arrow left
arrow right
  • SUNIL RAMNANI, et al  vs.  ZAYA YOUNAN, et alOTHER (CIVIL) document preview
  • SUNIL RAMNANI, et al  vs.  ZAYA YOUNAN, et alOTHER (CIVIL) document preview
  • SUNIL RAMNANI, et al  vs.  ZAYA YOUNAN, et alOTHER (CIVIL) document preview
						
                                

Preview

FILED DALLAS COUNTY 1/17/2017 1:04:37 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK CAUSE NO. DC-16-00007 SUNIL RAMNANI, MUKHTIAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT GREWAL and HARDEEP § GREWAL § Plaintiffs, § v. § § ZAYA YOUNAN, YOUNAN § PROPERTIES, INC., YOUNAN § INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, § L.P., BRIAN HENNESSEY, § 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NARBEH TATEVOSSIAN, § QUENTIN THOMPSON, § DELOITTE & TOUCHE, L.L.P., § NORTHMARQ CAPITAL, LLC, § RICHARD SCANDALIATO, § EQUITY OFFICE § MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PROMARK CAPITAL GROUP, § L.P., AND RKM CAPITAL, § § Defendants. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Subject to its Motion to Strike, Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte) files the following Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition, which shall also apply to any future amended or supplemental petitions that Plaintiffs may file. I. General Denial Per Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92, Deloitte generally denies each material allegation that Plaintiffs assert against it. II. Affirmative and other defenses A. Plaintiffs’ attempt to add Deloitte as a party to this case via its Fourth Amended Petition is void and of no effect because Plaintiffs failed to obtain leave of Court on a showing of good cause, which was required under the Scheduling Order governing this case. Deloitte & Touche LLP’s Original Answer Page 1 B. Plaintiffs’ claims against Deloitte are barred by the statute of limitations. C. Plaintiffs’ claims against Deloitte are barred by laches. D. Deloitte owed Plaintiffs no legal duty. E. Plaintiffs did not, and were not legally entitled to, actually or justifiably rely on any audit opinion or other statement issued by Deloitte. F. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by (i) Plaintiffs’ own negligence, misfeasance or other fault, (ii) the negligence, misfeasance or other fault of other parties against which Plaintiffs have asserted claims, and/or (iii) the negligence, misfeasance or other fault of third parties. Under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, any recovery sought or obtained from Deloitte must therefore be eliminated or reduced by the percentage of responsibility attributable to Plaintiffs, other defendants, settling parties, and responsible third parties for causing or contributing to cause in any way the harm for which recovery of damages is sought. III. Prayer Deloitte prays that the Court render judgment that Plaintiffs take nothing on their claims against Deloitte; that Deloitte recover its costs; and that Deloitte recover such further relief to which it may be entitled. Deloitte & Touche LLP’s Original Answer Page 2 Respectfully submitted, EWELL, BROWN, BLANKE & KNIGHT LLP By: /s/ Joseph R. Knight Joseph R. Knight State Bar No. 11601275 jknight@ebbklaw.com Amy K. Penn State Bar No. 24056117 apenn@ebbklaw.com 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2800 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 770-4010 (877 851-6384 (Facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of foregoing has been served upon counsel of record via the Court’s ECF filing system on January 17, 2017: Via E-Mail Via E-Mail John L. Malesovas, Esq. James M. McCown, Esq. Malesovas Law Firm Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown, L.L.P. 1801 South Mopac Expressway 15851 Dallas Parkway, Suite 800 Suite 320 Addison, Texas 75001 Austin, Texas 78746 jmccown@nvmlaw.com john@malesovas.com Via E-Mail Anthony L. Vitullo, Esq. Auston Cherry Ryan T. Steinbrunner, Esq. Cowles & Thompson Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3900 Three Galleria Tower Dallas, Texas 75202 13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000 acherry@cowlesthompson.com Dallas, Texas 75240 lvitullo@feesmith.com rsteinbrunner@feesmith.com /s/ Joseph R. Knight Deloitte & Touche LLP’s Original Answer Page 3