On October 05, 2017 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Action Premier Hauling Inc,
Coleman, Kelly,
and
Board Of Trustees Of The Pines Condominium Association Inc,
Cummings, Robert,
Nassar, Emile,
Coleman, Kelly,
Creative Management Company,
Omega Contractors,
Santino, Laska,
Unknown Foundation Repair Company,
Wolfe, Bob,
Wolfe, Robert,
for OTHER CIVIL
in the District Court of Harris County.
Preview
Cause Number 2017-66216
Kelly Coleman § In the District Court
Plaintiff,
§
versus
Emile Nassar, Robert Cummings, and §
The Board of Trustees of the Pines §
Condominium Association, Inc. §
Defendants, §
§ of Harris County, Texas
Action Premier Hauling, LLC,
Intervenor. §
versus
Robert Wolfe, Creative Management §
Company, Kelly Coleman and §
OmegaBuilders Group, LP
and Laska Santino
Third Party Defendants § 157 Judicial District
Action Premier Hauling, ’s Response to the Pines Condominium Association,
Inc.’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Continuance
To the Honorable District Judge:
Action Premier Hauling, LLC, Intervenor, files this Response to the Pines Condominium
Association, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel:
The Court should strike Defendant s Sur Response in total as and response
shall be filed at least two working days before the date of submission. Rule
3.3.3 of theHarris Coun ty Local Rules. Defendant’s response was filed on
Sunday night, 13 hours before the submission date.
Response to Motion to Compel - Page 1
efendant’s Reply to the Motion to Compel is now a completely different motion
to compel. Intervenor’s response addressed thethree document requests in
Defendant’s Motion.
Seeing as they have no need for their Motion to Compel, Defendant’sSur Reply
addresses completely different issues. These issues were not brought up in their
letter to address documents or their initial motion. It appears Defendant’s
desperatedesire to sanction someone is showing.
The Court should continue the submission date of the Motion to Compel for 30
days as to give Intervenor a proper chance to respond.
Quick Response:
OverchargingDefenda nt’s president was on site everyday. Defendant’s
president personally checked every truck and dumpster that left and
Defendant’s president initialedthe truck logs for each dump. The testimony is
uncontroverted, the documents have already been produced. Defendant’s
hope there is a secret document out there that says something different than
the documents that were already produced and the testimony that has already
been provided.
Driver logs, truck information, driver timecards, 1099 formsThese
documents do not exist. Defendant knows these documents do not exist. The
testimonyof many people have already confirmed these actions. Intervenor
owns roll off dumpsters. These dumpsters were filled and driven off to
various permanent and temporary dump sites by Intervenor’s owners Matthew
Response to Motion to Compel Page
Moody and Robert Cernosek. Intervenor does not have drivers. Defendant’s
president wanted thedebris to be removed at a faster rate. Therefore,
Intervenor hiredCorona Trucking. Corona Trucking is a middleman . Corona
Trucking hired dump truck drivers (from Texas, Louisiana, and anywhere else
he could find them) to come to Defendant’s property to remove debris
Intervenor did not know or hire any of the dump truck drivers or any of their
trucks (this was done after a hurricane, there wasno electricity, gas was
scarce, ATM machines did not work).Defendant’s president verified on site
each and every dump truck and noted every time a truck left and returned and
the amount of material in each truck. These people do not work for
Intervenor, nor were they hired by Intervenor. Intervenor does not have these
documents.Defendant’s previous attorney went through the dump truck log
that were already produced extensively with Intervenor’s owners and
Defendant’s own board president.
Rental EquipmentBank statements showing the rental equipment were
already produced and talked about during various depositions as well.
The Real ProblemDefendant’s Board President, Emile Nassar testified
extensivelyin his deposition that everything was done properly and that he
personally checked every truck and dumpster that left the site to ensure
accurateness. The residents of the condominium complex (who are now the board
members) drove Mr. Nassar out as a board member. The residents made a bunch
of false claims that Mr. Nassar was stealing from them, and that Mr. Nassar
Response to Motion to Compel Page
owned Intervenor’s corporation and that Intervenor were a bunch of friends o
Mr. Nassar taking advantage of everyone. All of these statements are
categorically false.Now that the present board members have made all of these
false accusations against Mr. Nassar, they desperately need to find something that
Intervenor did wrongor they will be made to look foolish in front of the other
condominium owners. Defendants throw out nothing more than conjecture and
wishful thinking. Since Defendants have been unable to findany evidence to
support their conspiracytheories, Defendants seek to sanction Intervenor for
documents that do not exist (and Defendants know they do not exist).
Corona Trucking InvoiceDefendant’s have attached an invoice for Corona
Trucking on Page 5 of the Sur Response.A few months ago, Defendants sought
thecourt approval to go and visit Corona Trucking but did not find what they
were looking for. The invoice shows that Intervenor paid nearly $350,000.00 for
the trucks usedin the cleanup of Defendant’s unitproperty. This is money
that came out of Intervenor’s pocket. This is money Intervenor fronted for the use
of Defendant. This is why Intervenor also checked every single truck that left
Defendant’s property. Intervenor does not want to get overchargedCurrently,
the only person out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Intervenor because
Defendant refused to pay their bill. It nearly bankrupted the entire company
There is no logical reason why Intervenor would allow Corona Trucking to
overcharge Intervenor. This is why Intervenor and Defendant’s president
personally checked every single truck that left the Property, every single day of
Response to Motion to Compel Page
the cleanup process.
Intervenor is not withholding any documents.This is not a heavily documented
type of business. Intervenor picks up trash and hauls it away. Intervenor seeks
documents that would change the testimony of everyone that was at the cleanup
process including their own president.
Creative Managementis the management company for Defendant and is
presented by Defendant’s counsel. Creative Management has testifiedthat it
approved the contract between Intervenor and Defendant, and also approved a
couple of payments to Intervenor (with the approval of every single board
member of Defendant). Creative Management has also testified completely
differently than its own client. It was only when the residents overthrew the
board and placed themselves on the board, and the job was almost entirely
finished, that everything became a problem. The residents that overthrew the
board falsely claimed to the other residents that thievery and trickery were going
on. It is the basis of how they were elected. Now that they cannot prove their
false narrative, they are desperate to file motions for documents that donot exist,
with the hopes of sanctioning Intervenor
Action Premier Hauling, LLC, Intervenor, prays that, the Court deny Movant’s Motion to
Compeland grant such other relief to which Action Premier Hauling, LLC may show itself
entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
________/s Travis Owens
Travis Owens
Response to Motion to Compel Page
Texas Bar Number 24065859
Owens Law Group, P.L.L.C.
P.O. Box 8605
The Woodlands, TX 77387
Tel. (936) 828
Fax. (832) 327
travis@owens lawgroup.com
Attorney for Intervenor
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to
each person listed below, via e file, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21 and 21a.
Mitchel Katine
mkatine@lawkn.com
Gregory Godkin
ggodkin@rmwbh.com
Allan Goldstein
allang@mlhs.net
________/s Travis Owens
Travis Owens
Response to Motion to Compel Page
Preview
Cause Number 2017-66216 Kelly Coleman § In the District Court Plaintiff, § versus Emile Nassar, Robert Cummings, and § The Board of Trustees of the Pines § Condominium Association, Inc. § Defendants, § § of Harris County, Texas Action Premier Hauling, LLC, Intervenor. § versus Robert Wolfe, Creative Management § Company, Kelly Coleman and § OmegaBuilders Group, LP and Laska Santino Third Party Defendants § 157 Judicial District Action Premier Hauling, ’s Response to the Pines Condominium Association, Inc.’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Continuance To the Honorable District Judge: Action Premier Hauling, LLC, Intervenor, files this Response to the Pines Condominium Association, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel: The Court should strike Defendant s Sur Response in total as and response shall be filed at least two working days before the date of submission. Rule 3.3.3 of theHarris Coun ty Local Rules. Defendant’s response was filed on Sunday night, 13 hours before the submission date. Response to Motion to Compel - Page 1 efendant’s Reply to the Motion to Compel is now a completely different motion to compel. Intervenor’s response addressed thethree document requests in Defendant’s Motion. Seeing as they have no need for their Motion to Compel, Defendant’sSur Reply addresses completely different issues. These issues were not brought up in their letter to address documents or their initial motion. It appears Defendant’s desperatedesire to sanction someone is showing. The Court should continue the submission date of the Motion to Compel for 30 days as to give Intervenor a proper chance to respond. Quick Response: OverchargingDefenda nt’s president was on site everyday. Defendant’s president personally checked every truck and dumpster that left and Defendant’s president initialedthe truck logs for each dump. The testimony is uncontroverted, the documents have already been produced. Defendant’s hope there is a secret document out there that says something different than the documents that were already produced and the testimony that has already been provided. Driver logs, truck information, driver timecards, 1099 formsThese documents do not exist. Defendant knows these documents do not exist. The testimonyof many people have already confirmed these actions. Intervenor owns roll off dumpsters. These dumpsters were filled and driven off to various permanent and temporary dump sites by Intervenor’s owners Matthew Response to Motion to Compel Page Moody and Robert Cernosek. Intervenor does not have drivers. Defendant’s president wanted thedebris to be removed at a faster rate. Therefore, Intervenor hiredCorona Trucking. Corona Trucking is a middleman . Corona Trucking hired dump truck drivers (from Texas, Louisiana, and anywhere else he could find them) to come to Defendant’s property to remove debris Intervenor did not know or hire any of the dump truck drivers or any of their trucks (this was done after a hurricane, there wasno electricity, gas was scarce, ATM machines did not work).Defendant’s president verified on site each and every dump truck and noted every time a truck left and returned and the amount of material in each truck. These people do not work for Intervenor, nor were they hired by Intervenor. Intervenor does not have these documents.Defendant’s previous attorney went through the dump truck log that were already produced extensively with Intervenor’s owners and Defendant’s own board president. Rental EquipmentBank statements showing the rental equipment were already produced and talked about during various depositions as well. The Real ProblemDefendant’s Board President, Emile Nassar testified extensivelyin his deposition that everything was done properly and that he personally checked every truck and dumpster that left the site to ensure accurateness. The residents of the condominium complex (who are now the board members) drove Mr. Nassar out as a board member. The residents made a bunch of false claims that Mr. Nassar was stealing from them, and that Mr. Nassar Response to Motion to Compel Page owned Intervenor’s corporation and that Intervenor were a bunch of friends o Mr. Nassar taking advantage of everyone. All of these statements are categorically false.Now that the present board members have made all of these false accusations against Mr. Nassar, they desperately need to find something that Intervenor did wrongor they will be made to look foolish in front of the other condominium owners. Defendants throw out nothing more than conjecture and wishful thinking. Since Defendants have been unable to findany evidence to support their conspiracytheories, Defendants seek to sanction Intervenor for documents that do not exist (and Defendants know they do not exist). Corona Trucking InvoiceDefendant’s have attached an invoice for Corona Trucking on Page 5 of the Sur Response.A few months ago, Defendants sought thecourt approval to go and visit Corona Trucking but did not find what they were looking for. The invoice shows that Intervenor paid nearly $350,000.00 for the trucks usedin the cleanup of Defendant’s unitproperty. This is money that came out of Intervenor’s pocket. This is money Intervenor fronted for the use of Defendant. This is why Intervenor also checked every single truck that left Defendant’s property. Intervenor does not want to get overchargedCurrently, the only person out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Intervenor because Defendant refused to pay their bill. It nearly bankrupted the entire company There is no logical reason why Intervenor would allow Corona Trucking to overcharge Intervenor. This is why Intervenor and Defendant’s president personally checked every single truck that left the Property, every single day of Response to Motion to Compel Page the cleanup process. Intervenor is not withholding any documents.This is not a heavily documented type of business. Intervenor picks up trash and hauls it away. Intervenor seeks documents that would change the testimony of everyone that was at the cleanup process including their own president. Creative Managementis the management company for Defendant and is presented by Defendant’s counsel. Creative Management has testifiedthat it approved the contract between Intervenor and Defendant, and also approved a couple of payments to Intervenor (with the approval of every single board member of Defendant). Creative Management has also testified completely differently than its own client. It was only when the residents overthrew the board and placed themselves on the board, and the job was almost entirely finished, that everything became a problem. The residents that overthrew the board falsely claimed to the other residents that thievery and trickery were going on. It is the basis of how they were elected. Now that they cannot prove their false narrative, they are desperate to file motions for documents that donot exist, with the hopes of sanctioning Intervenor Action Premier Hauling, LLC, Intervenor, prays that, the Court deny Movant’s Motion to Compeland grant such other relief to which Action Premier Hauling, LLC may show itself entitled. Respectfully submitted, ________/s Travis Owens Travis Owens Response to Motion to Compel Page Texas Bar Number 24065859 Owens Law Group, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 8605 The Woodlands, TX 77387 Tel. (936) 828 Fax. (832) 327 travis@owens lawgroup.com Attorney for Intervenor CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to each person listed below, via e file, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21 and 21a. Mitchel Katine mkatine@lawkn.com Gregory Godkin ggodkin@rmwbh.com Allan Goldstein allang@mlhs.net ________/s Travis Owens Travis Owens Response to Motion to Compel Page