Preview
Filed: 6/21/2021 3:49 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 54619031
By: Linda Scott
6/21/2021 4:34 PM
CAUSE NO. 20-CV-1458
STACEY DIAMOND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
AND JEFFREY DIAMOND §
Plaintiffs §
§
§
VS. §
§ GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§
§
BRADFORD WOOD COLLIER §
Defendant § 122nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT TEXAS ALLY REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW Defendant Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as “Texas Ally” or “Defendant”), and files this Original Answer to
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I. General Denial
1. Pursuant to Rule 92, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Defendant Texas Ally
Real Estate Group, LLC denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Petition and requests that the Court require Plaintiffs to prove their charges and
allegations by a preponderance of the evidence as required by the Constitution and laws
of the State of Texas.
II. Affirmative Defenses
2. In addition to Paragraph 1, Defendant would state that no act or omission
on the part of Defendant was a proximate cause or producing cause of Plaintiffs’
damages, if any.
1
X:\Tom OConnell\Specialty\Diamond\Answer.docx
3. In addition to Paragraphs 1-2, Defendant objects to the award to the
Plaintiffs, in the unlikely event that an adverse judgment is taken against Defendant, of
prejudgment interest for such reason that any delay in the trial of this case has not been
caused by Defendant, but is a result of either the failure to prosecute this case on behalf
of Plaintiffs or the backlog of the court system. To award prejudgment interest against
Defendant would be unreasonable and improper given the circumstances of this case.
4. In addition to Paragraphs 1-3, Defendant would state that Plaintiffs’
damages are barred, in whole or part, because Defendant’s actions were not a
contributing, proximate, or producing cause of his alleged damages, if any.
5. In addition to Paragraphs 1-4, Defendant invokes the limitations and
provisions of Section 33.001(a) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code regarding
comparative responsibility.
6. In addition to Paragraphs 1-5, Defendant invokes the limitations and
provisions of Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code regarding the
recovery of exemplary damages.
7. In addition to Paragraphs 1-6, Defendant asserts that in the event Plaintiff
prevails on all or part of its claims against Defendant, then any recovery must be offset
against amounts already paid to Plaintiff by any person or entity in connection with the
claims made the subject of this suit. In the alternative, in the event Plaintiff prevails on all
or part of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant, Defendant is entitled to a credit for all
amounts already paid by any party or entity to Plaintiffs for their damages that are the
subject of this suit.
2
X:\Tom OConnell\Specialty\Diamond\Answer.docx
8. In addition to Paragraphs 1-7, In regard to Plaintiffs’ claim of Tortious
Interference with Contract against Defendant, Plaintiffs own pleadings state that
Defendant interfered with its Principal’s contract. Itis long-standing Texas law that an
agent cannot tortiously interfere with its Principal’s own contract. Therefore, Plaintiffs are
not entitled to recover from Defendant for Tortious Interference with a contract as alleged.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
9. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs are
requested to disclose, within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or
material described in Rule 194 (a) through (l).
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Texas Ally Real Estate
Group, LLC prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of this suit, that Defendant be
discharged, that Defendant has and recover its costs, and that Defendant has such other
and further relief, at law or in equity, as it may be justly entitled to receive.
Respectfully submitted,
GAUNTT, KOEN, BINNEY & KIDD, L.L.P
By:
Thomas F. O'Connell, III
State Bar No: 15180700
25700 I-45 North, Ste 130
Spring, TX 77386
281.367.6555
281.367.3705 Facsimile
tom.oconnell@gkbklaw.com
Attorney for Defendant Texas Ally
Real Estate Group, LLC
3
X:\Tom OConnell\Specialty\Diamond\Answer.docx
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document and
order, if applicable, has been forwarded to all counsel of record by facsimile and/or e-
filing this 21 st day of June, 2021.
Taylor Diamond
J. Diamond and Associates, PLLC
730 North Loop
Houston, TX 77009
taylor@jdiamondandassociates.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Steven D. Grossman
Sheinness, Glover & Grossman, LLP
4544 Post Oak Place Dr., Ste 270
Houston, TX 77027
sgrossman@hou-law.com
Attorney for Defendant Bradford Wood Collier
Thomas F. O’Connell
4
X:\Tom OConnell\Specialty\Diamond\Answer.docx
Preview
Filed: 6/21/2021 3:49 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 54619031 By: Linda Scott 6/21/2021 4:34 PM CAUSE NO. 20-CV-1458 STACEY DIAMOND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF AND JEFFREY DIAMOND § Plaintiffs § § § VS. § § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS § § § BRADFORD WOOD COLLIER § Defendant § 122nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT TEXAS ALLY REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW Defendant Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Texas Ally” or “Defendant”), and files this Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. General Denial 1. Pursuant to Rule 92, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Defendant Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition and requests that the Court require Plaintiffs to prove their charges and allegations by a preponderance of the evidence as required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas. II. Affirmative Defenses 2. In addition to Paragraph 1, Defendant would state that no act or omission on the part of Defendant was a proximate cause or producing cause of Plaintiffs’ damages, if any. 1 X:\Tom OConnell\Specialty\Diamond\Answer.docx 3. In addition to Paragraphs 1-2, Defendant objects to the award to the Plaintiffs, in the unlikely event that an adverse judgment is taken against Defendant, of prejudgment interest for such reason that any delay in the trial of this case has not been caused by Defendant, but is a result of either the failure to prosecute this case on behalf of Plaintiffs or the backlog of the court system. To award prejudgment interest against Defendant would be unreasonable and improper given the circumstances of this case. 4. In addition to Paragraphs 1-3, Defendant would state that Plaintiffs’ damages are barred, in whole or part, because Defendant’s actions were not a contributing, proximate, or producing cause of his alleged damages, if any. 5. In addition to Paragraphs 1-4, Defendant invokes the limitations and provisions of Section 33.001(a) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code regarding comparative responsibility. 6. In addition to Paragraphs 1-5, Defendant invokes the limitations and provisions of Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code regarding the recovery of exemplary damages. 7. In addition to Paragraphs 1-6, Defendant asserts that in the event Plaintiff prevails on all or part of its claims against Defendant, then any recovery must be offset against amounts already paid to Plaintiff by any person or entity in connection with the claims made the subject of this suit. In the alternative, in the event Plaintiff prevails on all or part of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant, Defendant is entitled to a credit for all amounts already paid by any party or entity to Plaintiffs for their damages that are the subject of this suit. 2 X:\Tom OConnell\Specialty\Diamond\Answer.docx 8. In addition to Paragraphs 1-7, In regard to Plaintiffs’ claim of Tortious Interference with Contract against Defendant, Plaintiffs own pleadings state that Defendant interfered with its Principal’s contract. Itis long-standing Texas law that an agent cannot tortiously interfere with its Principal’s own contract. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover from Defendant for Tortious Interference with a contract as alleged. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 9. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs are requested to disclose, within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194 (a) through (l). WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of this suit, that Defendant be discharged, that Defendant has and recover its costs, and that Defendant has such other and further relief, at law or in equity, as it may be justly entitled to receive. Respectfully submitted, GAUNTT, KOEN, BINNEY & KIDD, L.L.P By: Thomas F. O'Connell, III State Bar No: 15180700 25700 I-45 North, Ste 130 Spring, TX 77386 281.367.6555 281.367.3705 Facsimile tom.oconnell@gkbklaw.com Attorney for Defendant Texas Ally Real Estate Group, LLC 3 X:\Tom OConnell\Specialty\Diamond\Answer.docx CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document and order, if applicable, has been forwarded to all counsel of record by facsimile and/or e- filing this 21 st day of June, 2021. Taylor Diamond J. Diamond and Associates, PLLC 730 North Loop Houston, TX 77009 taylor@jdiamondandassociates.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Steven D. Grossman Sheinness, Glover & Grossman, LLP 4544 Post Oak Place Dr., Ste 270 Houston, TX 77027 sgrossman@hou-law.com Attorney for Defendant Bradford Wood Collier Thomas F. O’Connell 4 X:\Tom OConnell\Specialty\Diamond\Answer.docx