On October 15, 2012 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
X-Ray X-Press Corporation,
and
Alvin Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Ashford Healthcare Center Ltd Co,
Belmont Care Center Ltd Co,
Cantex Continuing Care Network Llc,
Carlyle Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Carrollton Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Colonnades Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Crescent Continuing Care Center Ltd Co,
Cresthaven Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Denison Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Fm1382 Healthcare Center Ltd Co,
Fw Senior Community Ltd Co,
Gainsville Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Livingston Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Mathis Healthcare Center Ltd Co,
Oakwood Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Seago Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Silsbee Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Solera Transitional Health Care Ltd Co,
Sr Senior Community Ltd Co,
Stoneleigh Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Sutton Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Villa Healthcare Center Ltd Co,
Windsor Place Health Care Center Ltd Co,
Woodville Healthcare Center Ltd Co,
for DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
in the District Court of Harris County.
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2012-60883
X-RAY X-PRESS CORPORATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
VS. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CANTEX CONTINUING CARE
NETWORK, LLC § 127TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVITS OF
ROSE MADISON AND STEVE TUCKER
______________________________________________________________________________
All Defendants file these First Amended Objections to the Affidavits of Rose Madison
(“Madison”) and Steve Tucker (“Tucker”), which Affidavits were filed on or about December
28, 2012. Provision at each objection is made for the Court to record its ruling on each objection.
I.
Objections to Rose Madison’s Affidavit
1. Objection to paragraph 2. It is misleading and false. Madison was never Executive
Director of defendant. She was Executive Director of Ashford Gardens. She did act as
Regional Director of Operations for defendant from February 1, 2010 to June 1, 2010,
between her stints at Ashford Gardens. That period is prior to any relevant time period.
She quit working at Ashford Gardens on August 20, 2012, before she signed her
affidavit. She fails to disclose any of this.
OBJECTION: Misleading false statement.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
2. Objection to word “approached” in paragraph 4. No specifics are provided.
1981773_1
OBJECTION: Vague.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
3. Objection to the word “negotiated” and its variations in paragraph 3, 4, 5, and 9.
OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Improper predicate.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of the witness.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Self-serving.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Misleadingly false statement.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
4. Objection to paragraph 5.
OBJECTION: Hearsay.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
5. Objection to paragraph 6.
OBJECTION: Hearsay.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
6. Objection to paragraph 7.
OBJECTION: Hearsay.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
2
1981773_1
7. At paragraph 8, Madison alleges that “I was told that XRXP’s proposal was agreeable to
Cantex.” This admission makes clear that Madison herself was not authorized to bind
defendant to the alleged contract. Madison knew this. Her affidavit does not state that
she was authorized to bind the defendant in any way. The sentence does not identify who
“told” Madison and does not identify the position and authority of the “telling”
individual. Madison asserts that certain language was incorporated into the contract. The
contract would be the best evidence of its terms.
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Not the best evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Hearsay.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of witness.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Speculation.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Vague.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
8. Objection to the entirety of paragraph 9. Madison was not present, and does not claim to
have been present, when the contract was finalized and executed. Nor did she have any
authority to bind the defendant to the contract or any of its terms.
3
1981773_1
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Not the best evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Speculation.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of the witness.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Parole Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
9. Objection to the first sentence in paragraph 9 saying that Madison “negotiated” the deal.
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Misleadingly false statement.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
10. Objection to the first sentence in paragraph 9 saying that “contrary to the expressed intent
of both parties…” Madison did not know the authorized intent of defendant. All
presumptions as to interpretation run in favor of defendant since plaintiff prepared the
contract. The contract referenced in the Original Petition and in the First Amended
Petition and in the Madison Affidavit was superseded by subsequent agreements. Any
discussion about the first contract is not relevant.
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
4
1981773_1
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Hearsay
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Speculation
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: All presumptions as to interpretation run in favor of defendant
since plaintiff prepared the contract.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of witness.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Not the best evidence of the contracts in force.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Not relevant.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
II.
Objections to Steve Tucker’s Affidavit
1. Objection to paragraph 4 regarding “approached.” No specifics are provided.
OBJECTION: Vague
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
2. Objection to paragraph 5 sentence (“Ms. Madison told me …”). Madison was not an
authorized representative of defendant substantively to negotiate a contract.
OBJECTION: Hearsay
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
5
1981773_1
3. Objection to paragraph 6. This statement is misleading. Whether plaintiff had
“operations” in Dallas at the referenced time, at that time plaintiff had already hired and
had placed its marketing representatives in Dallas. So plaintiff had an active presence in
Dallas County.
OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Misleadingly false statement.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
4. Objection to paragraph 7. The pre-execution discussions are merged into the written
document. Madison was not authorized to bind defendant, and she knew this.
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Hearsay
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: No relevance.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
5. Objection to the first sentence of paragraph 7.
OBJECTION: Hearsay
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Self-serving
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
6. Objection to the second sentence of paragraph 7.
OBJECTION: Hearsay
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
6
1981773_1
OBJECTION: Self-serving
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
7. Objection to the third sentence of paragraph 7. Madison was not authorized to bind
defendant and she knew this.
OBJECTION: Hearsay
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
8. Objection to the fourth sentence of paragraph 7 (“Whereupon, …”). It falsely suggests
that immediately upon discussion between Tucker and Madison, the parties entered into
the Agreement.
OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
9. Objection to the last sentence in paragraph 7. The purported contract is not attached.
Further, the purported agreement was superseded by subsequent agreements.
OBJECTION: Not the best evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Not relevant.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
10. Objection to paragraph 8. Does not reference all of the contractual terms, which under
the Rule of Optional Completion are required.
OBJECTION: Not the best evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Not relevant without references to all contract terms.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
7
1981773_1
11. Objection to the first sentence of paragraph 10. It fails to state who should have removed
the allegedly incorrect language. Since Tucker prepared the contract by his own
admission, he should acknowledge his own error, which is to be construed against
plaintiff.
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Vague
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Misleading false statement.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
12. Objection to the second sentence in paragraph 10. Plaintiff’s intent is irrelevant. And in
any event, all presumptions run against plaintiff as the preparer of the contract.
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Not relevant.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
13. Objection to the third sentence in paragraph 10 as hearsay. Madison was not an
authorized representative for defendant with respect to this contract.
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Hearsay
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
8
1981773_1
14. Objection to the fourth sentence in paragraph 10 “Leaving any language …”. Plaintiff’s
intent is irrelevant. Since Tucker prepared the contract by his own admission, he should
acknowledge his own error, which is to be construed against plaintiff. And in any event,
all presumptions run against plaintiff as the preparer of the contract.
OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Hearsay.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Self-serving.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Parole Evidence.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of witness.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
OBJECTION: Relevance.
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
15. Objection to paragraph 11 as hearsay. Tucker fails to identify the alleged authorized
representative of defendant who made the alleged statement.
OBJECTION: Hearsay
Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________
9
1981773_1
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ David Eriksen
David Eriksen
State Bar No. 06643525
2537 Golden Bear Drive
Carrollton, Texas 75006
Telephone: (214) 954-4114
Facsimile: (214) 871-3057
Attorneys for Defendant, Cantex Continuing
Care Network, LLC
GORDON, ARATA, MCCOLLAM
DUPLANTIS & EAGAN, LLC
By: /s/ William A. Sherwood
William A. Sherwood
State Bar No. 18255500
1980 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1800
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (713) 333-5500
Telecopier: (713) 333-5501
bsherwood@gordonarata.com
Attorney for Defendants, Solera Transitional
Health Care Ltd. Co.; Silsbee Health Care
Center Ltd. Co.; Oakwood Health Care Center
Ltd. Co.; Livingston Health Care Center Ltd.
Co.; Stoneleigh Health Care Center Ltd. Co.;
Colonnades Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Alvin
Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Carrollton Health
Care Center Ltd. Co.; SR Senior Community
Ltd. Co.; Seago Health Care Center Ltd. Co.;
Denison Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Carlyle
Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; and Sutton Health
Care Center Ltd. Co., Cresthaven Health Care
Center Ltd. Co.; Woodville Healthcare Center
Ltd. Co.; Ashford Healthcare Center Ltd. Co.;
Mathis Healthcare Center Ltd. Co.; Villa
Healthcare Center Ltd. Co.; Gainsville Health
Care Center Ltd. Co.; Windsor Place Health
Care Center Ltd. Co.; FM1382 Healthcare
Center Ltd. Co.; Belmont Care Center Ltd. Co.;
FW Senior Community Ltd. Co.
10
1981773_1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I forwarded a true and correct copy of the foregoing to all counsel of record on this
15th day of April, 2014.
Mr. Michael A. Hawash Via Electronic Filing
Hawash Meade & Gaston LLP and Email Delivery
2118 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77002
/s/ William A. Sherwood
William A. Sherwood
11
1981773_1
Document Filed Date
April 15, 2014
Case Filing Date
October 15, 2012
Category
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2012-60883 X-RAY X-PRESS CORPORATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CANTEX CONTINUING CARE NETWORK, LLC § 127TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVITS OF ROSE MADISON AND STEVE TUCKER ______________________________________________________________________________ All Defendants file these First Amended Objections to the Affidavits of Rose Madison (“Madison”) and Steve Tucker (“Tucker”), which Affidavits were filed on or about December 28, 2012. Provision at each objection is made for the Court to record its ruling on each objection. I. Objections to Rose Madison’s Affidavit 1. Objection to paragraph 2. It is misleading and false. Madison was never Executive Director of defendant. She was Executive Director of Ashford Gardens. She did act as Regional Director of Operations for defendant from February 1, 2010 to June 1, 2010, between her stints at Ashford Gardens. That period is prior to any relevant time period. She quit working at Ashford Gardens on August 20, 2012, before she signed her affidavit. She fails to disclose any of this. OBJECTION: Misleading false statement. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 2. Objection to word “approached” in paragraph 4. No specifics are provided. 1981773_1 OBJECTION: Vague. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 3. Objection to the word “negotiated” and its variations in paragraph 3, 4, 5, and 9. OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Improper predicate. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of the witness. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Self-serving. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Misleadingly false statement. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 4. Objection to paragraph 5. OBJECTION: Hearsay. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 5. Objection to paragraph 6. OBJECTION: Hearsay. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 6. Objection to paragraph 7. OBJECTION: Hearsay. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 2 1981773_1 7. At paragraph 8, Madison alleges that “I was told that XRXP’s proposal was agreeable to Cantex.” This admission makes clear that Madison herself was not authorized to bind defendant to the alleged contract. Madison knew this. Her affidavit does not state that she was authorized to bind the defendant in any way. The sentence does not identify who “told” Madison and does not identify the position and authority of the “telling” individual. Madison asserts that certain language was incorporated into the contract. The contract would be the best evidence of its terms. OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Not the best evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Hearsay. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of witness. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Speculation. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Vague. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 8. Objection to the entirety of paragraph 9. Madison was not present, and does not claim to have been present, when the contract was finalized and executed. Nor did she have any authority to bind the defendant to the contract or any of its terms. 3 1981773_1 OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Not the best evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Speculation. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of the witness. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Parole Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 9. Objection to the first sentence in paragraph 9 saying that Madison “negotiated” the deal. OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Misleadingly false statement. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 10. Objection to the first sentence in paragraph 9 saying that “contrary to the expressed intent of both parties…” Madison did not know the authorized intent of defendant. All presumptions as to interpretation run in favor of defendant since plaintiff prepared the contract. The contract referenced in the Original Petition and in the First Amended Petition and in the Madison Affidavit was superseded by subsequent agreements. Any discussion about the first contract is not relevant. OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. 4 1981773_1 Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Hearsay Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Speculation Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: All presumptions as to interpretation run in favor of defendant since plaintiff prepared the contract. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of witness. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Not the best evidence of the contracts in force. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Not relevant. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ II. Objections to Steve Tucker’s Affidavit 1. Objection to paragraph 4 regarding “approached.” No specifics are provided. OBJECTION: Vague Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 2. Objection to paragraph 5 sentence (“Ms. Madison told me …”). Madison was not an authorized representative of defendant substantively to negotiate a contract. OBJECTION: Hearsay Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 5 1981773_1 3. Objection to paragraph 6. This statement is misleading. Whether plaintiff had “operations” in Dallas at the referenced time, at that time plaintiff had already hired and had placed its marketing representatives in Dallas. So plaintiff had an active presence in Dallas County. OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Misleadingly false statement. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 4. Objection to paragraph 7. The pre-execution discussions are merged into the written document. Madison was not authorized to bind defendant, and she knew this. OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Hearsay Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: No relevance. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 5. Objection to the first sentence of paragraph 7. OBJECTION: Hearsay Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Self-serving Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 6. Objection to the second sentence of paragraph 7. OBJECTION: Hearsay Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 6 1981773_1 OBJECTION: Self-serving Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 7. Objection to the third sentence of paragraph 7. Madison was not authorized to bind defendant and she knew this. OBJECTION: Hearsay Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 8. Objection to the fourth sentence of paragraph 7 (“Whereupon, …”). It falsely suggests that immediately upon discussion between Tucker and Madison, the parties entered into the Agreement. OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 9. Objection to the last sentence in paragraph 7. The purported contract is not attached. Further, the purported agreement was superseded by subsequent agreements. OBJECTION: Not the best evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Not relevant. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 10. Objection to paragraph 8. Does not reference all of the contractual terms, which under the Rule of Optional Completion are required. OBJECTION: Not the best evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Not relevant without references to all contract terms. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 7 1981773_1 11. Objection to the first sentence of paragraph 10. It fails to state who should have removed the allegedly incorrect language. Since Tucker prepared the contract by his own admission, he should acknowledge his own error, which is to be construed against plaintiff. OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Vague Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Misleading false statement. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Mischaracterizes the evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 12. Objection to the second sentence in paragraph 10. Plaintiff’s intent is irrelevant. And in any event, all presumptions run against plaintiff as the preparer of the contract. OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Not relevant. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 13. Objection to the third sentence in paragraph 10 as hearsay. Madison was not an authorized representative for defendant with respect to this contract. OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Hearsay Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 8 1981773_1 14. Objection to the fourth sentence in paragraph 10 “Leaving any language …”. Plaintiff’s intent is irrelevant. Since Tucker prepared the contract by his own admission, he should acknowledge his own error, which is to be construed against plaintiff. And in any event, all presumptions run against plaintiff as the preparer of the contract. OBJECTION: Inadmissible Parol Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Hearsay. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Self-serving. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Parole Evidence. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Opinion and conclusion of witness. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ OBJECTION: Relevance. Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 15. Objection to paragraph 11 as hearsay. Tucker fails to identify the alleged authorized representative of defendant who made the alleged statement. OBJECTION: Hearsay Sustained:________________ Overruled:_________________ 9 1981773_1 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ David Eriksen David Eriksen State Bar No. 06643525 2537 Golden Bear Drive Carrollton, Texas 75006 Telephone: (214) 954-4114 Facsimile: (214) 871-3057 Attorneys for Defendant, Cantex Continuing Care Network, LLC GORDON, ARATA, MCCOLLAM DUPLANTIS & EAGAN, LLC By: /s/ William A. Sherwood William A. Sherwood State Bar No. 18255500 1980 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1800 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 333-5500 Telecopier: (713) 333-5501 bsherwood@gordonarata.com Attorney for Defendants, Solera Transitional Health Care Ltd. Co.; Silsbee Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Oakwood Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Livingston Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Stoneleigh Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Colonnades Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Alvin Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Carrollton Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; SR Senior Community Ltd. Co.; Seago Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Denison Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Carlyle Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; and Sutton Health Care Center Ltd. Co., Cresthaven Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Woodville Healthcare Center Ltd. Co.; Ashford Healthcare Center Ltd. Co.; Mathis Healthcare Center Ltd. Co.; Villa Healthcare Center Ltd. Co.; Gainsville Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; Windsor Place Health Care Center Ltd. Co.; FM1382 Healthcare Center Ltd. Co.; Belmont Care Center Ltd. Co.; FW Senior Community Ltd. Co. 10 1981773_1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I forwarded a true and correct copy of the foregoing to all counsel of record on this 15th day of April, 2014. Mr. Michael A. Hawash Via Electronic Filing Hawash Meade & Gaston LLP and Email Delivery 2118 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 /s/ William A. Sherwood William A. Sherwood 11 1981773_1