Document for PANNELL, JUSTIN vs. CITY OF ROSENBERG

• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                NO.

                  JUSTIN PANNELL                                                 IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                  Plaintiff

                  V.                                                                     JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                    ITY OF ROSENBERG, ROSENBERG
                  POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS
                  WARREN, JEREMY EDER, FORT
                  BEND COUNTY, FORT BEND
                  COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, JOSH
                  DALE, BRYAN BAKER, ROGER
                  ABSHIRE and USK9 UNLIMITED,
                  INCORPORATED

                  Defendants
                                                                                 OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

                        PLAINTIFF’S SUR            REPLY TO DEFENDANTS ROGER ABSHIRE AND USK9
                          UNLIMITED INCORPORATE’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
                                                DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL APPEARANCE

                  TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

                           NOW      COMES       Plaintiff,  Justin  Pannell   as Movant     herein,  and   requests   that the  Court

                  deny    Defendant’s      Roger    Abshire     and   USK9      UNLIMITED,         INCORPORATED’s              special

                  appearance and would show unto the Court the following



                           Without    waiving    any  of the  legal  arguments,    objections,   or  facts that  have   been  alleged

                  thus  far  by   Plaintiff  in the   filings  concerning    the  Defendant       Special   Appearance;      Plaintiff

                  would present the following case unto this Honorable Court for its consideration in determining

                  the issue of specific jurisdiction.



                           In  Tv  Azteca   v. Ruiz,  the  trial court  denied   the  special  appearance     filed  by  Defendants.
                  (This   case  has   been   attached   to  this  filing)  The   appellate    court  upheld    that  denial   and  the

                  Supreme     Court of Texas also      upheld   that denial.    The reasoning     in that case   directly  ties to the

                  facts  of  the present   case  before   the  Court.     his  case  concern     a defamation     claim   filed in  the

                  State   of  Texas    and   that  defamation     claim   was   against   out      state  Defendants.     The   Court

                  ultimately held that personal jurisdiction existed and that the special appearances must be denied.

                  Here’s why:

                           In  Azteca,   the  Court   held  that  a “a  plaintiff  can   establish  that  a  defamation    defendant

                  targeted    Texas    by   relying    on   “other    additional    conduct”     through    which    the   defendant

                  “continuously and deliberately explo ted” the Texas market. Citing Keeton, 465 U.S.S at 781, TV

                  Azteca   v. Ruiz,  490 S.W. 3d 47 (2016). Just         because   Defendant     Abshire wants to claim that his

                  business was limited to Louisiana and that he had not purposefully availed himself of conducting

                  activities  within   the  State  of  Texas   does   not  make    it true. In  fact, the  evidence    points   in the

                  opposite    direction.   Plaintiff  has   attached   the  webpage     for  USK9     as  Exhibit    1  showing    the

                  “awards”    and   “honors”    that  Roger   Abshire    has  received   as  well  as  the  police  departments     he

                  very  proudly claims he      does business.     Upon   information     and  belief, there are   at least      police

                  departments     in  the State   of Texas    with  which    he  does   business.   (Exhibit   1). All  departments

                  which are located in the State of Texas have been highlighted in the exhibit.

                           The Defendants also use Moki Mac as               case to attempt to claim that the State of Texas

                  does   not  have   jurisdiction   over  USK      or  Roger    Abshire    Azteca   distinguishes    that  case   as it

                  should    be  distinguished     here.   Personal    jurisdiction   was   denied    in  Moki    Mac    because    the

                  actionable    conduct    occurred     and   caused    harm    outside   of  the   forum    state.  In  Azteca,   the

                  actionable   conduct    occurred   in Texas    and  caused    harm   in Texas.   Thus,   this distinguishes    Moki

                  Mac from the present case.        However, Moki Mac does provide that “additional conduct” must be
                  present to show minimum contacts. Just as in Azteca when the claims for defamation arose out of

                  the defamation which occurred in broadcast aired in Texas, so too does the Plaintiff’s claims in

                  this case arise out of a phone call which originated in Texas              (according to Dallis Warren’s new

                  affidavit  which    was filed   by  Roger   Abshire’s lawyer       Taken   in  conjunction    with  the  additional

                  conduct    of proclaiming     that  USK9    serves   the  State  of  Texas,   this establishes    that Defendants

                  purposefully    availed themselves of Texas in         connection    with this phone call. Furthermore, now

                  that  this phone   call  has  been  established    to have   occurred   in  Texas,   the  harm   can  be  shown    to

                  have   been   caused    in Texas    and   Roger    Abshire   himself    had   minimum      contacts   sufficient   to

                  support specific jurisdiction in Texas.

                                                                           III.

                           WHEREFORE           PREMISES        CONSIDERED,          Plaintiff   prays   that  the  Court    deny   the

                  Defendant’s     special  appearance.     Plaintiff prays   for  all other  relief  at law  and   in equity   that he

                  may be entitled.

                                                                        Respectfully Submitted,

                                                                        /s/ Alexander J. Houthuijzen
                                                                        Alexander J. Houthuijzen
                                                                        SBN: 24101224
                                                                        917 Franklin St. 400


                                                                        alex@alexthedefender.com
                                                                        Attorney for Justin Pannell

                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

                           I  certify  that  on  April      , 2019    a true   and  correct   copy    of Plaintiff’s   Sur Reply     to
                  Defendant       Reply   to  Plaintiff      esponse    to Defendant     s Special   Appearance      was   served   by
                  facsimile       all attorneys of record in this case through the e filing system


                                                                        /s/ Alexander J. Houthuijzen
                                                                        Alexander J. Houthuijze