Ernest Adimora Nweke In the 234th
Plaintiff JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
HARRIS COUNTY, TX
annah O. Yarbrough et al
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, MOTION FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT, INJUCTION MOTION, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE & COUNSEL MOTION
AND MOTION FOR CLASS COUNSEL COMPENSATION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Ernest Adimora Nweke, Plaintiff, and files this motion to certify class,
motion for declaratory judgment, motion for injunction, motion for appointment class counsel, and
motion for class counsel compensation in the cause number above
On 11/14/2018, HPD officers Wang and Terran, wrongfully arrested Plaintiff on a
misdemeanor DWI charge. No officer saw Plaintiff commit any DWI offense. Amongst others,
Plaintiff was never mirandized pre or post arrest, and was subjected to interrogation on the scene.
When the officers sought to take Plaintiff to Mykawa jail, Plaintiff continuously inquired as to
their basis. They alleged that they were arresting Plaintiff for “suspicion” of DWI. They did not
say that Plaintiff was being arrested for DWI; just “suspicion” of DWI. Plaintiff asked to speak to
the District Attorney who communicated with them over the telephone. They refused and stated
that they will add an interference charge i.e. interference with public duties. Plaintiff was
thereafter forcefully roughed up, and taken to Mykawa Jail in the HPD vehicle.
At Mykawa Jail, Plaintiff was never asked, in compliance with required Texas
Transportation Code 724.012, to provide any blood or breath specimen.
Plaintiff was strapped down to a chair, and about 4 or 5 HPD officers, including officer
Wang, drew Plaintiff’s blood without proper consent or authority. During the blood draw, they
used unreasonable force on Plaintiff during which Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries, as a result
of the unreasonable force used by the HPD officers during the blood draw.
Plaintiff had bruises on his arm from the location where they made multiple and painful
needle insertions. The state actor who drew the blood, made the multiple painful attempts because
he claimed that he could not locate Plaintiff’s vein. Plaintiff never saw a magistrate nor had an
After Plaintiff made bail, Plaintiff took photos of the physical injuries Plaintiff sustained
in his arm, due to the unconstitutional blood draw.
While the case was pending in trial county court, and while HYS and her state actor
cohorts/co-conspirators broke into Plaintiff’s home and electronic files – including iPhone and
iCloud, the intruders accessed and deleted the photos of the injuries from the unconstitutional
blood draw, from Plaintiff’s iPhone and iCloud account.
Also, after Plaintiff made bail, Plaintiff realized that the state actors – e.g. officer Wang –
took Plaintiff’s license. After leaving Mykawa jail, on 11/16/2019, Plaintiff immediately
requested an ALR hearing to contest the license taking, as a precautionary measure (See pg. 1 of
Sensitive Data Document, filed on 11/12/2020). In the ALR request, Plaintiff made it clear that
Plaintiff was never asked to give consent to the blood draw. Plaintiff sought to also make this
clear at the ALR hearing.
Plaintiff was never granted an ALR hearing. Rather, Plaintiff was blind-sighted with a
01/14/2019 dated Order of Suspension in the mail, stating that Plaintiff’s driving privilege was
suspended from 12/24/2018 through 06/21/2019 because of refusal to provide a specimen of blood
or breath following the arrest. (See pg. 2 of Sensitive Data Document, filed on 11/12/2020)
Plaintiff made various efforts to get an ALR hearing, but one was never given to Plaintiff.
Upon calling the Texas Department of Public Safety office in Austin, after receiving the
12/24/2018 order, Plaintiff understood that the license was suspended because the arresting officer,
officer Wang, claimed/reported that Plaintiff refused to consent to a specimen draw; and that such
refusal precluded any ALR hearing. Plaintiff made it clear that the officer did not seek consent as
required by statute, and Plaintiff still requested a hearing.
Plaintiff’s driving privilege was stilljustly deprived, per the suspension, without the
required due process including the ALR hearing.
Numerosity: Plaintiff’s equal protection and due process rights were also deprived as a result of
the unconstitutional Statutory Warning (i.e. the current DIC-24 document). This statutory warning
is applied state-wide per Texas Department of Public Safety’s state-wide jurisdiction. Per the
attached truncated report from Texas Department of Public Safety (“TxDPS”), (Exhibit 12 & 13),
there were 88,163 DWI charges in 2016, 90376 DWI charges in 2017, and 97,660 DWI charges
in 2018 in all Texas Counties. Hence there is a total of at least 276,199 different individuals that
were subjected to Texas Transportation Code (“TTC”) §724.015 informed consent requirement,
and the current DIC-24 statutory warning sheet. Such is sufficient enough basis to meet the class
numerosity requirement for class certification.
Commonality: There is a common question of fact and law that applicable to Plaintiff, that also
governs all proposed Class Members – i.e. whether the individual was subjected to the DIC-24
statutory warning in an alleged situation as enumerated in TTC §724.011 and/or TTC §724.015,
on or after 11/14/2016.
Typicality: The common claim and defense of Plaintiff and the class is whether the DIC-24
document is unconstitutional for non-compliance with TTC §724.015 enumerated requirements.
If not in compliance, then Plaintiff and Class Members were clearly subjected to and/or caused the
deprivation of their U.S. and Texas Constitutional equal protection and due process rights of the
Class Members were clearly deprived. Furthermore, the common question of fact and law
applicable to Plaintiff and all Class Members is in regards to damages. All Class Members are
subjected to and/or caused damages including the $125.00 reinstatement fee exposure or charge.
This reinstatement fee is required to be paid to TxDPS for renewal or issuance of driver’s license;
and applies in situations of TTC §724.015(2), §724.015(4), §724.015(5), and §724.015(6).
Plaintiff and the Class Members are caused additional damages including mental anguish, loss of
reputation, loss of income, loss of income opportunities, reputational injury.
If this Court finds that the DIC-24 document is unconstitutional, then a common defense against
the effectiveness of the DIC-24 document is a §1983 injunction against its enforcement or
applicability; with said defense common and applicable to all persons subjected to the DIC-24
document – since it is used throughout TxDPS jurisdiction (i.e. Texas).
Adequacy: Plaintiff is a viable class representative for (a) a declaratory judgment action under
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 37; (b) an injunction against the use, recognition,
and enforcement of the current DIC-24 under §1983; and (c) a §1983 injunction against any
$125.00 reinstatement fee payment requirement consequent to any use of the DIC-24 in the State
of Texas - as incurred or sustained by Plaintiff and Class Members.
Plaintiff is a counsel and can represent the interests of all Class Members himself. Plaintiff
has done the necessary research, has the litigation background to adequately carry out this class
action, and can vigorously prosecute the class claims as class representative and class counsel.
There is no conflict or antagonism between the interests of Plaintiff and Class Members.
All interests are aligned as the class certification sought is in regards to an injunction on the
enforceability, effectiveness, or unconstitutionality of the DIC – 24 form.
This project/class action is easily manageable because the main entities to work with on
the injunction to preclude or resolve the resulting $125.00 reinstatement fee damages, are Steven
McGraw and TxDPS. TxDPS has all information on all Class Members in their database, and
Plaintiff-Counsel can request the information via discovery.
In regards to financing the class action, that is relatively complex yet simple for Plaintiff.
It shall go according to the following Proposed Plan:
1. Once the DIC-24 is found unconstitutional, the class action certified, and Plaintiff appointed
as Class Representative and Class Counsel, Plaintiff-Counsel intends to begin by requesting
the information from Steven McGraw and TxDPS, to ascertain all the actual Class Members,
and calculate the aggregate $125.00 individual Class Member damages or damages exposure
– which is partly clear per Exhibit 12 & 13.
2. Plaintiff-Counsel shall work with Steven McGraw of TxDPS and his staff, to enter into a
settlement agreement in regards to the proposed modifications to the DIC – 24 form to meet
Texas Legislature requirements (e.g. Exhibit 14), and settlement terms of the injunction. The
settlement terms are as proposed in Exhibit 15, and shall include Plaintiff-ClassCounsel
attorney’s fees and costs paid in two tranches.
3. Within 5 business days of this Court’s pre-approval of the settlement terms at a Preliminary
Hearing, Steven McGraw and TxDPS shall then pay the first tranche of the settlement,
applicable for the attorney’s fees and costs for notice and administration of the settlement, to
Plaintiff-ClassCounsel’s designated account.
4. Upon receipt of the payment for the attorney’s fees and costs for notice and administration of
the settlement, Plaintiff-ClassCounsel shall then send out a class notice to all Class Members
(see Exhibit E of Exhibit 15).
5. The Final Settlement Hearing shall occur on July 1, 20201, and shall be in regards to objections
on the settlement terms.
6. On or before 07/06/2021, Steven McGraw shall release the remainder of the attorney’s fees
and costs due Plaintiff-ClassCounsel via a second tranche payment to Plaintiff-ClassCounsel
at said Plaintiff-ClassCounsel’s designated account.
7. Plaintiff shall then move to certify class for §1983 claims against other Defendants or putative
Defendants – i.e. the various governmental entities throughout Texas – for the non-
reinstatement fee damage claims incurred by putative Class Members.
8. Plaintiff shall present to this Court, a Proposed Plan for each class action sought to be certified
for said non-reinstatement fee damages claims that are due the Class Members, against future
class action Defendants.
Per the above, Plaintiff will adequately represent the interests of all Class Members in the
injunction sought against enforcement of the DIC-24, and for any resulting §1983 equal protection
and due process rights deprivation claim for damages. Plaintiff will also be able to finance this
Plaintiff is a duly licensed attorney by the State Bar of Texas, has always been and remains
in good standing.
Plaintiff also moves for a declaratory judgment – per Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code Chapter 37 – that the order of suspension dated 01/14/2019 is null and void per Bass v.
Hoagland, because it was obtained in violation of Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection
Plaintiff was entitled to an ALR hearing before any suspension of driving privileges.
Plaintiff timely requested an ALR hearing per Texas Transportation Code 524.031 as of
11/16/2018, and was denied such. Rather, Plaintiff’s driving privilege was suspended without the
required ALR hearing, to which Plaintiff is entitled under Texas Transportation Code 524.032.
Hence, the 01/14/2019 order of suspension must be declared null and void. Declaratory
judgment is allowed in this collateral proceeding per Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F.2d 205, 209 (5th
Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment that the current DIC-24 statutory warning sheet
used by HPD and Officer Wang and Terran, and throughout Texas per Steven C. McGraw’s
TxDPS agency, is null and void per Bass v. Hoagland; as it is not in compliance with the procedural
requirements of Texas Transportation Code 724.015, and it consequently subjects or causes
Plaintiff or similarly situated Texas citizens to be deprived of their U.S. and Texas Constitutional
equal protection and due process rights.
The current DIC-24 document is promulgated and enforced by TxDPS, under the direction,
supervision, and authority/authorization of TxDPS current Director, Steven C. McGraw.
The current DIC-24 statutory warning sheet is unconstitutional as it is missing §724.015(6).
Hence, it is void on its face. Therefore, any consent requested of Plaintiff or any Class Member,
based on the current DIC-24 statutory warning, is equivalent to no request at all, and amounts to a
violation of U.S. and Texas due process and equal protection rights.
Steven C. McGraw of TxDPS, HPD, and Harris County, are Defendants in this declaratory
judgment action because they instituted and adopted/use the same DIC-24 document (Exhibit 11).
Texas Attorney General shall be served with a copy of this pleading – as a precautionary
measure – to have their representative appear at the hearing on this motion for declaratory
Plaintiff-Class Representative hereby move for a 42 U.S.C. §1983 injunction against any
recognition of the 01/14/2019 order of suspension of Plaintiff’s driver’s license, or any similar
orders binding on Class Members. Plaintiff-Class Representative also move for a §1983 injunction
against any current or future requirement to pay any reinstatement fee (e.g. the $125.00
reinstatement fee) based on TxDPS orders issued or entered based on the currently existing DIC-
24 document (Exhibit 11). Steven C. McGraw, as Director of TxDPS and the applicable person
in charge, is a noticed Defendant in this §1983 injunction action.
Amongst others, the continuous resulting subjection to or deprivation of U.S. and Texas
Constitutional equal protection and due process rights, and the revocations or suspension orders,
and reinstatement fee requirement(s), constitute irreparable harm.
Plaintiff-Class Representative also hereby moves for a 42 U.S.C. §1983 injunction against
Steven C. McGraw as Director of TxDPS against any recognition or enforcement of the current
DIC-24 statutory warning sheet, or any proceedings, notices, or orders resulting from the current
DIC-24 statutory warning document, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional – i.e. in violation of
Texas Transportation Code 724.015, thereby depriving citizens of their U.S. and Texas
Constitutional equal protection right to proper Section 724.015 statutory warning; and subjecting
or causing Plaintiff and Class Members to be deprived of their U.S. Constitutional due process and
due course of law rights.
Wherefore, Plaintiff asks this Court to (a) certify class as requested above, (b) order
Plaintiff as class representative, (c) declare judgment that the order of suspension dated 01/14/2019
is null and void per Bass v. Hoagland, because it was obtained in violation of Plaintiff’s equal
protection and due process rights; (d) declare judgment that the current TxDPS promulgated
statutory warning sheet (i.e. the DIC-24 document) used by HPD, Officer Wang and Terran, and
law enforcement throughout Texas, is void and unconstitutional; (e) enjoin Steven C. McGraw as
Director of TxDPS any recognition or enforcement of the current DIC-24 statutory warning sheet,
or any proceedings, notices, or orders resulting from the current DIC-24 statutory warning
document, (f) grant Plaintiff and Class Members a 42 U.S.C. §1983 injunction against (i) any
recognition of the 01/14/2019 order of suspension of Plaintiff’s driver’s license, and (ii) any
requirement to pay any fee (e.g. the $125.00 reinstatement fee); and (g) order Plaintiff’s Class
Counsel compensation for attorney’s fees and costs fixed at the following formula: 40% of the
greater of (a) 276,199 multiplied by $125.00, or (b) $125.00 multiplied by the number of individual
Class Members with the exclusion of Plaintiff.
PARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
PALESTINE POLICE DEPT
PALESTINE POLICE DEPT
RYSTAL CITY POLICE
AVALA COUNTY SHERIFF
STATUTORY WARNING Proposed Rev
SUBJECT’S NAME NO./STATE DOB
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION (if unlicensed) Race: Sex: Height: Weight: Eyes: Hair:
DATE ARREST: TIME ARREST: COUNTY OF ARREST:
You are under arrest for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while you were operating a motor vehicle in a public place,
watercraft, while intoxicated, offense under Section 106.041, Alcoholic Beverage Code. You will asked give specimen your breath
and/or blood. The specimen will be analyzed to determine the alcohol concentration or the presence of a controlled substance, drug, dangerous
drug or other substance in your
If you refuse to give the specimen, that refusal may be admissible in a subsequent prosecution. Your license, permit or privilege to operate a motor
vehicle will be suspended or denied for not less than 180 days, whether or not you are subsequently prosecuted for this offen
If you refuse to submit to the taking of a specimen, the officer may apply for a warrant authorizing a specimen to be taken from you.
If you are 21 years of age or older and submit to the taking of a specimen and an analysis of the specimen shows that you have an alcohol
concentration of 0.08 or more, your license, permit or privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be suspended or denie d for not less than 90 days,
whether or not you are subsequently prosecuted for this offense.
If you are younger than 21 years of age and have any detectable amount of alcohol in your system, your license, permit or pri vilege to operate a
motor vehicle will be suspended or denied for not less than 60 days. However, if you submit to the taking of a specimen and an analysis of th
specimen shows that you have alcohol concentration less than 0.08, you may subject criminal penalties less severe than those provided
for under Chapter 49, Penal Code.
If you were operating a motor vehicle and you refuse to give the specimen or provide a specimen that shows you have an alcohol concentration of
0.08 or more, you may be disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for a period of not less than one year.
f the officer determines that you are
Texas resident without a license to operate a motor vehicle in Texas
Texas epartment of Public Safety will
deny you the issuance of a license, whether or not you are subsequently prosecuted as a result of the arrest, under the same conditions and for
the same periods that would have applied to a revocation your driver's license if you had held a driver's license issued by the State of Texas
You may request hearing the suspension denial. This request must received the Texas Department Public Safety its headquarters
Austin, Texas, later than days after you receive are presumed have received notice suspension denial. The request can made
by written demand, fax, or other form prescribed by the Department.
I certify that I have informed you both orally and in writing of the consequences of refusing to submit to the taking of a specimen or providing a
specimen. I have provided you with a complete and true copy of this statutory warning.
I am now requesting a specimen of your Breath Blood
Subject refused to allow the taking of a specimen and further refused to sign below as requested by this officer.
Subject refused to allow the taking of a specimen as evidenced by his/her signature below.
I further certify that because you are a child as defined in
Section 51.02, Family Code, the above request for a
specimen and your response have been videotaped.
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Officer’s Printed Name
White Driver’s Copy Yellow
ADIMORA LAW FIRM, PLLC
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT & RELEASE AGREEMENT
This Settlement and Release Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this ___
day of ______ 202__, between the “Parties” as defined in its Section I, per its enumerated terms.
• Plaintiff: Ernest Adimora-Nweke, on behalf of self and as “Class Representative” of the
duly certified and Defined Class Members.
• Class Representative: Ernest Adimora-Nweke.
• Defined Class Members: All persons within Texas and Texas Department of Public Safety
(“TxDPS”) Jurisdiction, who are subjected to the DIC-24 statutory warning document
(sample attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A) including in an alleged situation as
enumerated in TTC §724.011 and/or TTC §724.015, on or after 11/14/2016.
• Defendant: Steven C. McGraw as Director of TxDPS.
• Class Counsel: Adimora Law Firm, PLLC and its legal representative(s).
WHEREAS, Defendant is statutorily authorized to draft, promulgate, and enforce the DIC-24
Statutory Warning document, hereby attached as Exhibit A, throughout the State of Texas and via
various law enforcement entities and personnel throughout the State of Texas.
WHEREAS, on or about 09/15/2020, Plaintiff initiated a civil rights lawsuit against various
persons in Harris County District Court, Harris County, TX, with cause 202056824.
WHEREAS, on or about 11/13/2022 and 11/16/2020, Plaintiff filed, amongst others, a 3rd
Amendment to Original Petition, and Motion to Certify Class in cause 202056824 (“the Case”),
which included Defendant in his official capacity, and sought (a) declaratory judgment that the
TxDPS Order of Suspension dated 01/14/2019 (Exhibit B attached, hereby incorporated by
reference), is null and void per Bass v. Hoagland, because it was obtained in violation of Plaintiff’s
equal protection and due process rights; (b) declaratory judgment that the current TxDPS
promulgated statutory warning sheet (i.e. the DIC-24 document) used by law enforcement officers
and law enforcement entities throughout Texas, is void and unconstitutional; (c) that the Court
enjoin Steven C. McGraw as Director of TxDPS against any recognition or enforcement of the
current DIC-24 statutory warning sheet; (d) that the Court enjoin Steven C. McGraw as Director
of TxDPS against any recognition or enforcement of any proceedings, notices, or orders resulting
from the current DIC-24 statutory warning document; and (e) that the Court enjoin Steven C.
McGraw as Director of TxDPS against enforcement of any requirement to pay any reinstatement
fee (e.g. the $125.00 reinstatement fee mentioned in Exhibit B, hereby incorporated by reference)
as a result of the use of the DIC-24 statutory warning document.
WHEREAS, on XX/XX/20XX, the Court in the Case, issued a Judgment Order hereby attached
as Exhibit C, hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREAS on XX/XX/20XX, the Court in the Case, certified a class action suit against
ADIMORA LAW FIRM, PLLC
Defendant, with Plaintiff, Ernest Adimora-Nweke and Adimora Law Firm, PLLC, as the Class
Representative and Class Counsel respectively, for the sake of the injunction class action litigation
and its settlement, with authority to bind the Defined Class Members. See Exhibit C attached to
this Agreement and hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREAS, the Parties to this Agreement wish to resolve and settle all of their past, present and
any future claims, disputes and controversies, relating to the class action suit as certified on
XX/XX/20XX, per Exhibit C.
WHEREAS, the Parties to this Agreement intend to resolve and/or settle all current and putative
claims, disputes, and controversies, relating to the certified class action lawsuit in Exhibit C.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Agreement and for
other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and
receipt of said confirmation shall be confirmed by email from Plaintiff, Class Representative, or
Class Counsel, to Defendant or Defendant’s duly elected legal counsel, the Parties hereby agree as
1. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are incorporated into and constitute a part of this Agreement.
2. No Admission of Liability. This Agreement is entered into as an expedient and cost-effective
alternative to costly litigation. The parties make no admission of liability for any damages,
express or implied, by entering into this Agreement.
3. Defendant payment to Class Representative and Class Counsel. Defendant, in exchange
for the releases set forth below, and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby agree to pay to Class Representative and Class
Counsel, in United States Legal Currency/Dollars ($), the total amount calculated by the
following formula, according to the following schedule, and paid into the following Designated
1. Payment due within 10 business days of XXXXX (Insert Date of Court Preliminary
Hearing for pre-approval of Settlement Agreement): 20% of the greater of (a) 276,199
multiplied by $125.00, or (b) $125.00 multiplied by the number of individual class
members with the exclusion of Plaintiff.
2. Payment due within 10 business days of XXXXX (Date of Final Settlement Hearing
on Class Action Settlement): 20% of the greater of (a) 276,199 multiplied by $125.00,
or (b) $125.00 multiplied by the number of individual class members with the exclusion
3. Designated Payment Account: “Wells Fargo Bank, NA; Adimora Law Firm, PLLC;
Texas IOLTA Account # XXXXXXXXXX; Routing Number XXXXXXX.”
7. Class Representative and Class Counsel release of Defendant in the certified class action
lawsuits hereby attached as Exhibit C. For and in consideration of the foregoing and other
good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which if hereby acknowledged, and receipt
ADIMORA LAW FIRM, PLLC
to be acknowledged via email confirmation of payments under Sections III(3) of this
Agreement, the Parties on behalf of themselves, their principals, attorney(s) for the sake of any
attorney’s fees and costs due under their client-attorney retainer agreements, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to dismiss, release and hold harmless Defendant, TxDPS, Plaintiff, Class
Counsel, Class Representative, Defined Class Members, and any of their various directors,
employees, principals, insurers, attorneys, predecessors, successors and assigns, from any
matters, debts, dues, sums of money, covenants, controversies, agreements, promises,
trespasses, damages, civil money penalties, losses, expenses, costs, liabilities, obligations,
claims, demands, grievances, suits, causes of action, complaints, judgments, decrees,
executions of whatever kind, in law or in equity, absolute, contingent, likely or unlikely, known
or unknown, which have existed from the beginning of time to the date of this Agreement and
that result from the facts, causes of action, and damages alleged or which could have been
alleged in the class action lawsuits as certified per the Court Order attached as Exhibit C and
hereby incorporated by reference. This release between the Parties to this Agreement, includes
but is not limited to all damages or civil money penalty claims or actions asserted or which
could have been asserted in any lawsuit, and any and all damages or civil money penalty claims
or actions arising out of the injuries sustained as a result of the facts alleged or that could have
been alleged in the certified class action lawsuit per Exhibit C.
8. Extent of Release. The release set forth in this Section “IV. Releases” of this Agreement is
intended to have the broadest possible application within the scope of Exhibit C as specified
and dictated in Section IV(7) of this Agreement; and includes any tort, contract, common law,
constitutional or other statutory damages or civil money penalty claims or actions arising out
of any federal, state or local laws in regards to the matter alleged in Exhibit C. The release set
forth herein in this Agreement shall apply in regards to the matter alleged in Exhibit C, and
apply to the present and future entity officials of TxDPS, TxDPS present and future directors,
any TxDPS stockholders, TxDPS attorneys, TxDPS insurers, TxDPS employees, TxDPS
subsidiaries, TxDPS contractors and subcontractors, TxDPS partners, TxDPS predecessors,
and the successors in interest and assigns of the Parties.
9. Defendant Execution of Obligations/Responsibilities: Defendant, as Director of TxDPS,
hereby agree to provide Class Representative and Class Counsel, within 20 business days of
XXXXX (Insert Date of Court Hearing on Preliminary approval of settlement) with a list of
all names and addresses of all individuals within TxDPS official database, that fall within the
scope of the Defined Class Members per Section I of this Agreement. Defendant, as Director
of TxDPS, hereby agree to modify the DIC-24 statutory warning document to include Texas
Transportation Code Section 724.015(6), as proposed in Exhibit D attached, hereby
incorporated by reference. Defendant, as Director of TxDPS, hereby agree to modify the DIC-
24 statutory warning document to include Texas Transportation Code Section 724.015(6), as
proposed in Exhibit D attached, within 48 hours of execution of this Agreement – if not already
done before the execution of this Agreement. Defendant, as Director of TxDPS, hereby agree
to disseminate the modified DIC-24 statutory warning document that includes Texas
Transportation Code Section 724.015(6), as proposed in Exhibit D attached, to all law
enforcement entities and officers within the State of Texas, within 72 hours of the newly
ADIMORA LAW FIRM, PLLC
created and constitutionally compliant DIC-24 Statutory Warning document - if not already
done before the execution of this Agreement. Defendant, as Director of TxDPS, hereby agree
to enforce or effectuate the terms of the Court orders or judgments in the Case as applicable to
Defendant and TxDPS, including but not limited to Exhibit C.
10. Class Representative and Class Counsel Execution of Obligations/Responsibilities: The
Parties agree that upon performance of Sections III(3)(1) and III(3)(3) of this Agreement, Class
Representative and Class Counsel shall send out the Class Action Short Form Notice hereby
attached as Exhibit E to this Agreement, within 10 business days, to all Defined Class
Members; and sent via United States Postal Service to the individual names and addresses that
Defendant and TxDPS provides Class Representative and Class Counsel per terms of Section
V(9) of this Agreement.
11. Costs and Expenses. The Parties shall be responsible for their respective attorneys’ fees, costs,
and expenses incurred in the Case or in any legal proceedings related to the Case.
12. Confidentiality. The Parties agree that neither they nor their attorneys nor representatives shall
reveal to anyone, other than as may be mutually agreed to in writing, any of the non-public
terms of this Agreement, except by written and signed consent of all Parties.
13. Withdrawal and/or Dismissal of Claims. The Parties hereby agree to appear at a hearing on
July 1, 2021 in Harris County District Court 234, for a Final Settlement Hearing on Class
Action Settlement. The Parties agree that the date of the Final Settlement Hearing on Class
Action Settlement may be subject to change per Court order.
14. Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in
accordance with, the laws of the State of Texas. The Parties hereby irrevocably consent to
personal jurisdiction and venue in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, for any and all claims arising out of this Agreement over which that Court has subject
15. Amendments. This Agreement cannot be altered or otherwise amended except by written
instrument signed by all of the signatory Parties hereto.
16. Entire Agreement. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement constitutes the
full, complete, and entire agreement or the parties and that there are no other representations,
covenants, warranties, or other agreements binding of the parties that are not expressly set forth
17. Rule of Construction. The Parties acknowledge and agree that they have each had the
opportunity to have this Agreement reviewed by counsel of their choosing. Therefore, the
normal rule that ambiguities are construed against the drafter shall not apply in connection
with the interpretation and construction of this Agreement.
18. Authority of Signatories. The Parties represent and agree that the person executing this
Agreement on behalf of Defendant, TxDPS, Plaintiff, Class Counsel, Class Representative,
Defined Class Members, has the full, complete, or legal authority of the entity or individuals
for which he or she is binding to the terms of this Agreement, and have the full right and
authority to commit and fully bind themselves and the beneficiaries, individuals, entities, or
persons subjected or privy to the terms of this Agreement as transcribed herein, and according
to the provisions transcribed herein.
19. Validity of Agreement. The Parties represent and agree that this Agreement is a legally valid,
binding, and enforceable obligation of the Parties in accordance with its terms.
ADIMORA LAW FIRM, PLLC
20. Counterpart Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts,
including by facsimile, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
21. Effectiveness. This Agreement shall become effective immediately following execution by
all of its signatory parties, and shall become irrevocable upon an order of its pre-approval by
the Judge Presiding in cause# 202056824, in Harris County Judicial District Court No. 234,
Harris County, Hou