Preview
FILED
9/14/2021 5:14 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Darling Tellez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC20-07433-B
TIMOTHY G. PLETTA, Indy. and IN THE DISTRICT COURT
d/b/a Law Office of Timothy G.
Pletta and as Trustee for the
ANN HENNUM & TIMOTHY GERARD
PLETTA REVOCABLE TRUST, ANN §
H. PLETTA, Indy. AND MARIELLA L.
PLETTA,
Plaintiffs
Vv.
HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCKS, INC.
d/b/a Heritage House Clocks, a Franchise
Tax Ended Texas Corporation, § 134 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
VALENTINO S. MARCHESONI, Indy. and
d/b/a/ Heritage House Clocks
NICHOLAS MARCHESONT, Indv. and
d/b/a Heritage House Clocks
GLENDA MARCHESONIL, Indv. and
d/b/a Heritage House Clocks,
B&R WILEY FAMILY, GP, L.L. C,
B&R WILEY FAMILY, L.P. d/b/a
Servpro of Mesquite, Kaufman County §
and Cedar Creek, BRANDON JOE WILEY,
REGINA L. WILEY, a/k/a REGINA LYNN
WILEY, JENNIFER EVARTT, EDWARD
EVARTT, a/k/a EDWARD EVARTT III
a/k/a EDWARD DEAN EVARTT a/k/a EDDIE
EVARTT and ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCK DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED PETITION (AS SUPPLEMENTED) AND
VERIFIED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
Comes Now defendants, Heritage House Clocks, Inc., Valentino Marchesoni, Nicholas
Marchesoni and Glenda Marchesoni (collectively, where appropriate, “Heritage House Clock
Defendants”) pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 91, specially excepting to Plaintiffs’ Fourth
Amended Petition (as supplemented), and also making this plea to the jurisdiction solely as to
Defendant Heritage House Clocks, Inc. In support of the relief requested, Heritage House Clock
Defendants aver, allege and state as follows:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
General Facts
This civil action involves the aftermath of a house fire: Plaintiffs’ home and its contents
were damaged or destroyed by fire in August 2018. They made a claim on their insurance policy
with Defendant Allstate Insurance Company, who, presumably under rights and obligations to
repair, salvage or remediate, retained Defendant Servpro of Mesquite to collect salvageable items
for repair. Defendant Servpro, in turn, retained Defendant Valentino Marchesoni (“V.
Marchesoni”), who does business under the registered assumed name of Heritage House Clocks,
to pick-up a Howard Miller grandfather from Plaintiffs’ residence, examine it for damage and, if
appropriate, effect repairs.
V. Marchesoni did just that: He transported the clock to his shop and, after examination,
reported to Servpro that the damages would cost approximately $3,500 to repair. In May 2019,
Servpro authorized repairs and paid a 50% deposit against the estimate. V. Marchesoni effected
the repairs as instructed, which included a complete overhaul of the movement (including
replacement of wear items); related adjustments and cleaning; and repair of water damage to the
lower case. He reported completion of the work to Servpro and awaited instructions.
After the repairs were completed, but prior to Servpro’s instructions, Plaintiff Timothy G.
Pletta (“Pletta”) contacted Defendant Glenda Marchesoni (“G. Marchesoni”), V. Marchesoni’s
wife, who works with him in their family’s business, at the shop; this was the first contact
between Pletta and the Heritage House Clock Defendants subsequent to picking up the clock at
Plaintiffs’ residence. This point requires emphasis: The Heritage House Clock Defendants’
“customer” was Servpro, and they had completed all work on the clock, as instructed by their
customer, prior to Pletta’s contact. Pletta sought to insert himself between the Heritage House
Defendants and its customer, Servpro, purportedly to expedite the return of his clock: He offered
to pay the entire invoice for repairs; Servpro agreed, with the proviso that it be reimbursed for
the 50% deposit. Pletta never, however, delivered payment. Indeed, Pletta attempted to suborn
the Heritage House Clock Defendants into an insurance fraud, offering to purchase another clock
from their sales floor if they would “total” his repaired clock; they refused. Regardless, Pletta
never paid and Servpro instructed delivery of the clock to their facility where it presumably still
sits; Servpro has not, however, paid the balance due for repairs.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
Plea to the Jurisdiction —
Heritage House Clocks, Inc.
Contrary to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition (as supplemented),
Heritage House Clocks, Inc. did not forfeit its corporate charter, it voluntarily dissolved itself in
2005, in accordance with the then-extant provisions of the Texas Business Corporation Act, long
before any of the events that give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims.' Materials relating to such
dissolution are appended hereto as Exhibit A. For this reason, it is no longer an entity that may
sue or be sued in accordance with Tex. Bus. Org. Code § 2.101(1).
Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 29, which permits suits against dissolved corporations, in inapposite
here because the corporation ceased existence fifteen years prior to the events that give rise to
Plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, the statue of repose set out in Tex. Bus. Org. Code, § 11.356 is
applicable; the corporation ceased existence for any purpose three years after dissolution, and
| Heritage House Clocks is a registered assumed name for V. Marchesoni; there is no Heritage House Clocks, Inc. and
hasn’t been one for over fifteen years.
any claims against it not brought by then expired. By Plaintiffs’ admission, this is not a “relation
back” case where a dissolved corporation is being sued for its actions while in good standing, or
within the three year statute of repose: The corporation had already ceased to exist for any
purpose at the time their purported damages accrued. Thus, this Court could not have subject
matter jurisdiction over the defunct corporation’s alleged activities.
If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case, then it lacks authority to decide
that case. Lake v. Cravens, 488 S.W.3d 867, 885 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.); Tex.
Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex.1993). “Whether a court has
subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law.” Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133
S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004); see also Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n vy. IT-Davy, 74
S.W.3d 849,855 (Tex. 2002). “When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we
determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to
hear the cause.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226.
A true and correct copy of the articles of dissolution filed with the Secretary of State on
March 6, 2009, and attached hereto as Exhibit A. As allowed under Rule 902 Texas Rules of
Evidence.
Special Exceptions —
Heritage House Clocks Defendants
General Requirements
Texas courts have consistently held that plaintiffs must provide sufficient information in
their pleadings to provide defendants with “fair notice” — thus allowing defendants to ascertain
the “nature and the basic issues of the controversy as well as what testimony will likely be
relevant in defending against plaintiffs claims.” Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34
S.W.3d 887, 896-7 (Tex. 2000); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 45(b); Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(a). Although
the plaintiff is not required to describe its evidence in detail in its petition, failing to plead all the
elements of a cause of action is a substantive defect addressed through special exceptions.
Paramount Pipe & Supply v. Muhr, 749 S.W.2d 491, 494-95 (Tex. 1988); Mowberry v. Avery,
76 S.W.3d 663, 677 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied). Similarly, ifa plaintiff
merely makes general allegations in its pleadings, a special exception is warranted. Subia v.
Texas Dept. of Human Svcs., 750 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex. App. — El Paso 1988, no writ).
Special Exceptions — Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 91
Heritage House Clocks, Inc.
In the alternative to the plea to the jurisdiction set out above, Heritage House Clocks, Inc.
propounds special exceptions to the lack of specificity as to its actions as alleged in Plaintiffs’
Fourth Amended Petition. Plaintiffs claim causes of action against this Defendant for 1) Breach
of Contract; 2) violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and Civil Conspiracy
(Conversion and Fraud). These claims are made in bulk, collectively as to all of the Heritage
House Clock Defendants, without alleging any manner of alter ego or specific acts of one or the
other of them, so that no one has adequate notice of the claims specific to them.
As to the Contract and DTPA claims, there are no facts pleaded with respect to this
Defendant entering into any manner of agreement — much the less an enforceable contract — with
Plaintiffs, or that they purchased anything from any of the Heritage House Clock Defendants.
First, as noted above, this Defendant was dissolved long before any of the dealings here at issue.
Second, the first substantive dealings between Pletta and any of the Heritage House Clock
Defendants took place after the clock was repaired. Third, Plaintiffs were never customers of
any of the Heritage House Clock Defendants, nor were they consumers of any of the goods or
services provided by them: Servpro was the customer, not Plaintiffs. This Defendant requests
that Plaintiffs be required to plead the establishment and conduct of their purported business
relationship separately from the other Heritage House Clock Defendants, including the period
such was commenced, or offer cause as to why such is not required. Plaintiffs should be
required to set out the elements of the contract or agreement that is the basis for both of these
causes of action, as well as specify the breach. At minimum, such pleading should specifically
identify the goods or services that were allegedly subject to these arrangements; the manner and
means of these parties’ agreements; the manner and means of any breach or failure; and the
timing of these events.
In particular, these allegations or deficient pleadings are found at paragraphs 6.01 and
6.04 of the Fourth Amended Petition (lack of specificity as to parties); paragraphs 6.04 (lack of
specificity as to capacity to enter into contract and other elements); paragraph 9.02 (specific
goods or services to be acquired); paragraph 11.02 (terms and provisions of alleged contract,
including timing; identity of parties to contract; identification of means and manner of breach
and individuals involved).
As to the Civil Conspiracy (Conversion and Fraud), the Plaintiffs do not plead there was
any manner of agreement between this Defendant and Servpro to steal from or defraud them, so
that their Conspiracy claim fails. They should be required to identify the nature of the
agreement, when it was agreed to, and the parties. If they intend to amend and try to cure this
defect, they should also be required to plead their fraud claims with specificity, identifying the
“what, when, where and how” of the means and methods of the purported fraud.
In particular, these allegations or deficient pleadings are found at paragraph 12.03 (no
description of manner and means of agreement between this Defendant and Plaintiffs; no
identification as to the commercial nature or trade usage of the item (the clock?)); paragraph
12.05 (no identification of individual parties involved in “fabricating false invoices” or the false
invoices; no statement as to timing of false statements; no allegation of reliance or this
Defendant’s intention; no specificity as to items this Defendant allegedly converted); paragraph
12.06 (no statement as to specific items this Defendant allegedly converted, or kept in breach of
any purported agreement); paragraph 12.07 (no statement as to specific items this Defendant
allegedly converted, or kept in breach of any purported agreement).
Special Exceptions — Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 91
V. Marchesoni, G. Marchesoni and Nicholas Marchesoni (“N. Marchesoni”)
V. Marchesoni, G. Marchesoni and N. Marchesoni (collectively, where appropriate,
“Marchesoni Defendants”) propound special exceptions to Plaintiffs’ allegations against them in
the Fourth Amended Petition (as supplemented) for failure to plead with specificity. Much of
this is set out above, and their claims are opaque to the point of vague or confusing. Generally,
Plaintiffs plead these claims against “Defendants” generally, without identifying who did what,
or how they acted together such that collective pleading is appropriate.
Specifically, as to the Contract and DTPA claims, there are no facts pleaded with respect
to any of the Marchesoni Defendants entering into any manner of agreement — much the less an
enforceable contract with Plaintiffs, or that they purchased anything from any of the Heritage
House Clock Defendants. First, as noted above, the first substantive dealings between Pletta and
any of the Marchesoni Defendants took place after the clock was repaired, and there are no
allegations as all as to the other Plaintiffs’ dealings with them. Second, Plaintiffs were never
customers of any of the Marchesoni Defendants, nor were they consumers of any of the goods or
services provided by them: Servpro was the customer, not Plaintiffs.
The Marchesoni Defendants request that Plaintiffs be required to plead the establishment
and conduct of their purported business relationship separately as to each of them, including the
period such was commenced, or offer cause as to why such is not required; while this was a
family business, there wasn’t a corporate umbrella, and each of their actions should be pleaded
separately if they intend to establish separate liability. Plaintiffs should be required to set out the
elements of the contract or agreement that is the basis for these causes of action (Contract and
DTPA) and specify the breach. At minimum, such pleading should specifically identify the
goods or services that were allegedly subject to these arrangements; the manner and means of
these parties’ agreements; the manner and means of any breach or failure; and the timing of these
events.
In particular, these allegations or deficient pleadings are found at paragraphs 6.01 and
6.04 of the Fourth Amended Petition (lack of specificity as to parties or their interest in the
property that was either subject of the purported contract or allegedly converted); paragraphs
6.04 (lack of specificity as to capacity to enter into contract and other elements); paragraph 9.02
(specific goods or services to be acquired); paragraph 11.02 (terms and provisions of alleged
ontract, including timing; identity of parties to contract; identification of means and manner of
breach and individuals involved).
As to the Civil Conspiracy (Conversion and Fraud), the Plaintiffs do not plead there was
any manner of agreement between the Marchesoni Defendants and Servpro to steal from or
defraud them, so that their Conspiracy claim fails. They should be required to identify the nature
of the agreement, when it was agreed to, and the individual parties. If they intend to amend and
try to cure this defect, they should also be required to plead their fraud claims with specificity,
identifying the “what, when, where and how” of the means and methods of the purported fraud
as to each of them.
In particular, these allegations or deficient pleadings are found at paragraph 12.03 (no
description of manner and means of agreement between the Marchesoni Defendants and
Plaintiffs; no identification as to the commercial nature or trade usage of the item (the clock?));
paragraph 12.05 (no identification of individual parties involved in “fabricating false invoices”
or the false invoices; no statement as to timing of false statements; no allegation of reliance or
the individual defendant’s intentions; no specificity as to items the individual defendants
allegedly converted); paragraph 12.06 (no statement as to specific items the Marchesoni
Defendants allegedly converted, or kept in breach of any purported agreement); paragraph 12.07
(no statement as to specific items the Marchesoni Defendants allegedly converted, or kept in
breach of any purported agreement).
Remedial or Curative Amendments
The trial court has broad discretion in granting special exceptions to order more definite
pleadings as a particular case may require. Burgess v. El Paso Cancer Treatment Ctr., 881 S.W.2d
552, 554 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, writ denied). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts
without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id. (citing Downer v. Aquamarine Operators,
Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985)). Special exceptions may also be used to determine
whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action permitted by law. Mowbray v. Avery, 76 S.W.3d
663, 677 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 91)
Special exceptions must be based on one or more of three propositions—1) that no legal rule
justifies a recovery on a claim of the type alleged; 2) that, though there is a legal rule which might
be applicable, the petition omits one or more allegations essential to bring plaintiff's claim within
its scope; or 3) that, though there is a legal rule which might be applicable, the petition shows on
its face facts which negate its application. Fernandez v. City of El Paso, 876 S.W.2d 370, 372
(Tex. App.-El Paso 1993, writ denied)
In the action at bar, under the items which are specially excepted, the pleading fails on all
three propositions, and this court should order the petition re-pled.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Heritage House Clocks Defendants
Plaintiff pray that this Court (1) grant the defunct corporation’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss
it from this action, and (2) order Plaintiffs to re-plead their Fourth Amended Petition within thirty
(30) days from the date of the hearing, and that Defendant be allowed their reasonable attorney's
fees, cost and such other and further relief as Plaintiff may show itself entitled to at law or in
equity.
Respectfully Submitted
/s/Lloyd E. Ward.
Lloyd E. Ward, Esq.
Ward Legal Group, PLLC
12801 North Central Expressway
North Central Plaza III, Suite 460
Dallas, Texas 75243
Attorney for Heritage House Clocks Defendants
10
Certificate of Service
This is to certify that all parties appearing herein have been served via the electronic e-
filing system as allowed for under the Dallas County Local Rules and TRCP, on this day of
September, 2021.
/s/Lloyd E. Ward
Lloyd E. Ward, Esq.
11
EXHIBIT A
G
BLE Og > Office of the Secretary of State FILED
\} In the Office of the
w Corporations Section Secretary of State of Texas
SE P.O. Box 13697
MAR 0 6 2009
Austin, Texas 78711-3697
Corporations Section
ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION
BUSINESS CORPORATION
Pursuant to the provisions of article 6.06 of the Texas Business Corporation Act, the
undersigned corporation adopts the following articles of dissolution:
1 The name of the corporation is
The file number is Clelo 344400
2. The names and respective addresses of its officers are as follows:
NAME OFFICE HELD ADDRESS
ALMarthesony resident Surebery 4450 Ms kd
as
KR 72 44
The names and respective addresses of its directors are as follows:
NAME ADDRESS
handel Marohasony 5419 yp. lovers hy D&lusTR
V5COF
YOU MUST CHECK EITHER A OR B IN ITEMS FOUR THROUGH SIX
A. A written consent to dissolve was signed by all shareholders of the corporation or
was signed in their names by their attorneys thereunto duly authorized.
or
B. A resolution to dissolve was adopted by not less than a two-thirds vote of the
shareholders of the corporation on the following date: 2-/4-0O
The number of shares outstanding and entitled to vote, and voting for and against the
dissolution were as follows:
CLASS SERIES OUTSTANDING TOTAL VOTED TOTAL VOTED
AND FOR AGAINST
ENTITLED TO
VOTE
Coramax /f LLD), BOO fOOLL)
RECEIVEB—
MAR 06 2003
Secretary of State
5. Ka All debts, liabilities and obligations of the corporation have been paid, satisfied,
or discharged or adequate provision has been made for payment, satisfaction,
or discharge thereof.
or
Cs The properties and assets of the corporation were not sufficient to pay, satisfy, or
discharge all the corporation's debts, liabilities, and obligations. All properties
and assets of the corporation have been applied so far as they would go to the
just and equitable payment of those debts, liabilities, and obligations or
adequate provision has been made for such application.
6 Ra The remainder of the properties and assets of the corporation have been
distributed to its shareholders according to their respective rights and interests.
or
No properties or assets of the corporation remained for distribution to
shareholders after applying the properties and assets of the corporation so far
as they would go to the just and equitable payment of the debts, liabilities, and
obligations of the corporation or making adequate provision for such
application.
By ‘ Officer Title: f f= /
INSTRUCTIONS
Attach certificate #05-305 from the comptroller of public accounts indicating that all
taxes have been paid and the corporation is in good standing for the purpose of
dissolution. Requests for certificates or questions on tax status should be directed to
the Tax Assistance Section, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Austin, Texas 78774-
0100; (512) 463-4600; toll-free (800) 252-1381; (TDD) (800) 248-4099.
The franchise tax year ends on December 31st. The corporation must be in good
standing through the date of receipt of the articles of dissolution by the secretary of
state, A post mark date will not be considered as the date of receipt. If December 31st
falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the documents must be received no later
than the last business day before December 31st. It is suggested that corporations
attempting to dissolve prior to the end of the franchise tax year make their
submissions well in advance of such tax deadline. Corporations not dissolved on or
before December 31st will be subject to the new franchise tax year's requirements as
of January 1st. Submissions which are incorrect or incomplete in any manner cannot
be filed and will be returned. The effective date of filing is the date of receipt of the re-
submission of a complete document which conforms to law.
Send a $40 payment for the filing fee along with two copies of the articles of
dissolution, and the certificate from the comptroller of public accounts to the
Secretary of State, Statutory Filings Division, Corporations Section, P.O. Box 13697,
Austin, Texas 78711-3697. The delivery address is 1019 Brazos, Austin, Texas 78701.
We will place one document on record and, if a duplicate copy has been provided for
such purpose, return a file stamped copy. The telephone number is (512) 463-5555,
TDD: (800) 735-2989, FAX: (512) 463-5709.
The attached form promulgated by the secretary of state is designed to meet minimum
statutory filing requirements and no warranty is made regarding the suitability of this
form for any particular purpose. This form and the information provided are not
substitutes for the advice of an attorney and it is recommended that the services of an
attorney be obtained before preparation of the articles of dissolution.
Form No. 602
Revised 9/99
TEXAS COMPTROLLER of PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
P.O.Box 13526 - Austin, TX 78711-3528
4
Prat
March 3, 2009
HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCKS INC
14450 MIDWAY RD
DALLAS, TX 75244-3509
CERTIFICATE OF ACCOUNT ST.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
I, Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that according to the records of this office
HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCKS INC
has filed all required reports for taxes administered by the Comptroller under
Title 2, Tax Code, and taxes reported due on those reports have been paid. This
certificate must be filed with the Texas Secretary of State to legally end the
corporation's existence in Texas. This certificate is valid for the purpose of
dissolution, merger, conversion, or withdrawal through December 31, 2009.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND
SEAL OF OFFICE in the City of
Austin, this 3rd day of
March, 2009 A.D,
Aor. Carb
Susan Combs
Texas Comptroller
Taxpayer number: 32003173294
File number: 0161634400
NOTE: Fallure by Texas corporations to legally dissolve, merge, or convert with the Texas Secretary of State on or before the
expiration of this certificate, will result in additional franchise tax responsibilities. Out of state corporations are responsible
for franchise tax through the last date of business in this state.
Form 05-305 (Rev.1-03/13}
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Lloyd Ward on behalf of Lloyd Ward
Bar No. 20845100
Lloyd@wardlegalus.com
Envelope ID: 57247164
Status as of 9/15/2021 10:30 AM CST
Associated Case Party: TIMOTHYG.PLETTA
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
John Charles Sherwood 18254700 Jsherwood@sherwoodlawoffice.com | 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT
Timothy Pletta 16071800 attorneypletta@hotmail.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT
Associated Case Party: HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCKS, INC.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
TIMOTHY R.STRANN strannlaw@aol.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT
TIMOTHY R.STRANN STRANNLAW@AOL.COM | 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT
Associated Case Party: VALENTINOS.MARCHESONI
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Lloyd E.Ward lloyd@wardlegalus.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Elizabeth Castorena paralegal@wardlegalus.com | 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
TIMOTHY R.STRANN STRANNLAW@AOL.COM 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: NICHOLAS MARCHESONI
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
TIMOTHY R.STRANN STRANNLAW@AOL.COM 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: GLENDA MARCHESONI
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
TIMOTHY R.STRANN STRANNLAW@AOL.COM 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Lloyd Ward on behalf of Lloyd Ward
Bar No. 20845100
Lloyd@wardlegalus.com
Envelope ID: 57247164
Status as of 9/15/2021 10:30 AM CST
Associated Case Party: B&R WILEY FAMILY, GP., L.L.C. D/B/A SERV PRO OF
MESQUITE & KAUFMAN COUNTY
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Keith W.Marshall attymarshall@sbcglobal.net | 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Robert Ruotolo ruotolo@buschllp.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
N. HenrySimpson, III hsimpson@buschllp.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: B&R WILEY FAMILY, L.P. D/B/A SERV PRO OF MESQUITE
& KAUFMAN COUNTYAND CEDAR CREEK
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Jason Kerr jkerr@mayerllp.com | 9/14/2021 6:14:29 PM_| SENT
Associated Case Party: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Doris A. Joiner djoiner@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Hunter Davidson HDavidson@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Tiffany Au tau@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Roger Higgins rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Sheila Groenevelt sgroenevelt@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name
Francine Ly
TIMOTHY PLETTA
Traci Tuffin
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Lloyd Ward on behalf of Lloyd Ward
Bar No. 20845100
Lloyd@wardlegalus.com
Envelope ID: 57247164
Status as of 9/15/2021 10:30 AM CST
Case Contacts
Kevin Perry kevin@buschllp.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT
Jo Silva jsilva@hlflaw.net 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT
Preview
FILED 9/14/2021 5:14 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Darling Tellez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC20-07433-B TIMOTHY G. PLETTA, Indy. and IN THE DISTRICT COURT d/b/a Law Office of Timothy G. Pletta and as Trustee for the ANN HENNUM & TIMOTHY GERARD PLETTA REVOCABLE TRUST, ANN § H. PLETTA, Indy. AND MARIELLA L. PLETTA, Plaintiffs Vv. HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCKS, INC. d/b/a Heritage House Clocks, a Franchise Tax Ended Texas Corporation, § 134 JUDICIAL DISTRICT VALENTINO S. MARCHESONI, Indy. and d/b/a/ Heritage House Clocks NICHOLAS MARCHESONT, Indv. and d/b/a Heritage House Clocks GLENDA MARCHESONIL, Indv. and d/b/a Heritage House Clocks, B&R WILEY FAMILY, GP, L.L. C, B&R WILEY FAMILY, L.P. d/b/a Servpro of Mesquite, Kaufman County § and Cedar Creek, BRANDON JOE WILEY, REGINA L. WILEY, a/k/a REGINA LYNN WILEY, JENNIFER EVARTT, EDWARD EVARTT, a/k/a EDWARD EVARTT III a/k/a EDWARD DEAN EVARTT a/k/a EDDIE EVARTT and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCK DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED PETITION (AS SUPPLEMENTED) AND VERIFIED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION Comes Now defendants, Heritage House Clocks, Inc., Valentino Marchesoni, Nicholas Marchesoni and Glenda Marchesoni (collectively, where appropriate, “Heritage House Clock Defendants”) pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 91, specially excepting to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition (as supplemented), and also making this plea to the jurisdiction solely as to Defendant Heritage House Clocks, Inc. In support of the relief requested, Heritage House Clock Defendants aver, allege and state as follows: STATEMENT OF FACTS General Facts This civil action involves the aftermath of a house fire: Plaintiffs’ home and its contents were damaged or destroyed by fire in August 2018. They made a claim on their insurance policy with Defendant Allstate Insurance Company, who, presumably under rights and obligations to repair, salvage or remediate, retained Defendant Servpro of Mesquite to collect salvageable items for repair. Defendant Servpro, in turn, retained Defendant Valentino Marchesoni (“V. Marchesoni”), who does business under the registered assumed name of Heritage House Clocks, to pick-up a Howard Miller grandfather from Plaintiffs’ residence, examine it for damage and, if appropriate, effect repairs. V. Marchesoni did just that: He transported the clock to his shop and, after examination, reported to Servpro that the damages would cost approximately $3,500 to repair. In May 2019, Servpro authorized repairs and paid a 50% deposit against the estimate. V. Marchesoni effected the repairs as instructed, which included a complete overhaul of the movement (including replacement of wear items); related adjustments and cleaning; and repair of water damage to the lower case. He reported completion of the work to Servpro and awaited instructions. After the repairs were completed, but prior to Servpro’s instructions, Plaintiff Timothy G. Pletta (“Pletta”) contacted Defendant Glenda Marchesoni (“G. Marchesoni”), V. Marchesoni’s wife, who works with him in their family’s business, at the shop; this was the first contact between Pletta and the Heritage House Clock Defendants subsequent to picking up the clock at Plaintiffs’ residence. This point requires emphasis: The Heritage House Clock Defendants’ “customer” was Servpro, and they had completed all work on the clock, as instructed by their customer, prior to Pletta’s contact. Pletta sought to insert himself between the Heritage House Defendants and its customer, Servpro, purportedly to expedite the return of his clock: He offered to pay the entire invoice for repairs; Servpro agreed, with the proviso that it be reimbursed for the 50% deposit. Pletta never, however, delivered payment. Indeed, Pletta attempted to suborn the Heritage House Clock Defendants into an insurance fraud, offering to purchase another clock from their sales floor if they would “total” his repaired clock; they refused. Regardless, Pletta never paid and Servpro instructed delivery of the clock to their facility where it presumably still sits; Servpro has not, however, paid the balance due for repairs. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES Plea to the Jurisdiction — Heritage House Clocks, Inc. Contrary to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition (as supplemented), Heritage House Clocks, Inc. did not forfeit its corporate charter, it voluntarily dissolved itself in 2005, in accordance with the then-extant provisions of the Texas Business Corporation Act, long before any of the events that give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims.' Materials relating to such dissolution are appended hereto as Exhibit A. For this reason, it is no longer an entity that may sue or be sued in accordance with Tex. Bus. Org. Code § 2.101(1). Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 29, which permits suits against dissolved corporations, in inapposite here because the corporation ceased existence fifteen years prior to the events that give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, the statue of repose set out in Tex. Bus. Org. Code, § 11.356 is applicable; the corporation ceased existence for any purpose three years after dissolution, and | Heritage House Clocks is a registered assumed name for V. Marchesoni; there is no Heritage House Clocks, Inc. and hasn’t been one for over fifteen years. any claims against it not brought by then expired. By Plaintiffs’ admission, this is not a “relation back” case where a dissolved corporation is being sued for its actions while in good standing, or within the three year statute of repose: The corporation had already ceased to exist for any purpose at the time their purported damages accrued. Thus, this Court could not have subject matter jurisdiction over the defunct corporation’s alleged activities. If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case, then it lacks authority to decide that case. Lake v. Cravens, 488 S.W.3d 867, 885 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.); Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex.1993). “Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law.” Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004); see also Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n vy. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849,855 (Tex. 2002). “When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. A true and correct copy of the articles of dissolution filed with the Secretary of State on March 6, 2009, and attached hereto as Exhibit A. As allowed under Rule 902 Texas Rules of Evidence. Special Exceptions — Heritage House Clocks Defendants General Requirements Texas courts have consistently held that plaintiffs must provide sufficient information in their pleadings to provide defendants with “fair notice” — thus allowing defendants to ascertain the “nature and the basic issues of the controversy as well as what testimony will likely be relevant in defending against plaintiffs claims.” Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887, 896-7 (Tex. 2000); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 45(b); Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(a). Although the plaintiff is not required to describe its evidence in detail in its petition, failing to plead all the elements of a cause of action is a substantive defect addressed through special exceptions. Paramount Pipe & Supply v. Muhr, 749 S.W.2d 491, 494-95 (Tex. 1988); Mowberry v. Avery, 76 S.W.3d 663, 677 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied). Similarly, ifa plaintiff merely makes general allegations in its pleadings, a special exception is warranted. Subia v. Texas Dept. of Human Svcs., 750 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex. App. — El Paso 1988, no writ). Special Exceptions — Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 91 Heritage House Clocks, Inc. In the alternative to the plea to the jurisdiction set out above, Heritage House Clocks, Inc. propounds special exceptions to the lack of specificity as to its actions as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition. Plaintiffs claim causes of action against this Defendant for 1) Breach of Contract; 2) violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and Civil Conspiracy (Conversion and Fraud). These claims are made in bulk, collectively as to all of the Heritage House Clock Defendants, without alleging any manner of alter ego or specific acts of one or the other of them, so that no one has adequate notice of the claims specific to them. As to the Contract and DTPA claims, there are no facts pleaded with respect to this Defendant entering into any manner of agreement — much the less an enforceable contract — with Plaintiffs, or that they purchased anything from any of the Heritage House Clock Defendants. First, as noted above, this Defendant was dissolved long before any of the dealings here at issue. Second, the first substantive dealings between Pletta and any of the Heritage House Clock Defendants took place after the clock was repaired. Third, Plaintiffs were never customers of any of the Heritage House Clock Defendants, nor were they consumers of any of the goods or services provided by them: Servpro was the customer, not Plaintiffs. This Defendant requests that Plaintiffs be required to plead the establishment and conduct of their purported business relationship separately from the other Heritage House Clock Defendants, including the period such was commenced, or offer cause as to why such is not required. Plaintiffs should be required to set out the elements of the contract or agreement that is the basis for both of these causes of action, as well as specify the breach. At minimum, such pleading should specifically identify the goods or services that were allegedly subject to these arrangements; the manner and means of these parties’ agreements; the manner and means of any breach or failure; and the timing of these events. In particular, these allegations or deficient pleadings are found at paragraphs 6.01 and 6.04 of the Fourth Amended Petition (lack of specificity as to parties); paragraphs 6.04 (lack of specificity as to capacity to enter into contract and other elements); paragraph 9.02 (specific goods or services to be acquired); paragraph 11.02 (terms and provisions of alleged contract, including timing; identity of parties to contract; identification of means and manner of breach and individuals involved). As to the Civil Conspiracy (Conversion and Fraud), the Plaintiffs do not plead there was any manner of agreement between this Defendant and Servpro to steal from or defraud them, so that their Conspiracy claim fails. They should be required to identify the nature of the agreement, when it was agreed to, and the parties. If they intend to amend and try to cure this defect, they should also be required to plead their fraud claims with specificity, identifying the “what, when, where and how” of the means and methods of the purported fraud. In particular, these allegations or deficient pleadings are found at paragraph 12.03 (no description of manner and means of agreement between this Defendant and Plaintiffs; no identification as to the commercial nature or trade usage of the item (the clock?)); paragraph 12.05 (no identification of individual parties involved in “fabricating false invoices” or the false invoices; no statement as to timing of false statements; no allegation of reliance or this Defendant’s intention; no specificity as to items this Defendant allegedly converted); paragraph 12.06 (no statement as to specific items this Defendant allegedly converted, or kept in breach of any purported agreement); paragraph 12.07 (no statement as to specific items this Defendant allegedly converted, or kept in breach of any purported agreement). Special Exceptions — Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 91 V. Marchesoni, G. Marchesoni and Nicholas Marchesoni (“N. Marchesoni”) V. Marchesoni, G. Marchesoni and N. Marchesoni (collectively, where appropriate, “Marchesoni Defendants”) propound special exceptions to Plaintiffs’ allegations against them in the Fourth Amended Petition (as supplemented) for failure to plead with specificity. Much of this is set out above, and their claims are opaque to the point of vague or confusing. Generally, Plaintiffs plead these claims against “Defendants” generally, without identifying who did what, or how they acted together such that collective pleading is appropriate. Specifically, as to the Contract and DTPA claims, there are no facts pleaded with respect to any of the Marchesoni Defendants entering into any manner of agreement — much the less an enforceable contract with Plaintiffs, or that they purchased anything from any of the Heritage House Clock Defendants. First, as noted above, the first substantive dealings between Pletta and any of the Marchesoni Defendants took place after the clock was repaired, and there are no allegations as all as to the other Plaintiffs’ dealings with them. Second, Plaintiffs were never customers of any of the Marchesoni Defendants, nor were they consumers of any of the goods or services provided by them: Servpro was the customer, not Plaintiffs. The Marchesoni Defendants request that Plaintiffs be required to plead the establishment and conduct of their purported business relationship separately as to each of them, including the period such was commenced, or offer cause as to why such is not required; while this was a family business, there wasn’t a corporate umbrella, and each of their actions should be pleaded separately if they intend to establish separate liability. Plaintiffs should be required to set out the elements of the contract or agreement that is the basis for these causes of action (Contract and DTPA) and specify the breach. At minimum, such pleading should specifically identify the goods or services that were allegedly subject to these arrangements; the manner and means of these parties’ agreements; the manner and means of any breach or failure; and the timing of these events. In particular, these allegations or deficient pleadings are found at paragraphs 6.01 and 6.04 of the Fourth Amended Petition (lack of specificity as to parties or their interest in the property that was either subject of the purported contract or allegedly converted); paragraphs 6.04 (lack of specificity as to capacity to enter into contract and other elements); paragraph 9.02 (specific goods or services to be acquired); paragraph 11.02 (terms and provisions of alleged ontract, including timing; identity of parties to contract; identification of means and manner of breach and individuals involved). As to the Civil Conspiracy (Conversion and Fraud), the Plaintiffs do not plead there was any manner of agreement between the Marchesoni Defendants and Servpro to steal from or defraud them, so that their Conspiracy claim fails. They should be required to identify the nature of the agreement, when it was agreed to, and the individual parties. If they intend to amend and try to cure this defect, they should also be required to plead their fraud claims with specificity, identifying the “what, when, where and how” of the means and methods of the purported fraud as to each of them. In particular, these allegations or deficient pleadings are found at paragraph 12.03 (no description of manner and means of agreement between the Marchesoni Defendants and Plaintiffs; no identification as to the commercial nature or trade usage of the item (the clock?)); paragraph 12.05 (no identification of individual parties involved in “fabricating false invoices” or the false invoices; no statement as to timing of false statements; no allegation of reliance or the individual defendant’s intentions; no specificity as to items the individual defendants allegedly converted); paragraph 12.06 (no statement as to specific items the Marchesoni Defendants allegedly converted, or kept in breach of any purported agreement); paragraph 12.07 (no statement as to specific items the Marchesoni Defendants allegedly converted, or kept in breach of any purported agreement). Remedial or Curative Amendments The trial court has broad discretion in granting special exceptions to order more definite pleadings as a particular case may require. Burgess v. El Paso Cancer Treatment Ctr., 881 S.W.2d 552, 554 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, writ denied). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id. (citing Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985)). Special exceptions may also be used to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action permitted by law. Mowbray v. Avery, 76 S.W.3d 663, 677 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 91) Special exceptions must be based on one or more of three propositions—1) that no legal rule justifies a recovery on a claim of the type alleged; 2) that, though there is a legal rule which might be applicable, the petition omits one or more allegations essential to bring plaintiff's claim within its scope; or 3) that, though there is a legal rule which might be applicable, the petition shows on its face facts which negate its application. Fernandez v. City of El Paso, 876 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1993, writ denied) In the action at bar, under the items which are specially excepted, the pleading fails on all three propositions, and this court should order the petition re-pled. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Heritage House Clocks Defendants Plaintiff pray that this Court (1) grant the defunct corporation’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss it from this action, and (2) order Plaintiffs to re-plead their Fourth Amended Petition within thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing, and that Defendant be allowed their reasonable attorney's fees, cost and such other and further relief as Plaintiff may show itself entitled to at law or in equity. Respectfully Submitted /s/Lloyd E. Ward. Lloyd E. Ward, Esq. Ward Legal Group, PLLC 12801 North Central Expressway North Central Plaza III, Suite 460 Dallas, Texas 75243 Attorney for Heritage House Clocks Defendants 10 Certificate of Service This is to certify that all parties appearing herein have been served via the electronic e- filing system as allowed for under the Dallas County Local Rules and TRCP, on this day of September, 2021. /s/Lloyd E. Ward Lloyd E. Ward, Esq. 11 EXHIBIT A G BLE Og > Office of the Secretary of State FILED \} In the Office of the w Corporations Section Secretary of State of Texas SE P.O. Box 13697 MAR 0 6 2009 Austin, Texas 78711-3697 Corporations Section ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION BUSINESS CORPORATION Pursuant to the provisions of article 6.06 of the Texas Business Corporation Act, the undersigned corporation adopts the following articles of dissolution: 1 The name of the corporation is The file number is Clelo 344400 2. The names and respective addresses of its officers are as follows: NAME OFFICE HELD ADDRESS ALMarthesony resident Surebery 4450 Ms kd as KR 72 44 The names and respective addresses of its directors are as follows: NAME ADDRESS handel Marohasony 5419 yp. lovers hy D&lusTR V5COF YOU MUST CHECK EITHER A OR B IN ITEMS FOUR THROUGH SIX A. A written consent to dissolve was signed by all shareholders of the corporation or was signed in their names by their attorneys thereunto duly authorized. or B. A resolution to dissolve was adopted by not less than a two-thirds vote of the shareholders of the corporation on the following date: 2-/4-0O The number of shares outstanding and entitled to vote, and voting for and against the dissolution were as follows: CLASS SERIES OUTSTANDING TOTAL VOTED TOTAL VOTED AND FOR AGAINST ENTITLED TO VOTE Coramax /f LLD), BOO fOOLL) RECEIVEB— MAR 06 2003 Secretary of State 5. Ka All debts, liabilities and obligations of the corporation have been paid, satisfied, or discharged or adequate provision has been made for payment, satisfaction, or discharge thereof. or Cs The properties and assets of the corporation were not sufficient to pay, satisfy, or discharge all the corporation's debts, liabilities, and obligations. All properties and assets of the corporation have been applied so far as they would go to the just and equitable payment of those debts, liabilities, and obligations or adequate provision has been made for such application. 6 Ra The remainder of the properties and assets of the corporation have been distributed to its shareholders according to their respective rights and interests. or No properties or assets of the corporation remained for distribution to shareholders after applying the properties and assets of the corporation so far as they would go to the just and equitable payment of the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the corporation or making adequate provision for such application. By ‘ Officer Title: f f= / INSTRUCTIONS Attach certificate #05-305 from the comptroller of public accounts indicating that all taxes have been paid and the corporation is in good standing for the purpose of dissolution. Requests for certificates or questions on tax status should be directed to the Tax Assistance Section, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Austin, Texas 78774- 0100; (512) 463-4600; toll-free (800) 252-1381; (TDD) (800) 248-4099. The franchise tax year ends on December 31st. The corporation must be in good standing through the date of receipt of the articles of dissolution by the secretary of state, A post mark date will not be considered as the date of receipt. If December 31st falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the documents must be received no later than the last business day before December 31st. It is suggested that corporations attempting to dissolve prior to the end of the franchise tax year make their submissions well in advance of such tax deadline. Corporations not dissolved on or before December 31st will be subject to the new franchise tax year's requirements as of January 1st. Submissions which are incorrect or incomplete in any manner cannot be filed and will be returned. The effective date of filing is the date of receipt of the re- submission of a complete document which conforms to law. Send a $40 payment for the filing fee along with two copies of the articles of dissolution, and the certificate from the comptroller of public accounts to the Secretary of State, Statutory Filings Division, Corporations Section, P.O. Box 13697, Austin, Texas 78711-3697. The delivery address is 1019 Brazos, Austin, Texas 78701. We will place one document on record and, if a duplicate copy has been provided for such purpose, return a file stamped copy. The telephone number is (512) 463-5555, TDD: (800) 735-2989, FAX: (512) 463-5709. The attached form promulgated by the secretary of state is designed to meet minimum statutory filing requirements and no warranty is made regarding the suitability of this form for any particular purpose. This form and the information provided are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney and it is recommended that the services of an attorney be obtained before preparation of the articles of dissolution. Form No. 602 Revised 9/99 TEXAS COMPTROLLER of PUBLIC ACCOUNTS P.O.Box 13526 - Austin, TX 78711-3528 4 Prat March 3, 2009 HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCKS INC 14450 MIDWAY RD DALLAS, TX 75244-3509 CERTIFICATE OF ACCOUNT ST. THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS I, Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that according to the records of this office HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCKS INC has filed all required reports for taxes administered by the Comptroller under Title 2, Tax Code, and taxes reported due on those reports have been paid. This certificate must be filed with the Texas Secretary of State to legally end the corporation's existence in Texas. This certificate is valid for the purpose of dissolution, merger, conversion, or withdrawal through December 31, 2009. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE in the City of Austin, this 3rd day of March, 2009 A.D, Aor. Carb Susan Combs Texas Comptroller Taxpayer number: 32003173294 File number: 0161634400 NOTE: Fallure by Texas corporations to legally dissolve, merge, or convert with the Texas Secretary of State on or before the expiration of this certificate, will result in additional franchise tax responsibilities. Out of state corporations are responsible for franchise tax through the last date of business in this state. Form 05-305 (Rev.1-03/13} Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Lloyd Ward on behalf of Lloyd Ward Bar No. 20845100 Lloyd@wardlegalus.com Envelope ID: 57247164 Status as of 9/15/2021 10:30 AM CST Associated Case Party: TIMOTHYG.PLETTA Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status John Charles Sherwood 18254700 Jsherwood@sherwoodlawoffice.com | 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT Timothy Pletta 16071800 attorneypletta@hotmail.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT Associated Case Party: HERITAGE HOUSE CLOCKS, INC. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status TIMOTHY R.STRANN strannlaw@aol.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT TIMOTHY R.STRANN STRANNLAW@AOL.COM | 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT Associated Case Party: VALENTINOS.MARCHESONI Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Lloyd E.Ward lloyd@wardlegalus.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Elizabeth Castorena paralegal@wardlegalus.com | 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT TIMOTHY R.STRANN STRANNLAW@AOL.COM 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Associated Case Party: NICHOLAS MARCHESONI Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status TIMOTHY R.STRANN STRANNLAW@AOL.COM 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Associated Case Party: GLENDA MARCHESONI Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status TIMOTHY R.STRANN STRANNLAW@AOL.COM 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Lloyd Ward on behalf of Lloyd Ward Bar No. 20845100 Lloyd@wardlegalus.com Envelope ID: 57247164 Status as of 9/15/2021 10:30 AM CST Associated Case Party: B&R WILEY FAMILY, GP., L.L.C. D/B/A SERV PRO OF MESQUITE & KAUFMAN COUNTY Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Keith W.Marshall attymarshall@sbcglobal.net | 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Robert Ruotolo ruotolo@buschllp.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT N. HenrySimpson, III hsimpson@buschllp.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Associated Case Party: B&R WILEY FAMILY, L.P. D/B/A SERV PRO OF MESQUITE & KAUFMAN COUNTYAND CEDAR CREEK Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Jason Kerr jkerr@mayerllp.com | 9/14/2021 6:14:29 PM_| SENT Associated Case Party: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Doris A. Joiner djoiner@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Hunter Davidson HDavidson@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Tiffany Au tau@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Roger Higgins rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Sheila Groenevelt sgroenevelt@thompsoncoe.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM SENT Case Contacts Name Francine Ly TIMOTHY PLETTA Traci Tuffin Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Lloyd Ward on behalf of Lloyd Ward Bar No. 20845100 Lloyd@wardlegalus.com Envelope ID: 57247164 Status as of 9/15/2021 10:30 AM CST Case Contacts Kevin Perry kevin@buschllp.com 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT Jo Silva jsilva@hlflaw.net 9/14/2021 5:14:29 PM | SENT