Preview
4/1/2020 11:53 AM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-007636 D-1-GN-18-007636
Norma Ybarra
e
ic
THE ROY F. & JOANN COLE MITTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Pr
FOUNDATION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
L.
§
v. §
a
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
lv
WC 1ST AND TRINITY, LP, §
Ve
WC 1ST AND TRINITY GP, LLC, §
WC 3RD AND CONGRESS, LP AND §
WORLD CLASS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC §
k
§ 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
er
Defendants. §
Cl
ct
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION
TO FILE SUPERSEDEAS BOND
tri
is
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
D
NOW COMES The Roy F. & Joann Cole Mitte Foundation (“Mitte”), and files this Response
.
Co
to Defendants’ Motion For Extension to File Supersedeas Bond and would show the Court as follows:
I.
is
av
In its current posture, Mitte is regretfully unable to agree to the requested extension. If this
Tr
were any litigant other than Nate Paul’s World Class entities, Mitte would agree to the extension
y
in light of the coronavirus situation. However, Defendants track record in this litigation/arbitration
op
is such that a failure to post a bond, or an attempt to delay posting, was a virtual certainty even
c
before the pandemic. The following has been indisputably established in this case:
l
ia
•
fic
Defendants are under active criminal investigation by federal authorities;
•
of
Defendants defaulted on a $10.5 million settlement;
Un
• Defendants consistently ignored deadlines established in the arbitration;
• Defendants have allowed defaults on the loans for both properties;
1
• Affiliated World Class entities have filed 15 bankruptcies in the past 6 months; and
e
• Defendants are on their 7th lawyer in this dispute, and the previous attorneys have
ic
withdrawn due to nonpayment, “strategic differences,” or both.
Pr
In light of this history, one can appreciate Mitte’s skepticism regarding the requested extension.
L.
Despite that, in light of the coronavirus situation, Mitte informed counsel for Defendants that it
a
lv
would agree to the extension if they would inform of us of the identity of the bonding company.
Ve
This would give Mitte some assurance that Defendants were actually intending to post a legitimate
k
bond. Defendants’ refusal to provide that basic information only heightens our suspicion.
er
There are other reasons to view the requested extension with suspicion. Mitte agreed at the
Cl
March 9 hearing to allow Defendants 20 days, rather than 7 or 10, to post the bond. Most of the
work-from-home policies did not go into effect ct
until the following week. Furthermore, Mitte
tri
is
checked with its bonding company this week and confirmed that they are ready, willing and able
D
to write bonds despite having to work remotely. When Defendants first requested the extension
.
Co
from Mitte Monday evening, and up until the motion was actually filed, the only grounds offered
were the limitations presented by having to work remotely. Obviously, that can be worked around,
is
av
so now Defendants are mainly utilizing the fact that the district clerk’s office is closed for walk-in
Tr
service. Surely, some reasonable accommodations could be made to work around that situation,
y
and Mitte would obviously agree to any reasonable accommodations.
op
But for all of the appeals, stay requests, and other delaying tactics of Defendants, the
c
properties could have already been sold by the receiver by now. Selling before the potential for a
l
ia
declining market would have benefitted all partners. Now, the situation is uncertain, but further
fic
delays, especially if Defendants ultimately fail to post a legitimate bond, obviously should be
of
Un
avoided.
2
CONCLUSION
e
Mitte believes that a telephonic hearing, or a decision on written submission, would be
ic
Pr
sufficient. Mitte respectfully requests that a representative of the bonding company participate in
L.
the hearing so that Mitte, or the Court, can satisfy itself that everything is on the up and up. In the
a
event that the Court entertains an extension, Mitte requests that it be for a date certain 14 days
lv
hence and not open ended as suggested by Defendants’ motion.
Ve
k
er
Cl
Respectfully submitted,
ct
tri
MCGINNIS LOCHRIDGE LLP
Ray Chester
is
State Bar No. 04189065
D
Michael A. Shaunessy
State Bar No. 18134550
.
Co
600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 495-6000
is
(512) 495-6361 Fax
rchester@mcginnislaw.com
av
mshaunessy@mcginnislaw.com
Tr
y
By: __________
op
Ray Chester
c
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF THE ROY F.
& JOANN COLE MITTE FOUNDATION
l
ia
fic
of
Un
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
e
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
ic
been sent via email and on this the 1st day of April, 2020, to the following counsel of record:
Pr
Terry L. Scarborough, LLP
L.
V. Blayre Pena
Hance Scarborough, LLP
a
400 W. 15th Street, Suite 950
lv
Austin, Texas 78701
512/479-8888
Ve
tscarborough@hslawmail.com
bpena@hslawmail.com
k
er
Wallace B. Jefferson
State Bar No. 00000019
Cl
wjefferson@adjtlaw.com
Nicholas Bacarisse
ct
State Bar No. 24073872
nbacarisse@adjtlaw.com
tri
ALEXANDER DUBOSE & JEFFERSON, LLP
is
515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350
Austin, Texas 78701-3562
D
Telephone: (512) 482-9300
Facsimile: (512) 482-9303
.
Co
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
is
av
__________
Tr
Ray Chester
y
op
c
l
ia
fic
of
Un
4
Preview
4/1/2020 11:53 AM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-007636 D-1-GN-18-007636 Norma Ybarra e ic THE ROY F. & JOANN COLE MITTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Pr FOUNDATION, § § Plaintiff, § L. § v. § a § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS lv WC 1ST AND TRINITY, LP, § Ve WC 1ST AND TRINITY GP, LLC, § WC 3RD AND CONGRESS, LP AND § WORLD CLASS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC § k § 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT er Defendants. § Cl ct PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE SUPERSEDEAS BOND tri is TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: D NOW COMES The Roy F. & Joann Cole Mitte Foundation (“Mitte”), and files this Response . Co to Defendants’ Motion For Extension to File Supersedeas Bond and would show the Court as follows: I. is av In its current posture, Mitte is regretfully unable to agree to the requested extension. If this Tr were any litigant other than Nate Paul’s World Class entities, Mitte would agree to the extension y in light of the coronavirus situation. However, Defendants track record in this litigation/arbitration op is such that a failure to post a bond, or an attempt to delay posting, was a virtual certainty even c before the pandemic. The following has been indisputably established in this case: l ia • fic Defendants are under active criminal investigation by federal authorities; • of Defendants defaulted on a $10.5 million settlement; Un • Defendants consistently ignored deadlines established in the arbitration; • Defendants have allowed defaults on the loans for both properties; 1 • Affiliated World Class entities have filed 15 bankruptcies in the past 6 months; and e • Defendants are on their 7th lawyer in this dispute, and the previous attorneys have ic withdrawn due to nonpayment, “strategic differences,” or both. Pr In light of this history, one can appreciate Mitte’s skepticism regarding the requested extension. L. Despite that, in light of the coronavirus situation, Mitte informed counsel for Defendants that it a lv would agree to the extension if they would inform of us of the identity of the bonding company. Ve This would give Mitte some assurance that Defendants were actually intending to post a legitimate k bond. Defendants’ refusal to provide that basic information only heightens our suspicion. er There are other reasons to view the requested extension with suspicion. Mitte agreed at the Cl March 9 hearing to allow Defendants 20 days, rather than 7 or 10, to post the bond. Most of the work-from-home policies did not go into effect ct until the following week. Furthermore, Mitte tri is checked with its bonding company this week and confirmed that they are ready, willing and able D to write bonds despite having to work remotely. When Defendants first requested the extension . Co from Mitte Monday evening, and up until the motion was actually filed, the only grounds offered were the limitations presented by having to work remotely. Obviously, that can be worked around, is av so now Defendants are mainly utilizing the fact that the district clerk’s office is closed for walk-in Tr service. Surely, some reasonable accommodations could be made to work around that situation, y and Mitte would obviously agree to any reasonable accommodations. op But for all of the appeals, stay requests, and other delaying tactics of Defendants, the c properties could have already been sold by the receiver by now. Selling before the potential for a l ia declining market would have benefitted all partners. Now, the situation is uncertain, but further fic delays, especially if Defendants ultimately fail to post a legitimate bond, obviously should be of Un avoided. 2 CONCLUSION e Mitte believes that a telephonic hearing, or a decision on written submission, would be ic Pr sufficient. Mitte respectfully requests that a representative of the bonding company participate in L. the hearing so that Mitte, or the Court, can satisfy itself that everything is on the up and up. In the a event that the Court entertains an extension, Mitte requests that it be for a date certain 14 days lv hence and not open ended as suggested by Defendants’ motion. Ve k er Cl Respectfully submitted, ct tri MCGINNIS LOCHRIDGE LLP Ray Chester is State Bar No. 04189065 D Michael A. Shaunessy State Bar No. 18134550 . Co 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 495-6000 is (512) 495-6361 Fax rchester@mcginnislaw.com av mshaunessy@mcginnislaw.com Tr y By: __________ op Ray Chester c ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF THE ROY F. & JOANN COLE MITTE FOUNDATION l ia fic of Un 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE e I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has ic been sent via email and on this the 1st day of April, 2020, to the following counsel of record: Pr Terry L. Scarborough, LLP L. V. Blayre Pena Hance Scarborough, LLP a 400 W. 15th Street, Suite 950 lv Austin, Texas 78701 512/479-8888 Ve tscarborough@hslawmail.com bpena@hslawmail.com k er Wallace B. Jefferson State Bar No. 00000019 Cl wjefferson@adjtlaw.com Nicholas Bacarisse ct State Bar No. 24073872 nbacarisse@adjtlaw.com tri ALEXANDER DUBOSE & JEFFERSON, LLP is 515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350 Austin, Texas 78701-3562 D Telephone: (512) 482-9300 Facsimile: (512) 482-9303 . Co ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS is av __________ Tr Ray Chester y op c l ia fic of Un 4