agreement. 8 ER of Texas did not pay rent in February 2024 because Defendants and HRF were still negotiating the ICA. As they had in previous months, on February 21, 2024, Defendants issued a Notice of failure to pay rent. The February 2024 notice also included a notice that ER of Texas owed real estate taxes and needed to submit a letter of credit. 9. Notwithstanding the February 2024 notice, Defendants continued discussions with HRF about the ICA. Defendants also entertained discussions with ER of Texas about ideas for the short term and long term that would solidify the relationship. Nevertheless, on February 26, 2024, ER of Texas was informed of Defendants’ decision to immediate and improper terminate the Lease Agreement. Immediately following receipt of Defendants’ inexplicable and improper Termination Notice, ER of Texas demanded that Defendants restore the Agreement, and all associated agreements, to their prior status. But Defendants have failed to respond to ER of Texas. 10. On February 28, 2024, ER of Texas was informed that one of their facilities faced immediate and irreparable harm because of Defendants’ egregious breach. Specifically, ER of Texas was informed that, unless the outstanding property tax payments were made, their business, including all of the patients seeking medical care, would be forcibly vacated and the doors locked. 11. Due to Defendants’ repeated failures and breaches of contract, ER of Texas has faced repeated threats of having their businesses shuttered, patients forced out of treatment, and has incurred substantial and irreparable harm that is sure to continue. Defendants’ breaches are also causing interference with ER of Texas’ existing and prospective business relationships, the PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE3 impact of which is felt by ER of Texas throughout the DFW area. Further, Defendants’ breaches are interfering with ER of Texas’ ability to provide medical services to Dallas residents. I. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 12. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the litigation pending final trial of the case on its merits.' The status quo is often defined as the last actual peaceable, non-contested status that preceded that controversy.” For a temporary injunction to be issued, a party must plead and prove three specific elements: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim.> ER of Texas may show a probable right of relief by alleging a cause of action and presenting evidence that tends to sustain it.4 The showing of irreparable harm requires proof that the injury is of such a nature that the injured party cannot be adequately compensated for it in damages.> A. CAUSE OF ACTION AND PROBABLE RIGHT TO RELIEF SOUGHT 13. ER of Texas has a tortious interference with prospective business relations and breach of contract cause of action against Defendants.® ER of Texas made, or is willing and able to make, its payments to Defendants under the Lease Agreement. Any alleged breach by Plaintiffs should be excused because Defendants breached the Lease Agreement first when they told ER of Texas it did not have to pay its rent and other amounts due pursuant to the Lease Agreement, negotiated with HRF in bad faith, and ultimately terminated the Lease Agreement citing unpaid ' NMTC Corp. v. Conarroe, 99 S.W.3d 865, 867 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2003, no pet.); Tex. R. Civ. P. 680; Tex. Civ. P. & Rem. Code § 65.011. ? Texas Aeronautics Commission y. Betts, 469 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tex. 1971). 3 Butnaru y. Ford Motor Co., 84 8.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). 4 T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 18, 23-24 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism’d). 5 Loye v. Travelhost, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 615, 619 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2004). ® Exhibit A. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE4 rent and other defaults. ER of Texas now faces irreparable harm by having its facilities evicted and locked down.’ All requisite factors and elements for ER of Texas’ causes of action against Defendants are present. This means there is more than a probable right to the relief sought by ER of Texas.® B NECESSITY OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14. ER of Texas seeks temporary injunctive relief pending trial to avoid irreparable loss and injury to its business, employees, and most importantly, its patients. ER of Texas seeks an injunction to ensure that ER of Texas can continue providing necessary medical care to its patients without fear that its doors will be closed due to Defendants’ inexplicable failures and breach of the Agreement. 15. Defendants’ repeated breach of the Agreement is subjecting ER of Texas to the imminent threat of having its business disrupted and its doors closed indefinitely.? Defendants’ tortious interference with prospective business relations and breach of contract is allowing ER of Texas to face this irreparable harm and business disruption in violation of ER of Texas’ rights under the Lease Agreement and Security Agreement. If injunctive relief is not granted, the damages ER of Texas will sustain would render any judgment based on ER of Texas’ tortious interference with prospective business relations and breach of contract claims ineffectual. 16. ER of Texas will suffer irreparable harm unless Defendants’ conduct complained of is enjoined. For example, an individual undergoing medical treatment could suffer inadequate or only partial medical treatment should Defendants continue their failure to pay the requisite Property taxes and have ER of Texas vacated and shuttered during treatment. Patients’ loss of ‘Id. 8 A probable right of recovery is shown by alleging a cause of action and presenting evidence tending to sustain it, all of which are included herein.® ° Id. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGES medical services cannot be compensated. Similarly, Defendants’ breaches threaten to put dozens of ER of Texas’ employees, staff, and physicians out of work with no way to provide for their families. A disruption in ER of Texas’ business would have irreversible impact as it would initiate a domino effect forcing ER of Texas to breach various contracts with its other business relationships associated with each of ER of Texas’ locations.!? Thus, should Defendants have ER of Texas’ doors closed, ER of Texas will suffer severe and irreparable harm.!! 17. ER of Texas requests the Court to issue a declaratory judgment holding that Defendants breached the Lease Agreement first, any breach of the Lease Agreement by Plaintiff is excused because of Defendants’ prior breach, and Plaintiff is in full compliance with its obligations under the Lease Agreement. ER of Texas further requests that this Court issue a temporary injunction, which will remain in force until a trial on the merits, restraining Defendants, any of their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, or any persons in active concert or participate with them who receive actual notice of the Order from: a. Terminating the Master Lease Agreement ER of Texas, LLC entered with Defendants on September 16, 2020; Evicting or vacating of ER of Texas’ from any of its locations; Locking ER of Texas’ out of any of its locations; Restrict or precluding ER of Texas from accessing its locations; and Preventing ER of Texas from providing medical services at any of its locations. 18 Further, ER of Texas requests that this Court set a date for a final trial on the merits. 10 4 legal remedy is inadequate if the award of damages may come too late. GTE Mobilnet of South Tex. Ltd. Partnership v. Cellular Max, Inc., 123 S.W.3d 801, 804 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2003, pet dism’d). ™ Tex. Civ. P. & Rem. Code § 65.011(5). PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE 6 Ii. NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 19. This application for temporary injunction is set for hearing in-person on Thursday, April 18, 2024, at 8:00 a.m., before the Honorable Dale Tillery, in the 134" Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. PRAYER ER of Texas, LLC respectfully asks for any relief to which ER of Texas may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James M. Stanton JAMES M. STANTON Texas Bar No. 24037542 jms@stantonllp.com STANTON LLP 6125 Luther Lane #250 Dallas, TX 75225 T: 972-233-2301 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF ER OF TEXAS, LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the forgoing Plaintiff's First Amended Application for Temporary Injunction was served in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to all counsel of record on April 15, 2024. /s/ James M. Stanton JAMES M. STANTON PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE7 Exhibit A CAUSE NO. DC-24-03218 ER OF TEXAS, LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, v. 134" JUDICIAL DISTRICT MPT OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE FCER, LLC, MPT OF LITTLE ELM FCER, LLC, and MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST, INC., Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION Plaintiff, ER of Texas, LLC, (“ER of Texas”) files this First Amended Petition against MPT of Highland Village FCER, LLC, MPT of Little Elm FCER, LLC, and Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”), and alleges as follows: I DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1 ER of Texas seeks monetary relief exceeding $1,000,000 and non-monetary relief under TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 47. ER of Texas requests that this Court order discovery for this matter to be conducted under Level 3 of TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 190.4. Il. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff ER of Texas, LLC is a Texas limited liability company having its principal office at 7700 Windrose Avenue, Plano, Texas 75024. 3 Defendant MPT of Highland Village FCER, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company having its principal office at 1000 Urban Center Drive, Suite 501, Birmingham, Alabama 35242. Defendant has made an appearance in this lawsuit. 4 Defendant MPT of Little Elm FCER, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company having its principal office at 1000 Urban Center Drive, Suite 501, Birmingham, Alabama 35242. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 1 Defendant has made an appearance in this lawsuit. > Defendant Medical Properties Trust, Inc. is a Delaware Limited Liability Company having its principal office at 1000 Urban Center Drive, Suite 501, Birmingham, Alabama 35242. Defendant has made an appearance in this lawsuit. Ii. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6 The Court has jurisdiction over this case and the parties because the relief sought is within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants under choice of venue provision in the Agreement fully described herein. 7 Venue is proper in Dallas County under TEXAS. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Dallas County. IV. Facts 8 ER of Texas provides full-service emergency rooms at various state of the art facilities throughout the DFW area. These emergency rooms are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days year—including weekends and holidays. Each ER of Texas facility is staffed with Board Certified Physicians capable of treating anything from the flu to skull fractures and severe trauma injuries. On any given day, ER of Texas treats hundreds of DFW residents. A. THE CONTRACTS 9 On September 16, 2020, Defendants and ER of Texas executed the Master Lease Agreement (“Lease Agreement”). Under the Lease Agreement, ER of Texas agreed to make payments to Defendants for rent and, among other things, to pay property taxes for two of ER of Texas’ facilities. 10. In conjunction with the Lease Agreement, Defendants and ER of Texas executed a PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE2 Security Agreement (“Security Agreement”). Under the Security Agreement, if ER of Texas obtains a bona fide commitment for accounts receivable financing from a third-party lender, with such financing secured by a lien on ER of Texas’ accounts, then ER of Texas shall give Defendants written notice thereof. Furthermore, if Defendants can enter into an intercreditor agreement with such third-party lender in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Defendants and Defendants retain a second priority lien in ER of Texas’ accounts, then Defendants will subordinate their first priority security interest in ER of Texas’ accounts to such third-party lender and amend the Security Agreement accordingly. B DEFENDANTS’ BREACH 11. ER of Texas and Defendants were aware of outstanding payments due pursuant to the Lease Agreement. On January 19, 2024, Defendants provided notice to ER of Texas about its failure to pay rent and to deliver certain monthly financial statements. ER of Texas had received similar notices in previous months but always cured its failures. Indeed, ER of Texas believed it was in good standing with Defendants notwithstanding a few late payments. 12. ER of Texas proactively set out to discuss funding options with third-party lenders in early January 2024 and executed a letter of intent with Healthcare Receivables Funding, LLC (“HRF”) on January 15, 2024, with a proposed closing date of January 31, 2024. 13. On January 25, 2024, ER of Texas informed Defendants it was working on a deal that would improve its financial standing, and the subordination portion of the deal with Defendants was the only open item before funding could be secured. ER of Texas introduced HRF to Defendants on January 31, 2024, and the parties set out to negotiate an intercreditor agreement (“ICA”). ER of Texas informed Defendants that ER of Texas intended to pay its past-due rent after the deal with HRF was executed. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE3 14. Over the next three weeks, representatives from HRF and Defendants discussed various provisions and exchanged several draft versions of the ICA. Meanwhile, however, and unbeknownst to ER of Texas or HRF, Defendants decided they would terminate the Lease Agreement. 15. ER of Texas did not pay rent in February 2024 because Defendants and HRF were still negotiating the ICA. As they had in previous months, on February 21, 2024, Defendants issued a Notice of failure to pay rent. The February 2024 notice also included a notice that ER of Texas owed real estate taxes and needed to submit a letter of credit. 16. Notwithstanding the February 2024 notice, Defendants continued discussions with HRF about the ICA. Defendants also entertained discussions with ER of Texas about ideas for the short term and long term that would solidify the relationship. Nevertheless, on February 26, 2024, ER of Texas was informed of Defendants’ decision to immediate and improper terminate the Lease Agreement. Immediately following receipt of Defendants’ inexplicable and improper Termination Notice, ER of Texas demanded that Defendants restore the Agreement, and all associated agreements, to their prior status. But Defendants have failed to respond to ER of Texas. 17. On February 28, 2024, ER of Texas was informed that one of their facilities faced immediate and irreparable harm because of Defendants’ egregious breach. Specifically, ER of Texas was informed that, unless the outstanding property tax payments were made, their business, including all of the patients seeking medical care, would be forcibly vacated and the doors locked. 18. Due to Defendants’ repeated failures and breaches of contract, ER of Texas has faced repeated threats of having their businesses shuttered, patients forced out of treatment, and has incurred substantial and irreparable harm that is sure to continue. Defendants’ breaches are also causing interference with ER of Texas’ existing and prospective business relationships, the PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE4 impact of which is felt by ER of Texas throughout the DFW area. Further, Defendants’ breaches are interfering with ER of Texas’ ability to provide medical services to Dallas residents. Vv. CAUSES OF ACTION A. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS 19. ER of Texas hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 20. There was a reasonable probability that ER of Texas would have entered into a business relationship with a third-party, HRF, as evidenced by the January 15, 2024, letter of intent and the extensive communications among and between the parties during January and February 2024. 21. The Defendants intentionally interfered with the prospective relationship when they refused to enter the ICA despite the terms of the proposed agreement being objectively reasonable. Furthermore, Defendants actions show that they never intended to enter the ICA despite leading ER of Texas and HRF to believe the opposite. The Defendants’ conduct in dealing with HRF was independently tortious and amounted to fraud. As a result of the Defendants fraudulent actions, ER of Texas’ deal with HRF was scuttled, thereby preventing ER of Texas from securing funding the Defendants knew ER of Texas intended to use to pay its obligations under the Lease Agreement. ER of Texas suffered actual damage or loss when Defendants terminated the Lease Agreement. B REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 22s ER of Texas hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 23. A party to a contract whose rights are affected by a contract may have determined PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGES any question of construction or validity arising under the contract and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder. § 37.004 TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE. 24. ER of Texas seeks a declaratory judgment asking the Court to make a finding that Defendants breached the Lease Agreement first, any breach of the Lease Agreement by Plaintiff is excused because of Defendants’ prior breach, and Plaintiff is in full compliance with its obligations under the Lease Agreement. Cc. BREACH OF CONTRACT 25. ER of Texas hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 26. The Lease Agreement and Security Agreement are valid, enforceable contracts and ER of Texas performed its contractual obligations under the contracts. Although ER of Texas owed rent and other amounts under the Lease Agreement, the Defendants informed ER of Texas to not worry about the past due amounts because the parties knew that ER of Texas intended to pay the amounts once the deal with HRF was closed. Indeed, the Defendants and HRF traded drafts of the ICA over several weeks. Instead of finalizing the ICA with HRF, the Defendants purposely stalled the process, misrepresented its intentions, sent ER of Texas another notice of default, and then terminated the Lease Agreement. The Defendants breached the contracts by failing to enter the ICA it was negotiating with HRF when commercially reasonable terms for the ICA were presented. Any alleged breach of the Lease Agreement by ER of Texas should be excused based on the Defendants bad acts and prior breach. Die The Defendants’ breach caused ER of Texas injury when Defendants used ER of Texas’ lack of funding to terminate the Lease Agreement on February 26, 2024. 28. Defendants sudden rug pull interferes with ER of Texas’ existing and prospective PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 6 business relationships and is impacting ER of Texas’ ability to provide necessary medical care to Dallas residents. 29. Defendants’ breaches have damaged ER of Texas in an amount that ER of Texas cannot reasonably calculate the dollar value of at this time but exceeding $1,000,000. Vi ATTORNEYS’ FEES 30. ER of Texas is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and expenses under Chapters 37 and 38 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE. VIL. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT aie All conditions precedent to recovery for the claims asserted herein have occurred. PRAYER ER of Texas respectfully requests the Court to declare that Defendants breached the Lease Agreement first, any breach of the Lease Agreement by Plaintiff is excused because of Defendants’ prior breach, and Plaintiff is in full compliance with its obligations under the Lease Agreement. ER of Texas further requests that it be granted judgment against Defendants for any and all damages, of any type, in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, pre and post judgment interest as allowed by law, and all attorney’s fees and costs of court. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James M. Stanton JAMES M. STANTON Texas Bar No. 24037542 jms@stantonllp.com STANTON LLP 6125 Luther Lane #250 Dallas, TX 75225 T: 972-233-2301 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF ER OF TEXAS, LLC PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the forgoing Plaintiff's First Amended Petition was served in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to counsel of record on April 15, 2024. /s/ James M. Stanton JAMES M. STANTON PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGES 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. James Stanton on behalf of James Stanton Bar No. 24037542 jms@stantonllp.com Envelope ID: 86686862 Filing Code Description: Miscellanous Event Filing Description: 1ST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Status as of 4/16/2024 10:36 AM CST Associated Case Party: ER OF TEXAS, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status James M.Stanton jms@stantonllp.com | 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM | SENT Kinsey Lakey kdl@stantonllp.com | 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM | SENT Associated Case Party: MPT OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE FCER, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Kenneth CStone kstone@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT Kathy Calvert kcalvert@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT Trevor C. Lawhorn tlawhorn@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT D. ScottFunk sfunk@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT Leigh Malinowski Imalinowski@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT Russell EJumper rjumper@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT Christi Lillie clillie@grayreed.com 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org | 4/15/2024 9:17:45 PM | SENT