Preview
Filed: 5/28/2021 5:23 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 53942745
By: Lisa Kelly
6/1/2021 8:56 AM
CAUSE NO.: 20-CV-1458
STACEY DIAMOND AND JEFFREY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
DIAMOND §
§
Plaintiffs, §
v. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
§
BRADFORD WOOD COLLIER §
§
Defendant. § 122ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
Plaintiffs, Stacey Diamond and Jeffrey Diamond (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Plaintiffs” and/or “Sellers”), file this their First Amended Original Petition against
Defendants, Bradford Wood Collier (hereinafter “Collier” and/or “Buyer”), Everett Financial,
Inc. d/b/a Supreme Lending (“Supreme Lending”), Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC
(“Texas Ally”), and Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda (“Pu”) (collectively referred to as
“Defendants”), and would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following:
I.
DISCOVERY LEVEL
1. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery in this matter under Level 2 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. The claims asserted arise under the laws of Texas. This Court has jurisdiction,
and venue is proper because a substantial amount of the actions/inactions giving rise to claims
made herein, as well as the property at issue, are located in Galveston County, Texas. TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(1).
III.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs are residents of Texas.
4. Defendant, Bradford Wood Collier, is a resident of Galveston County, Texas,
and has already made an appearance herein; he may be served through his attorney of record.
5. Defendant, Everett Financial, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Lending is a domestic for-
profit corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas County, Texas. Everett
Financial, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Lending may be served with process through its registered agent,
Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th
Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
6. Defendant, Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Travis County, Texas. Texas Ally real Estate
Group, LLC may be served with process through its registered agent, Juston C. Martinez, 1301
S. IH 35 #301, Austin, Texas 78741.
7. Defendant, Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda, is a resident of Harris County, Texas,
who may be served with process at the following address: 307 Mission Ln, Houston, Texas
77011, or wherever he may be found.
IV.
FACTS
2
8. On August 31, 2020, Collier obtained a Conditional Qualification Letter from
Supreme Lending, stating that Collier was pre-qualified for a home loan. Specifically, the Pre-
Approval Letter provided as follows:
See Exhibit A, Page 19.
9. On September 5, 2020, Plaintiffs, as Sellers, and Collier, as Buyer, executed and
entered into, a One to Four Family Residential Contract (Resale) (“Contract”) for the sale of
real property located at: 1615 Postoffice Street, Galveston, Texas 77550 (“Property”),
described more specifically herein as follows: Lot 4, Block 436, Menard Sur Addition, City of
Galveston, County of Galveston, Texas, known as 1615 Postoffice Street, Galveston, Texas
77550. A copy of the Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is incorporated by reference.
10. At all relevant times, Collier was represented by Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda, a
licensed real estate agent who was operating under, employed by, and/or acting on behalf of
Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC. Collier’s mortgage lender for the transaction in question
was Supreme Lending.
11. At the time of the parties’ execution of the Contract, and in accordance with the
terms of the Contract, Plaintiffs furnished to Buyer the existing survey of the Property, a T-47
3
Residential Real Property Affidavit, and a Commitment for Title Insurance (GF No.2036137-
COM). See Ex. A.
12. Following the executing of the Contract and Defendant’s receipt of the above-
mentioned documents, Collier delivered $10,000.00 as earnest money to Deanna Jones / South
Land Title, as escrow agent, at 6710 Stewart Rd., #200, Galveston, Texas 77551.
13. On September 8, 2020, Collier submitted a Uniform Residential Loan Application
to Supreme Lending for a loan in the amount of $408,500.00 for the purchase of the 1615 Postoffice
Street Property. Notably, the terms of the loan for the purchase of the 1615 Postoffice Street Property
were loan locked by Elizabeth Liebig, Residential Mortgage Loan Originator for Supreme Lending,
that same day.
14. On September 13, 2020, Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda, Collier’s real estate agent,
sent the following email to Supreme Lending:
15. Thereafter, the very next day, Andrew Liebig, Loan Processor at Supreme
Lending, canceled the appraisal of the 1615 Postoffice Street Property because Bradford
Collier had decided to cancel his contract with Plaintiffs, in search for a different home:
4
16. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, on September 15, 2020, Collier had entered into a One to
Four Family Residential Contract (Resale) for the purchase of another property, located at 2901
Avenue O, Galveston, Texas 77550 (“2901 Avenue O Property”), and Collier continued working
with Andrew and Elizabeth Liebig at Supreme Lending to secure financing for the purchase of this
new property. In fact, Collier’s real estate agent, Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda, sent an email to
Elizabeth Liebig, a Supreme Lending employee, on September 16, 2020, stating as follows:
5
17. Furthermore, Collier and Texas Ally conspired with Supreme Lending, to terminate
the One to Four Family Residential Contract (Resale) for the purchase of the 1615 Postoffice Street
Property. Specifically, Andrew Liebig, Loan Processor at Supreme Lending, negligently and/or
fraudulently issued a false Statement of Application Denial Due to Insufficient Funds to Close on
September 22, 2020, after Collier and Texas Ally requested the same.
18. Prior to the date of closing, Plaintiffs fulfilled all of their obligations under the
Contract, and all conditions precedent to Collier’s contractual obligation to close the sale of
the Property.
19. On September 29, 2020, the date for the closing of the sale of the Property as
set forth in the Contract, Plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to close on the sale of the
Property by executing and delivering a general warranty deed conveying title to the Property
to Buyer. Collier, however, refused to complete the purchase of the Property, and failed to
appear for the closing of the sale, claiming that he had insufficient funds to close. In doing so,
Collier relied upon the letter that he and Texas Ally obtained from Supreme Lending – a letter
6
containing both negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations which Supreme Lending issued for the
sole purpose of cancelling Collier’s Contract with Plaintiffs, all the while knowing that the letter it
issued was false and was being used by Collier as the basis to cancel the Contract with Plaintiffs.
20. After Collier breached the Contract by refusing to complete the purchase of the
Property, Plaintiffs instructed the Title Company to release the Buyer’s earnest money (which
was done under protest, and with a reservation of their rights to seek redress in a court of
competent jurisdiction), and informed Collier that they would take legal action to enforce
specific performance of the Contract, and seek such other relief as may be provided by law,
pursuant to Paragraph 15 of the Contract.
V.
CAUSES OF ACTION & REMEDIES
A. Breach of Contract (against Defendant Collier)
21. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above.
22. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable contract for the
sale of property. Defendant breached the Contract by failing and refusing to close on the sale
of the Property, even though Plaintiffs fulfilled all of their contractual obligations.
23. As a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of the Contract,
Plaintiffs suffered actual damages.
B. Negligent Misrepresentation (against all Defendants)
24. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above.
25. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that Collier had insufficient funds to close
the sale of the Property. Specifically, Defendants supplied false information as to the status of
Collier’s finances.
7
26. Defendants made the representation in the course of their businesses.
27. Defendants did not use reasonable care in obtaining and/or communicating the
information pertaining to Collier’s finances.
28. Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied on Defendants’ representations, when
Plaintiffs were forced to sell the property to another individual for a lower price, which also
proximately caused Plaintiffs substantial damages and injuries.
C. Fraud (against Defendant Texas Ally, Defendant Supreme Lending, and
Defendant Pu)
29. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above.
30. As mentioned above, Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that Collier had
insufficient funds to close the sale of the Property.
31. Defendants’ representation was not only material to the transaction in question,
but was also false.
32. When Defendants made the representation to Plaintiffs, Defendants either knew
the representation was false, or made the representation recklessly and without knowledge of
its truth.
33. Defendants made the representation with the intent that Plaintiffs would act on
it.
34. Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied on said representation when Plaintiffs
were forced to sell the property to another individual for a lower price, which proximately
caused Plaintiffs substantial damages and injuries.
D. Tortious Interference with Contract (against Defendant Texas Ally, Defendant
Supreme Lending, and Defendant Pu)
35. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above.
8
36. Plaintiffs had a valid and enforceable contract with Collier for the sale of real
property located at: 1615 Postoffice Street, Galveston, Texas 77550.
37. As illustrated above, Defendants knew of Plaintiffs’ contract with Collier, and
Plaintiffs’ interest in the same – the proceeds from the sale of the Property as set forth in the
Contract.
38. Defendants willfully and intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ contract with
Collier by obtaining and/or issuing a false and fraudulent Statement of Application Denial Due
to Insufficient Funds to Close for the sole purpose of cancelling the Contract.
39. As a result of Defendants’ tortious interference with the Contract, Plaintiffs
suffered substantial damages, as well as severe mental anguish and emotional distress.
E. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (against Defendant Collier)
40. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the Contract, and Defendant’s refusal to
cure the same, Plaintiffs were forced to retain counsel to prosecute their causes of action
against Defendant. As such, pursuant to Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees
and costs associated with prosecuting this action.
F. Exemplary Damages (against Defendant Texas Ally, Defendant Supreme
Lending, and Defendant Pu)
41. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages resulted from Defendants’ actual fraud, and/or
malice, which entitles Plaintiffs to exemplary damages under Section 41.003(a) of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
9
VI.
DAMAGES
42. Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $250,000.00, but not more than
$1,000,000.00. Specifically, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or
omissions, as set forth above, Plaintiffs have sustained significant injuries and damages.
Plaintiffs have been damaged in a sum far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of
this Honorable Court, for which they now sue. Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment, as
follows:
a. Compensatory damages;
b. Actual damages;
c. Consequential damages;
d. Cost of delay in performance;
e. Cost of mitigation of damages;
f. Reliance damages;
g. Lost value;
h. Past mental anguish;
i. Exemplary damages;
j. Interest on damages (pre- and post-judgment) in accordance with law;
k. Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees;
l. Costs of court;
m. Expert witness fees;
n. Costs of copies of depositions; and
o. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
10
VII.
JURY DEMAND
43. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues.
VIII.
PRAYER
Plaintiffs pray that this citation issue and be served upon Defendants in a form and
manner prescribed by law, requiring that Defendants appear and answer; and that upon final
hearing, Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants, both jointly and severally, in a total sum
in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court; plus pre-judgment and post-
judgment interests, attorneys’ fees, all costs of Court, and all such other and further relief, to
which they may show themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
J. DIAMOND AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
/s/ Taylor Diamond
Carla Courtney
State Bar No. 24115455
Taylor Diamond
State Bar No. 24109809
730 North Loop
Houston, Texas 77009
Telephone (713) 227-6800
Facsimile (713) 227-6801
Service@jdiamondandassociates.com
Carla@jdiamondandassociates.com
Taylor@jdiamondandassociates.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on
all counsel of record, as listed below, on this 28th day of May, 2021, pursuant to the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Via E-Mail: sgrossman@hou-law.com
Steven D. Grossman
SHEINESS, GLOVER & GROSSMAN, LLP
4544 Post Oak Place Dr., Ste. 270
Houston, Texas 77027
Attorney for Defendant Collier
/s/ Taylor J. Diamond
Taylor J. Diamond
12
EXHIBIT
A
Preview
Filed: 5/28/2021 5:23 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 53942745 By: Lisa Kelly 6/1/2021 8:56 AM CAUSE NO.: 20-CV-1458 STACEY DIAMOND AND JEFFREY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DIAMOND § § Plaintiffs, § v. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS § BRADFORD WOOD COLLIER § § Defendant. § 122ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION Plaintiffs, Stacey Diamond and Jeffrey Diamond (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” and/or “Sellers”), file this their First Amended Original Petition against Defendants, Bradford Wood Collier (hereinafter “Collier” and/or “Buyer”), Everett Financial, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Lending (“Supreme Lending”), Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC (“Texas Ally”), and Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda (“Pu”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following: I. DISCOVERY LEVEL 1. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery in this matter under Level 2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. The claims asserted arise under the laws of Texas. This Court has jurisdiction, and venue is proper because a substantial amount of the actions/inactions giving rise to claims made herein, as well as the property at issue, are located in Galveston County, Texas. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(1). III. PARTIES 3. Plaintiffs are residents of Texas. 4. Defendant, Bradford Wood Collier, is a resident of Galveston County, Texas, and has already made an appearance herein; he may be served through his attorney of record. 5. Defendant, Everett Financial, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Lending is a domestic for- profit corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas County, Texas. Everett Financial, Inc. d/b/a Supreme Lending may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. 6. Defendant, Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC is a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business in Travis County, Texas. Texas Ally real Estate Group, LLC may be served with process through its registered agent, Juston C. Martinez, 1301 S. IH 35 #301, Austin, Texas 78741. 7. Defendant, Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda, is a resident of Harris County, Texas, who may be served with process at the following address: 307 Mission Ln, Houston, Texas 77011, or wherever he may be found. IV. FACTS 2 8. On August 31, 2020, Collier obtained a Conditional Qualification Letter from Supreme Lending, stating that Collier was pre-qualified for a home loan. Specifically, the Pre- Approval Letter provided as follows: See Exhibit A, Page 19. 9. On September 5, 2020, Plaintiffs, as Sellers, and Collier, as Buyer, executed and entered into, a One to Four Family Residential Contract (Resale) (“Contract”) for the sale of real property located at: 1615 Postoffice Street, Galveston, Texas 77550 (“Property”), described more specifically herein as follows: Lot 4, Block 436, Menard Sur Addition, City of Galveston, County of Galveston, Texas, known as 1615 Postoffice Street, Galveston, Texas 77550. A copy of the Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is incorporated by reference. 10. At all relevant times, Collier was represented by Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda, a licensed real estate agent who was operating under, employed by, and/or acting on behalf of Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC. Collier’s mortgage lender for the transaction in question was Supreme Lending. 11. At the time of the parties’ execution of the Contract, and in accordance with the terms of the Contract, Plaintiffs furnished to Buyer the existing survey of the Property, a T-47 3 Residential Real Property Affidavit, and a Commitment for Title Insurance (GF No.2036137- COM). See Ex. A. 12. Following the executing of the Contract and Defendant’s receipt of the above- mentioned documents, Collier delivered $10,000.00 as earnest money to Deanna Jones / South Land Title, as escrow agent, at 6710 Stewart Rd., #200, Galveston, Texas 77551. 13. On September 8, 2020, Collier submitted a Uniform Residential Loan Application to Supreme Lending for a loan in the amount of $408,500.00 for the purchase of the 1615 Postoffice Street Property. Notably, the terms of the loan for the purchase of the 1615 Postoffice Street Property were loan locked by Elizabeth Liebig, Residential Mortgage Loan Originator for Supreme Lending, that same day. 14. On September 13, 2020, Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda, Collier’s real estate agent, sent the following email to Supreme Lending: 15. Thereafter, the very next day, Andrew Liebig, Loan Processor at Supreme Lending, canceled the appraisal of the 1615 Postoffice Street Property because Bradford Collier had decided to cancel his contract with Plaintiffs, in search for a different home: 4 16. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, on September 15, 2020, Collier had entered into a One to Four Family Residential Contract (Resale) for the purchase of another property, located at 2901 Avenue O, Galveston, Texas 77550 (“2901 Avenue O Property”), and Collier continued working with Andrew and Elizabeth Liebig at Supreme Lending to secure financing for the purchase of this new property. In fact, Collier’s real estate agent, Henrry Adonias Pu Pineda, sent an email to Elizabeth Liebig, a Supreme Lending employee, on September 16, 2020, stating as follows: 5 17. Furthermore, Collier and Texas Ally conspired with Supreme Lending, to terminate the One to Four Family Residential Contract (Resale) for the purchase of the 1615 Postoffice Street Property. Specifically, Andrew Liebig, Loan Processor at Supreme Lending, negligently and/or fraudulently issued a false Statement of Application Denial Due to Insufficient Funds to Close on September 22, 2020, after Collier and Texas Ally requested the same. 18. Prior to the date of closing, Plaintiffs fulfilled all of their obligations under the Contract, and all conditions precedent to Collier’s contractual obligation to close the sale of the Property. 19. On September 29, 2020, the date for the closing of the sale of the Property as set forth in the Contract, Plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to close on the sale of the Property by executing and delivering a general warranty deed conveying title to the Property to Buyer. Collier, however, refused to complete the purchase of the Property, and failed to appear for the closing of the sale, claiming that he had insufficient funds to close. In doing so, Collier relied upon the letter that he and Texas Ally obtained from Supreme Lending – a letter 6 containing both negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations which Supreme Lending issued for the sole purpose of cancelling Collier’s Contract with Plaintiffs, all the while knowing that the letter it issued was false and was being used by Collier as the basis to cancel the Contract with Plaintiffs. 20. After Collier breached the Contract by refusing to complete the purchase of the Property, Plaintiffs instructed the Title Company to release the Buyer’s earnest money (which was done under protest, and with a reservation of their rights to seek redress in a court of competent jurisdiction), and informed Collier that they would take legal action to enforce specific performance of the Contract, and seek such other relief as may be provided by law, pursuant to Paragraph 15 of the Contract. V. CAUSES OF ACTION & REMEDIES A. Breach of Contract (against Defendant Collier) 21. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above. 22. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable contract for the sale of property. Defendant breached the Contract by failing and refusing to close on the sale of the Property, even though Plaintiffs fulfilled all of their contractual obligations. 23. As a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of the Contract, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages. B. Negligent Misrepresentation (against all Defendants) 24. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above. 25. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that Collier had insufficient funds to close the sale of the Property. Specifically, Defendants supplied false information as to the status of Collier’s finances. 7 26. Defendants made the representation in the course of their businesses. 27. Defendants did not use reasonable care in obtaining and/or communicating the information pertaining to Collier’s finances. 28. Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied on Defendants’ representations, when Plaintiffs were forced to sell the property to another individual for a lower price, which also proximately caused Plaintiffs substantial damages and injuries. C. Fraud (against Defendant Texas Ally, Defendant Supreme Lending, and Defendant Pu) 29. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above. 30. As mentioned above, Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that Collier had insufficient funds to close the sale of the Property. 31. Defendants’ representation was not only material to the transaction in question, but was also false. 32. When Defendants made the representation to Plaintiffs, Defendants either knew the representation was false, or made the representation recklessly and without knowledge of its truth. 33. Defendants made the representation with the intent that Plaintiffs would act on it. 34. Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied on said representation when Plaintiffs were forced to sell the property to another individual for a lower price, which proximately caused Plaintiffs substantial damages and injuries. D. Tortious Interference with Contract (against Defendant Texas Ally, Defendant Supreme Lending, and Defendant Pu) 35. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above. 8 36. Plaintiffs had a valid and enforceable contract with Collier for the sale of real property located at: 1615 Postoffice Street, Galveston, Texas 77550. 37. As illustrated above, Defendants knew of Plaintiffs’ contract with Collier, and Plaintiffs’ interest in the same – the proceeds from the sale of the Property as set forth in the Contract. 38. Defendants willfully and intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ contract with Collier by obtaining and/or issuing a false and fraudulent Statement of Application Denial Due to Insufficient Funds to Close for the sole purpose of cancelling the Contract. 39. As a result of Defendants’ tortious interference with the Contract, Plaintiffs suffered substantial damages, as well as severe mental anguish and emotional distress. E. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (against Defendant Collier) 40. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the Contract, and Defendant’s refusal to cure the same, Plaintiffs were forced to retain counsel to prosecute their causes of action against Defendant. As such, pursuant to Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs associated with prosecuting this action. F. Exemplary Damages (against Defendant Texas Ally, Defendant Supreme Lending, and Defendant Pu) 41. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages resulted from Defendants’ actual fraud, and/or malice, which entitles Plaintiffs to exemplary damages under Section 41.003(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 9 VI. DAMAGES 42. Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $250,000.00, but not more than $1,000,000.00. Specifically, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, as set forth above, Plaintiffs have sustained significant injuries and damages. Plaintiffs have been damaged in a sum far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court, for which they now sue. Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment, as follows: a. Compensatory damages; b. Actual damages; c. Consequential damages; d. Cost of delay in performance; e. Cost of mitigation of damages; f. Reliance damages; g. Lost value; h. Past mental anguish; i. Exemplary damages; j. Interest on damages (pre- and post-judgment) in accordance with law; k. Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees; l. Costs of court; m. Expert witness fees; n. Costs of copies of depositions; and o. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 10 VII. JURY DEMAND 43. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues. VIII. PRAYER Plaintiffs pray that this citation issue and be served upon Defendants in a form and manner prescribed by law, requiring that Defendants appear and answer; and that upon final hearing, Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants, both jointly and severally, in a total sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court; plus pre-judgment and post- judgment interests, attorneys’ fees, all costs of Court, and all such other and further relief, to which they may show themselves justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, J. DIAMOND AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC /s/ Taylor Diamond Carla Courtney State Bar No. 24115455 Taylor Diamond State Bar No. 24109809 730 North Loop Houston, Texas 77009 Telephone (713) 227-6800 Facsimile (713) 227-6801 Service@jdiamondandassociates.com Carla@jdiamondandassociates.com Taylor@jdiamondandassociates.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel of record, as listed below, on this 28th day of May, 2021, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Via E-Mail: sgrossman@hou-law.com Steven D. Grossman SHEINESS, GLOVER & GROSSMAN, LLP 4544 Post Oak Place Dr., Ste. 270 Houston, Texas 77027 Attorney for Defendant Collier /s/ Taylor J. Diamond Taylor J. Diamond 12 EXHIBIT A