Preview
NO.
TACO VELOZ, LLC EL TRI IN THE DISTRICT COURT
MEXICAN RESTAURANT AND
SPORT BAR
Plaintiff,
V. _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CINTAS CORPORATION
Defendant. OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COME Taco Veloz, LLC and El Tri Mexican Restaurant and Sport Bar, hereinafter
called Plaintiff , complaining of and about Cintas Corporation, hereinafter called Defendant, and
for cause of action shows unto the Court the following:
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL
Plaintiffintend that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 2.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
Plaintiff, Taco Veloz, LLC (“Taco Veloz”), is a Limited Liability Company whose address
is 310 S. Frazier Street, Conroe, Texas 77301.
Plaintiff, El Tri Mexican Restaurant and Sport Bar (“El Tri”) in unincorporated business
whose address is 2017 N. Frazier Street, Conroe, Texas 77301.
Defendant Cintas Corporation (“Cintas , a Nonresident Corporation, may be served
pursuant to sections 5.201 and 5.255 of the Texas Business Organizations Code by serving the
registered agent of the corporation, Corporation Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620,
Austin Texas 78710, its registered office. Service of said Defendant as described above can be
Page of
effected by personal delivery.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court.
Plaintiff seek mone tary relief under $250,000.00 and monetary relief.
This court has jurisdiction over Defendant Cintas Corporation, because said Defendant
purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state of Texas and
established minimum contacts sufficient to confer jurisdiction over said Defendant, and the
assumption of jurisdiction over Cintas Corporation will not offend traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice and is consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process.
Plaintiff would show that Defendant Cintas Corporation had continuous and systematic
contacts with the state of Texas sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over said Defendant.
Venue in Montgomery County is proper in this cause under Section 15.035(b) of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code because this action involves a contractual obligation in
connection with a consumer transaction and Cintas Corporation, Defendant herein, signed the
contract in this county.
FACTS
On or about November 4, 2022, a representative of Cintas Christian Rubio (“Rubio”),
visited the location of Taco Veloz and spoke with owner, Nancy Villanueva (“Villanueva”) Rubio
presented to Villanueva a plan for Cintas to provide services to Taco Veloz and El Tri for a trial
periodand asked Villanueva to sign the front page of each of what Rubio termed receiptto Taco
Veloz and El Tri for a trial of the services, which included an order for he minimum number of
products. Villanueva was not shown the back of the receipt. Villanueva did not receive a copy of
the receipt from Rubio, despite repeated requests.
Page of
On or about November 11, 2022, Villanueva informed Cintas that Taco Veloz and El Tri
would not continue the services with Cintas
A representative of Cintas informed Villanueva that Cintas would not discontinue the
services because Villanueva had signed a contract.
Villanueva called the corporate office for Cintas to try to resolve the matter and was given
copies of the receipt and informed that Rubio had been in training with Cintas and was no longer
employed with them.
Cintas received notice of Taco Veloz and El Tri’s claims for violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Fraud, and cancellation of what Cintas termed a contract
CLAIM FOR DTPA VIOLATIONS
Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all facts and circumstances set forth under the
foregoing paragraphs.
Plaintiffs would show that Defendant engaged in certain false, misleading and deceptive
acts, practices and/or omissions actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer
Protection Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 17.46, et seq.), as alleged herein
below.
Violations of Section 17.46(b)(2). Defendant violated Section 17.46(b)(2) of the Texas
Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendants caused confusion or misunderstanding as to the
source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.
Violations of Section 17.46(b)(5). Defendant violated Section 17.46(b)(5) of the Texas
Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendant represented that goods or services have
sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not
hav
Page of
Violations of Section 17.46(b)(9). Defendant violated Section 17.46(b)(9) of the Texas
Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendant advertised goods or services with intent not to
sell as advertised.
Violations of Section 17.46(b)(24). Defendant violated Section 17.46(b)(24) of the Texas
Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendants failed to disclose information concerning goods
or services which was known at the time of the transaction and such failure to disclose such
information was intended to induce Plaintiffs into a transaction into which Plaintiffs would not
have entered had the information been disclosed.
Violations of Section 17.45(5). Furthermore, and/or alternatively, Defendant engaged in
an "unconscionable action or course of action" to the detriment of Plaintiffs as that term is defined
by Section 17.45(5) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, when said Defendant took
advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of Plaintiffs to a grossly unfair
degree to induce Plaintiffs to contract for the installation.
Producing Cause. Plaintiffs would show that the acts, practices and/or omissions
complained of were the producing cause of Plaintiffs’ damages, more fully described hereinbelow.
The intentional and knowingly misrepresentation was a substantial factor in bringing about the
damages, because, without such intentional and knowingly misrepresentation, the costs would not
have occurred because Plaintiffs would not have contracted with Defendant.
Reliance. Plaintiffs would further show the acts, practices and/or omissions complained of
under Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code were relied upon by Plaintiffs
to Plaintiffs’ detriment. Plaintiffs relied on Defendant representation, that to their detriment,
resulted in considerable cost and expense.
Written Notice Given. Plaintiff have timely notified Defendant of such complaint
Page of
pursuant to Section 17.505(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code by letter dated August
9, 2023 and would show compliance with all conditions precedent to the filing of this suit and
recovery of additional damages and attorney's fees.
CLAIM FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
Plaintiff incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if the same were fully
set forth herein.
Plaintiff would show that Defendant engaged in fraudulent inducement. A fraudulent
inducement claim requires proof that: (1) the defendant made a material misrepresentation; (2) the
defendant knew at the time that the representation was false or lacked knowledge of its truth; (3)
the defendant intended that the plaintiff should rely or act on the misrepresentation; (4) the plaintiff
relied on the misrepresentation; and (5) the plaintiff's reliance on the misrepresentation caused
injury. International Business Machines Corporation v. Lufkin Industries, LLC, 573 S.W.3d 224
(Tex. 2019).
Plaintiff assert that Defendant made materially false representations to Plaintiff with the
knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of the truth with the intention that such
representations be acted upon by Plaintiff , and that Plaintiff relied on these representations to
theirdetriment.
Plaintiff would further show that Defendant concealed or failed to disclose material facts
within the knowledge of Defendant, that Defendant knew that Plaintiff did not have knowledge
of the same and did not have equal opportunity to discover the truth, and that Defendant intended
to induce Plaintiff to enter into the transaction made the basis of this suit by such concealment or
failure to disclose.
As a proximate result of such fraud, Plaintiff sustained the damages described more fully
Page of
hereinbelow.
APPLICATION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if the same were fully
set forth herein.
Plaintiffs are entities whose legal rights and other legal relations are affected by the alleged
contract. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann § 37.004(a). The Court may declare rights, status,
and legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claims, and before or after breach of
contract. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann § 37.004(a) and (b).
Plaintiffs petition this Court for a declaration pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act,
Chapter 374 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code that the alleged Contract between Plaintiffs
and Defendant is null and void.
DAMAGES
As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, Plaintiff
erecaused to incur the following damages: pocket expenses.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Plaintiff are entitled to recover exemplary damages from Defendant for wrongful and
malicious conduct which Plaintiff plead in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional
limits of this Court.
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred by or
on behalf of Plaintiff herein, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just, as
provided by Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Section 17.50(d) of
Page of
the Texas Business and Commerce Code and the Note.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff , Taco Veloz, LLC and El Tri
Restaurant and Sport Bar, respectfully pray that the Defendant be cited to appear and answer
herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs against
Defendant for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court; together with
pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; post judgment interest at the legal rate,
costs of court; and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in
equity.
Respectfully submitted,
AN IGUEL TTORNEYS P.C.
Alan Ray San Miguel
Texas Bar No. 24072323
Grant McEwen
Texas Bar No. 24062880
Email: service@sanmiguel.law
25211 Grogans Mill Road, Suite 110
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
Tel: (713) 795-5299
Fax: (713) 554-0611
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Taco Veloz, LLC and
El Tri Mexican Restaurant and Sport Bar
Page of
Preview
NO. TACO VELOZ, LLC EL TRI IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEXICAN RESTAURANT AND SPORT BAR Plaintiff, V. _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT CINTAS CORPORATION Defendant. OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Taco Veloz, LLC and El Tri Mexican Restaurant and Sport Bar, hereinafter called Plaintiff , complaining of and about Cintas Corporation, hereinafter called Defendant, and for cause of action shows unto the Court the following: DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL Plaintiffintend that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 2. PARTIES AND SERVICE Plaintiff, Taco Veloz, LLC (“Taco Veloz”), is a Limited Liability Company whose address is 310 S. Frazier Street, Conroe, Texas 77301. Plaintiff, El Tri Mexican Restaurant and Sport Bar (“El Tri”) in unincorporated business whose address is 2017 N. Frazier Street, Conroe, Texas 77301. Defendant Cintas Corporation (“Cintas , a Nonresident Corporation, may be served pursuant to sections 5.201 and 5.255 of the Texas Business Organizations Code by serving the registered agent of the corporation, Corporation Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin Texas 78710, its registered office. Service of said Defendant as described above can be Page of effected by personal delivery. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court. Plaintiff seek mone tary relief under $250,000.00 and monetary relief. This court has jurisdiction over Defendant Cintas Corporation, because said Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state of Texas and established minimum contacts sufficient to confer jurisdiction over said Defendant, and the assumption of jurisdiction over Cintas Corporation will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and is consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process. Plaintiff would show that Defendant Cintas Corporation had continuous and systematic contacts with the state of Texas sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over said Defendant. Venue in Montgomery County is proper in this cause under Section 15.035(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because this action involves a contractual obligation in connection with a consumer transaction and Cintas Corporation, Defendant herein, signed the contract in this county. FACTS On or about November 4, 2022, a representative of Cintas Christian Rubio (“Rubio”), visited the location of Taco Veloz and spoke with owner, Nancy Villanueva (“Villanueva”) Rubio presented to Villanueva a plan for Cintas to provide services to Taco Veloz and El Tri for a trial periodand asked Villanueva to sign the front page of each of what Rubio termed receiptto Taco Veloz and El Tri for a trial of the services, which included an order for he minimum number of products. Villanueva was not shown the back of the receipt. Villanueva did not receive a copy of the receipt from Rubio, despite repeated requests. Page of On or about November 11, 2022, Villanueva informed Cintas that Taco Veloz and El Tri would not continue the services with Cintas A representative of Cintas informed Villanueva that Cintas would not discontinue the services because Villanueva had signed a contract. Villanueva called the corporate office for Cintas to try to resolve the matter and was given copies of the receipt and informed that Rubio had been in training with Cintas and was no longer employed with them. Cintas received notice of Taco Veloz and El Tri’s claims for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Fraud, and cancellation of what Cintas termed a contract CLAIM FOR DTPA VIOLATIONS Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all facts and circumstances set forth under the foregoing paragraphs. Plaintiffs would show that Defendant engaged in certain false, misleading and deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 17.46, et seq.), as alleged herein below. Violations of Section 17.46(b)(2). Defendant violated Section 17.46(b)(2) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendants caused confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services. Violations of Section 17.46(b)(5). Defendant violated Section 17.46(b)(5) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendant represented that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not hav Page of Violations of Section 17.46(b)(9). Defendant violated Section 17.46(b)(9) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendant advertised goods or services with intent not to sell as advertised. Violations of Section 17.46(b)(24). Defendant violated Section 17.46(b)(24) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, in that Defendants failed to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction and such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce Plaintiffs into a transaction into which Plaintiffs would not have entered had the information been disclosed. Violations of Section 17.45(5). Furthermore, and/or alternatively, Defendant engaged in an "unconscionable action or course of action" to the detriment of Plaintiffs as that term is defined by Section 17.45(5) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, when said Defendant took advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of Plaintiffs to a grossly unfair degree to induce Plaintiffs to contract for the installation. Producing Cause. Plaintiffs would show that the acts, practices and/or omissions complained of were the producing cause of Plaintiffs’ damages, more fully described hereinbelow. The intentional and knowingly misrepresentation was a substantial factor in bringing about the damages, because, without such intentional and knowingly misrepresentation, the costs would not have occurred because Plaintiffs would not have contracted with Defendant. Reliance. Plaintiffs would further show the acts, practices and/or omissions complained of under Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code were relied upon by Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs’ detriment. Plaintiffs relied on Defendant representation, that to their detriment, resulted in considerable cost and expense. Written Notice Given. Plaintiff have timely notified Defendant of such complaint Page of pursuant to Section 17.505(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code by letter dated August 9, 2023 and would show compliance with all conditions precedent to the filing of this suit and recovery of additional damages and attorney's fees. CLAIM FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT Plaintiff incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if the same were fully set forth herein. Plaintiff would show that Defendant engaged in fraudulent inducement. A fraudulent inducement claim requires proof that: (1) the defendant made a material misrepresentation; (2) the defendant knew at the time that the representation was false or lacked knowledge of its truth; (3) the defendant intended that the plaintiff should rely or act on the misrepresentation; (4) the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation; and (5) the plaintiff's reliance on the misrepresentation caused injury. International Business Machines Corporation v. Lufkin Industries, LLC, 573 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. 2019). Plaintiff assert that Defendant made materially false representations to Plaintiff with the knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of the truth with the intention that such representations be acted upon by Plaintiff , and that Plaintiff relied on these representations to theirdetriment. Plaintiff would further show that Defendant concealed or failed to disclose material facts within the knowledge of Defendant, that Defendant knew that Plaintiff did not have knowledge of the same and did not have equal opportunity to discover the truth, and that Defendant intended to induce Plaintiff to enter into the transaction made the basis of this suit by such concealment or failure to disclose. As a proximate result of such fraud, Plaintiff sustained the damages described more fully Page of hereinbelow. APPLICATION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if the same were fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs are entities whose legal rights and other legal relations are affected by the alleged contract. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann § 37.004(a). The Court may declare rights, status, and legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claims, and before or after breach of contract. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann § 37.004(a) and (b). Plaintiffs petition this Court for a declaration pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 374 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code that the alleged Contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant is null and void. DAMAGES As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, Plaintiff erecaused to incur the following damages: pocket expenses. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES Plaintiff are entitled to recover exemplary damages from Defendant for wrongful and malicious conduct which Plaintiff plead in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court. ATTORNEY’S FEES Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff herein, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just, as provided by Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Section 17.50(d) of Page of the Texas Business and Commerce Code and the Note. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff , Taco Veloz, LLC and El Tri Restaurant and Sport Bar, respectfully pray that the Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs against Defendant for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court; together with pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; post judgment interest at the legal rate, costs of court; and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, AN IGUEL TTORNEYS P.C. Alan Ray San Miguel Texas Bar No. 24072323 Grant McEwen Texas Bar No. 24062880 Email: service@sanmiguel.law 25211 Grogans Mill Road, Suite 110 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 Tel: (713) 795-5299 Fax: (713) 554-0611 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Taco Veloz, LLC and El Tri Mexican Restaurant and Sport Bar Page of