On December 31, 2015 a
RKM & Scandaliato Answer - ORIGINAL ANSWER - GENERAL DENIAL
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bhambi, Brij,
Green Sequoia Limited Partnership,
Grewal, Hardeep,
Grewal, Mukhtiar,
Grewal, Narinder,
Ramnani, Sunil,
Sharma, Shashi,
Snyp Real Estate Development, Llc,
Softa, Arun,
and
Deloitte & Touche Llp,
Equity Office Management Llc,
Hennessey, Brian,
Northmarq Capital Llc,
Promark Capital Group,
Rkm Capital,
Scandaliato, Richard,
Tatevossian, Narbeh,
Younan Investment Properties, L.P.,
Younan Properties, Inc.,
Younan, Zaya,
for OTHER (CIVIL)
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
1/6/2017 4:03:21 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
CAUSE NO. DC-16-00007
SUNIL RAMNANI, MUKHTIAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
GREWEL and HARDEEP GREWEL, §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
ZAYA YOUNAN, YOUNAN §
PROPERTIES, INC., YOUNAN §
INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC., §
YOUNAN INVESTMENT § 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PROPERTIES, L.P., BRIAN §
HENNESSEY, NARBEH §
TATEVOSSIAN, QUENTIN §
THOMPSON, DELOITTE & TOUCHE, §
L.L.P., EQUITY OFFICE §
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., §
NORTHMARQ CAPITAL, LLC, §
PROMARK CAPITAL GROUP, §
L.P., RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD §
SCANDALIATO, §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S
ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Defendants RKM Capital and Richard Scandaliato (“Defendants”) answer Plaintiffs’
Fourth Amended Petition, as follows:
1. Defendants deny the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition and say that
the same are not true in whole or in part, and pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 92, enter a general denial,
denying generally each and every, all and singular, of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ live
Petition, and demands strict proof thereof, as required by law.
2. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a claim in one or more
respects as a matter of law.
3. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs ratified the purported acts and/or omissions upon
DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S
ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST – PAGE 1
which Plaintiffs rely.
4. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have waived any right to recovery by their actions
in failing to comply with any agreements at issue and their activities, knowledge, and conduct in
its course of dealing in the transactions in question.
5. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, or other parties, were the proximate and/or
superseding cause of any damages that they allegedly suffered.
6. Defendants allege that they were not the sole proximate and/or superseding cause
of any damages that Plaintiffs allegedly suffered.
7. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, and/or other parties, were contributorily,
comparatively, and/or proportionately responsible or negligent with respect to the acts alleged and
that any submission to the jury of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if that occurs, must be governed by
Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
8. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have not complied with, insisted upon, and/or
waived the alleged requirements of the contractual agreements in question and that Plaintiffs’
conduct and course of dealing results in a waiver or estoppel of Plaintiffs’ alleged rights.
9. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of frauds and/or
the parol evidence rule.
10. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations,
laches, and/or the appropriate statute of repose.
11. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Plaintiffs’ assumption of the
risk in the contractual documents at issue in this case, and otherwise.
12. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by estoppel.
13. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ failed to mitigate their damages, if any.
DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S
ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST – PAGE 2
14. Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive or exemplary damages under the law of the
United States and Texas because: (i) an award of punitive or exemplary damages would be
unconstitutional under the United States and Texas Constitutions; (ii) any recovery of punitive or
exemplary damages by the Plaintiffs in this civil lawsuit would constitute the imposition of a
criminal fine or penalty without the substantive or procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Sections 3, 3a, 10,
13, 15 and 19 of the Texas Constitution; (iii) any such award of punitive or exemplary damages in
this case would amount to nothing less than a denial to Defendants of due process and equal
protection of the laws as are guaranteed under the United States and Texas Constitutions; (iv) the
imposition of any punitive or exemplary damages in this lawsuit would constitute an excessive
fine or penalty under Article I, Sections 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution; (v) exemplary
damages awarded, if any, against Defendants may not exceed two times the amount of actual
damages or $200,000, whichever is greater; (vi) Defendants have not been given fair notice of the
conduct that may subject them to punishment or exemplary damages and also of the severity of
the penalty or exemplary damages that may be imposed; and (vii) punitive damages would violate
the United States and Texas Constitutions and common law because such an award is based from
procedures that are vague, open-ended, unbound in discretion, arbitrary and without sufficient
constraints or protection against arbitrary and excessive awards.
15. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all defenses asserted by Zaya Younan,
Younan Properties, Inc., Younan Investment Properties, Inc., and Younan Investment Properties,
L.P. in this matter that may be applicable to Defendants.
16. By pleading the foregoing defenses, Defendants do not assume the burden of proof
on any matter. Also, additional facts may be revealed by discovery that supports additional
DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S
ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST – PAGE 3
affirmative defenses presently available to, but unknown to, Defendants. Defendants therefore
reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event that discovery and investigation indicate
that additional defenses would be appropriate.
DISCLOSURE REQUEST
Pursuant to Rule 194, Plaintiffs are requested to disclose, within 30 days of service of this
request, the information or material described by TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants RKM Capital and Richard
Scandaliato pray that Plaintiffs takes nothing on their claims, that this lawsuit be dismissed, and
that Defendants be awarded their fees and costs, and for such other and further relief to which they
may show themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
NESBITT, VASSAR & McCOWN, L.L.P.
15851 Dallas Parkway, Suite 800
Addison, Texas 75001
(972) 371-2411
(972) 371-2410 – Telecopier
By: /s/ Jim McCown
James M. McCown
jmccown@nvmlaw.com
State Bar No. 00788002
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT RKM
CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by
electronic mail on this 6th day of January, 2017 to all counsel of record in this proceeding.
/s/ Jim McCown____________
James M. McCown
DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S
ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST – PAGE 4
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 1/6/2017 4:03:21 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK CAUSE NO. DC-16-00007 SUNIL RAMNANI, MUKHTIAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT GREWEL and HARDEEP GREWEL, § Plaintiffs, § § v. § § ZAYA YOUNAN, YOUNAN § PROPERTIES, INC., YOUNAN § INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC., § YOUNAN INVESTMENT § 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PROPERTIES, L.P., BRIAN § HENNESSEY, NARBEH § TATEVOSSIAN, QUENTIN § THOMPSON, DELOITTE & TOUCHE, § L.L.P., EQUITY OFFICE § MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., § NORTHMARQ CAPITAL, LLC, § PROMARK CAPITAL GROUP, § L.P., RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD § SCANDALIATO, § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Defendants RKM Capital and Richard Scandaliato (“Defendants”) answer Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition, as follows: 1. Defendants deny the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition and say that the same are not true in whole or in part, and pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 92, enter a general denial, denying generally each and every, all and singular, of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ live Petition, and demands strict proof thereof, as required by law. 2. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a claim in one or more respects as a matter of law. 3. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs ratified the purported acts and/or omissions upon DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST – PAGE 1 which Plaintiffs rely. 4. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have waived any right to recovery by their actions in failing to comply with any agreements at issue and their activities, knowledge, and conduct in its course of dealing in the transactions in question. 5. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, or other parties, were the proximate and/or superseding cause of any damages that they allegedly suffered. 6. Defendants allege that they were not the sole proximate and/or superseding cause of any damages that Plaintiffs allegedly suffered. 7. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, and/or other parties, were contributorily, comparatively, and/or proportionately responsible or negligent with respect to the acts alleged and that any submission to the jury of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if that occurs, must be governed by Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 8. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have not complied with, insisted upon, and/or waived the alleged requirements of the contractual agreements in question and that Plaintiffs’ conduct and course of dealing results in a waiver or estoppel of Plaintiffs’ alleged rights. 9. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of frauds and/or the parol evidence rule. 10. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations, laches, and/or the appropriate statute of repose. 11. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Plaintiffs’ assumption of the risk in the contractual documents at issue in this case, and otherwise. 12. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by estoppel. 13. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ failed to mitigate their damages, if any. DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST – PAGE 2 14. Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive or exemplary damages under the law of the United States and Texas because: (i) an award of punitive or exemplary damages would be unconstitutional under the United States and Texas Constitutions; (ii) any recovery of punitive or exemplary damages by the Plaintiffs in this civil lawsuit would constitute the imposition of a criminal fine or penalty without the substantive or procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Sections 3, 3a, 10, 13, 15 and 19 of the Texas Constitution; (iii) any such award of punitive or exemplary damages in this case would amount to nothing less than a denial to Defendants of due process and equal protection of the laws as are guaranteed under the United States and Texas Constitutions; (iv) the imposition of any punitive or exemplary damages in this lawsuit would constitute an excessive fine or penalty under Article I, Sections 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution; (v) exemplary damages awarded, if any, against Defendants may not exceed two times the amount of actual damages or $200,000, whichever is greater; (vi) Defendants have not been given fair notice of the conduct that may subject them to punishment or exemplary damages and also of the severity of the penalty or exemplary damages that may be imposed; and (vii) punitive damages would violate the United States and Texas Constitutions and common law because such an award is based from procedures that are vague, open-ended, unbound in discretion, arbitrary and without sufficient constraints or protection against arbitrary and excessive awards. 15. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all defenses asserted by Zaya Younan, Younan Properties, Inc., Younan Investment Properties, Inc., and Younan Investment Properties, L.P. in this matter that may be applicable to Defendants. 16. By pleading the foregoing defenses, Defendants do not assume the burden of proof on any matter. Also, additional facts may be revealed by discovery that supports additional DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST – PAGE 3 affirmative defenses presently available to, but unknown to, Defendants. Defendants therefore reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event that discovery and investigation indicate that additional defenses would be appropriate. DISCLOSURE REQUEST Pursuant to Rule 194, Plaintiffs are requested to disclose, within 30 days of service of this request, the information or material described by TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants RKM Capital and Richard Scandaliato pray that Plaintiffs takes nothing on their claims, that this lawsuit be dismissed, and that Defendants be awarded their fees and costs, and for such other and further relief to which they may show themselves justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, NESBITT, VASSAR & McCOWN, L.L.P. 15851 Dallas Parkway, Suite 800 Addison, Texas 75001 (972) 371-2411 (972) 371-2410 – Telecopier By: /s/ Jim McCown James M. McCown jmccown@nvmlaw.com State Bar No. 00788002 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by electronic mail on this 6th day of January, 2017 to all counsel of record in this proceeding. /s/ Jim McCown____________ James M. McCown DEFENDANTS RKM CAPITAL AND RICHARD SCANDALIATO’S ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE REQUEST – PAGE 4