Preview
CAUSE NO.
ALFONSO HERNANDEZ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
IVAN HERNANDEZ
Plaintiffs
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RANDOLPH RUSSELL AND
MARY RUSSELL
Defendant JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COME Randolph Russell and Mary Russell Defendants”) filing First
Amended Objection to, and Motion to Strike (“Objection”) Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition (the
Amended Petition and would respectfully show the Court the following
SUMMARY THE OBJECTION
On July 2, 2021, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”).
On July 6, 2021, Defendants filed their Notice of Submission that Defendants’ Motion
would be set for submission (“Submission Hearing”) on August 2, 2021, at 8:00 a.m., more
han 21 days from Defendants’ Motion being filed.
Plaintiffs had until July 26, 2021, 7 days before the Submission Hearing, to file a response
to Defendants’ Motion.
Plaintiffs did not file a response by July 26, 2021.
Plaintiffs did not seek leave of court to file a late response to Defendants’ Motion.
On July 29, 2021, 5 days before the Submission Hearing, Plaintiffs filed their Amended
EFENDANTS FIRST AMENDED BJECTION TO OTION TO TRIKE LAINTIFFS IRST MENDED
ETITION Page of
Petition and Response to Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition raises no new
facts, evidence, or causes of action. Moreover, it is late, has not received leave of court,
and violates the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Plaintiffs did not seek leave of court, and therefore, their Amended Petition is late,
should be disregarded, and violates Rule 63.
7. A party should file an amended petition or answer as soon as it becomes aware it is
necessary, but no later than seven days before the hearing. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 63; B.C.
v. Steak N Shake Opers, Inc., 598 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2020); Sosa v. Central Power &
Light, 909 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1995) (emphasis added). Rule 63 provides in relevant
part that any pleadings, responses, or pleas offered for filing within seven days of a
summary judgment hearing, shall be filed only after leave of the judge is obtained. TEX.
R. CIV. P. 63 (emphasis added).
8. A motion to strike an amended pleading is used to object to an amended pleading that was
filed without leave of court. Stevenson v. Koutzarov, 795 S.W.2d 313, 321 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (motion to strike timely filed amended petition);
Singleton v. Northwest Tex. Healthcare Sys., No. 07-03-0552-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo
2006, no pet.) (memo op.; 2-28-06) (motion to strike untimely amended petition without
leave of court).
9. Plaintiffs had until July 26, 2021, to file their Amended Petition, yet waited until July 29,
2021, within seven days of the Submission Hearing. Plaintiffs did not obtain leave from
this Court before filing and have not filed any motion requesting leave. Plaintiffs must
follow the rules of civil procedure and the Court should disregard their untimely filing.
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
PETITION Page 2 of 6
B. Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition does not raise any new facts, evidence, or causes of action
against Defendants.
10. If the amended petition only sets forth new facts or new grounds that are totally
encompassed by the prior cause of action, i.e., different ways that the movant was
negligent, then the original motion for summary judgment will be sufficiently broad to
cover the added grounds and an amended motion for summary judgment will not be
necessary. Logsdon v. Logsdon, No. 02-16-00063-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1370 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth February 16, 2017, no pet.); Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Barker Roofing,
L.P., 387 S.W.3d 54, 67 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, no pet.) (holding summary judgment
could be granted as to new claims added before the motion was decided); Ritter v. Las
Colonitas Condo. Ass’n,, 319 S.W.3d 884, 891 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.)
(upholding summary judgment on claims added after motion was filed but before the
motion was disposed).
11. If a motion for summary is sufficiently broad to encompass later-filed claims or defenses,
the movant need not amend its motion. Lampasis v. Spring Center, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 428,
436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
12. In Lampasis v. Spring Center, Inc., the movant filed a no-evidence motion for summary
judgment against the non-movant’s negligence claim. 988 S.W.2d at 436. The non-movant
filed an amended petition alleging new facts and new ways the movant was negligent. The
trial court granted the movant a final summary judgment, and the non-movant appealed the
judgment arguing the movant’s motion did not cover his newly pleaded grounds. The
appellate court affirmed the summary judgment and stated:
“The new no evidence summary judgment shifts the focus of the summary
judgment from the pleadings to the actual evidence …. The thrust of the new rule
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
PETITION Page 3 of 6
is to require evidence. A no evidence summary judgment prevents the nonmovant
from standing solely on his pleadings, but instead requires him to bring forward
sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for instructed verdict. … Here, the no
evidence motion for summary judgment stated that there was no evidence of any
duty, breach, or causation. … Instead of bringing forward evidence on these
challenged elements, [appellant] amended his petition to include variations of other
negligence claims. However, all these new variations in his second amended
petition sound in negligence and are composed of the same essential elements, duty,
breach, and causation, which were already challenged in appellees’ motion. …
Therefore, [the trial court] correctly granted the no evidence summary judgment.
We do not hold that new newly filed pleadings may not ever raise entirely new
distinct elements of a cause of action not addressed in a no evidence motion for
summary judgment. However, based on the facts before us, the amended petition
merely reiterates the same essential elements in another fashion, and the motion for
summary judgment adequately covers these new variations. Id.
13. The Texas Supreme Court has endorsed this exception. It held in G & H Towing Co., v.
Magee, “a non-movant will have to plead a totally new cause of action with new and
different elements to be an effective delay to a movant’s motion for summary judgment.”
G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293, 297-98 (Tex. 2011).
14. Here, there are no new facts, evidence, or causes of action in Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition
and the court should strike the pleading as late. Even if the court were to accept Plaintiffs’
Amended Petition, Defendants’ Motion addresses these same claims and can be granted on
the merits without the need to amend.
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
PETITION Page 4 of 6
15. For the court’s convenience, only ¶ 5b, and ¶ 45 are new paragraphs. The following is a
complete list of the changes from Plaintiffs’ Original Petition to their late-filed Amended
Petition:
16. “Alfonso Hernandez was involved in the transaction from the beginning, but he did not
sign the agreements.” Amended Petition, at ¶ 8.
17. “Alfonso Hernandez provided majority of the funds using his life savings.” Amended
Petition, at ¶ 9.
18. “Plaintiffs” as used in paragraphs 29-34 in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition is changed to
“Plaintiff” removing Alfonso Hernandez. Amended Petition, at ¶¶ 30-35.
19. “Plaintiffs” as used in paragraph 41 in Plaintiff’s Original Petition is changed to “Plaintiff”
removing Alfonso Hernandez. Amended Petition, at ¶ 42.
20. The Amended Petition removed paragraphs 43-50 relating to the application for a
temporary restraining order (which was already moot as the sale occurred four (4) months
prior to filing their Original Petition) and the paragraph about the bond.
21. The Amended Petition also includes an unnecessary paragraph falsely accusing
Defendants’ counsel of withholding its disclosures. Defendants’ undersigned counsel
emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel their disclosures on March 1, 2021. A copy of the disclosures
sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel is attached to this motion.
III. CONCLUSION
22. Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition should be stricken for the aforementioned reasons. Not only
is the filing late, and without leave of court, it raises no new issues, evidence, or causes of
action not already addressed in Defendants’ Motion. Itserves simply as a stall tactic to
delay the Court from granting Defendants’ Motion or having the Submission Hearing on
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
PETITION Page 5 of 6
August 2, 2021. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and respectfully ask
this Court to strike the pleading.
Respectfully submitted,
THE LANE LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
By: /s/ S. Alex Lick
Robert “Chip” Lane
State Bar No. 2404626
notifications@lanelaw.com
Joshua D. Gordon
State Bar no. 24091592
Joshua.gordon@lanelaw.com
S. Alex Lick
State Bar No. 24107844
alex.lick@lanelaw.com
6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 1150
Houston, Texas 77036-3300
(713) 595-8200 Telephone
(713) 595-8201 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of August 2021, a true and correct copy of the above
and foregoing instrument has been served upon the following pursuant to the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure:
DAMANI LAW FIRM PLLC
Anis Damani
State Bar No. 24072059
anisdamani@yahoo.com
8303 Southwest Freeway
Suite 111
Houston, TX 77074
(832) 333-7000
(866) 483-6981
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
/s/ S. Alex Lick
S. Alex Lick
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
PETITION Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT
CAUSE NO. 2020-14211
ALFONSO HERNANDEZ AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
IVAN HERNANDEZ, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
RANDOLPH RUSSELL AND §
MARY RUSSELL, §
§
Defendants. § 61ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES
TO: Alfonso Hernandez and Ivan Hernandez by and through their counsel of record Anis
Damani, 8303 Southwest Freeway, Suite 111, Houston, Texas 77074.
Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 194, Defendants Randolph Russell and Mary Russell serve these
Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Disclosures.
Respectfully submitted,
THE LANE LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
By: /s/ S. Alex Lick
Robert “Chip” C. Lane
State Bar No. 24046263
notifications@lanelaw.com
Joshua D. Gordon
State Bar No. 24091592
Joshua.gordon@lanelaw.com
S. Alex Lick
State Bar No. 24107844
alex.lick@lanelaw.com
6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 1150
Houston, Texas 77036
Telephone: (713) 595-8200
Facsimile: (713) 595-8201
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 1 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 1 day of March 2021, the foregoing was sent to the following
attorneys of record via e-service.
DAMANI LAW FIRM PLLC
Anis Damani
anisdamani@yahoo.com
8303 Southwest Freeway
Suite 111
Houston, TX 77074
(832) 333-7000
(866) 483-6981
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
By: /s/ S. Alex Lick
S. Alex Lick
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 2 of 5
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
1. Rule 194.2(a). The correct names of the parties to this lawsuit:
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs – Alfonso Hernandez and Ivan Hernandez. Defendants have filed a plea
to the jurisdiction as to Defendant Alfonso Hernandez’s lack of standing in this lawsuit.
Defendants – Randolph Russell and Mary Russell.
2. Rule 194.2(b). The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties:
RESPONSE: Randolph Russell and Mary Russell, 604 Marina Bay Drive, Unit No. 1, Kemah,
Texas 77565.
3. Rule 194.2(c). The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding
party’s claims or defenses:
RESPONSE:
Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit alleging claims for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and
common-law fraud over the December 3, 2020 foreclosure sale of 23107 Willow Run, Houston,
Texas 77375. Plaintiffs also seek a now-moot temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs seek
economic, actual, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees.
Defendants properly conducted the December 3, 2020 foreclosure sale and have not yet filed their
counterclaims or affirmative relief. Defendants reserve the right to file any counterclaims or claims
for relief. Defendants also reserve the right to supplement or amend this response, as necessary.
4. Rule 194.2(d). The amount and any method of calculating economic damages:
RESPONSE:
Defendants have incurred costs and attorney’s fees in defending this suit. Defendants will
supplement, as necessary.
5. Rule 194.2(e). The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge
of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case:
RESPONSE: Defendants refer to and incorporates by reference any and all persons listed in
interrogatory answers or disclosures of any other party to this lawsuit and specifically reserves the
right to supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants reserve the right to call any of the following witnesses or experts who may have
knowledge of relevant facts:
a) Any witness or expert which has been or will be named by any other party in any
answer to any interrogatory or request for disclosure, even if the party which
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 3 of 5
designated the witness or expert is no longer a party to the lawsuit at the time of
trial;
b) Any person identified by any other party as a person with knowledge of relevant
facts in response to any request for disclosure, even if the party which identified
the person is no longer a party to the lawsuit at the time of trial;
c) Any witness or expert whose name appears on any document which has been or
will be produced by any party in any response to a request for production or other
discovery request;
d) Any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document which has been or
will be obtained through the use of authorizations to obtain records;
e) Any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document which has been or
will be submitted to the Court by affidavit;
f) Any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document which has been or
will be subpoenaed by any party;
g) Any witness or expert whose name appears in the transcript of any deposition taken
in this matter; and
h) Any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document which has been or
will be attached to the transcript of any deposition.
Defendants Randolph Russell and Mary Russell may be contacted through this office.
Defendants will supplement their responses as is appropriate.
6. Rule 194.2(f). Testifying experts:
a. Name, address and telephone number;
b. Subject matter on which the expert will testify;
c. The general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a brief
summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or
otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such
information;
d. For experts retained by, employed by, or otherwise under this party’s control:
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 4 of 5
i. All documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that
have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in
anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and
ii. The expert’s current resume and bibliography.
RESPONSE:
Robert C. Lane will testify regarding reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. Information
regarding Mr. Lane’s experience and qualifications can be found at: http://www.lanelaw.com/chip-
lane.
Additional information responsive to this request will be supplemented and timely produced in
Defendants’ Designation of Experts.
7. Rule 194.2(h). Any settlement agreements described in TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(g):
RESPONSE: Not Applicable.
8. Rule 194.2(i). Any witness statements described in TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(h):
RESPONSE: Defendants will supplement this response as is appropriate.
9. Rule 194.2(j). All medical records and bills reasonably related to the asserted injuries
and/or damages asserted, or the attached authorization permitting the disclosure of such
medical records and/or bills:
RESPONSE: Not Applicable.
10. Rule 194.2(l). The name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be
designated as a responsible third party.
RESPONSE: None known at this time. Defendants will supplement as necessary.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 5 of 5
Preview
CAUSE NO. ALFONSO HERNANDEZ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF IVAN HERNANDEZ Plaintiffs HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS RANDOLPH RUSSELL AND MARY RUSSELL Defendant JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Randolph Russell and Mary Russell Defendants”) filing First Amended Objection to, and Motion to Strike (“Objection”) Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition (the Amended Petition and would respectfully show the Court the following SUMMARY THE OBJECTION On July 2, 2021, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). On July 6, 2021, Defendants filed their Notice of Submission that Defendants’ Motion would be set for submission (“Submission Hearing”) on August 2, 2021, at 8:00 a.m., more han 21 days from Defendants’ Motion being filed. Plaintiffs had until July 26, 2021, 7 days before the Submission Hearing, to file a response to Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiffs did not file a response by July 26, 2021. Plaintiffs did not seek leave of court to file a late response to Defendants’ Motion. On July 29, 2021, 5 days before the Submission Hearing, Plaintiffs filed their Amended EFENDANTS FIRST AMENDED BJECTION TO OTION TO TRIKE LAINTIFFS IRST MENDED ETITION Page of Petition and Response to Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition raises no new facts, evidence, or causes of action. Moreover, it is late, has not received leave of court, and violates the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES A. Plaintiffs did not seek leave of court, and therefore, their Amended Petition is late, should be disregarded, and violates Rule 63. 7. A party should file an amended petition or answer as soon as it becomes aware it is necessary, but no later than seven days before the hearing. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 63; B.C. v. Steak N Shake Opers, Inc., 598 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2020); Sosa v. Central Power & Light, 909 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1995) (emphasis added). Rule 63 provides in relevant part that any pleadings, responses, or pleas offered for filing within seven days of a summary judgment hearing, shall be filed only after leave of the judge is obtained. TEX. R. CIV. P. 63 (emphasis added). 8. A motion to strike an amended pleading is used to object to an amended pleading that was filed without leave of court. Stevenson v. Koutzarov, 795 S.W.2d 313, 321 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (motion to strike timely filed amended petition); Singleton v. Northwest Tex. Healthcare Sys., No. 07-03-0552-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, no pet.) (memo op.; 2-28-06) (motion to strike untimely amended petition without leave of court). 9. Plaintiffs had until July 26, 2021, to file their Amended Petition, yet waited until July 29, 2021, within seven days of the Submission Hearing. Plaintiffs did not obtain leave from this Court before filing and have not filed any motion requesting leave. Plaintiffs must follow the rules of civil procedure and the Court should disregard their untimely filing. DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 2 of 6 B. Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition does not raise any new facts, evidence, or causes of action against Defendants. 10. If the amended petition only sets forth new facts or new grounds that are totally encompassed by the prior cause of action, i.e., different ways that the movant was negligent, then the original motion for summary judgment will be sufficiently broad to cover the added grounds and an amended motion for summary judgment will not be necessary. Logsdon v. Logsdon, No. 02-16-00063-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1370 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth February 16, 2017, no pet.); Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Barker Roofing, L.P., 387 S.W.3d 54, 67 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, no pet.) (holding summary judgment could be granted as to new claims added before the motion was decided); Ritter v. Las Colonitas Condo. Ass’n,, 319 S.W.3d 884, 891 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (upholding summary judgment on claims added after motion was filed but before the motion was disposed). 11. If a motion for summary is sufficiently broad to encompass later-filed claims or defenses, the movant need not amend its motion. Lampasis v. Spring Center, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 428, 436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). 12. In Lampasis v. Spring Center, Inc., the movant filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment against the non-movant’s negligence claim. 988 S.W.2d at 436. The non-movant filed an amended petition alleging new facts and new ways the movant was negligent. The trial court granted the movant a final summary judgment, and the non-movant appealed the judgment arguing the movant’s motion did not cover his newly pleaded grounds. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment and stated: “The new no evidence summary judgment shifts the focus of the summary judgment from the pleadings to the actual evidence …. The thrust of the new rule DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 3 of 6 is to require evidence. A no evidence summary judgment prevents the nonmovant from standing solely on his pleadings, but instead requires him to bring forward sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for instructed verdict. … Here, the no evidence motion for summary judgment stated that there was no evidence of any duty, breach, or causation. … Instead of bringing forward evidence on these challenged elements, [appellant] amended his petition to include variations of other negligence claims. However, all these new variations in his second amended petition sound in negligence and are composed of the same essential elements, duty, breach, and causation, which were already challenged in appellees’ motion. … Therefore, [the trial court] correctly granted the no evidence summary judgment. We do not hold that new newly filed pleadings may not ever raise entirely new distinct elements of a cause of action not addressed in a no evidence motion for summary judgment. However, based on the facts before us, the amended petition merely reiterates the same essential elements in another fashion, and the motion for summary judgment adequately covers these new variations. Id. 13. The Texas Supreme Court has endorsed this exception. It held in G & H Towing Co., v. Magee, “a non-movant will have to plead a totally new cause of action with new and different elements to be an effective delay to a movant’s motion for summary judgment.” G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293, 297-98 (Tex. 2011). 14. Here, there are no new facts, evidence, or causes of action in Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and the court should strike the pleading as late. Even if the court were to accept Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, Defendants’ Motion addresses these same claims and can be granted on the merits without the need to amend. DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 4 of 6 15. For the court’s convenience, only ¶ 5b, and ¶ 45 are new paragraphs. The following is a complete list of the changes from Plaintiffs’ Original Petition to their late-filed Amended Petition: 16. “Alfonso Hernandez was involved in the transaction from the beginning, but he did not sign the agreements.” Amended Petition, at ¶ 8. 17. “Alfonso Hernandez provided majority of the funds using his life savings.” Amended Petition, at ¶ 9. 18. “Plaintiffs” as used in paragraphs 29-34 in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition is changed to “Plaintiff” removing Alfonso Hernandez. Amended Petition, at ¶¶ 30-35. 19. “Plaintiffs” as used in paragraph 41 in Plaintiff’s Original Petition is changed to “Plaintiff” removing Alfonso Hernandez. Amended Petition, at ¶ 42. 20. The Amended Petition removed paragraphs 43-50 relating to the application for a temporary restraining order (which was already moot as the sale occurred four (4) months prior to filing their Original Petition) and the paragraph about the bond. 21. The Amended Petition also includes an unnecessary paragraph falsely accusing Defendants’ counsel of withholding its disclosures. Defendants’ undersigned counsel emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel their disclosures on March 1, 2021. A copy of the disclosures sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel is attached to this motion. III. CONCLUSION 22. Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition should be stricken for the aforementioned reasons. Not only is the filing late, and without leave of court, it raises no new issues, evidence, or causes of action not already addressed in Defendants’ Motion. Itserves simply as a stall tactic to delay the Court from granting Defendants’ Motion or having the Submission Hearing on DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 5 of 6 August 2, 2021. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and respectfully ask this Court to strike the pleading. Respectfully submitted, THE LANE LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. By: /s/ S. Alex Lick Robert “Chip” Lane State Bar No. 2404626 notifications@lanelaw.com Joshua D. Gordon State Bar no. 24091592 Joshua.gordon@lanelaw.com S. Alex Lick State Bar No. 24107844 alex.lick@lanelaw.com 6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 1150 Houston, Texas 77036-3300 (713) 595-8200 Telephone (713) 595-8201 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of August 2021, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been served upon the following pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: DAMANI LAW FIRM PLLC Anis Damani State Bar No. 24072059 anisdamani@yahoo.com 8303 Southwest Freeway Suite 111 Houston, TX 77074 (832) 333-7000 (866) 483-6981 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS /s/ S. Alex Lick S. Alex Lick DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED OBJECTION TO, AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT CAUSE NO. 2020-14211 ALFONSO HERNANDEZ AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF IVAN HERNANDEZ, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § RANDOLPH RUSSELL AND § MARY RUSSELL, § § Defendants. § 61ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES TO: Alfonso Hernandez and Ivan Hernandez by and through their counsel of record Anis Damani, 8303 Southwest Freeway, Suite 111, Houston, Texas 77074. Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 194, Defendants Randolph Russell and Mary Russell serve these Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Disclosures. Respectfully submitted, THE LANE LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. By: /s/ S. Alex Lick Robert “Chip” C. Lane State Bar No. 24046263 notifications@lanelaw.com Joshua D. Gordon State Bar No. 24091592 Joshua.gordon@lanelaw.com S. Alex Lick State Bar No. 24107844 alex.lick@lanelaw.com 6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 1150 Houston, Texas 77036 Telephone: (713) 595-8200 Facsimile: (713) 595-8201 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 1 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 1 day of March 2021, the foregoing was sent to the following attorneys of record via e-service. DAMANI LAW FIRM PLLC Anis Damani anisdamani@yahoo.com 8303 Southwest Freeway Suite 111 Houston, TX 77074 (832) 333-7000 (866) 483-6981 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS By: /s/ S. Alex Lick S. Alex Lick DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 2 of 5 RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 1. Rule 194.2(a). The correct names of the parties to this lawsuit: RESPONSE: Plaintiffs – Alfonso Hernandez and Ivan Hernandez. Defendants have filed a plea to the jurisdiction as to Defendant Alfonso Hernandez’s lack of standing in this lawsuit. Defendants – Randolph Russell and Mary Russell. 2. Rule 194.2(b). The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties: RESPONSE: Randolph Russell and Mary Russell, 604 Marina Bay Drive, Unit No. 1, Kemah, Texas 77565. 3. Rule 194.2(c). The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party’s claims or defenses: RESPONSE: Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit alleging claims for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and common-law fraud over the December 3, 2020 foreclosure sale of 23107 Willow Run, Houston, Texas 77375. Plaintiffs also seek a now-moot temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs seek economic, actual, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees. Defendants properly conducted the December 3, 2020 foreclosure sale and have not yet filed their counterclaims or affirmative relief. Defendants reserve the right to file any counterclaims or claims for relief. Defendants also reserve the right to supplement or amend this response, as necessary. 4. Rule 194.2(d). The amount and any method of calculating economic damages: RESPONSE: Defendants have incurred costs and attorney’s fees in defending this suit. Defendants will supplement, as necessary. 5. Rule 194.2(e). The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case: RESPONSE: Defendants refer to and incorporates by reference any and all persons listed in interrogatory answers or disclosures of any other party to this lawsuit and specifically reserves the right to supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants reserve the right to call any of the following witnesses or experts who may have knowledge of relevant facts: a) Any witness or expert which has been or will be named by any other party in any answer to any interrogatory or request for disclosure, even if the party which DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 3 of 5 designated the witness or expert is no longer a party to the lawsuit at the time of trial; b) Any person identified by any other party as a person with knowledge of relevant facts in response to any request for disclosure, even if the party which identified the person is no longer a party to the lawsuit at the time of trial; c) Any witness or expert whose name appears on any document which has been or will be produced by any party in any response to a request for production or other discovery request; d) Any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document which has been or will be obtained through the use of authorizations to obtain records; e) Any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document which has been or will be submitted to the Court by affidavit; f) Any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document which has been or will be subpoenaed by any party; g) Any witness or expert whose name appears in the transcript of any deposition taken in this matter; and h) Any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document which has been or will be attached to the transcript of any deposition. Defendants Randolph Russell and Mary Russell may be contacted through this office. Defendants will supplement their responses as is appropriate. 6. Rule 194.2(f). Testifying experts: a. Name, address and telephone number; b. Subject matter on which the expert will testify; c. The general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such information; d. For experts retained by, employed by, or otherwise under this party’s control: DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 4 of 5 i. All documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and ii. The expert’s current resume and bibliography. RESPONSE: Robert C. Lane will testify regarding reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. Information regarding Mr. Lane’s experience and qualifications can be found at: http://www.lanelaw.com/chip- lane. Additional information responsive to this request will be supplemented and timely produced in Defendants’ Designation of Experts. 7. Rule 194.2(h). Any settlement agreements described in TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(g): RESPONSE: Not Applicable. 8. Rule 194.2(i). Any witness statements described in TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(h): RESPONSE: Defendants will supplement this response as is appropriate. 9. Rule 194.2(j). All medical records and bills reasonably related to the asserted injuries and/or damages asserted, or the attached authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and/or bills: RESPONSE: Not Applicable. 10. Rule 194.2(l). The name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a responsible third party. RESPONSE: None known at this time. Defendants will supplement as necessary. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 5 of 5