Legal Document: SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP vs. JENNIFER C. RUFF

On March 18, 2019 a PLTF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - MOTION - SUMMARY JUDGMENT was filed involving a dispute between Shamoun & Norman, Llp, and Ruff, Jennifer C., for CNTR CNSMR COM DEBT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
2/7/2020 6:56PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO.,TEXAS
Temieka Davis DEPUTY

CAUSE N0. DC-19-03863

SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP, IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,

v. 160th
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

JENNIFER C. RUFF,

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Shamoun & Norman, LLP CM” 0r “S&_N”), Plaintiff in the above-

styled and numbered severed cause, and ﬁles itsMotion For Summary Judgment (the “MLim’U

against Defendant Jennifer Ruff (“Defendant” 0r “Riff? In support thereof, S&N would

respectfully show this Court the following:

I. SCOPE 0F MOTION

1. Pursuant t0 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c), S&N moves for traditional summary

judgment 0n its claims for suit on sworn account and breach of contract. Herein, S&N requests

this Court t0 enter an order granting summary judgment against Ruff 0n the issues 0f liability

and damages.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

2. The “standard 0f review” for summary judgment motions is well-known and

established in Texas jurisprudence; therefore, S&N will not undertake to reproduce the

requirements herein. Sufﬁced only to say, where the Court ﬁnds that only questions of law are

presented, and n0 genuine issue 0f material fact exists, S&N is entitled t0 judgment as a matter

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 1 0F 11
0f 1aW.1 The Supreme Court 0f Texas encourages summary judgment t0 eliminate untenable

legal positions and t0 avoid the delays 0f trial where there is no genuine issue 0f fact.2

III. S&N’s SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

3. S&N intends t0 use un-ﬁled discovery products as summary judgment proof

pursuant t0 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(d). In support of this Motion, S&N relies upon the following

competent evidence:

DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE ABBREVIATION DATE EX.
Afﬁdavit of C. Gregorv Shamoun Shamoun MSJ Aff. 02/06/2020 Ex_.1

Email from Ruff t0 S&N Regarding Ruff Contact Information 7/19/ 1 8 Email 7/19/1 8 EX. l-A
(Redacted, To Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Regarding Contact
Email from Ruff t0 S&N Regarding Parties 7/19/ 1 8 Email 7/19/1 8 EX. l-B
(Redacted, T0 Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Regarding Parties
Emails from S&N to Ruff Regarding Fee Agreement and Wire 7/20/18 Email 7/20/18 EX. l-C
Instructions Regarding Fee
(Redacted, To Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Agreement/Wire
Email from Ruff t0 S&N Attaching Executed Engagement Fee Agreement 7/23/1 8 EX. 1-D
Letter/Fee Agreement
(Redacted, T0 Be Submitted For In Camera Review)
Notice of Appearance and Designation of Lead Counsel ﬁled Notice oprpearance 9/4/18 Ex. l-E
by S&N in Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit

Email from Ruff to S&N Requesting S&N to Notice 9/8/18 Email 9/8/ 1 8 EX. l-F
Depositions Regarding Depositions
(Redacted, T0 Be Submitted For In Camera Review)
Email from Ruff t0 S&N Requesting S&N t0 Add Party Email
9/ 12/ 1 8 9/12/ 18 Ex. l-G
(Redacted, To Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Regarding Adding
Party
Email from Ruff t0 S&N Regarding Instructions in Ruff V. 9/14/ 1 8 Email 9/14/1 8 EX. 1-H
Ruff Lawsuit Regarding Instructions
(Redacted, T0 Be Submitted For In Camera Review)
Email from Ruff to S&N Regarding Anti-Slapp Motion 10/1 8/1 8 Email 10/1 8/1 8 EX. 1-I
(Redacted, T0 Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Regarding Anti-Slapp
Email from Ruff t0 S&N Regarding Jury Fee 11/30/1 8 Email 11/30/1 8 EX. l-J
Regarding Jury Fee
Redacted Invoices For A11 Work Performed by S&N Invoices 8/28/18- Ex. l-K
2/25/19
S&N’s Transaction Listing Transaction Listing 3/1 1/19 EX. l-L
Emails from S&N to Ruff regarding S&N’s Withdrawal 12/3/18 Withdrawal 12/3/18 EX. 1-
(Redacted, To Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Emails M
S&N’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Ruff Ruff V. Ruff Motion to 12/3/1 8 Ex. l-N
Withdraw
Email from S&N t0 Ruff Regarding S&N’s Withdrawal 12/6/1 8 Email 12/6/1 8 EX. l-O
(Redacted, To Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Regarding Withdrawal

1
Gaines v. Hamman, 163 TeX. 618, 358 S.W.2d 557, 563 (TeX. 1962).
2
See City ofHouston v. Clearcreek Basin Auth, 589 S.W.2d 671 (TeX. 1979).

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 2 0F 11
Email from S&N to Ruff Attaching Order 12/6/1 8Email 12/6/1 8 Ex. l-P
(Redacted, To Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Attaching Order
Email from S&N t0 Ruff Attach Letter Regarding Withdrawal 12/12/1 8 Email 12/12/1 8 Ex. l-Q
(Redacted, To Be Submitted For In Camera Review) Regarding BK
Withdrawal

IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. On or about July 19, 2018, Ruff hired S&N to represent her, individually, relative

and related t0 the case styled Suzann Ruﬂ v. Tavistock Group, LLC, Michael A. Ruﬁf Jennifer

Ruﬂ and JMV Holdings, LLC, Cause N0. DC-17-17273, in the 192nd Judicial District Court,

Dallas County, Texas (the “Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit”).3

5. To memorialize the representation agreement in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit, 0n

July 23, 2018, Ruff executed and returned t0 S&N that certain hourly fee agreement dated July

20, 2018 (the “Fee Agreement”).4

6. The Fee Agreement obligated S&N t0 render legal work/services and to incur

necessary costs and expenses related t0 its representation of Ruff, and, in exchange, obligated

Ruff t0 pay S&N for such legal work/services rendered on an hourly basis and to reimburse S&N

for such costs and expenses incurred on behalf of Ruff.5

7. Shortly after S&N commenced its representation 0f Ruff in the Ruff V. Tavistock

Lawsuit, Ruff requested that S&N additionally represent her, and did so hire S&N t0 represent

her, in the prosecution 0f the case styled Jennifer Ruﬁ’v. Matthew Rujj’ and Suzann Ruﬁ’, Cause

N0. DC-18-06201, in the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas (the “Ruff V. Ruff

3
EX. 1, Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
7-8; EX. l-A, 7/19/18 Email Regarding Contact; Ex. l-B, 7/19/18 Email Regarding
Parties; EX.l-C 7/20/18 Email Regarding Fee Agreement/Wire; Ex. l-D, Fee Agreement.
4
Ex. 1, Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]9; Ex. l-A, 7/19/18 Email Regarding Contact; EX. l-B, 7/19/18 Email Regarding
Parties; EX.l-C 7/20/18 Email Regarding Fee Agreement/Wire; Ex. l-D, Fee Agreement.
5
EX. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]9;Ex. l-D, Fee Agreement.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 3 0F 11
Law_suit”).6 Ruff requested, and S&N agreed, that the terms and conditions of the representation

agreement in the Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit would be consistent with the terms and conditions 0f the

existing Fee Agreement; that is,Ruff agreed to be bound by the existing fee structure in place

pursuant to the previously executed Fee Agreement.7 During the course 0f negotiations related to

the Fee Agreement, and throughout S&N’s representation 0f Ruff in the Ruff V. Tavistock

Lawsuit and the Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit, Ruff represented t0 S&N that she intended to fulﬁll all

obligations under the Fee Agreementg

8. Relying upon Ruffs representations and written obligations, throughout the

pendency 0f S&N’s representation 0f Ruff in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and Ruff V. Ruff

Lawsuit, S&N performed its contractual obligations in accordance With the terms 0f the Fee

Agreement, including by furnishing valuable legal work/services to and for Ruff, and incurred

substantial costs and expenses 0n her behalf.9 Ruff accepted S&N’s legal services and became

bound to pay S&N for such services“)

9. Additionally, throughout its engagement, S&N provided t0 Ruff systematic and

regular periodic statements 0f account detailing the time and expenses incurred in rendering legal

services in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit (the “Invoices”).11 A11

services rendered and costs and expenses incurred by S&N on behalf of Ruff, including in both

the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit, were billed under S&N Internal Matter

Number 3436.12 The Invoices reﬂect a description 0f the legal services rendered by S&N in the

6
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
10-12; Ex. l-E, Notice 0f Appearance; Ex. l-F, 9/8/18 Email Regarding Depositions;
EX. l-G, 9/12/18 Email Regarding Adding Party; Ex. 1-H, 9/14/18 Email Regarding Instructions;EX. l-I,Email
Eegarding Anti-Slapp; Ex. l-J,11/30/18 Email Regarding Jury Fee.
Id.
8
1d.
9
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
13-14; EX. 1-D, Fee Agreement; EX. 1-K, Invoices.
1°
1d.
11
1d.
12
EX. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
13-15; EX. 1-D, Fee Agreement; EX. 1-K, Invoices; EX. 1-L, Transaction Listing.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 4 0F 11
Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit, the attorney Who rendered the services, the

hourly rates and total fees charged for such services, the reimbursable costs and expenses related

t0 the services rendered by S&N, the amounts paid by Ruff t0 S&N, and the amount outstanding,

due and owing from Ruff to S&N.13 S&N charged the fees and expenses pursuant t0 the terms 0f

the Fee Agreement.” The amount 0f attorney’s fees incurred by Ruff for legal services rendered

by S&N and for costs and expenses incurred by S&N, on behalf of Ruff, were reasonable and

necessary, and are Within the usual and customary rates With those normally charged by other

attorneys for similar matters in Dallas County, Texas.” It is undisputed that Ruff received

S&N’s Invoices.”

10. Moreover, S&N’s Transaction Listing reﬂects and details all 0f S&N’s Invoices

to Ruff for legal services rendered by S&N and for costs and expenses incurred by S&N, on

behalf 0f Ruff, from July 19, 2018 through January 31, 2019, the total cost 0f legal services

rendered in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit, and all just and lawful

offsets, payments made by Ruff, and credits allowed, relating to the prosecution and defense 0f

the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit.”

11. However, despite S&N’s performance 0f its contractual obligations and the

reasonableness and necessity of the attorney’s fees charges, Ruff failed and refused to fully

perform in accordance With her obligations created under the terms of the Fee Agreement,

speciﬁcally, by failing t0 pay the outstanding balance of monies due and owing t0 S&N for the

legal services rendered in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit.”

13
1d.
14
1d.
15
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
13-19; EX. l-D, Fee Agreement; EX. l-K, Invoices; EX. l-L, Transaction Listing.
16
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]13; EX. l-D, Fee Agreement; EX. l-K, Invoices.
17
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]15; EX. l-L, Transaction Listing.
18
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 11
20.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 5 0F 11
12. Ultimately, 0n or about December 2, 2018, Ruffs husband, Michael Ruff,

informed and notiﬁed C. Gregory Shamoun that Ruff n0 longer had the ﬁnancial capability to

pay for S&N’s legal services rendered and t0 be rendered in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and

Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit, and, consequently, she would n0 longer pay S&N’s Invoices.”

13. Accordingly, as S&N’s continued representation 0f Ruff without payment for its

legal services rendered and t0 be rendered would result in an unreasonable ﬁnancial burden upon

S&N, and for a myriad of other reasons (including Ruffs failure t0 cooperate, Ruffs requests

that S&N perform certain tasks that were not in Ruffs best interest, and Ruffs accusations

against C. Gregory Shamoun and S&N), on December 3, 2018, S&N ﬁled in the Ruff V. Ruff

Lawsuit, and sent t0 Ruff its letter regarding, S&N’s Motion T0 Withdraw As Counsel For

Plaintiff Jennifer Ruff?"

14. On December 6, 2018, the court signed, in the Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit, the Order

Granting Shamoun & Norman, LLP’s Motion T0 Withdraw As Counsel For Plaintiff Jennifer

Ruff (the “0r_der”).21 At the time of S&N’s withdrawal in the Ruff v. Ruff Lawsuit, James Bell

represented Ruff.” On the same date, S&N sent to Ruff a copy of the Order.23

15. Thereafter, 0n 0r about December 12, 2018, S&N ﬁled in connection with the

Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit, Which had been removed by Defendant JMV Holdings, LLC,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1452, from the 192ml Judicial District Court to the U.S. Bankruptcy
§

Court for the Northern District 0f Texas Dallas Division,24 and sent to Ruff its letter regarding,

‘9
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1] 22.
2°
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 11 23; Ex. 1_M, 12/3/1 8 Withdrawal Emails; Ex. 1—N, Ruff v. Ruff Motion to Withdraw;
Ex. 1-O, 12/6/18 Email Regarding Withdrawal.
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1124; Ex. 1—P, 12/6/18 Email Attaching Order.
Z
23
if]:
24
On November 9, 2018, JMV Holdings, LLC (the “Debtor”), a defendant in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit, ﬁled
itsvoluntary petition for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of Title 11 0f the United States Code, Case N0. 18-
43225-11, in the bankruptcy court for the Eastern Districtof Texas, Sherman Division (the“Plano Bankruptcy

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 6 0F 11
S&N’s Motion T0 Withdraw As Counsel For Defendant Jennifer Rufﬁzs Thereafter, the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas signed the Order Granting Shamoun &
Norman, LLP’S Motion To Withdraw As Counsel For Jennifer Ruff.26

16. Thereafter, despite S&N’s demand for payment made upon Ruff, Ruff continued

to fail and refuse to pay the outstanding balance of monies due and owing t0 S&N for the legal

services rendered in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit.” As reﬂected in

and evidenced by S&N’s Invoices and the Transaction Listing, With all just and lawful offsets,

payments and credits allowed, Ruff owes S&N the total sum of $84,837.91.”

17. Consequently, on March 18, 2019, S&N ﬁled its Veriﬁed Original Petition (the

“WU complaining 0f and against Ruff, therein asserting causes 0f action against Jennifer

Ruff for, inter alia, suit 0n sworn account and breach 0f contract, in connection with Ruffs

failure to pay monies due and owing relating t0 S&N’s representation 0f her in the Ruff V.

Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit.

V. ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES

A. S&NIS Entitled T0 Summary Judgment 011 Its Claim for Suit 011 Sworn Account.

18. Under Texas law, in order t0 recover on a claim for suit 011 sworn account,

pursuant t0 TEX. R. CIV. P. 185, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: (1) the plaintiff

sold goods 0r furnished services t0 the defendant; (2) the prices charged were just and true

m”). Also on November 9, 2018, the Debtor ﬁled its notice to remove the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1452 (the “Notice 0f Removal”) from the Dallas County District Court to the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division (the “Dallas Bankruptcy Court”). On November 20, 2018,
Debtor ﬁled a motion t0 transfer venue, seeking t0 transfer venue 0f the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit from the Dallas
Bankruptcy Court t0 the Plano Bankruptcy Court so that the same court may preside over the Ruff V. Tavistock
Lawsuit the
(i.e., “Adversary Proceeding,” Adv. No. 18-03348-bjh). On November 16, 2018, the plaintiff in the
removed Adversary Proceeding ﬁled a Motion To Sever and Remand. On November 26, 2018, Debtor ﬁled its

Motion T0 Expedite Its Motion To Transfer Venue.
25
Ex. 1, Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1] 25; EX. l-Q, 12/12/18 Email Regarding BK Withdrawal.
26
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
25.
27
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
26.
28
EX. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]26; EX. l-K, Invoices; Ex. l-L, Transaction Listing.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 7 0F 11
because they were (i) according to the terms 0f a contract, 0r (ii)the usual, customary and

reasonable prices, if there was n0 contract; (3) the petition contains a systematic record of the

transaction; (4) all lawful offsets, payments, and credits have been applied to the account; (5) the

account remains unpaid; (6) the damages are liquidated; and (7) the plaintiff ﬁled the petition

under oath.”

19. S&N performed and furnished valuable legal services t0 Ruff in the Ruff V.

Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit.” Ruff accepted S&N’s legal services.“

Moreover, S&N incurred necessary costs and expenses related t0 S&N’s representation 0f Ruff

in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit.32 The prices S&N charged Ruff

were just and true because they were according t0 the terms 0f the Fee Agreement, were

disclosed in the Fee Agreement and they were usual, customary and reasonable prices.33 S&N’s

Petition contains a systematic record of the transactions between Ruff and S&N related t0 the

legal services/work provided and the subsequent billing 0f fees and expenses incurred on behalf

of Ruff. See Petition. A11 lawful offsets, payments, and credits have been applied t0 the account,

yet the account remains unpaid.“ S&N’s damages are liquidated and can be calculated based on

the exhibits and factual allegations contained in S&N’s Petition. See Petition and the exhibits

attached thereto. Finally, S&N’s Petition was veriﬁed and thus, ﬁled under oath. See Petition.

29
TEX. R. CIV. P. 185;Rizk v.Financial Guardian Ins.Agency, Inc, 584 S.W.2d 860, 862 (TeX. 1979) (element 7);
Airborne Freight Corp. v. CRB Mktg., Ina, 566 S.W.2d 573, 574 (TeX. 1978) (elements 1-7); Day Cruises
Maritime, L.L.C. v.Christus Spohn Health Sys., 267 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. App.—C0rpus Christi 2008, n.p.h) (elements
1-2, 5); Williams v. Um’fund CCR Partners, 264 S.W.3d 231, 234-235 (TeX. App.—Houston [lst Dist.]2008, n0
pet); Whiteside v. Ford Motor Credit Ca, 220 S.W.3d 191, 193-194 (Tex. App.—Da11as 2007, no pet.) (elements 1-

7); Pandz'ti
v. Apostle, 180 S.W.3d 924, 926 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.) (elements 1-5, 7).
Ex.
:2)
1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 11 13; Ex. l-D, Fee Agreement; EX. l-K, Invoices.

32
£2:
33
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
13-16; EX. l-D, Fee Agreement; Ex. l-K, Invoices.
34
EX. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
15-16; EX. l-D, Fee Agreement; EX. l-K, Invoices.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 8 0F 11
20. Throughout its engagement, S&N provided Ruff With regular statements of

account setting forth and detailing the time and expenses incurred in rendering legal services.35

The Invoices reﬂect the legal services rendered by S&N in the Ruff V. Tavistock Lawsuit and the

Ruff V. Ruff Lawsuit, the hourly rates for such legal services, the fees associated With those legal

services, and the reimbursable costs and expense related thereto.36 S&N charged the fees and

expenses pursuant t0 the terms of the Fee Agreement.” Moreover, the amount 0f attorney’s fees

incurred by Ruff for legal services rendered by S&N and for costs and expenses incurred by

S&N, 0n behalf 0f Ruff, were reasonable and necessary, and are within the usual and customary

rates With those normally charged by other attorneys for similar matters in Dallas County,

Texas.”

21. Moreover, as evidenced by the Invoices and S&N’s Transaction Listing (i) the

total cost 0f legal services rendered by S&N, and for costs and expenses incurred by S&N on

behalf of Ruff, on which a systematic record has been kept, equals $229,294.42, (ii) that amount

is just and true in that the prices were charged in accordance With the Fee Agreement and they

were usual, customary and reasonable prices, and (iii) applying all just and lawful offsets,

payments and credits, Ruff is liable for the unpaid balance owed t0 S&N in the amount of

$84,837.91.” The total damages are liquidated and can be calculated based upon the exhibits and

factual allegations contained in S&N’s Petition.“ N0 genuine issues 0f material fact exist

relating t0 S&N’s suit 0n sworn account claim, and therefore, S&N is entitled t0 summary

judgment as a matter 0f law.

35
EX. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]14; Ex. 1-D, Fee Agreement; EX. 1-K, Invoices.
36
Id.
37
1d.
38
1d.
39
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]16, 26; EX. 1-D,Fee Agreement; EX. 1-K, Invoices.
40
See Pine Trail Shores Owners ’Ass ’n v.Aiken, 160 S.W. 3d 139, 144 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, n0 pet).

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 9 0F 11
B. S&N Is Entitled T0 Summary Judgment 011 Its Claim for Breach 0f Contract.
22. Under Texas law, the following elements must be satisﬁed in order t0 establish a

breach of contract claim: (1) the existence 0f a valid, enforceable contract; (2) the plaintiff is a

proper party t0 sue for breach 0f the contract; (3) the plaintiff performed, tendered performance

0f, 0r was excused from performing its contractual obligations; (4) the defendant breached the

contract; and (5) the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff injury.“

23. The Fee Agreement is a valid, enforceable contract.42 As a party t0 the Fee

Agreement, S&N is a proper party t0 bring suit against Ruff under the Fee Agreement. S&N

tendered performance of its contractual obligations pursuant to the Fee Agreement.“ Ruff

materially breached the Fee Agreement by failing to tender amounts due and owing t0 S&N

pursuant t0 Fee Agreement.44 Ruffs material breach 0f the Fee Agreement has directly and

proximately caused S&N damages in the amount of $84,837.91.“ No genuine issues of material

fact exist relating t0 S&N’s breach of contract claim, and therefore, S&N is entitled to summary

judgment as a matter 0f law.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Shamoun & Norman, LLP

respectfully prays that this Motion be received and ﬁled, and, upon hearing, that the Court enter

an Order granting Shamoun & Norman, LLP’s Motion for Summary Judgment in itsfavor and

against Defendant Jennifer Ruff, and that the Court award t0 S&N all actual damages requested

herein, interest before and after judgment at the highest legal rates, all taxable costs 0f court, and

for any such further relief,both atlaw and in equity, t0 Which itmay show itselfjustly entitled.

41
B&WSup. v.Beckman, 305 s.w.3d 10, 16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1stDist] 2009, pet. denied).
42
Ex. 1-D, Fee Agreement.
43
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]
13.
Ex. 1,Shamoun MSJ Aff. 1]26; EX. l-D, Fee Agreement.
j:
1d.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 10 0F 11
Respectfully Submitted,

SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP
By: /s/ C. Gregory Shamoun
C. GREGORY SHAMOUN
State Bar N0. 18089650
g@snlegal.com
KEVIN C. MORAN
State Bar N0. 24058006
kmoran@snlegal.com
BRANDY N. HOGE
State Bar N0. 24078675
bhoge@snlegal.com
1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 200
Farmers Branch, Texas 75234
Telephone: (214) 987-1745
Facsimile: (214) 521-9033

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is t0 certify that a true and correct copy 0f the above and foregoing document has
been served upon all parties and counsel 0f record in accordance with the Texas Rules 0f Civil
Procedure 0n this 7th day 0f February, 2020.

/s/ C. Gregory Shamoun
C. Gregory Shamoun

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 11 0F 11
EXHIBIT 11
CAUSE NO. DC-19-03863

SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP, § 1N THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiﬂ‘, g

v. 160‘“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
g

JENNIFER c. RUFF, g

Defendant. g DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT 0F C. GREGORY SHAMOUN

STATE 0F TEXAS §

COUNTY 0F DALLAS g

BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, on this date personally appeared C.
Gregory Shamoun, being by me duly sworn upon his oath deposed and stated the following:

1. “My name is C. Gregory Shamoun. I am over the age of twenty-one (21) years, have
never been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude, and am fully
competent to testify in all respects. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
herein, and they are true and correct.

I have been and am the president of the managing partner of Shamoun & Norman, LLP
(“S&N”), Plaintiff in the above-styled and numbered cause. I have care, custody, and
control of the records concerning the account 0f the above-styled suit.

I was licensed in 1989 as an attorney and counselor at law by the Supreme Court of the
State of Texas and have practiced law in the State of Texas continuously from that date
to the present date. I serve as the President of C. Gregory Shamoun, P.C., the Managing
Partner of the law fum of Shamoun & Norman, LLP. Additionally, Ihave been licensed
to practice law in the State of New York since 2007. I am also admitted to appear before
the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fiﬁh Circuit, the
U.S. Court 0f Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit. I am admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, as well as the Northern,
Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of New York. Additionally, Ihave practiced in
trial and appellate courts in North Texas, and particularly in Tarrant, Collin, and Dallas
Counties. My arbitration, trial, and appellate experience has involved trials and appeals
in complex litigation, construction litigation, business litigation, personal injury, and
other civil litigation matters, in addition to mandamus or other original proceedings in
the courts of appeals and before the Texas Supreme Court. I am, therefore, familiar with
the standards of care and practice related to prosecuting and defending arbitration, trial

AFFIDAVIT OF C. GREGORY SHAMOUN PAGE l OF 7
and appellate matters, as well as the usual and customary rates normally charged by trial

and appellate practitioners locally, in the state, and in the Federal system.

4. I was the attorney of record and lead counsel for Jennifer Ruff (“bit”), Defendant in
the case styled Suzann Ruffv. Tavistock Group, LLC, Michael A. Ruﬁf Jennifer Ruﬂand
JMV Holdings, LLC, Cause No. DC-l7-l7273, in the l92nd Judicial District Court,
Dallas County, Texas (the “Ruff v. Tavistock Lawsuit”). I was also the attorney of
record and lead counsel for Ruff, Plaintiff in the case styled Jennifer Raﬁ v. Matthew
Ruﬂ and Suzann Ruﬁ', Cause No. DC-18-06201, in the 192"“ Judicial District Court,
Dallas County, Texas (the “Ruff v. Ruff Lawsuit”).

5. I have worked on litigation matters in the past that have involved the same or similar
issues as those that existed in the Ruff v. Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff v. Ruff
Lawsuit. I and representatives of S&N were personally involved in the representation 0f
Ruff in the Ruff v. Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff v. Ruff Lawsuit from on or about
July 19, 2018 through S&N’s ultimate withdrawal as her counsel. With respect to the
Ruff v. Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff v. Ruff Lawsuit, I am familiar with, without
limitation, the case materials, all documents and correspondences drafted, served and/or
ﬁled, pleadings and motions drafted and/or ﬁled, discovery conducted and exchanged,
meetings attended, hearings attended, and all Orders entered by the 192nd Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas. I have also reviewed the applicable billing
statements accrued by Ruff throughout S&N’s representation of Ruff in the Ruff v.
Tavistock Lawsuit and the Ruff v. Ruff Lawsuit

6. I am also a custodian of the records of S&N. Attached hereto are 177 pages of records
ﬁom S&N, concerning the account of Ruff. These said 177 pages of records are kept by
S&N in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business of S&N
for an employee or representative of S&N, with knowledge of the act, event, condition,
opinion, or diagnosis, recorded to make the record or to transmit information thereof to
be included in such record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonably
soon thereafter. The records attached hereto are the original or exact duplicates of the
original.

7. On or about July 19, 2018, Ruff hired S&N to represent her, individually, relative and
related to the Ruff v. Tavistock Lawsuit. On July l9, 2018, I, along with my partner,
Brian K. Norman (“Norman”), and two of S&N’s associate attorneys, Kevin C. Moran
(“Moran”) and Brandy N. Hoge (“mg”), attended a meeting/conference with Ruff and
her husband, Michael Ruff, regarding S&N’s representation of Ruff in the Ruff v.
Tavistock Lawsuit. On July 19, 2018, Ruff sent S&N two e—mail correspondences
regarding her contact information, therein notifying S&N that she created the following
email address, rocky30@protonmail.com, which Ruff intended to use to communicate
with S&N, and providing S&N with information regarding the parties involved in the
Ruff v. Tavistock Lawsuit. A true and correct copy 0f the July l9, 2018 e—mail
correspondence ﬁom Ruff to S&N regarding Ruft’s contact information is attached
hereto as Exhibit l-A, and incorporated herein by reference. A true and correct copy of

AFFIDAVIT OF C. GREGORY SHAMOUN PAGE 2 OF 7
the July l9, 2018 e-mail correspondence from Ruff to S&N regarding the parties is
attached hereto as Exhibit l-B, and incorporated herein by reference.

8. 0n July 20, 2018, S&N sent to Ruff, via e-mail correspondence, S&N’s proposed fee
agreement and S&N’s wiring instructions. A true and correct copy of the July 20, 2018 6-
mail correspondences from S&N to Ruff is attached hereto as Exhibit 1-C, and
incorporated herein by reference.

9. T0
23,
memorialize
2018, Ruff
the representation
executed and
agreement
returned to S&N
in the
that
Ruff v.
certain

Case Info

Judge

REDMOND, AIESHA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 07, 2020

Case Filing Date

March 18, 2019

County

Parties

FRIZELL, ELIZABETH DAVIS Attorney for the Defendant
HALL, JEFFREY T Attorney for the Defendant
NORRED, WARREN Attorney for the Defendant
RUFF, JENNIFER C. Defendant
SCRIBNER, SEAN K Attorney for the Plaintiff
SHAMOUN, C GREGORY Attorney for the Plaintiff
SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP Plaintiff
WYDE, DANIEL L Attorney for the Defendant
Connor Moore Attorneys for Defendants
Kevin Moran Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brandy Hoge Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ledouglas Johnson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James Bell Attorney
Randall Johnston Attorney
Brian Norman Attorney
Gerrit Pronske Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP vs. JENNIFER C. RUFF

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties