Preview
District Clerk Harris County
Cause No. 2020-12532
MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC., a Texas corporation, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
§
§ OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§ 127 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
BASMATTIE LISA ABRAHAM, an individual, §
Defendant
COUNTERCLAIM, AND CROSS ACTION, AND MOTION TO DISMISS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER/PRELIMINARY INJUSTION
Defendant, Basmattie Abraham. (“Abraham” or “Defendant”), pro se and without counsel, files this
Answer, Affirmative defense and Counterclaim and in support state as follows:
Defendant Basmattie Abraham (“Abraham” or “Defendant”) files this Petition along with the
Application for “Motion to Dismiss” Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction due to
plaintiff irreparable harm being inflicted upon Defendant of discrimination pending “EEOC charge of
disscrimination and Right To Sue”.
Defendant believes:
1. Plaintiff claims is a spate of frivolous, retaliatory claims against Defendant.
2. Defendant deny every allegation, and asserts counterclaims against Plaintiff for plaintiff’s “crude,
improper, and disruptive conduct” while defendant was an employee, “EEOC charge of Discrimination
and Right To Sue”.
3. Not only is Plaintiff claims entirely baseless as a legal and factual matter, it is also a form of retaliation
against the Defendant that aims to intimidate Defendant from enforcing Defendant’s rights “EEOC
charge of Discrimination and Right To Sue”.
4. It is not entirely surprising that the Plaintiff filed claims because it feels defensive after Defendant
filed “EEOC charge of Discrimination and Right To Sue” and is responding by attempting to punish
Defendant a “former employee” and to deter others employees from taking similar measures with
EEOC.
5. Plaintiff claims is a desire to punish Defendant for engaging in protected activity (i.e. filing EEOC
lawsuit), and to deter others from acting similarly, is what makes it retaliation. Most employment law
statutes explicitly prohibit retaliation. See e.g. 29 U.S.C. 216(a)(3) (FLSA)2 ; 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (ADEA); 42
U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) (Title VII) 3 ; 42 U.S.C. 12203(a) (ADA).
6. Defendant seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from
reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS. See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing
Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599.
7. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to
add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. See F.R.C.P. 7(a) (Reply); United Magazine Co. v. Murdoch
Magazines Distribution, Inc., 2003 WL 223462 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (allowing for inclusion of additional claim
in reply under F.R.C.P. 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard). Footnotes: 2. The FLSA anti-retaliation
provision states: “It shall be unlawful for any person—(3) to discharge or in any other manner
discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or
caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to
testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.” 29 U.S.C. §
215(a). 3 Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision states: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment … because he has
opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has
made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or
hearing under subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a).
8. Defendant Request for “motion of Dismissal” of Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction
because plaintiff did not an cannot prove irreparable harm. Defendant seek to add that Plaintiff alleged
claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding
activities to IRS. See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599.
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
1. Defendant intends to conduct discovery under a Level 3 discovery control plan as provided by Rule
190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. This counterclaim is not governed by the expedited-actions
process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because Defendant counter and seeks monetary relief over
$100,000.00 and injunctive relief. See TRCP 169(a) (limiting expedited-actions process to claims seeking
monetary relief only); see also TRCP 190, cmt. 2 (Level 1 discovery control plan apply to counterclaim
and dismissal for injunctive relief). Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against
Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to
add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal
revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No,
1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal
agencies.
2. Defendant seeks monetary relief over $200,000, but not over $1,000,000, excluding court costs, pre-
and post-judgment interest, loss wage, and if any attorney fees. The damages sought are within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court. Defendant also seeks injunctive relief. Additionally, defendant seeks all
other relief, both general and specific, legal and equitable, to which defendant may be justly entitled.
Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is
simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim.
Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from
reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc.
Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to
respective Federal agencies.
II. INTRODUCTION
3. This action arises from Plaintiff’s breach of Severance and Separation contract and threats defendant
of Defendant character disparagement and threats to block defendant from seeking employment and
making disparaging and defamatory statements of defendant in direct violation of plaintiff’s contractual
obligations and Texas law. All of plaintiff’s unlawful acts have cost the defendant thousands of dollars in
damages, loss wages and is a direct threat to irreparably harm the defendant career, its relationship
with its business partners, and its reputation in the marketplace. Defendant believes that plaintiff
reasoning for filing lawsuit and temporary injunction against defendant is because Defendant filed
‘EEOC” Claim charge of Sexual Harassment, Physical Harassment, Racial Discrimination, Workplace
Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender Discrimination and plaintiff is claims is simply a retaliation
tactic against Defendant. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant
and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that
Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and
withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599
and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
4. Defendant previously worked for the Company. Defendant was terminated by Plaintiff and plaintiff
requested Defendant to signed Severance and Separation contract, and in July 2019 executed the
Confidential Separation and Consulting Agreement and General Release (“Separation Agreement”), The
Separation Agreement was given due to employment termination. It provided that Defendant would
receive $82,000 over a period of six months in exchange for Defendant’s equity ownership release of
“Amores” and “command Brands” and six months of consultation pay to transition position. Defendant
was told that the termination general release was a normal process of employees terminated and that
Defendant need to sign the Separation Agreement in order to be paid for equity ownership and
maintain a consultant agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded that Defendant signed separation
contract by sending 2 of its male employees 1. Bryan McGehee and 2. Simon Arce with a gun to
defendant home on July 23 as an attempt to force Defendant to sign and enter into agreement.
Defendant believes that plaintiff reasoning for filing suit and temporary injunction against defendant is
that Defendant filed ‘EEOC” Claim against plaintiff and Plaintiff is now Retaliation due to Defendants
charge of Sexual Harassment, Physical Harassment, Racial Discrimination, Workplace Harassment,
Wrongful Termination, Gender Discrimination. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
6. Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation, the plaintiff disparaged Defendant work ethics and
defamed defendant’s character to Defendant’s main source for job placement. Defendant believes that
plaintiff reasoning for filing suit and temporary injunction against defendant is that Defendant filed
‘EEOC” Claim against plaintiff for Employment Retaliation due to charge of Sexual Harassment, Physical
Harassment, Racial Discrimination, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender
Discrimination. Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant believes that plaintiff reasoning
for filing suit and temporary injunction against defendant is that Defendant filed ‘EEOC” Claim against
plaintiff for Employment Retaliation due to charge of Sexual Harassment, Physical Harassment, Racial
Discrimination, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender Discrimination. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and
Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff
alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding
activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to
prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
III. PARTIES
7. Defendant Basmattie Lisa Abraham. is a former employee of Plaintiff who resides at 1634 Lake
Charlotte Lane, Richmond, Texas 77406. Defendant denies the plaintiff alternatively address as
defendant does not resides at 46 Norfolk Dr. E., Elmont, New York, 11003.
8. Plaintiff is a Texas corporation headquartered at 1807 Brittmoore Road, Houston, Texas 77043.
WITNESSES TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF FRIVOLOUS AND RETALIATION LAWSUIT AND TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION RELIEF
1. EVIDENCE – BKD COMPANY INTERNATL AUDITOR - 2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1500
> Houston, Texas 77056
> 281.501.4886 Direct
> 713.499.4699 Fax
> 40408 Internal Extension
2. KAREN CUEVA, Company Employee –Witness to be called to prove misconduct by employer resulting
Employment Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender
3. Kathy Collins - Proof of force termination and force resignation before the agreement date
07/25/2019
4 AMIKO GONZALEZ, Company Employee - Witness to be called to prove misconduct by employer
resulting Employment Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful
Termination, Gender Discrimination.
4. JAMIE BELCASTRO - Belmora LLC v. Midway Importing, Inc., No. 1:2018cv00599 - Document 19 (E.D.
Va. 2018) – Proving corporate revenue fraud
5. Elaine Priesman, Account Manager at Donovan & Watkins
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the
amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Defendant presently seeks
monetary relief over $200,000, but not more than $1,000,000. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(5). This Court also
has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 65.021 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, as plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
10. Personal Jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant either because Defendant
resides in Texas, or the Court has personal jurisdiction over plaintiff because it has purposefully availed
itself of the privileges and benefits of conducting business in this state, as defined in Section 17.042(2)
and/or (1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Separation
Agreement, Plaintiff submitted to the “exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Harris
County, Texas.”
11. Venue. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to “TCPR” Section 15.002 (1)-(3) as all or a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Harris County. Further, pursuant to
the Separation Agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff, and because plaintiff submitted to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the federal and state courts of Harris County for any dispute related to such
agreement. Venue in Harris County is also appropriate because actions for violation of the Texas Civil
Wiretap Act are considered invasion of privacy torts and therefore subject to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code § 15.017, which provides venue is appropriate in the county where the plaintiff resided at the time
the claim accrued. See Collins v. Collins, 904 S.W.2d 792, 804 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ
denied).
V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF COMPUTER PROTECTION STATUTE
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF ONLINE IMPERSONATION STATUTE
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF WIRETAPPING STATUTE
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF CONTRACT
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – THEFT OF PROPERTY
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – CONVERSION
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS
RELATIONSHIPS
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation
against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert
that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part
of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to
prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v.
Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting
Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies.
VII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 54, the Defendant states that all conditions precedent to each of the
Defendant’s claims have been performed with Ethical values and practices.
VIII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, the Defendant requests that Plaintiff disclose the
information and material described in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2 of this request.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant respectfully requests that upon the trial of this
cause, they have and recover all relief requested in counterclaim, including:
A. Actual damages, including, without limitation, general damages, special damages, direct
damages, and consequential damages;
B. Statutory damages;
C. Exemplary damages;
D. Dismissal of Frivolous Emergency, temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief;
E. Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and court costs;
F. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by applicable law; and
G. Any and all other relief under law or equity, general or specific, to which Defendant is
justly entitled.
Dated: April 2020
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Defendant: Basmattie Abraham, Pro Se Filer
babrahamfm@aol.com
1634 Lake Charlotte Lane, Richmond Texas 77406
Telephone: (281) 781-4495
Preview
District Clerk Harris County Cause No. 2020-12532 MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC., a Texas corporation, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § 127 JUDICIAL DISTRICT § BASMATTIE LISA ABRAHAM, an individual, § Defendant COUNTERCLAIM, AND CROSS ACTION, AND MOTION TO DISMISS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/PRELIMINARY INJUSTION Defendant, Basmattie Abraham. (“Abraham” or “Defendant”), pro se and without counsel, files this Answer, Affirmative defense and Counterclaim and in support state as follows: Defendant Basmattie Abraham (“Abraham” or “Defendant”) files this Petition along with the Application for “Motion to Dismiss” Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction due to plaintiff irreparable harm being inflicted upon Defendant of discrimination pending “EEOC charge of disscrimination and Right To Sue”. Defendant believes: 1. Plaintiff claims is a spate of frivolous, retaliatory claims against Defendant. 2. Defendant deny every allegation, and asserts counterclaims against Plaintiff for plaintiff’s “crude, improper, and disruptive conduct” while defendant was an employee, “EEOC charge of Discrimination and Right To Sue”. 3. Not only is Plaintiff claims entirely baseless as a legal and factual matter, it is also a form of retaliation against the Defendant that aims to intimidate Defendant from enforcing Defendant’s rights “EEOC charge of Discrimination and Right To Sue”. 4. It is not entirely surprising that the Plaintiff filed claims because it feels defensive after Defendant filed “EEOC charge of Discrimination and Right To Sue” and is responding by attempting to punish Defendant a “former employee” and to deter others employees from taking similar measures with EEOC. 5. Plaintiff claims is a desire to punish Defendant for engaging in protected activity (i.e. filing EEOC lawsuit), and to deter others from acting similarly, is what makes it retaliation. Most employment law statutes explicitly prohibit retaliation. See e.g. 29 U.S.C. 216(a)(3) (FLSA)2 ; 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (ADEA); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) (Title VII) 3 ; 42 U.S.C. 12203(a) (ADA). 6. Defendant seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS. See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599. 7. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. See F.R.C.P. 7(a) (Reply); United Magazine Co. v. Murdoch Magazines Distribution, Inc., 2003 WL 223462 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (allowing for inclusion of additional claim in reply under F.R.C.P. 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard). Footnotes: 2. The FLSA anti-retaliation provision states: “It shall be unlawful for any person—(3) to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.” 29 U.S.C. § 215(a). 3 Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision states: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment … because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a). 8. Defendant Request for “motion of Dismissal” of Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction because plaintiff did not an cannot prove irreparable harm. Defendant seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS. See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599. I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT 1. Defendant intends to conduct discovery under a Level 3 discovery control plan as provided by Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. This counterclaim is not governed by the expedited-actions process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because Defendant counter and seeks monetary relief over $100,000.00 and injunctive relief. See TRCP 169(a) (limiting expedited-actions process to claims seeking monetary relief only); see also TRCP 190, cmt. 2 (Level 1 discovery control plan apply to counterclaim and dismissal for injunctive relief). Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. 2. Defendant seeks monetary relief over $200,000, but not over $1,000,000, excluding court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, loss wage, and if any attorney fees. The damages sought are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Defendant also seeks injunctive relief. Additionally, defendant seeks all other relief, both general and specific, legal and equitable, to which defendant may be justly entitled. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. II. INTRODUCTION 3. This action arises from Plaintiff’s breach of Severance and Separation contract and threats defendant of Defendant character disparagement and threats to block defendant from seeking employment and making disparaging and defamatory statements of defendant in direct violation of plaintiff’s contractual obligations and Texas law. All of plaintiff’s unlawful acts have cost the defendant thousands of dollars in damages, loss wages and is a direct threat to irreparably harm the defendant career, its relationship with its business partners, and its reputation in the marketplace. Defendant believes that plaintiff reasoning for filing lawsuit and temporary injunction against defendant is because Defendant filed ‘EEOC” Claim charge of Sexual Harassment, Physical Harassment, Racial Discrimination, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender Discrimination and plaintiff is claims is simply a retaliation tactic against Defendant. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. 4. Defendant previously worked for the Company. Defendant was terminated by Plaintiff and plaintiff requested Defendant to signed Severance and Separation contract, and in July 2019 executed the Confidential Separation and Consulting Agreement and General Release (“Separation Agreement”), The Separation Agreement was given due to employment termination. It provided that Defendant would receive $82,000 over a period of six months in exchange for Defendant’s equity ownership release of “Amores” and “command Brands” and six months of consultation pay to transition position. Defendant was told that the termination general release was a normal process of employees terminated and that Defendant need to sign the Separation Agreement in order to be paid for equity ownership and maintain a consultant agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded that Defendant signed separation contract by sending 2 of its male employees 1. Bryan McGehee and 2. Simon Arce with a gun to defendant home on July 23 as an attempt to force Defendant to sign and enter into agreement. Defendant believes that plaintiff reasoning for filing suit and temporary injunction against defendant is that Defendant filed ‘EEOC” Claim against plaintiff and Plaintiff is now Retaliation due to Defendants charge of Sexual Harassment, Physical Harassment, Racial Discrimination, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender Discrimination. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. 6. Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation, the plaintiff disparaged Defendant work ethics and defamed defendant’s character to Defendant’s main source for job placement. Defendant believes that plaintiff reasoning for filing suit and temporary injunction against defendant is that Defendant filed ‘EEOC” Claim against plaintiff for Employment Retaliation due to charge of Sexual Harassment, Physical Harassment, Racial Discrimination, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender Discrimination. Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant believes that plaintiff reasoning for filing suit and temporary injunction against defendant is that Defendant filed ‘EEOC” Claim against plaintiff for Employment Retaliation due to charge of Sexual Harassment, Physical Harassment, Racial Discrimination, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender Discrimination. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. III. PARTIES 7. Defendant Basmattie Lisa Abraham. is a former employee of Plaintiff who resides at 1634 Lake Charlotte Lane, Richmond, Texas 77406. Defendant denies the plaintiff alternatively address as defendant does not resides at 46 Norfolk Dr. E., Elmont, New York, 11003. 8. Plaintiff is a Texas corporation headquartered at 1807 Brittmoore Road, Houston, Texas 77043. WITNESSES TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF FRIVOLOUS AND RETALIATION LAWSUIT AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RELIEF 1. EVIDENCE – BKD COMPANY INTERNATL AUDITOR - 2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1500 > Houston, Texas 77056 > 281.501.4886 Direct > 713.499.4699 Fax > 40408 Internal Extension 2. KAREN CUEVA, Company Employee –Witness to be called to prove misconduct by employer resulting Employment Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender 3. Kathy Collins - Proof of force termination and force resignation before the agreement date 07/25/2019 4 AMIKO GONZALEZ, Company Employee - Witness to be called to prove misconduct by employer resulting Employment Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Workplace Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Gender Discrimination. 4. JAMIE BELCASTRO - Belmora LLC v. Midway Importing, Inc., No. 1:2018cv00599 - Document 19 (E.D. Va. 2018) – Proving corporate revenue fraud 5. Elaine Priesman, Account Manager at Donovan & Watkins JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Defendant presently seeks monetary relief over $200,000, but not more than $1,000,000. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(5). This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 65.021 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. 10. Personal Jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant either because Defendant resides in Texas, or the Court has personal jurisdiction over plaintiff because it has purposefully availed itself of the privileges and benefits of conducting business in this state, as defined in Section 17.042(2) and/or (1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Separation Agreement, Plaintiff submitted to the “exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Harris County, Texas.” 11. Venue. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to “TCPR” Section 15.002 (1)-(3) as all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Harris County. Further, pursuant to the Separation Agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff, and because plaintiff submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal and state courts of Harris County for any dispute related to such agreement. Venue in Harris County is also appropriate because actions for violation of the Texas Civil Wiretap Act are considered invasion of privacy torts and therefore subject to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.017, which provides venue is appropriate in the county where the plaintiff resided at the time the claim accrued. See Collins v. Collins, 904 S.W.2d 792, 804 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied). V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. VI. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF COMPUTER PROTECTION STATUTE Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. . SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF ONLINE IMPERSONATION STATUTE Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF WIRETAPPING STATUTE Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF CONTRACT Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – THEFT OF PROPERTY Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – CONVERSION Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – EXEMPLARY DAMAGES Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Defendant deny every Plaintiff allegation. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant assert that plaintiff claim is simply retaliation against Defendant and Defendant move to add retaliation as part of this counterclaim. Defendant also seek to add that Plaintiff alleged claim is a shakedown tactic to prevent Defendant from reporting illegal revenue and withholding activities to IRS See Belmora v. Plaintiff, Midway Importing Inc. Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-599 and to prevent Defendant from reporting Illegal Immigrant Activities to respective Federal agencies. VII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 54, the Defendant states that all conditions precedent to each of the Defendant’s claims have been performed with Ethical values and practices. VIII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, the Defendant requests that Plaintiff disclose the information and material described in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2 of this request. IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant respectfully requests that upon the trial of this cause, they have and recover all relief requested in counterclaim, including: A. Actual damages, including, without limitation, general damages, special damages, direct damages, and consequential damages; B. Statutory damages; C. Exemplary damages; D. Dismissal of Frivolous Emergency, temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief; E. Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and court costs; F. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by applicable law; and G. Any and all other relief under law or equity, general or specific, to which Defendant is justly entitled. Dated: April 2020 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Defendant: Basmattie Abraham, Pro Se Filer babrahamfm@aol.com 1634 Lake Charlotte Lane, Richmond Texas 77406 Telephone: (281) 781-4495