Preview
8/5/2019 12:09 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 35689332
By: bradley darnell
Filed: 8/5/2019 12:09 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-49711
E.D. IMAGING AND SOLUTIONS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
INC. §
§
Plaintiff, § 234TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
k
v. § OF HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS
ler
§
COAST 2 COAST AUTO GROUP, §
tC
INC., COAST TO COAST §
ric
MOTORS, LLC, FONALITY, INC., §
COMCAST PHONE, LLC, §
ist
PENNINGTON AUTO GROUP, §
sD
LLC, MYRON MILLER, § REQUESTED FOR SUBMISSION (WITHOUT
CHRISTOPHER DONNELLEY, § HEARING) ON AUGUST 26, 2019 PURSUANT TO
es
AND LARRY PENNINGTON, § THIS COURT’S PROCEDURES
§
rg
Defendants. §
Bu
n
______________________________________________________________________________
ily
ar
FONALITY, INC.’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
M
AND SUPPORTING BRIEF
of
______________________________________________________________________________
e
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
ffic
O
COMES NOW Fonality, Inc. (“Fonality”) and files this Motion for No-Evidence
y
op
Summary Judgment with Supporting Brief. Defendant would respectfully show this Court the
C
following:
ial
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
fic
of
1. Plaintiff E.D. Imaging and Solutions, Inc. (“EDI”) initiated this lawsuit against
Un
Defendants Fonality, Coast to Coast Auto Group, Inc.1, Coast to Coast Motors, LLC, Comcast
Phone, LLC, Pennington Auto Group, LLC, Myron Miller, Christopher Donnelly, and Larry
1 Plaintiff alternatively refers to this Defendant as Coast 2 Coast Auto Group, Inc. and Coast to Coast Auto Group,
Inc.
Pennington on July 26, 2018 through the Original Petition (“Petition”).
2. The Petition seeks unspecified damages (including exemplary damages, specific
performance, declaratory judgment, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction) for
breaches of contract (apparently between Coast to Coast Motors, LLC and EDI), alleged
k
ler
tortious interference (presumably with the same contract), and alleged unspecified
tC
misrepresentations.
ric
3. As to Defendant Fonality, Plaintiff contends that it had an agreement with
ist
sD
Fonality to provide enterprise communications solutions and managed network services.
es
(Petition at ¶ 20). Plaintiff alleges that these contracts were to assist Plaintiff in providing IT
rg
services for Defendants “Coast to Coast Auto Group, Inc. and/or Coast to Coast Auto Motors,
Bu
LLC.” (Petition at ¶¶ 18 & 20). Plaintiff alleges that in April 25, 2018, Defendant Pennington
n
ily
Auto Group, LLC terminated the contract between Plaintiff EDI and Coast to Coast Motors,
ar
M
LLC and that this termination was wrongful. (Petition at ¶¶ 27-31.)
of
4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fonality engaged in unspecified willful, tortious
e
ffic
conduct that caused the breach of the Plaintiff’s agreement with Coast to Coast. (Petition at ¶¶
O
43-46). Plaintiff has no evidence of any such conduct, or of any breach of contract proximately
y
op
caused by such conduct, or of any damages caused by this unspecified conduct.
C
5. Moreover, the evidence will show that, pursuant to the plain language of
ial
fic
Plaintiff’s agreement with Fonality, Plaintiff was not permitted to use Fonality’s products for
of
Coast to Coast, and any such use would have been in breach of Plaintiff’s contract with
Un
Fonality:
Customer [EDI] agrees and represents that it is purchasing the Product for its own
internal use. Customer shall not sell, resell, transfer or assign, or make a charge
for the Product without the advance written permission of Fonality. (See attached
Contract with incorporated Terms of Service at ¶ 5.2)
2
112840826\V-2
Plaintiff cannot recover for engaging in conduct that was in breach of its contract with Fonality.
6. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Fonality engaged in unspecified negligent
misrepresentations. (Petition at ¶¶ 38-42). Plaintiff has no evidence of any such
misrepresentations, or of any negligence of Fonality in making these unspecified
k
ler
misrepresentations, or of any justifiable reliance by Plaintiff on such misrepresentations, or how
tC
such reliance proximately caused EDI damages.
ric
7. After taking no discovery for almost a year, just after 12 am on July 23, 2019,
ist
sD
Plaintiff serve a request for disclosure and request for documents upon all Defendants. None of
es
these documents will support Plaintiff’s claim against Fonality.
rg
8. Pursuant to this Court’s rules and procedures, Fonality brings this no evidence
Bu
motion for summary judgment, within 30 days of trial, because Plaintiff has no evidence to
n
ily
support key elements of the alleged claims against Fonality and this action should, in the
ar
M
interests of justice and judicial efficiency, be dismissed with prejudice prior to trial as to
of
Fonality.
e
ffic
II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY
O
A. No-Evidence Summary Judgment Standard
y
op
9. The proponent of a no-evidence motion for summary judgment asserts that there
C
is no evidence of one or more essential elements of claims upon which the opposing party
ial
fic
would have the burden of proof. See TEX. R. CIV. PROC. § 166a(i); McCombs v. Children’s
of
Med. Ctr. of Dallas, 1 S.W.3d 256, 258 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. denied). Unlike the
Un
movant for traditional summary judgment, a movant for no-evidence summary judgment does
not bear the burden of establishing a right to judgment by proving each claim or defense.
Holmstrom v. Lee, 26 S.W.3d 526, 530 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.). A no-evidence
motion for summary judgment must be granted if, after adequate time for discovery, the
3
112840826\V-2
respondent produces no summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on
those elements. LMB, Ltd. v. Moreno, 201 S.W.3d 686, 688 (Tex. 2006) (citing Sudan v.
Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. 2006). Stated another way, a no-evidence summary judgment
motion is properly granted if the nonmovant fails to produce more than a scintilla of probative
k
ler
evidence raising a genuine issue of fact as to an essential element of a claim on which the
tC
nonmovant would have the burden of proof at trial. See TEX. R. CIV. PROC. § 166a(i);
ric
Holmstrom, 26 S.W.3d at 530.
ist
sD
B. Discovery Statement
es
10. Plaintiff has had adequate time to take discovery in this case and develop its
rg
theories of liability. This lawsuit was filed on or about July 26, 2018, over a year ago, and trial
Bu
is set for September 23, 2019.
n
ily
11. After taking no discovery for almost a year, just after 12 am on July 23, 2019,
ar
M
Plaintiff serve a request for disclosure and request for documents upon all Defendants. None of
of
these documents will support Plaintiff’s claim against Fonality.
e
ffic
12. Pursuant to this Court’s procedures, Defendant has set this motion for
O
submission, not more than thirty days prior to trial.
y
op
13. Plaintiff has no evidence to support key elements of its claims against Fonality.
C
C. No Evidence of Any Element of Negligent Misrepresentation of Any “Fact.”
ial
fic
14. To assert a claim against Fonality for negligent misrepresentation, EDI must
of
prove that “(1) the defendant made a representation in the course of the defendant's business, or
Un
in a transaction in which the defendant had a pecuniary interest; (2) the defendant supplied
‘false information’ for the guidance of others in their business; (3) the defendant did not
exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information; and (4)
4
112840826\V-2
the plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss by justifiably relying on the representation.” Lindsey
Constr., Inc. v. AutoNation Fin. Servs., LLC, 541 S.W.3d 355, 366 (Tex. App. - Houston 2017)
(citing Federal Land Bank Ass'n of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991).)
15. Plaintiff does not have probative evidence that: (a) Fonality supplied “false
k
ler
information” to EDI; (b) Fonality failed to use reasonable care or competence in communicating
tC
this allegedly “false information”; or (c) EDI suffered a financial loss by justifiably relying
ric
upon the representation.
ist
sD
16. EDI’s only allegation of any “representation” at any time by Fonality is that,
es
upon receipt of contractually owed payments from EDI, Fonality said “thank you” to their
rg
apparent EDI contact, Defendant Myron Miller. (Petition at ¶ 23.) According to EDI, Miller
Bu
was not a management level employee with authority to bind EDI. But even if EDI could prove
n
ily
that Fonality knew Miller’s role prior to thanking him, it is unclear how Fonality “thanking”
ar
M
Miller was “false,” or how EDI relied upon this “thank you” to its detriment (when EDI
of
supposedly knew Miller was not the actual payor), or how EDI was “harmed” by Fonality
e
ffic
“thanking” an apparent agent of EDI.
O
17. Apart from this allegation, Plaintiff has not alleged any representations of any
y
op
kind (“false” or not) by Fonality. Less than 30 days before trial, Plaintiff has no probative
C
evidence that (a) Fonality supplied “false” information to EDI; (b) Fonality failed to use
ial
fic
reasonable care or competence in conveying information to EDI; (c) EDI relied upon
of
information supplied by Fonality; (c) EDI justifiably relied upon the information; and/or (d)
Un
EDI was harmed as a result of this justifiable reliance. Summary judgment should be granted to
Fonality on the claim for negligent misrepresentation.
5
112840826\V-2
D. No Evidence of Any Tortious Interference with Existing Contracts.
18. To succeed on a tortious interference with existing contracts claim a plaintiff
must prove: (1) the plaintiff had a valid contract subject to interference; (2) willful and
intentional interference by the defendant; (3) the defendant’s interference proximately caused
k
ler
the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) the plaintiff incurred actual damage or loss. See Prudential Ins.
tC
Co. of Am. v. Financial Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. 2000).
ric
19. Although Fonality has not seen such evidence, Fonality assumes EDI will be able
ist
sD
to prove it had a contract with either Coast to Coast Auto Group, Inc. or Coast to Coast Motors,
es
LLC (Plaintiff fails to specify which). However, Plaintiff has no probative evidence that: (a)
rg
Fonality willfully and intentionally interfered with that contract; or (b) Fonality’s non-existent
Bu
interference with that contract proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury; or (c) Plaintiff incurred
n
ily
actual damage or loss as a result of the termination of contract.
ar
M
20. Further, as also discussed above, the evidence will show that, pursuant to the
of
plain language of Plaintiff’s agreement with Fonality, Plaintiff was not permitted to use
e
ffic
Fonality’s products for Coast to Coast, and that any such use would have been in breach of
O
Plaintiff’s contract with Fonality:
y
op
Customer [EDI] agrees and represents that it is purchasing the Product for its own
C
internal use. Customer shall not sell, resell, transfer or assign, or make a charge
ial
for the Product without the advance written permission of Fonality. (See attached
Contract with incorporated Terms of Service at ¶ 5.2)
fic
of
Plaintiff cannot recover for engaging in conduct that was in breach of the contract.
Un
21. Because Plaintiff has no evidence to support its tortious interference with
existing contracts, summary judgment should be granted to Defendant Fonality.
III. CONCLUSION
22. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Fonality prays that
6
112840826\V-2
upon notice and submission hereof that Defendant’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted, that Plaintiff’s claims for negligent misrepresentation and tortious
interference with existing contracts be dismissed with prejudice, that Defendant Fonality, Inc.
thus be dismissed from this case with prejudice, and for all other and further relief to which
k
ler
Defendant may be justly entitled at law or in equity.
tC
Dated: August 5, 2019
ric
Respectfully Submitted,
ist
DENTONS US LLP
sD
/s/Leanna M. Anderson ________________
es
Leanna M. Anderson
State Bar No. 24085833
rg
2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1900
Bu
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 259-0900
n
Facsimile: (214) 259-0910
ily
Email: leanna.anderson@dentons.com
ar
M
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
FONALITY, INC.
of
e
ffic
yO
op
C
ial
fic
of
Un
7
112840826\V-2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on August 5, 2019, Fonality, Inc.’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary
Judgment was served by email and electronic service to all counsel of record as follows:
Lucy Nkechinyelumka “Kechi” Chukwurah
k
Durham Center
ler
5151 Katy Freeway, Suite 306
Houston, Texas 7707
tC
lucy@chukwurahlawgroup.com
ric
Zeke O. Fortenberry
ist
Fortenberry Firm PLLC
sD
17304 Preston Road, Suite 800
Dallas, TX 75252
es
zeke@fortenberryfirm.com
rg
James Phillips
Baker Hostetler Bu
811 Main Street, Suite 1100
n
Houston, TX 77002
ily
jphillips@bankerlaw.com
ar
adlewis@bakerlaw.com
M
/s/Leanna M. Anderson
of
Leanna M. Anderson
e
ffic
yO
op
C
ial
fic
of
Un
8
112840826\V-2
Preview
8/5/2019 12:09 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 35689332 By: bradley darnell Filed: 8/5/2019 12:09 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-49711 E.D. IMAGING AND SOLUTIONS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT INC. § § Plaintiff, § 234TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § k v. § OF HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS ler § COAST 2 COAST AUTO GROUP, § tC INC., COAST TO COAST § ric MOTORS, LLC, FONALITY, INC., § COMCAST PHONE, LLC, § ist PENNINGTON AUTO GROUP, § sD LLC, MYRON MILLER, § REQUESTED FOR SUBMISSION (WITHOUT CHRISTOPHER DONNELLEY, § HEARING) ON AUGUST 26, 2019 PURSUANT TO es AND LARRY PENNINGTON, § THIS COURT’S PROCEDURES § rg Defendants. § Bu n ______________________________________________________________________________ ily ar FONALITY, INC.’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT M AND SUPPORTING BRIEF of ______________________________________________________________________________ e TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: ffic O COMES NOW Fonality, Inc. (“Fonality”) and files this Motion for No-Evidence y op Summary Judgment with Supporting Brief. Defendant would respectfully show this Court the C following: ial I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND fic of 1. Plaintiff E.D. Imaging and Solutions, Inc. (“EDI”) initiated this lawsuit against Un Defendants Fonality, Coast to Coast Auto Group, Inc.1, Coast to Coast Motors, LLC, Comcast Phone, LLC, Pennington Auto Group, LLC, Myron Miller, Christopher Donnelly, and Larry 1 Plaintiff alternatively refers to this Defendant as Coast 2 Coast Auto Group, Inc. and Coast to Coast Auto Group, Inc. Pennington on July 26, 2018 through the Original Petition (“Petition”). 2. The Petition seeks unspecified damages (including exemplary damages, specific performance, declaratory judgment, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction) for breaches of contract (apparently between Coast to Coast Motors, LLC and EDI), alleged k ler tortious interference (presumably with the same contract), and alleged unspecified tC misrepresentations. ric 3. As to Defendant Fonality, Plaintiff contends that it had an agreement with ist sD Fonality to provide enterprise communications solutions and managed network services. es (Petition at ¶ 20). Plaintiff alleges that these contracts were to assist Plaintiff in providing IT rg services for Defendants “Coast to Coast Auto Group, Inc. and/or Coast to Coast Auto Motors, Bu LLC.” (Petition at ¶¶ 18 & 20). Plaintiff alleges that in April 25, 2018, Defendant Pennington n ily Auto Group, LLC terminated the contract between Plaintiff EDI and Coast to Coast Motors, ar M LLC and that this termination was wrongful. (Petition at ¶¶ 27-31.) of 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fonality engaged in unspecified willful, tortious e ffic conduct that caused the breach of the Plaintiff’s agreement with Coast to Coast. (Petition at ¶¶ O 43-46). Plaintiff has no evidence of any such conduct, or of any breach of contract proximately y op caused by such conduct, or of any damages caused by this unspecified conduct. C 5. Moreover, the evidence will show that, pursuant to the plain language of ial fic Plaintiff’s agreement with Fonality, Plaintiff was not permitted to use Fonality’s products for of Coast to Coast, and any such use would have been in breach of Plaintiff’s contract with Un Fonality: Customer [EDI] agrees and represents that it is purchasing the Product for its own internal use. Customer shall not sell, resell, transfer or assign, or make a charge for the Product without the advance written permission of Fonality. (See attached Contract with incorporated Terms of Service at ¶ 5.2) 2 112840826\V-2 Plaintiff cannot recover for engaging in conduct that was in breach of its contract with Fonality. 6. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Fonality engaged in unspecified negligent misrepresentations. (Petition at ¶¶ 38-42). Plaintiff has no evidence of any such misrepresentations, or of any negligence of Fonality in making these unspecified k ler misrepresentations, or of any justifiable reliance by Plaintiff on such misrepresentations, or how tC such reliance proximately caused EDI damages. ric 7. After taking no discovery for almost a year, just after 12 am on July 23, 2019, ist sD Plaintiff serve a request for disclosure and request for documents upon all Defendants. None of es these documents will support Plaintiff’s claim against Fonality. rg 8. Pursuant to this Court’s rules and procedures, Fonality brings this no evidence Bu motion for summary judgment, within 30 days of trial, because Plaintiff has no evidence to n ily support key elements of the alleged claims against Fonality and this action should, in the ar M interests of justice and judicial efficiency, be dismissed with prejudice prior to trial as to of Fonality. e ffic II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY O A. No-Evidence Summary Judgment Standard y op 9. The proponent of a no-evidence motion for summary judgment asserts that there C is no evidence of one or more essential elements of claims upon which the opposing party ial fic would have the burden of proof. See TEX. R. CIV. PROC. § 166a(i); McCombs v. Children’s of Med. Ctr. of Dallas, 1 S.W.3d 256, 258 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. denied). Unlike the Un movant for traditional summary judgment, a movant for no-evidence summary judgment does not bear the burden of establishing a right to judgment by proving each claim or defense. Holmstrom v. Lee, 26 S.W.3d 526, 530 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.). A no-evidence motion for summary judgment must be granted if, after adequate time for discovery, the 3 112840826\V-2 respondent produces no summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on those elements. LMB, Ltd. v. Moreno, 201 S.W.3d 686, 688 (Tex. 2006) (citing Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. 2006). Stated another way, a no-evidence summary judgment motion is properly granted if the nonmovant fails to produce more than a scintilla of probative k ler evidence raising a genuine issue of fact as to an essential element of a claim on which the tC nonmovant would have the burden of proof at trial. See TEX. R. CIV. PROC. § 166a(i); ric Holmstrom, 26 S.W.3d at 530. ist sD B. Discovery Statement es 10. Plaintiff has had adequate time to take discovery in this case and develop its rg theories of liability. This lawsuit was filed on or about July 26, 2018, over a year ago, and trial Bu is set for September 23, 2019. n ily 11. After taking no discovery for almost a year, just after 12 am on July 23, 2019, ar M Plaintiff serve a request for disclosure and request for documents upon all Defendants. None of of these documents will support Plaintiff’s claim against Fonality. e ffic 12. Pursuant to this Court’s procedures, Defendant has set this motion for O submission, not more than thirty days prior to trial. y op 13. Plaintiff has no evidence to support key elements of its claims against Fonality. C C. No Evidence of Any Element of Negligent Misrepresentation of Any “Fact.” ial fic 14. To assert a claim against Fonality for negligent misrepresentation, EDI must of prove that “(1) the defendant made a representation in the course of the defendant's business, or Un in a transaction in which the defendant had a pecuniary interest; (2) the defendant supplied ‘false information’ for the guidance of others in their business; (3) the defendant did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information; and (4) 4 112840826\V-2 the plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss by justifiably relying on the representation.” Lindsey Constr., Inc. v. AutoNation Fin. Servs., LLC, 541 S.W.3d 355, 366 (Tex. App. - Houston 2017) (citing Federal Land Bank Ass'n of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991).) 15. Plaintiff does not have probative evidence that: (a) Fonality supplied “false k ler information” to EDI; (b) Fonality failed to use reasonable care or competence in communicating tC this allegedly “false information”; or (c) EDI suffered a financial loss by justifiably relying ric upon the representation. ist sD 16. EDI’s only allegation of any “representation” at any time by Fonality is that, es upon receipt of contractually owed payments from EDI, Fonality said “thank you” to their rg apparent EDI contact, Defendant Myron Miller. (Petition at ¶ 23.) According to EDI, Miller Bu was not a management level employee with authority to bind EDI. But even if EDI could prove n ily that Fonality knew Miller’s role prior to thanking him, it is unclear how Fonality “thanking” ar M Miller was “false,” or how EDI relied upon this “thank you” to its detriment (when EDI of supposedly knew Miller was not the actual payor), or how EDI was “harmed” by Fonality e ffic “thanking” an apparent agent of EDI. O 17. Apart from this allegation, Plaintiff has not alleged any representations of any y op kind (“false” or not) by Fonality. Less than 30 days before trial, Plaintiff has no probative C evidence that (a) Fonality supplied “false” information to EDI; (b) Fonality failed to use ial fic reasonable care or competence in conveying information to EDI; (c) EDI relied upon of information supplied by Fonality; (c) EDI justifiably relied upon the information; and/or (d) Un EDI was harmed as a result of this justifiable reliance. Summary judgment should be granted to Fonality on the claim for negligent misrepresentation. 5 112840826\V-2 D. No Evidence of Any Tortious Interference with Existing Contracts. 18. To succeed on a tortious interference with existing contracts claim a plaintiff must prove: (1) the plaintiff had a valid contract subject to interference; (2) willful and intentional interference by the defendant; (3) the defendant’s interference proximately caused k ler the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) the plaintiff incurred actual damage or loss. See Prudential Ins. tC Co. of Am. v. Financial Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. 2000). ric 19. Although Fonality has not seen such evidence, Fonality assumes EDI will be able ist sD to prove it had a contract with either Coast to Coast Auto Group, Inc. or Coast to Coast Motors, es LLC (Plaintiff fails to specify which). However, Plaintiff has no probative evidence that: (a) rg Fonality willfully and intentionally interfered with that contract; or (b) Fonality’s non-existent Bu interference with that contract proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury; or (c) Plaintiff incurred n ily actual damage or loss as a result of the termination of contract. ar M 20. Further, as also discussed above, the evidence will show that, pursuant to the of plain language of Plaintiff’s agreement with Fonality, Plaintiff was not permitted to use e ffic Fonality’s products for Coast to Coast, and that any such use would have been in breach of O Plaintiff’s contract with Fonality: y op Customer [EDI] agrees and represents that it is purchasing the Product for its own C internal use. Customer shall not sell, resell, transfer or assign, or make a charge ial for the Product without the advance written permission of Fonality. (See attached Contract with incorporated Terms of Service at ¶ 5.2) fic of Plaintiff cannot recover for engaging in conduct that was in breach of the contract. Un 21. Because Plaintiff has no evidence to support its tortious interference with existing contracts, summary judgment should be granted to Defendant Fonality. III. CONCLUSION 22. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Fonality prays that 6 112840826\V-2 upon notice and submission hereof that Defendant’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, that Plaintiff’s claims for negligent misrepresentation and tortious interference with existing contracts be dismissed with prejudice, that Defendant Fonality, Inc. thus be dismissed from this case with prejudice, and for all other and further relief to which k ler Defendant may be justly entitled at law or in equity. tC Dated: August 5, 2019 ric Respectfully Submitted, ist DENTONS US LLP sD /s/Leanna M. Anderson ________________ es Leanna M. Anderson State Bar No. 24085833 rg 2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1900 Bu Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 259-0900 n Facsimile: (214) 259-0910 ily Email: leanna.anderson@dentons.com ar M ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FONALITY, INC. of e ffic yO op C ial fic of Un 7 112840826\V-2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on August 5, 2019, Fonality, Inc.’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment was served by email and electronic service to all counsel of record as follows: Lucy Nkechinyelumka “Kechi” Chukwurah k Durham Center ler 5151 Katy Freeway, Suite 306 Houston, Texas 7707 tC lucy@chukwurahlawgroup.com ric Zeke O. Fortenberry ist Fortenberry Firm PLLC sD 17304 Preston Road, Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75252 es zeke@fortenberryfirm.com rg James Phillips Baker Hostetler Bu 811 Main Street, Suite 1100 n Houston, TX 77002 ily jphillips@bankerlaw.com ar adlewis@bakerlaw.com M /s/Leanna M. Anderson of Leanna M. Anderson e ffic yO op C ial fic of Un 8 112840826\V-2