On November 01, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Janet Northrup,,
and
2818 Ventures, Llc,
84 Grove Dev, Llc,
Abode Multi-Family, Lp,
Abode New Development, Llc,
American Capital Advisors, Llc,
Btx Multifamily, Llc,
Forrest Pines Bryan 84, Llc,
Fp Bryan 240 Gp, Llc,
Fp Bryan 240, Ltd,
Kramer, William,
Lapp, Richard,
Myan Management Group, Llc,
Pillar Income Asset Management, Inc,
Reynolds, James Mikel,
Southern Properties Capital, Lotd,
Southwestern Apartment Developers, Llc,
Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc,
Woodward, Bruce,
for CNTR CNSMR COM DEBT
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
1/28/2022 4:40 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-19-17636
JANET NORTHRUP, Chapter 7 Trustee § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
For the Estate of FM Forrest, Inc. §
§
Plaintiff §
§
v. §
§
FP BRYAN 240, LTD.; FP BRYAN 240 GP, §
LLC; BTX MULTIFAMILY, LLC; §
2818 VENTURES, LLC; s4 GROVE DEV, §
LLC; FORREST PINES BRYAN 84, LLC; §
ABODE NEW DEVELOPMENT, LLC; § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PILLAR INCOME ASSET §
MANAGEMENT, INC.; §
TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY §
INVESTORS, INC.; SOUTHERN §
PROPERTIES CAPITAL, LTD.; §
ABODE MULTI—FAMILY, LP; §
AMERICAN CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; §
BRUCE WOODWARD; JAMES MIKEL §
REYNOLDS; RICHARD LAPP; WILLIAM §
KRAMER; SOUTHWESTERN §
APARTMENT DEVELOPERS, LLC; and §
MYAN MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC §
§
Defendants § 44th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EOUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
Now comes Plaintiff and files this Motion to Equalize Peremptory Challenges pursuant to
Rule 233, and in support of same would respectfully show as follows:
I. Argument and Authorities
In a multi-party case, upon the motion of any party, the trial court shall enter an
appropriate order equalizing the number of peremptory challenges afforded to each party in
accordance with TRCP 233. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trial court equalize the
peremptory challenges between Plaintiff and Defendants. "In determining how the challenges
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES --
PAGE 1
should be allocated the court shall consider any matter brought to the attention of the tn'al judge
concerning the ends of justice and the elimination of an unfair advantage.“
In determining how the strikes should be apportioned, the Court must determine Whether
any litigants on the same “side” are antagonistic with respect to a submitted issue? Should the
Court determine that certain parties on one side are antagonistic to each other, it has the
discretion to determine the number of strikes to each side so that neither has an unfair
advantage.3 The purpose of equalizing strikes is to ensure that no party or “side” has an unfair
advantage because of its peremptory strikes.4 The Court may proportion the strikes by
increasing the strikes on one side, decreasing the strikes on the other side or both.5
The extent to which equalizing is allowed depends upon the circumstances of the
particular case, the information available to the trial court, the extent and degree of the
antagonism, whether the parties collaborate in selecting jurors to be struck, the number of jurors
available on the panel, and such other considerations as meet the statutory criteria of promoting
the “ends of justice” and preventing “unequal advantage.“ The process of equalizing the strikes
is not without limits, however, and is not subject to the unlimited discretion of the trial judge.
The trial court has discretionary power in determining the number of strikes awarded, in most
cases a two-to-one ratio between sides is allowable.7 In cases in which the disparity between
1
TRCP 233
2
TRCP 233; Scurlock Oil v. Smithwick, 724 S.W.2d l, 5 (Tex. 1986).
3
Patterson Dental C0. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 919 (Tex. 1979).
4
TRCP 233; Patterson Dental, 592 S.W.2d at 919.
5
Patterson Dental, 592 S.W.2d at 920.
6
Patterson Dental Co. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 920 (Tex. 1979).
7
Patterson Dental C0. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 920 (Tex. 1979). See Longoria v.Atlantic GulfEnterprises, 572
S.W.2d 71, 80 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref‘d n. r. e.)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES --
PAGE 2
strikes allowed the two sides did not exceed a two-to-one ratio, courts have held that there was
no abuse of discretion.8
This equalization would assure that no side is able to pervert the selection process while
ensuring an equal division both by “sides” and “antagonism.”
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request that the trial court equalize the
number of peremptory challenges in this case.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that this motion to equalize
peremptory challenges be granted.
Respectfiilly submitted,
/S/ Matthew W. Meyer
Derrick S. Boyd
State Bar No. 00790350
dboyd@bpwlaw.com
Allen L. Williamson
State Bar No. 24003305
awilliamson@bpwlaw.com
Matthew W. Meyer
State Bar No. 24088052
mmeyer@bpwlaw.com
Scott Lindsey
State Bar No. 2403 6969
slindsey@bpwlaw.com
BOYD POWERS & WILLIAMSON
See Longoria v. Atlantic Gulf Enterprises, S.W.2d 71, 1978, writ refd n. r.
8
572 80 (Tex.CiV.App. Corpus Christi
e.);On the other hand, a disparity of four-to-one between sides has been held erroneous. See Roy L. Martin &
Assocs. v. Renfio, 483 S.W.2d 845, 851 (Tex. App. —San Antonio 1972).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES --
PAGE 3
P.O. Box 957
105 N. State St., Ste. B
Decatur, Texas
940-627-8308
940-627-8092 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel conferenced with Defendants’ counsel.
Defendants indicated they would continue to evaluate the motion after it was filed.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By my signature above, I hereby certify that the foregoing document was delivered by E-
Service on this Friday, January 28, 2022, to all counsel of record.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES --
PAGE 4
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.
Lynnette Shaw on behalf of Matt Meyer
Bar No. 24088052
lshaw@bpwlaw.com
Envelope ID: 61272668
Status as of 1/31/2022 9:20 AM CST
Associated Case Party: FP BRYAN 240, LTD
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
E. F. ManoDeAyala deayala@buckkeenan.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Robert LawtonPaddock rpaddock@buckkeenan.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Helen McLaughlin hmclaughlin@buckkeenan.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Gregory M.Sudbury gsudbury@qslwm.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Allen Linn Williamson 24003305 awilliamson@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Lynnette Shaw lshaw@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Matthew Meyer mmeyer@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
DERRICK S. BOYD dboyd@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Robert Blackwell bblackwell@bbhsllp.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Lindsey Reinhardt Ireinhardt@bbhsllp.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Scott Lindsey slindsey@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Ian B.Salzer isalzer@qslwm.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Hudson M.Jobe hjobe@qslwm.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Sharon Bruner sbruner@bbhsllp.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY INVESTORS, INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Michael J. Merrick mmerrick@condontobin.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Caleb Rawls caleb@calebrawlslaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: FORREST PINES BRYAN 84, LLC
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.
Lynnette Shaw on behalf of Matt Meyer
Bar No. 24088052
lshaw@bpwlaw.com
Envelope ID: 61272668
Status as of 1/31/2022 9:20 AM CST
Associated Case Party: FORREST PINES BRYAN 84, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Caleb Rawls caleb@calebrawlslaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: SOUTHERN PROPERTIES CAPITAL, LOTD
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Caleb Rawls calebrawls@gmail.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: ABODE MULTl-FAMILY, LP
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Caleb Rawls calebrawls@gmail.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 1/28/2022 4:40 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-19-17636 JANET NORTHRUP, Chapter 7 Trustee § IN THE DISTRICT COURT For the Estate of FM Forrest, Inc. § § Plaintiff § § v. § § FP BRYAN 240, LTD.; FP BRYAN 240 GP, § LLC; BTX MULTIFAMILY, LLC; § 2818 VENTURES, LLC; s4 GROVE DEV, § LLC; FORREST PINES BRYAN 84, LLC; § ABODE NEW DEVELOPMENT, LLC; § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PILLAR INCOME ASSET § MANAGEMENT, INC.; § TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY § INVESTORS, INC.; SOUTHERN § PROPERTIES CAPITAL, LTD.; § ABODE MULTI—FAMILY, LP; § AMERICAN CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; § BRUCE WOODWARD; JAMES MIKEL § REYNOLDS; RICHARD LAPP; WILLIAM § KRAMER; SOUTHWESTERN § APARTMENT DEVELOPERS, LLC; and § MYAN MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC § § Defendants § 44th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EOUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES Now comes Plaintiff and files this Motion to Equalize Peremptory Challenges pursuant to Rule 233, and in support of same would respectfully show as follows: I. Argument and Authorities In a multi-party case, upon the motion of any party, the trial court shall enter an appropriate order equalizing the number of peremptory challenges afforded to each party in accordance with TRCP 233. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trial court equalize the peremptory challenges between Plaintiff and Defendants. "In determining how the challenges PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES -- PAGE 1 should be allocated the court shall consider any matter brought to the attention of the tn'al judge concerning the ends of justice and the elimination of an unfair advantage.“ In determining how the strikes should be apportioned, the Court must determine Whether any litigants on the same “side” are antagonistic with respect to a submitted issue? Should the Court determine that certain parties on one side are antagonistic to each other, it has the discretion to determine the number of strikes to each side so that neither has an unfair advantage.3 The purpose of equalizing strikes is to ensure that no party or “side” has an unfair advantage because of its peremptory strikes.4 The Court may proportion the strikes by increasing the strikes on one side, decreasing the strikes on the other side or both.5 The extent to which equalizing is allowed depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, the information available to the trial court, the extent and degree of the antagonism, whether the parties collaborate in selecting jurors to be struck, the number of jurors available on the panel, and such other considerations as meet the statutory criteria of promoting the “ends of justice” and preventing “unequal advantage.“ The process of equalizing the strikes is not without limits, however, and is not subject to the unlimited discretion of the trial judge. The trial court has discretionary power in determining the number of strikes awarded, in most cases a two-to-one ratio between sides is allowable.7 In cases in which the disparity between 1 TRCP 233 2 TRCP 233; Scurlock Oil v. Smithwick, 724 S.W.2d l, 5 (Tex. 1986). 3 Patterson Dental C0. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 919 (Tex. 1979). 4 TRCP 233; Patterson Dental, 592 S.W.2d at 919. 5 Patterson Dental, 592 S.W.2d at 920. 6 Patterson Dental Co. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 920 (Tex. 1979). 7 Patterson Dental C0. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 920 (Tex. 1979). See Longoria v.Atlantic GulfEnterprises, 572 S.W.2d 71, 80 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref‘d n. r. e.) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES -- PAGE 2 strikes allowed the two sides did not exceed a two-to-one ratio, courts have held that there was no abuse of discretion.8 This equalization would assure that no side is able to pervert the selection process while ensuring an equal division both by “sides” and “antagonism.” II. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request that the trial court equalize the number of peremptory challenges in this case. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that this motion to equalize peremptory challenges be granted. Respectfiilly submitted, /S/ Matthew W. Meyer Derrick S. Boyd State Bar No. 00790350 dboyd@bpwlaw.com Allen L. Williamson State Bar No. 24003305 awilliamson@bpwlaw.com Matthew W. Meyer State Bar No. 24088052 mmeyer@bpwlaw.com Scott Lindsey State Bar No. 2403 6969 slindsey@bpwlaw.com BOYD POWERS & WILLIAMSON See Longoria v. Atlantic Gulf Enterprises, S.W.2d 71, 1978, writ refd n. r. 8 572 80 (Tex.CiV.App. Corpus Christi e.);On the other hand, a disparity of four-to-one between sides has been held erroneous. See Roy L. Martin & Assocs. v. Renfio, 483 S.W.2d 845, 851 (Tex. App. —San Antonio 1972). PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES -- PAGE 3 P.O. Box 957 105 N. State St., Ste. B Decatur, Texas 940-627-8308 940-627-8092 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel conferenced with Defendants’ counsel. Defendants indicated they would continue to evaluate the motion after it was filed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature above, I hereby certify that the foregoing document was delivered by E- Service on this Friday, January 28, 2022, to all counsel of record. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES -- PAGE 4 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. Lynnette Shaw on behalf of Matt Meyer Bar No. 24088052 lshaw@bpwlaw.com Envelope ID: 61272668 Status as of 1/31/2022 9:20 AM CST Associated Case Party: FP BRYAN 240, LTD Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status E. F. ManoDeAyala deayala@buckkeenan.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Robert LawtonPaddock rpaddock@buckkeenan.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Helen McLaughlin hmclaughlin@buckkeenan.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Gregory M.Sudbury gsudbury@qslwm.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Allen Linn Williamson 24003305 awilliamson@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Lynnette Shaw lshaw@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Matthew Meyer mmeyer@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT DERRICK S. BOYD dboyd@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Robert Blackwell bblackwell@bbhsllp.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Lindsey Reinhardt Ireinhardt@bbhsllp.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Scott Lindsey slindsey@bpwlaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Ian B.Salzer isalzer@qslwm.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Hudson M.Jobe hjobe@qslwm.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Sharon Bruner sbruner@bbhsllp.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Associated Case Party: TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY INVESTORS, INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Michael J. Merrick mmerrick@condontobin.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Caleb Rawls caleb@calebrawlslaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Associated Case Party: FORREST PINES BRYAN 84, LLC 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. Lynnette Shaw on behalf of Matt Meyer Bar No. 24088052 lshaw@bpwlaw.com Envelope ID: 61272668 Status as of 1/31/2022 9:20 AM CST Associated Case Party: FORREST PINES BRYAN 84, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Caleb Rawls caleb@calebrawlslaw.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Associated Case Party: SOUTHERN PROPERTIES CAPITAL, LOTD Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Caleb Rawls calebrawls@gmail.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT Associated Case Party: ABODE MULTl-FAMILY, LP Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Caleb Rawls calebrawls@gmail.com 1/28/2022 4:40:04 PM SENT