Preview
(“N
7
NO. DC—20-08856 F g L ED
CRELENE DENBY-THOMPSON § IN THE DISTRICT COMEP -9 PH 2:0:
Plaintiff, §
§
V. §
§
@‘Spmv
160TH JUDICIAL DISTRI T
§
§
SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC., §
ORLANDO BREEZE RESORTS §
CLUB, INC., and HOLIDAY INN §
CLUB VACATIONS §
INCORPORATED
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
ELAlNTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTIS 2N TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
ANQ 218M188 OR STAY LITIGATION
ERQQEEDIEGS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COIWES, Plaintiff, CRELENE DENBY~THOMPSON, and files this
Defendants Silverleaf Resorts, Inc., now known as Silverleaf
Plaintiff Objection to
Orlando Breeze Resorts Club, improperly named as
Resorts, LLC (“Silverleaf’),
“Club”), and Holiday Inn Club Vacations
Orlando Breeze Resorts, Inc. (the
“Defendants”)1 Motion for Protective Order,
Incorporated (“HICVI”) (collectively,
and state as follows:
I. SUMMARY OF THE DISPUTE
affiliated entities, are in the business of
Defendants Silverleaf and HICVI,
vacation ownership interests, commonly known as
developing, marketing, and selling
In May 2015, Grange Lake Holdings, LLP, the
timeshares, at resorts across the nation.
Plaintiff received false
purchased Silverleaf.
parent company of HICVI,
interest from Silverleaf
to purchase vacation
ownership
advertisements and was misled
April 2014. Plaintiff had initially
Resort (“Orlando Breeze”) in
at its Orlando Breeze
interests fiom Silverleaf at The
purchased two vacation ownership
been misled and
Resort, in Clarksville, Georgia,
in Flint, Texas and Apple Mountain
Villages Resort
ando Breeze unit. Plaintiff brought this suit
tra ded in to pur cha se the Orl
which she
the Texas Deceptive Trade
claims for violation 0f
against Defendants alleging
.
after recently discoveri
ng the misrepresentations
Practices Act (“DTPA
”) and fraud
H. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
provision or raises a defense
the scope 0f an arbitration
When a party disputes
must decide the issues. Buckeye
trial court, not the arbitrator,
to the provision, the
126 S. Ct. 1204, 163 L. Ed.
546 U.S. 440, 444,
Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna,
on to decide if disputed claims
Texas courts are called
2d 1038,9006). And "[W]hen
Federal Act, Texas procedure
of an arbitration clause under the
fall within the scepe
268. Pre-arbitration discovery is
determination." Tz’pps, 842 S.W.2d at
controls that
Act when a trial court cannot fairly
under the Texas Arbitration
expressly authorized
.
because lacks sufficient
5
on the motion to compel 1t
and prbperly make its decision
~
provision or other issues of
the scope of an arbitration
information regarding
171.086(a)(4),(6).
arbitrability. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REMCODE §§ 171.023(b),
as to the merits of the
authorization to order discovery
This, however, is not an
and any reasonably needed
Mot ion s to compel arbitration
underl yin g con trover sy.
ed Without delay. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d at 269.
discovery should be resolv
genuine but is procured
in this case, the signature is
In a fraud situation, as is
fiaud is voidable at the
means. In Texas, an instrument procured by
through deceptive
See Slaughter v. Qualls, 162 S. WZd 671 (Tex.
of the defrauded Grantor.
election
0f legal title until set aside by
effective as a conveyance
1942). Such an instrument is
Lighthouse Church of Cloverleaf
son thr oug h a judicial proceeding.
the def rau ded per
1994, wrz'r
App.- Houston [14th Dist]
v. Texas Bank, 889 SWZd 595, 602 (Tex.
signed With the Defendants
to void any and all agreements
denied). Plaintiff seeks
and fraud. Material facts were
ons
through misrepresentati
because they were procured
advertisements and misleading
a series of false
the Plaintiff through
misrepresented to
.
endants When she signed the documents
conversations with the Def
causes economic injury to the
a contracts claim occurs when one party
Fraud in
Contract laws are very strict
through the use of misrepresentation.
other party
expected to conduct business
aus e the parties are
fraudu len t con duc t, bec
regarding
will reveal that
fair and reasonable. The facts
with one another in a manner that is
other Consumers in the same unfair
hav e tak en adv ant age of ma ny
Defendants
wer to in a Court 0f law.
should be required to ans
it
manner, and
III. CONCLUSION
requests that the Court
and foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully
Based on the above
proceed on to trial, or
and allow this action to
Motion in its entirety
deny Defendants
.
cerning the fiaud claims
allow limited discovery con
Respectfully submitted,
”’ 2*”?
fix; , /”7; f:
"=~£RELENE DENBY-THOMPSON
,
200 Abel Drive
Glenn Heights, Texas 75154
Tel. (214) 463-8860
Preview
(“N 7 NO. DC—20-08856 F g L ED CRELENE DENBY-THOMPSON § IN THE DISTRICT COMEP -9 PH 2:0: Plaintiff, § § V. § § @‘Spmv 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRI T § § SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC., § ORLANDO BREEZE RESORTS § CLUB, INC., and HOLIDAY INN § CLUB VACATIONS § INCORPORATED Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ELAlNTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIS 2N TO COMPEL ARBITRATION ANQ 218M188 OR STAY LITIGATION ERQQEEDIEGS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COIWES, Plaintiff, CRELENE DENBY~THOMPSON, and files this Defendants Silverleaf Resorts, Inc., now known as Silverleaf Plaintiff Objection to Orlando Breeze Resorts Club, improperly named as Resorts, LLC (“Silverleaf’), “Club”), and Holiday Inn Club Vacations Orlando Breeze Resorts, Inc. (the “Defendants”)1 Motion for Protective Order, Incorporated (“HICVI”) (collectively, and state as follows: I. SUMMARY OF THE DISPUTE affiliated entities, are in the business of Defendants Silverleaf and HICVI, vacation ownership interests, commonly known as developing, marketing, and selling In May 2015, Grange Lake Holdings, LLP, the timeshares, at resorts across the nation. Plaintiff received false purchased Silverleaf. parent company of HICVI, interest from Silverleaf to purchase vacation ownership advertisements and was misled April 2014. Plaintiff had initially Resort (“Orlando Breeze”) in at its Orlando Breeze interests fiom Silverleaf at The purchased two vacation ownership been misled and Resort, in Clarksville, Georgia, in Flint, Texas and Apple Mountain Villages Resort ando Breeze unit. Plaintiff brought this suit tra ded in to pur cha se the Orl which she the Texas Deceptive Trade claims for violation 0f against Defendants alleging . after recently discoveri ng the misrepresentations Practices Act (“DTPA ”) and fraud H. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES provision or raises a defense the scope 0f an arbitration When a party disputes must decide the issues. Buckeye trial court, not the arbitrator, to the provision, the 126 S. Ct. 1204, 163 L. Ed. 546 U.S. 440, 444, Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, on to decide if disputed claims Texas courts are called 2d 1038,9006). And "[W]hen Federal Act, Texas procedure of an arbitration clause under the fall within the scepe 268. Pre-arbitration discovery is determination." Tz’pps, 842 S.W.2d at controls that Act when a trial court cannot fairly under the Texas Arbitration expressly authorized . because lacks sufficient 5 on the motion to compel 1t and prbperly make its decision ~ provision or other issues of the scope of an arbitration information regarding 171.086(a)(4),(6). arbitrability. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REMCODE §§ 171.023(b), as to the merits of the authorization to order discovery This, however, is not an and any reasonably needed Mot ion s to compel arbitration underl yin g con trover sy. ed Without delay. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d at 269. discovery should be resolv genuine but is procured in this case, the signature is In a fraud situation, as is fiaud is voidable at the means. In Texas, an instrument procured by through deceptive See Slaughter v. Qualls, 162 S. WZd 671 (Tex. of the defrauded Grantor. election 0f legal title until set aside by effective as a conveyance 1942). Such an instrument is Lighthouse Church of Cloverleaf son thr oug h a judicial proceeding. the def rau ded per 1994, wrz'r App.- Houston [14th Dist] v. Texas Bank, 889 SWZd 595, 602 (Tex. signed With the Defendants to void any and all agreements denied). Plaintiff seeks and fraud. Material facts were ons through misrepresentati because they were procured advertisements and misleading a series of false the Plaintiff through misrepresented to . endants When she signed the documents conversations with the Def causes economic injury to the a contracts claim occurs when one party Fraud in Contract laws are very strict through the use of misrepresentation. other party expected to conduct business aus e the parties are fraudu len t con duc t, bec regarding will reveal that fair and reasonable. The facts with one another in a manner that is other Consumers in the same unfair hav e tak en adv ant age of ma ny Defendants wer to in a Court 0f law. should be required to ans it manner, and III. CONCLUSION requests that the Court and foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully Based on the above proceed on to trial, or and allow this action to Motion in its entirety deny Defendants . cerning the fiaud claims allow limited discovery con Respectfully submitted, ”’ 2*”? fix; , /”7; f: "=~£RELENE DENBY-THOMPSON , 200 Abel Drive Glenn Heights, Texas 75154 Tel. (214) 463-8860