in Re 8650 Frisco, LLC D/B/A Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse, Mandona, LLC, Galovelho, LLC, Bahtche, LLC, Claudio Nunes and David Jeiel Rodrigues ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                           ACCEPTED
    01-15-00423-CV
    FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    5/8/2015 10:13:28 AM
    CHRISTOPHER PRINE
    CLERK
    No. 01-15-00423-CV
    FILED IN
    1st COURT OF APPEALS
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    In the Court of Appeals
    5/8/2015 10:13:28 AM
    For the First Judicial District of Texas
    CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
    Houston, Texas                         Clerk
    In re 8650 Frisco, LLC; Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse; Mandona, LLC;
    Galovelho, LLC; Bahtche, LLC; Claudio Nunes; and David Jeiel Rodrigues,
    Relators
    The Honorable Jaclanel McFarland,
    133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Respondent
    Arising out of Cause No. 2014-10896
    Real Parties in Interest’s Response to Motion for Emergency Temporary
    Relief to Stay Action by the Trial Court
    Hawash Meade Gaston      Stephens & Domnitz, Dykema Cox Smith
    Neese & Cicack LLP       PLLC
    Andrew K. Meade          Kelly D. Stephens            David Kinder
    State Bar No. 24032854   State Bar No. 19158300       State Bar No. 11432550
    Samuel B. Haren          P.O. Box 79734               112 East Pecan Street,
    State Bar No. 24059899   Houston, Texas 77279         Suite 1800
    2118 Smith Street        281-394-3287 (phone)         San Antonio, Texas
    Houston, Texas 77002     832-476-5460 (fax)           78205
    713-658-9001 (phone)     kstephens@stephensdom        210-554-5500 (phone)
    713-658-9011 (fax)       nitz.com                     210-226-8395 (fax)
    ameade@hmgnc.com
    sharen@hmgnc.com
    Background
    Real Parties in Interest (“Los Cucos”) have a pending claim against Relators
    (“8650 Frisco”) for breach of the parties’ settlement agreement (the “Settlement
    Agreement”). See Exhibit 1, Fourth Amended Petition at ¶¶ 32–40. Under the
    Settlement Agreement, 8650 Frisco is required to pay $900,000 to Los Cucos over
    a period of five years. 
    Id. at ¶
    33. Los Cucos’ suit against 8650 Frisco is premised,
    in part, on 8650 Frisco’s refusal to execute a promissory note and UCC-1 form.
    See 
    id. at ¶¶
    34–36. As a result, Los Cucos has taken-on an unbargained-for credit
    risk. The magnitude of this risk—and the attendant harm and damages resulting
    therefrom—hinges on 8650 Frisco’s financial condition. Los Cucos seeks damages
    and, in the alternative, specific performance of 8650 Frisco’s obligation to execute
    the relevant documents. See 
    id. at ¶
    42; Exhibit 2, Supplement to Fourth Amended
    Petition at ¶ 3.
    Over a year ago, Los Cucos requested that 8650 Frisco produce certain
    financial and accounting documents (the “Financial Documents”). The Court
    ordered 8650 Frisco to produce the Financial Documents on June 13, 2014; July
    28, 2014; April 1, 2015; and April 27, 2015. See Exhibit 3, Hearing Transcript at
    23:2–4; Exhibit 4, Order on Third Motion to Compel; Exhibit 5, Order Granting in
    Part and Denying in Part Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order; Exhibit 6, Order
    Granting Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order (the “April 27
    1
    Order”). The last of these four orders included (1) a monetary sanction of $1,000
    and (2) a finding conclusively establishing the irreparable harm element of Los
    Cucos’ specific performance claim. See Exhibit 6, April 27 Order.
    Los Cucos believes that 8650 Frisco still has not complied with the April 27
    Order. See Exhibit 7, Fourth Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and for
    Sanctions. Los Cucos has filed yet another motion to enforce the trial court’s order;
    that motion is set for hearing on May 18, 2015. See Exhibit 8, Notice of Hearing.
    Discussion
    8650 Frisco’s Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief to Stay Action by
    the Trial Court (the “Motion”) is factually incorrect and legally insufficient. As
    demonstrated below, the Motion should be denied in its entirety and the trial court
    should be permitted to continue working toward a resolution of this case.
    I.     8650 Frisco’s Motion misstates the facts.
    8650 Frisco’s Motion contains numerous factual misstatements. First, 8650
    Frisco flatly asserts that the Financial Documents “have no relevance to the live
    pleading on file with the trial court.” Motion at ¶ 7. This is incorrect as 8650
    Frisco’s financial condition is relevant to assessing the harm/damages caused by
    8650 Frisco’s breach of the Settlement Agreement.1
    1
    In fact, 8650 Frisco has a pending no-evidence motion for summary judgment on this exact
    issue, and Los Cucos requires the Financial Documents in order to fully respond thereto. See
    Exhibit 9, No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment at ¶ 13; Exhibit 10, Los Cucos’
    Supplemental Response at 1–2.
    2
    8650 Frisco next complains that the trial court “conclusively establish[ed] an
    unpleaded issue in favor of [Los Cucos].” Motion at ¶ 8. This is a reference to the
    irreparable harm element of Los Cucos’ request for specific performance. Compare
    Exhibit 6, April 27 Order and Exhibit 2, Supplement to Fourth Amended Petition
    at ¶ 3. In both its Motion and its petition for writ of mandamus, 8650 Frisco
    appears to have simply forgotten that Los Cucos has sought specific performance.
    8650 Frisco further complains that it had already produced the Financial
    Documents “twice previously.” Motion at ¶ 9. If this were true, 8650 Frisco could
    avoid any harm—let alone irreparable harm—by simply sending the documents to
    a courier and having the courier hand deliver those documents before the May 18,
    2015 hearing. In truth, however, the April 27 Order was issued precisely because
    8650 Frisco’s prior attempts at production were incomplete. 8650 Frisco has not
    produced the requested Financial Documents, and any future complete production
    would be the first.
    8650 Frisco next complains that the trial court signed the April 27 Order “in
    the presence of Counsel for [Los Cucos] but outside the presence of [8650
    Frisco’s] attorney.” Motion at ¶ 10. Because 8650 Frisco’s attorney chose to
    appear telephonically, the entire hearing occurred outside of his presence.
    Moreover, despite the nefarious implication 8650 Frisco seeks to make, the Court
    3
    merely signed the proposed order filed by Los Cucos with its Motion to Enforce.
    Compare Exhibit 6, April 27 Order and Exhibit 11, Proposed Order.
    Finally, 8650 Frisco complains that Los Cucos’ Fourth Motion to Enforce
    the Court’s Order “demanded that the [trial court] strike [8650 Frisco’s] pleadings
    for failure to comply” with the April 27 Order. Motion at ¶ 12. But Exhibit B to the
    Motion plainly states that the only sanctions requested are (1) a monetary sanction
    for the attorneys’ fees incurred in obtaining the Financial Documents, (2) an order
    to 8650 Frisco and its attorneys to show cause as to why they should not be held in
    contempt, and (3) an order barring 8650 Frisco from conducting further discovery.
    See Motion Exhibit B at 6, 50. While such sanctions are admittedly harsh, they are
    not requests to strike 8650 Frisco’s pleadings.
    II.   8650 Frisco has not shown irreparable harm.
    8650 Frisco has shown that it disagrees with the trial court’s orders. It has
    not shown that it faces irreparable harm unless the trial court’s proceedings are
    stayed. Should the May 18, 2015 hearing go forward, 8650 Frisco is not threatened
    with the loss of any property, the expiration of any deadlines, or the striking of its
    pleadings. 8650 Frisco merely complains that, absent a stay, it will be required to
    appear at a hearing on a motion which 8650 Frisco believes it should win. If that
    were the standard for irreparable harm, every hearing could produce a petition for
    4
    writ of mandamus, and every petition for writ of mandamus would result in a stay
    of the trial court’s proceedings.
    Conclusion
    8650 Frisco has not accurately characterized this case, nor has it shown that
    failure to stay the trial court would cause it any harm. Los Cucos prays that the
    Court deny the Motion and grant Los Cucos all other relief to which it is entitled.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Hawash Meade Gaston
    Neese & Cicack LLP
    /s/ Samuel B. Haren
    Andrew K. Meade
    State Bar No. 24032854
    Samuel B. Haren
    State Bar No. 24059899
    2118 Smith Street
    Houston, Texas 77002
    713-658-9001 (phone)
    713-658-9011 (fax)
    ameade@hmgnc.com
    sharen@hmgnc.com
    Stephens & Domnitz, PLLC
    Kelly D. Stephens
    State Bar No. 19158300
    P.O. Box 79734
    Houston, Texas 77279-9734
    281-394-3287 (phone)
    832-476-5460 (fax)
    kstephens@stephensdomnitz.com
    5
    Dykema Cox Smith
    David Kinder
    State Bar No. 11432550
    112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800
    San Antonio, Texas 78205
    210-554-5500 (phone)
    210-226-8395 (fax)
    Attorneys for Real Parties in
    Interest
    Certificate of Compliance
    Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), this document
    contains 1,062 words, not including portions excluded under Texas Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1).
    /s/ Samuel B. Haren
    Samuel B. Haren
    Certificate of Service
    I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on
    the following via electronic service on May 8, 2015:
    James C. Mosser
    Nicholas D. Mosser
    Paul J. Downey
    Mosser Law PLLC
    2805 Dallas Parkway, Suite 220
    Plano, Texas 75093
    /s/ Samuel B. Haren
    Samuel B. Haren
    6
    Cause No. 2014-10896
    Los Cucos Mexican Cafe VIII, Inc.;                           In the District Court of
    Los Cucos Mexican Cafe IV, Inc.;
    Manuel Cabrera; and Sergio Cabrera,
    Plaintiffs
    v.
    Harris County, Texas
    8650 Frisco, LLC d/b/a Estilo Gaucho
    Brazilian    Steakhouse;   Mandona,
    LLC; Galovelho, LLC; Bahtche,
    LLC; Claudio Nunes; and David Jeiel
    Rodrigues,
    Defendant                                                     133rd Judicial District
    Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition
    Plaintiffs Los Cucos Mexican Cafe VIII, Inc.; Los Cucos Mexican Cafe IV, Inc.; Manuel
    Cabrera; and Sergio Cabrera file this Fourth Amended Petition against defendants 8650 Frisco,
    LLC d/b/a Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse; Mandona, LLC; Galovelho, LLC; Bahtche,
    LLC; Claudio Nunes a/k/a Alex Nunes; and David Jeiel Rodrigues:
    Discovery Level
    1.      The plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Rule 190.3 of the
    Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
    2.      The plaintiffs seek damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court,
    including monetary relief over $1,000,000.
    Parties
    3.      Plaintiff, Los Cucos Mexican Cafe VIII, Inc. (“Los Cucos VIII”), is a Texas
    Corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
    4.      Plaintiff, Los Cucos Mexican Cafe IV, Inc. (“Los Cucos IV”), is a Texas
    Corporation with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas.
    Exhibit 1                                       A-1
    5.    Plaintiff, Manuel Cabrera, is an individual who resides in Austin County, Texas.
    6.    Plaintiff, Sergio Cabrera, is an individual who resides in Harris County, Texas.
    7.    Defendant, 8650 Frisco, LLC (“8650 Frisco”), is a Texas limited liability
    company doing business as Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse. It has been served and appeared
    herein.
    8.    Defendant, Mandona, LLC (“Mandona”), is a Texas limited liability company. It
    has been served and appeared herein.
    9.    Defendant, Galovelho, LLC (“Galovelho”), is a Texas limited liability company.
    It has been served and appeared herein.
    10.   Defendant, Bahtche, LLC (“Bahtche”), is a Texas limited liability company. It has
    been served and appeared herein.
    11.   Defendant, Claudio Nunes a/k/a Alex Nunes (“Nunes”), is an individual citizen of
    Texas. He has been served and appeared herein.
    12.   Defendant, David Jeiel Rodrigues (“Rodrigues”), is an individual citizen of
    Texas. He has been served and appeared herein.
    Jurisdiction and Venue
    13.   Venue is proper under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(1) because a
    substantial part of the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within this county. More
    specifically, Plaintiffs and Defendants negotiated and entered into, on the record, an agreement
    to settle the underlying complaints of Plaintiffs. The negotiations leading to this settlement took
    place in the offices of Hawash, Meade Gaston Neese & Cicack, LLP, located at 2118 Smith
    Street, Houston, Harris County, Texas 77002.
    14.   Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because the parties are all Texas residents and
    the amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of the court.
    2
    A-2
    Factual Background
    15.     Manuel Cabrera and Sergio Cabrera are brothers with significant experience in
    creating, owning, and operating restaurants. The brothers are the owners and operators of a
    number of Mexican restaurants branded and known as “Los Cucos Mexican Cafe”. Each
    restaurant is a separate legal entity registered with the State of Texas. Los Cucos VIII and Los
    Cucos IV are two of these entities.
    16.     Manuel Cabrera, Sergio Cabrera, David Jeiel Rodrigues, and Claudio Nunes
    (collective, the “Partners”) agreed to create and operate a restaurant together. The plan and
    agreement was to create a Brazilian churrascaria-style restaurant in the Dallas, Texas area.
    The Underlying Background
    I.     The initial agreement.
    17.     After a series of negotiations, the Partners agreed that, inter alia: (1) each partner
    would obtain a 25% interest in the restaurant; (2) Manuel Cabrera and Sergio Cabrera
    (individually or through entities subject to their control) would contribute $600,000 for start-up
    capital; (3) David Jeiel Rodrigues and Claudio Nunes would contribute “sweat equity” by
    contributing personal services to the creation and operation of the restaurant; (4) Manuel Cabrera
    and Sergio Cabrera (individually or through entities subject to their control) would guarantee a
    lease for the restaurant; (5) all intellectual property, including trademarks would be held together
    with the restaurant; and (6) the Partners would share control, profits, and losses equally, but
    would receive no other salary from the restaurant.
    II.    Excess contributions and attempted renegotiation.
    18.     As work progressed on the restaurant, additional capital was needed. At David
    Jeiel Rodrigues’ and Claudio Nunes’ request, Manuel Cabrera and Sergio Cabrera (individually
    or through entities subject to their control) increased their contributions. The Cabreras’ total
    3
    A-3
    contributions eventually equaled more than $948,000. In addition, Manuel Cabrera and Sergio
    Cabrera (individually or through entities subject to their control) paid for and/or loaned
    equipment and furniture (including two large, expensive, and difficult-to-obtain Brazilian grills)
    worth over $60,000 to the enterprise.
    19.     To account for the unanticipated and additional contributions, the Partners
    attempted to negotiate a way for Manuel Cabrera and Sergio Cabrera (individually or through
    entities subject to their control) to receive preferential distributions until their initial
    contributions were repaid, subject to a small guaranteed distribution to David Jeiel Rodrigues
    and Claudio Nunes.
    III.   Creation of the corporate structure and the Restaurant operations.
    20.     While the Partners negotiated a new distribution structure, the Partners agreed to
    form 8650 Frisco as the holding company for the Restaurant. Each of the four Partners was to
    own 25% of 8650 Frisco. David Jeiel Rodrigues and Claudio Nunes created defendant Galovelho
    to hold their 50% ownership interest in 8650 Frisco and the Restaurant. Sergio Cabrera and
    Manual Cabrera designated Los Cucos VIII to hold their 50% ownership interest in 8650 Frisco
    and the Restaurant.
    21.     8650 Frisco then entered into a lease agreement for restaurant space, which Sergio
    Cabrera and Manuel Cabrera personally guaranteed.
    22.     David Jeiel Rodrigues and Claudio Nunes also desired to create a holding
    company to manage 8650 Frisco, but the parties did not agree on this structure. Instead, David
    Jeiel Rodrigues and Claudio Nunes formed Mandona to hold their collective 50% interest in the
    management of 8650 Frisco. Manuel Cabrera and Sergio Cabrera did not form a holding
    4
    A-4
    company to hold their collective 50% control over 8650 Frisco, but continued to hold control in
    their individual capacities.
    23.     The Partners then opened bank accounts for 8650 Frisco and granted all of the
    Partners access to the accounts.
    24.     Despite lengthy negotiations, it now appears that the Partners were and are unable
    to agree on new distribution terms to take into account the Cabreras’ (or entities under their
    control) substantial excess contributions. Instead, the Partners continued to operate as general
    partners or joint venturers up and until the defendants removed the plaintiffs from the enterprise
    and began to deny the plaintiffs’ ownership interest in 8650 Frisco and the restaurant.
    IV.    The defendants’ exclusion of the plaintiffs.
    25.     Thanks to the contributions from Manuel Cabrera and Sergio Cabrera
    (individually or through entities subject to their control), 8650 Frisco opened the Estilo Gaucho
    Brazilian Steakhouse (the “Restaurant”) in February of 2013.
    26.     8650 Frisco is currently operated by David Jeiel Rodrigues and Claudio Nunes,
    individually, and (upon information and belief) through their entities Mandona, Galovelho, and
    Bahtche. The defendants have collectively refused to recognize the plaintiffs as co-owners of
    8650 Frisco and the Restaurant, and have collectively excluded the plaintiffs from the operations,
    control, distributions, and profits of 8650 Frisco and the Restaurant.
    27.     On information and belief, the defendants are distributing and/or diverting
    $40,000 or more per month from 8650 Frisco and the Restaurant to themselves or their
    designees. This is a violation of the parties’ agreement and the defendants’ duties as partners
    and/or joint venturers.
    5
    A-5
    28.    On further information and belief, the defendants registered the Restaurant’s
    “Estilo Gaucho” trademark in the name of Bahtche and/or transferred the trademark to Bahtche
    without the plaintiffs’ consent, in violation of the parties’ agreement, and in breach of the
    defendants’ duties as partners and/or joint venturers.
    29.    The plaintiffs have not received any distributions from the Restaurant’s
    operations. Instead, the defendants have attempted to steal the plaintiffs’ contributions by
    denying the plaintiffs any distributions or benefits of ownership. For example, the defendants
    have:
           transferred and/or laundered 8650 Frisco’s cash from bank accounts to
    which the plaintiffs had access to new accounts to which the plaintiffs
    have no access;
           denied the plaintiffs access to 8650 Frisco’s new bank accounts;
           failed to hold and/or give notice of meetings for 8650 Frisco;
           denied the plaintiffs access to the Restaurant’s premises;
           fired 8650 Frisco’s long-time accountant in favor of an account who, upon
    information and belief, is controlled by the defendants;
           denied the plaintiffs access to 8650 Frisco’s books and records;
           denied the plaintiffs’ interest in 8650 Frisco;
           distributed 8650 Frisco’s cash to themselves but not to the plaintiffs;
           used equipment loaned to 8650 Frisco for the defendants’ own benefit and
    refusing to return such equipment after demand was made; and
           transferring the assets of 8650 Frisco to entities owned or controlled by the
    defendants such as Bahtche.
    30.    The plaintiffs have made written demands for return of their money and property
    and for an accounting. The defendants have refused. Instead, the defendants continue to use the
    6
    A-6
    plaintiffs’ property and the fruits of the plaintiffs’ contributions while simultaneously pretending
    that the plaintiffs are owed nothing in the transaction.
    The Underlying Causes of Action
    31.     The Plaintiffs sued Defendants alleging as causes of action: Breach of Contract,
    Coversion, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud/Fraudulent Inducement, Civil Conspiracy, Aiding,
    Abetting and Participation in Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Corporate Veil Piercing, Unjust
    Enrichment, Quantum Meruit, and Money Had and Received and for an Accounting.
    The Rule 11 Settlement Agreement
    32.     On or about August 5, 2014, while in the midst of taking the Court Ordered
    depositions of the Defendants at the offices of Hawash Meade Gaston Neese & Cicack, LLP,
    located at 2118 Smith Street, Houston, Harris County, Texas 77002, the parties entered into a
    settlement negotiation and on August 5, 2014, entered into a Rule 11 Settlement Agreement on
    the record. On August 6, 2014, the Defendants filed the Rule 11 Agreement with the Court.
    33.     The key elements of the agreement were:
    A. Defendant 8650 Frisco, LLC d/b/a Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse was to
    pay to Cabrera Brothers II, LP, the amount of $900,000.00.            The terms of
    payment were $60,000.00 was to be paid upon completion of the paperwork
    formalizing the settlement and the remainder to be paid monthly over 5 years at
    6.7% interest. The initial payment under the note was to be due on October 1,
    2014;
    B. The Defendants further agreed to enter into “standard bank-type
    documentation” for the note to include a “note or promissory note, a deed of trust,
    7
    A-7
    appropriate UC-1s to the extent Plaintiff determine it’s necessary, an assignment
    of the lease and any assets related to the restaurant;
    C. Time would be of essence in the agreements, and there would no cure time for
    any default;
    D. In the case of default, there was to be a $10.00 paid up license fee for use of
    the name of the restaurant limited to that location; and,
    E. The individual Defendants would not be liable under the note.
    Plaintiffs ask that the Court take judicial notice of the Transcript of the Rule 11
    Settlement Statement filed in this cause by the Defendants on August 6, 2014.
    34.     In August and September of 2014, Plaintiffs prepared and forwarded documents
    to the Defendants for review and suggestion. These documents included a formal settlement
    agreement which included the release of the individual Defendants, a promissory note, a UCC-1
    listing as collateral for the note the assets of the restaurant; an assignment of interest in the lease,
    all as required by the Rule 11 Agreement.
    35.     The Defendants made a number of suggestions to change these documents, most
    of which were then included in the documents. Not all of Defendants changes were accepted,
    most notably Plaintiffs refused to accept a venue selection clause in the documents requiring
    venue of any action based on a breach of the agreement in Collin County, Texas.
    36.     Defendants have and continue to refuse to execute the settlement agreement or the
    note and security documents as required by the Rule 11 Agreement.
    37.     On or about October 1, 2014, the Defendants did make the $60,000.00 down
    payment and the first monthly payment under the proposed terms of the note. And, have made
    the monthly payments through the January 1, 2015 payment as of the time of this filing.
    8
    A-8
    38.   On or about October 9, 2014, Plaintiffs notified the Defendants that they were in
    default of the settlement agreement absent the execution of the settlement agreement, the note,
    the deed of trust and the appropriate security documents.
    39.   On or about October 10, 2014, Plaintiffs again notified the Defendants of the
    default, ask for additional complaints about the documents as provided and made an offer to
    change the documents to address the lone identified bone of contention (venue).
    40.   To date, Defendants have not responded to this request.
    Causes of Action
    I.        Breach of Contract
    41.   The Defendants have breached the Rule 11 Agreement by failing to execute the
    formal settlement agreement, the promissory note and the appropriate security documents as set
    forth in the Rule 11 Agreement. By so doing, the Defendants are denying the Plaintiffs the
    protection agreed to in case of default under payments of the amount agreed to.
    Relief Requested
    42.   The plaintiffs seek judgment jointly and severally against all Defendants for
    actual damages in the amount of $900,000.00 as agreed to under the Rule 11 agreement with
    credit to be given for the amounts paid.
    43.   The plaintiffs seek their attorney’s fees and costs incurred in prosecuting these
    claims.
    44.   The plaintiffs seek pre and post judgment interest and the maximum rate allowed
    by law.
    45.   The plaintiffs seek all other relief, at law or in equity, to which the plaintiffs may
    be entitled.
    9
    A-9
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Stephens & Domnitz, PLLC
    /s/ Kelly D. Stephens
    Kelly D. Stephens
    State Bar No. 19158300
    P.O. Box 79734
    2118 Smith Street
    Houston, Texas 77279-9734
    281-394-3287 (phone)
    832-476-5460 (fax)
    kstephens@stephensdomnitz.com
    Hawash Meade Gaston
    Neese & Cicack LLP
    Andrew K. Meade
    State Bar No. 24032854
    Jeremy M. Masten
    State Bar No. 24083454
    Samuel B. Haren
    State Bar No. 24059899
    2118 Smith Street
    Houston, Texas 77002
    713-658-9001 (phone)
    713-658-9011 (fax)
    ameade@hmgnc.com
    jmasten@hmgnc.com
    sharen@hmgnc.com
    Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated
    David Kinder
    State Bar No. 11432550
    112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800
    San Antonio, Texas 78205
    210-554-5500 (phone)
    210-226-8395 (fax)
    dkinder@coxsmith.com
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    10
    A-10
    Certificate of Service
    A true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record via ECF
    on January 21, 2014.
    James C. Mosser
    Nicholas D. Mosser
    Mosser Law PLLC
    17110 Dallas Pky, Suite 290
    Dallas, Texas 75248
    /s/ Kelly D Stephens
    Kelly D. Stephens
    11
    A-11
    2/23/2015 8:37:36 PM
    Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
    Envelope No. 4254256
    By: JIMMY RODRIGUEZ
    Filed: 2/23/2015 8:37:36 PM
    Cause No. 2014-10896
    Los Cucos Mexican Cafe VIII, Inc.;                             In the District Court of
    Los Cucos Mexican Cafe IV, Inc.;
    Manuel Cabrera; and Sergio Cabrera,
    Plaintiffs
    v.
    Harris County, Texas
    8650 Frisco, LLC d/b/a Estilo Gaucho
    Brazilian    Steakhouse;   Mandona,
    LLC; Galovelho, LLC; Bahtche,
    LLC; Claudio Nunes; and David Jeiel
    Rodrigues,
    Defendants                                                     133rd Judicial District
    Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition
    1.      Plaintiffs file this Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition (the
    “Supplement”) to clarify the relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition (the
    “Petition”). The Supplement does not replace the Petition.
    2.      Plaintiffs believe that the Petition gives fair notice of Plaintiffs’ need and request
    for specific performance of the Rule 11 settlement agreement. See Stafford v. S. Vanity
    Magazine, Inc., 
    231 S.W.3d 530
    , 535 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied).
    3.      Out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs hereby expressly plead that, in the
    event damages are not awarded in this action, (1) Defendants’ refusal to execute a promissory
    note, settlement agreement, and other security agreements would constitute an irreparable harm
    by exposing Plaintiffs to a credit risk they specifically contracted to avoid and (2) Plaintiffs
    respectfully request that the Court order specific performance of Defendants’ obligations under
    the Rule 11 settlement agreement, including, without limitation, the execution of a promissory
    note, a settlement agreement, and a dismissal of its pending claim for declaratory relief.
    Exhibit 2                                            A-12
    Respectfully submitted,
    Stephens & Domnitz, PLLC
    /s/ Kelly D. Stephens
    Kelly D. Stephens
    State Bar No. 19158300
    P.O. Box 79734
    2118 Smith Street
    Houston, Texas 77279-9734
    281-394-3287 (phone)
    832-476-5460 (fax)
    kstephens@stephensdomnitz.com
    Hawash Meade Gaston
    Neese & Cicack LLP
    Andrew K. Meade
    State Bar No. 24032854
    Jeremy M. Masten
    State Bar No. 24083454
    Samuel B. Haren
    State Bar No. 24059899
    2118 Smith Street
    Houston, Texas 77002
    713-658-9001 (phone)
    713-658-9011 (fax)
    ameade@hmgnc.com
    jmasten@hmgnc.com
    sharen@hmgnc.com
    Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated
    David Kinder
    State Bar No. 11432550
    112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800
    San Antonio, Texas 78205
    210-554-4400 (phone)
    210-226-8395 (fax)
    dkinder@coxsmith.com
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    2
    A-13
    Certificate of Service
    A true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record via
    electronic service on February 23, 2015.
    James C. Mosser
    Nicholas D. Mosser
    Mosser Law PLLC
    17110 Dallas Pky, Suite 290
    Dallas, Texas 75248
    /s/ Samuel B. Haren
    Samuel B. Haren
    3
    A-14
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    1
    1                        REPORTER'S RECORD
    VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME
    2                TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2014-10896
    3
    4    LOS CUCOS MEXICAN CAFE VIII(   IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
    INC.;LOS CUCOS MEXICAN     (
    5    CAFE IV,INC.; MANUEL       (
    CABRERA;AND SERGIO CABRERA (
    6                               (
    VS.                        (    HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
    7                               (
    8650 FRISCO,LLC D/B/A ESTILO
    8    GAUCHO BRAZILIAN           (
    STEAKHOUSE; MANDONA,LLC;   (
    9    GALOVELHO,LLC;BAHTCHE,     (
    LLC; CLAUDIO NUNES; AND    (
    10   DAVID JEIEL RODRIGUES      (   133rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    11   _______________________________________________________
    12
    MOTION TO TRANSFER
    13   _______________________________________________________
    14
    15              On the 23rd day of June, 2014, the following
    16   proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and
    17   numbered cause before the Honorable JACLANEL McFARLAND,
    18   Judge Presiding, held in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
    19        Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype
    20   machine.
    21
    22
    23                          DARLENE STEIN
    OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
    24                      133RD DISTRICT COURT
    HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    Exhibit 3                         A-15
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    2
    1                          APPEARANCES
    2    Mr. Andrew K. Meade
    SBN 24032854
    3    Mr. Samuel B. Haren
    SBN 24059899
    4    2118 Smith Street
    Houston, Texas 77002
    5    Telephone: (713)658-9001
    Telephone: (713)658-9011 (Fax)
    6    Attorney for Plaintiffs
    7
    Mr. Nicholas D. Mosser
    8    SBN 24075405
    Mr. James Mosser
    9    SBN 00789784
    17110 Dallas Parkway, Suite 290
    10   Dallas, Texas97 75248
    Telephone:) (972)733-3223
    11   Telephone:   (972)267-5072
    Attorney for Defendants
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-16
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    3
    1                       CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
    2    June 23, 2014
    3                                                 PAGE
    4    Proceedings...............................     4
    5    Argument by Mr. Meade.....................     6
    6    Argument by Mr. Mosser....................    11
    7    Proceedings concluded.....................    25
    8    Reporter's Certificate....................    26
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-17
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    4
    1                         (P R O C E E D I N G S)
    2                           June 23, 2014
    3
    4                     THE COURT:    This is Cause No. 2014-10896.
    5    And if everyone would announce who they are and who they
    6    represent, please.
    7                     MR. MEADE:    Andrew Meade and Sam Haran for
    8    the Plaintiffs.
    9                     THE COURT:    Mr. Mosser, if you'll announce
    10   who you are and who you represent, please.
    11                    MR. MOSSER:   I'm sorry?
    12                    THE COURT:    Announce who you are and who
    13   you represent.
    14                    MR. MOSSER:   Yes, ma'am.    This is James
    15   Mosser, Mosser Law Firm, PLLC, appearing telephonically
    16   on behalf of all Defendants.
    17                    THE COURT:    Okay.    I will tell you that I
    18   don't have the motions in front of me.       My law clerks
    19   have gone to get them.   For some reason, even though you
    20   are on the docket, they thought it had been pulled.       So,
    21   anyway, but I'm going to let y'all go ahead and start.            I
    22   think it's Plaintiff's motions.        So, I'm going to let
    23   them go ahead and start while the law clerks are bringing
    24   in the actual written motions.
    25                    MR. MEADE:    All right.   Your Honor, if
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-18
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    5
    1    you'll recall, this is a -- my client supplied about
    2    $950,000 in some equipment for a restaurant --
    3                    MR. MOSSER:   Your Honor, if he could get
    4    closer to the microphone or speak up louder, it would be
    5    easier to hear.
    6                    THE COURT:    Yeah.   Well, I'll put the
    7    phone a little closer.   But, you know, have you got a
    8    storm in Dallas?    Is that the problem or what?    You know,
    9    when you don't show up, it's -- we can only do the best
    10   we can do.
    11                   You know, that's why when I practiced law,
    12   I didn't depend on Southwest.    Now, going to committee
    13   meetings, I depended on Southwest a lot.      I was on a lot
    14   of Baptist boards that met over on North Washington, the
    15   Baptist building.    But when I had a case, I usually drove
    16   down the night before or drove up or drove west or east or
    17   wherever I was going.
    18                   MR. MEADE:    And -- and for convenience,
    19   Your Honor, we will try to set hearings in the case on
    20   Fridays and Mondays to make that more convenient.
    21                   THE COURT:    Well, we don't have hearings
    22   on Fridays.   So, they have to be on Mondays.
    23                   MR. MEADE:    Mondays.
    24                   And so, the situation that we've got
    25   here -- Your Honor will recall that we had previously
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-19
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    6
    1    noticed depositions for early May of the Defendants, that
    2    those depositions had been quashed.    So, we set a Motion
    3    to Compel.    The Court ordered the depositions to occur in
    4    June.    We agreed on dates that were put into the Court's
    5    order, which was June 9th and 10th for six depositions to
    6    occur.
    7                     On the Sunday before -- June 9th was a
    8    Monday.    10th was a Tuesday.   On the Sunday before,
    9    Mr. Mosser left a message on Mr. Stephen's phone, saying
    10   that he wouldn't be attending the depositions nor would
    11   his clients because -- and they subsequently filed a
    12   motion.    Mr. Mosser apparently has a nervous system injury
    13   of some sort that he came down with the day before the
    14   depositions.    And there is nobody else within his
    15   four-person law firm who's qualified to sit in a chair and
    16   defend a deposition.
    17                    He then went and set his Motion to Transfer
    18   Venue, offered us some dates in late July that -- or --
    19   that conflict with a trial that I have in Judge
    20   Englehart's court.    And then when I rejected those dates,
    21   offered dates in August.
    22                    And we have run into a problem now, which
    23   is that I leave the country on Saturday for two and a half
    24   weeks.    I get back and have five days to prepare for a
    25   week-long trial in Judge Englehart's court.    And then at
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-20
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    7
    1    the end of the week that I'm in trial with Judge Englehart
    2    is their Motion to Transfer Venue.    We have taken the
    3    position, which is correct under the rules, that discovery
    4    should not be and cannot be, in fact, abated while a
    5    Motion to Transfer Venue is pending.
    6                    They have taken the position and even set
    7    for today and then withdrew a Motion to Stay all
    8    proceedings while they have the opportunity to have that
    9    Motion to Transfer Venue heard.
    10                   We're going to have to take these
    11   depositions before the Motion to Transfer Venue hearing.
    12   We need them ordered and compelled, and we need the Motion
    13   to Transfer Venue hearing pushed back till that can
    14   happen.
    15                   But we also need Mr. Mosser or his clients
    16   to pay the costs of the depositions that were ordered -- I
    17   took Certificates of Nonappearance on all six
    18   depositions -- and that they ought to have to bear the
    19   cost on each of those.
    20                   The next issue that we have is as you'll
    21   recall, we have an accountant that worked for the company
    22   in New Braunfels and then a new accountant in Dallas.         We
    23   had the -- the letter and correspondence where they said,
    24   you know, turn over all records and destroy all in your
    25   possession.   And -- and we had to move to compel the
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-21
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    8
    1    accountant to produce the records from New Braunfels, and
    2    he did produce the records to us.
    3                   But we have also asked for certain
    4    financial records, including tax records and other
    5    financial documents from the Defendants themselves; and
    6    soon we will -- and, also, their new accountant, who will
    7    soon have to come down on a Motion to Compel, as well,
    8    although that's not part of today.
    9                   The -- the other issue that is part of
    10   today is their responses and objections to our requests
    11   for production, which deal with the financial and tax
    12   records.
    13                  Starting with the tax records, there are
    14   numerous reasons why as members of the company and --
    15   that -- that we're entitled to the tax records of an LLC.
    16   First of all, the statute allows it.
    17                  Second, we need to prepare our own tax
    18   returns.
    19                  Third, how they chose to characterize our
    20   capital contributions, the proportion of what is
    21   characterized as a loan and capital contribution and all
    22   of that is going to be relevant to the parties' agreement
    23   or disagreement about our membership status and -- and how
    24   much money is owed in terms of -- our position is that
    25   part of the money was loaned and part of it was a capital
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-22
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    9
    1    contribution, and -- and they may or may not disagree,
    2    although they haven't disclosed their theory of the case
    3    to us at all in any way.   That will be relevant, those tax
    4    records.
    5                    The other financial records, which include
    6    bank account statements, we're -- we're entitled to the
    7    books and records, again, of the company; but, also, these
    8    bank account statements are going to be relevant to
    9    whether distributions -- because under the -- under the
    10   limited liability company act, under the partners' oral
    11   agreement, and under the written agreements that were
    12   exchanged, we would be entitled to distributions of
    13   distributable cash.
    14                   None have been made to us.   We believe some
    15   have been made to the Defendants, substantial
    16   distributions, and that there is distributable cash.    We
    17   believe that, but we don't have the records to show it,
    18   and the bank statements will go a long ways towards that.
    19                   What we've met with to date is an objection
    20   every step of the way and resistance even to Court-ordered
    21   depositions.   And -- and the objection that was made, for
    22   example, to the accountant's records was that objection of
    23   privilege that the Texas courts don't recognize.    Well, it
    24   was made again in response to requests for production
    25   after the Court had already ruled on the objection in
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-23
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    10
    1    relation to the accountant.
    2                    They made other objections; for example,
    3    objecting that the Texas Finance Code provides the
    4    exclusive means to get bank account statements, even bank
    5    account statements of a party.    I -- I assure you that I
    6    will go to the bank, under the Texas Finance Code, and get
    7    the bank statements separately.    But that doesn't
    8    alleviate the obligation of a party to produce those bank
    9    statements.
    10                   So, a recommendation in -- in one of my
    11   motions is really -- it's really -- we're asking for the
    12   relief but sort of recommending a path for the Court,
    13   would be to appoint a discovery master in the case.     I
    14   don't mind coming down here once a week, and I suspect we
    15   will be back here again in a week.     And I'll tell you why.
    16                   You know, we had these grills.   I -- I
    17   don't know if you remember the -- the unique grills.
    18   Well, we have reason to believe that the grills have been
    19   destroyed.    And I've asked for an inspection of the
    20   collateral, of -- of the property.     They haven't responded
    21   to it.   I'm going to be asking the Court for it and
    22   probably having to move it to compel.
    23                   When these depositions do occur, I suspect
    24   I'm going to meet with a series of objections and probably
    25   instructions to the witness not to answer and that sort of
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-24
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    11
    1    thing.   And I -- and we can have the depositions in your
    2    chambers.    I leave it to the Court's discretion of how we
    3    deal with these issues; but I would rather, if we can
    4    avoid it -- and I -- I know that judges, including
    5    yourself, don't like us coming down here all the time on
    6    Motions to Compel.    I would like to avoid them, if
    7    possible.    And so, the appointment of a discovery master
    8    is one suggestion to do that.
    9                     And I'll let Mr. Mosser respond.
    10                    THE COURT:    Mr. Mosser?
    11                    MR. MOSSER:   Yes, ma'am.
    12                    THE COURT:    You may respond.
    13                    Hello?
    14                    MR. MOSSER:   Yes, ma'am.   I'm right here.
    15                    THE COURT:    Where -- you want to respond?
    16                    MR. MOSSER:   Oh, yes, ma'am.    I surely
    17   will.    Thank you.
    18                    May it please the Court?    Let me go
    19   backwards a little bit here.     Let's start with the grills
    20   are being destroyed, which is a false statement made by
    21   counsel.    It has become custom in this case.    The problem
    22   is we sent notice to counsel that he should come and pick
    23   up the grills, and counsel told us they weren't going to
    24   pick up the grills.
    25                    So, we told them if they leave the grills
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-25
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    12
    1    that they claim they loaned to my clients, we told them,
    2    If you don't pick them up, we'll just put them in storage;
    3    and you can pay the storage bill when you get here.
    4    Nobody said they were going to destroy them, and it's just
    5    outrageous that he would say those kinds of things.
    6                    As for bank accounts, the Finance Code does
    7    provide the method by which he can obtain the bank
    8    accounts.   But let's assume he doesn't want to do that and
    9    I'm required to deliver bank accounts.   If the Court will
    10   recall, he mentioned that he held a deposition on written
    11   questions for Mr. -- I can't remember the accountant's
    12   name -- Hal Holtman, I think -- to produce all the records
    13   he had related to anything with my clients.
    14                   Now, if you will recall from the -- the
    15   Temporary Injunction hearing, Mr. Holtman went and
    16   testified on everything we told him he shouldn't be
    17   testifying on; and then he subsequently, based on comment
    18   from counsel this morning, delivered all the documents he
    19   had to the Plaintiff's lawyers in this case.   That
    20   includes the tax returns, all bank statements, all the
    21   income statements, all the financial statements,
    22   everything related to the business until Mr. Holtman was
    23   fired.
    24                   Now, the Court ordered that.   Mr. Holtman
    25   turned them over, over our objection.    So, I don't think
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-26
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    13
    1    that we're required to produce records in a duplicitous
    2    manner that have already been produced by the accountant
    3    in this case.
    4                     And, secondly, those documents were
    5    produced to opposing counsel who has yet to this day
    6    served them on us.   When he gets discovery from whatever
    7    source it's from, he's required to serve everybody in the
    8    lawsuit, all parties, a copy of that discovery.    He has
    9    not done so.    So, I don't have any.
    10                    Going back to the top of the complaint from
    11   opposing counsel, I'm 69 years old; and I can't help it if
    12   my sacral iliac joint gets sprained, inflamed, bruised,
    13   and strained.    I can't do anything about that.   We
    14   immediately notified, upon determination that I was
    15   immobile, that this deposition had to be reset or
    16   postponed.
    17                    I think it's outrageous that I can't even
    18   pick up the phone and call a counsel for a medical problem
    19   that he won't reset depositions for or even respond to the
    20   telephone calls.   I think it's outrageous that they file
    21   motions claiming that they've had a conference with
    22   opposing counsel, which is plainly false.   They didn't
    23   have any conference with us.   In fact, they filed these
    24   motions and then claimed that they had a conference after
    25   they filed the motion.
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-27
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    14
    1                     As for offering dates, we offer to set a
    2    date in July; and understanding trial schedules, as I do,
    3    I was required to file a Motion to Continuance on -- let's
    4    see -- that date that he wanted to do these, the 16th,
    5    17th, somewhere in there because I had a special setting.
    6    I had to go into that court and request the Court reset
    7    the special setting in that case because of my sacral
    8    iliac sprain.
    9                     I don't under -- I suppose five years ago
    10   when I had my quadruple bypass surgery, opposing counsel
    11   would complain because that was just an excuse.    These are
    12   not excuses.    These are real-live things.   We've offered a
    13   second set of dates.   Counsel didn't even respond to them.
    14                    Now, counsel also says that we don't -- we
    15   should take depositions to get proof for the Motion to
    16   Transfer Venue.    I don't think the Motion to Transfer
    17   Venue is set for today, but he puts it in his -- in his
    18   response or his Third Amended Motion to Compel, and I
    19   don't understand.   He believes that the testimony given in
    20   open court on the record and sworn to by his clients can't
    21   be used in Motion to Transfer Venue.   At some point in
    22   time, the Court will have to rule on that motion; and I
    23   will be happy to defend that issue.
    24                    As for costs, counsel fails to properly
    25   prepare any cost statements, hasn't made any cost
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-28
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    15
    1    statements, hasn't suffered from any problems other than
    2    my sacral iliac joint sprain; and I don't think he would
    3    like me sitting in his conference room, taking the
    4    narcotics that I was taking and the side effects that go
    5    with it.
    6                    So, he has all of the financial records we
    7    believe that exist, delivered by Holtman over our
    8    objection.   He did not properly serve the accountant --
    9    the new accountant in Texas, which is more than 150 miles
    10   and -- away, and he doesn't have a right to get anything
    11   from him.
    12                   And as for tax records from the LLC,
    13   they're not members.   They never have been members.
    14   They're not members.   They rejected the opportunity to
    15   become a member, and that's clear testimony in the
    16   Temporary Injunction hearing.
    17                   So, I think I've covered the waterfront.
    18   But as far as tax returns, the State of Texas has made
    19   very clear by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
    20   in Houston -- I think every Court of Appeals has said it
    21   is an abuse of discretion requiring the disclosure of
    22   Federal income tax returns if other documents can provide
    23   the information necessary.
    24                   But in order to even search out and get
    25   that information, opposing counsel is required to provide
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-29
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    16
    1    the relevancy and materiality that's necessary as to his
    2    claims.   He has none.   He hasn't presented any.     He hasn't
    3    asked for any.    He hasn't said a single word that shows
    4    that a tax return, a financial statement, or any of these
    5    other intrusive and burdensome matters are necessary for
    6    his claims.    And the Court should deny his motions in
    7    total.
    8                     Thank you.
    9                     THE COURT:    When do you want to take the
    10   depositions?
    11                    MR. MEADE:    Well --
    12                    MR. MOSSER:   I'm sorry, Judge?
    13                    THE COURT:    I'm -- I'm asking your
    14   opposing counsel when he wants to take the depositions.
    15                    MR. MEADE:    I knew you were going to ask
    16   that, and I think the simplest answer to that is before
    17   the Motion to Transfer Venue is heard.
    18                    THE COURT:    Okay.
    19                    MR. MEADE:    The more complex answer is
    20   after the week of the 21st of July because I have a trial
    21   that entire week.    But we are set number one.     So, we
    22   will go; and I will be done that week because it's a
    23   breach of contract case.
    24                    So, following that week, I only have one
    25   day that I have a -- I have a deposition currently set
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-30
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    17
    1    that I'm defending on the 28th of July.       Otherwise, I am
    2    wide open to -- to take these depositions.
    3                     THE COURT:    Okay.   Counsel, you heard
    4    that, I assume.    So, pick a date after his trial in Judge
    5    Englehart's court and not on July -- what?
    6                     MR. MEADE:    28th.
    7                     THE COURT:    -- 28th that you can produce
    8    your people for depositions.
    9                     MR. MOSSER:   I'm looking at the calendar
    10   now, Judge.
    11                    THE COURT:    Okay.
    12                    MR. MOSSER:   I would recommend August 4th
    13   and 5th, and I -- I would like to also add, Judge, that
    14   four of the depositions that were set, two of them -- on
    15   two separate days, two of them were set at exactly the
    16   same time.    And then the next day, two more were set at
    17   exactly the same time, which I would discourage that
    18   concept as appropriate.
    19                    MR. MEADE:    And -- and here would be my
    20   response.    If Mr. Mosser would cooperate with me --
    21                    MR. MOSSER:   But the 4th and the 5th are
    22   good with me, Judge.
    23                    MR. MEADE:    If Mr. Mosser would cooperate
    24   with me a little bit and let me know -- these are an
    25   individual -- two individuals and four corporate
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-31
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    18
    1    representatives who may be, and I suspect will be, those
    2    same individuals -- could all be taken possibly at the
    3    same time or concurrently with each other.      But
    4    Mr. Mosser hasn't identified who are -- who's going to be
    5    the corporate representative.    So, I don't know how else
    6    to do it.
    7                    If he will identify who will be the
    8    corporate representatives for those entities, I will
    9    notice the -- the depositions so that they don't conflict
    10   timewise with one other another.
    11                   MR. MOSSER:   As you previously noticed,
    12   the doc -- the areas of inquiry, Mr. Rodriguez will be
    13   the deponent.
    14                   MR. MEADE:    On all, Mr. Mosser?
    15                   MR. MOSSER:   Yes.
    16                   MR. MEADE:    Okay.   Then I will -- I will
    17   set it up so that they don't conflict with one another.
    18                   MR. MOSSER:   Thank you.
    19                   THE COURT:    Okay.   So, pick, the 4th of
    20   the 5th of August?
    21                   MR. MEADE:    It will be both, Your Honor.
    22                   THE COURT:    Oh, both.
    23                   MR. MEADE:    Yeah.
    24                   THE COURT:    Okay.   All right.   The
    25   depositions are set for the 4th and the 5th.       And
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-32
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    19
    1    Plaintiff's counsel will send notice, but they are now
    2    set.    He'll send notice as to time and place, I assume,
    3    which I assume you've already -- where -- where are they
    4    going to be?
    5                     MR. MEADE:    Well, as Mr. Mosser doesn't
    6    have an office here in Houston --
    7                     THE COURT:    Okay.
    8                     MR. MEADE:    -- I'm just going to do them
    9    at my offices here in Houston, Your Honor.
    10                    THE COURT:    Right.    And I presume that's
    11   okay with you, Mr. Mosser?
    12                    MR. MOSSER:   Oh, yes, ma'am, that's fine
    13   with me.
    14                    THE COURT:    Okay.    Now, as to fees of the
    15   nonappearance, I'm not going to order anything at this
    16   time.    I will consider it later as the case progresses,
    17   depending on how discovery goes.        So, I will just hold
    18   that under advisement.
    19                    What else was there?
    20                    MR. MEADE:    The objections, which I think
    21   lie in the Third Motion to Compel, which are Motions to
    22   Compel the responses to discovery that ask for a
    23   variety -- it's -- it's a variety of financial
    24   information, including bank statements and -- and tax
    25   returns.
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-33
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    20
    1                     THE COURT:    Mr. Mosser, have -- does your
    2    client have the bank statements?
    3                     MR. MOSSER:   I'm sorry, Judge?
    4                     THE COURT:    Does your client have the bank
    5    statements?
    6                     MR. MOSSER:   I think Mr. Holtman has them,
    7    and opposing counsel has collected everything Holtman
    8    has.    And I would like the Court to order opposing
    9    counsel to deliver those documents that he got from the
    10   third-party witness Holtman to us.
    11                    THE COURT:    Well, let me ask -- that --
    12   that wasn't my question.
    13                    MR. MOSSER:   I understand.
    14                    THE COURT:    My question is:   Does your
    15   client have them?
    16                    MR. MOSSER:   No.   I think -- I think
    17   Holtman has them all.
    18                    THE COURT:    So, your client didn't keep a
    19   copy?
    20                    MR. MOSSER:   Nobody sends out copies of
    21   bank statements any more, Judge.
    22                    THE COURT:    Sure they do.   I get them
    23   every month.
    24                    MR. MOSSER:   I appreciate that, Your
    25   Honor.   Let me put it a different way.    Many businesses
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-34
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    21
    1    do not get bank statement in paper form.
    2                    THE COURT:    Well, do they get them
    3    electronically where they can print them out?
    4                    MR. MOSSER:   My understanding, Your Honor,
    5    is that Holtman has all the bank statements.
    6                    THE COURT:    So, your client doesn't get
    7    the e-mail saying, Your bank statement is ready to be
    8    printed out; or they can't go in and print it out?
    9                    MR. MOSSER:   I haven't made that
    10   particular inquiry.
    11                   THE COURT:    Yeah.
    12                   MR. MOSSER:   Because they're with the bank
    13   and the accountant.
    14                   THE COURT:    Well, my guess is your client
    15   has access to them by -- if they -- if they're not like
    16   me and they don't pay to get a paper statement or get a
    17   paper statement, they get an e-mail saying, Your bank
    18   statement is online.   And you just log in, and you can
    19   print it out.
    20                   MR. MOSSER:   I understand what the Court
    21   is saying, but my suggestion is that they already have
    22   all of that stuff.    They got it from Holtman.
    23                   MR. MEADE:    Your Honor, if I -- if I could
    24   add one -- as Your Honor may recall, they -- the
    25   Defendants fired Mr. Holtman, who is the CPA, from the
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-35
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    22
    1    company in March, terminated my client's access and his
    2    access to all of the bank accounts.     Then -- then hired a
    3    new accountant located up in Dallas and identified him as
    4    the new CPA, to which Holtman was supposed to and did
    5    send all of the information.
    6                   As far as account statements, the -- it's
    7    an ongoing duty, in fact, and they -- they have the
    8    duty -- even if, in fact, we had gotten all of the
    9    information and -- and Mr. Mosser has just said he doesn't
    10   actually know what we've gotten.     Even if had gotten all
    11   of the information, it wouldn't alleviate their
    12   responsibility to produce it, too, because, for example,
    13   we might be missing a page of a bank statement.     We might
    14   want to use a 173, you know, authentication means for the
    15   documents.
    16                  But there are certainly post termination of
    17   Mr. Holtman, zero financial records that we have access to
    18   but that the Defendants have access, custody, and control
    19   over those documents exclusively; and that's what we're
    20   asking for.
    21                  THE COURT:    Okay.   So --
    22                  MR. MEADE:    Their current accountant has
    23   all of it, and they have all of it.
    24                  THE COURT:    All right.
    25                  MR. MOSSER:   Well, we don't really know
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-36
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    23
    1    that.
    2                    THE COURT:    Well, I'm going to overrule
    3    your objections and tell you to produce it if it's
    4    available to you.
    5                    MR. MOSSER:   From the time that Holtman
    6    was terminated?   Because they already have everything
    7    else.
    8                    THE COURT:    No.   Just from what they've
    9    requested.
    10                   MR. MOSSER:   And will you order them to
    11   deliver us what Holtman has?
    12                   MR. MEADE:    I don't need to be ordered to,
    13   Your Honor.   I will -- I haven't had him even ask me.         If
    14   you send me a letter asking for it --
    15                   THE COURT:    Well, he's asking now.     Send
    16   it to him.
    17                   MR. MEADE:    I'll send it to him, Your
    18   Honor.
    19                   THE COURT:    Yeah.   I'm not going to order
    20   him, but he -- he said on the record now he's going to
    21   send you copies of it.
    22                   MR. MEADE:    Well, in fact, if it's
    23   easiest, I will upload it onto FPT link; and you can
    24   download it from your computer today.
    25                   THE COURT:    You want to do that, Counsel?
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-37
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    24
    1                     MR. MOSSER:   Which kind of link?
    2                     THE COURT:    I don't know.   It's over my
    3    head.
    4                     MR. MEADE:    I will suggest a couple of
    5    means by which I can deliver the documents to you,
    6    Mr. Mosser.
    7                     THE COURT:    He will -- he will get them to
    8    you.
    9                     MR. MEADE:    You can choose the most
    10   convenient means to you.
    11                    THE COURT:    Okay.   On the -- I've looked
    12   at the interrogatories, your objections are overruled.
    13                    What else have we got?
    14                    MR. MEADE:    The requests for production
    15   objections that were --
    16                    THE COURT:    Yeah, and they're overruled,
    17   also.
    18                    Anything else?
    19                    MR. MEADE:    And -- nothing else unless
    20   Your Honor -- and I -- and from what Your Honor said
    21   earlier, I think you're not inclined to appoint a master
    22   at this --
    23                    THE COURT:    I'm not.
    24                    MR. MEADE:    -- point in the discovery.
    25   So, I won't --
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-38
    Motion to Compel
    25
    1                    THE COURT:    And we will reset --
    2                    MR. MEADE:    -- belabor the point.
    3                    THE COURT:    -- the motion for change of
    4    venue until after the deposition.
    5                    MR. MEADE:    Thank you, Your Honor.
    6    Nothing else today.
    7                    THE COURT:    Anything else?
    8                    MR. MOSSER:   No, Your Honor.
    9                    THE COURT:    Counsel, I hope you feel
    10   better.   I know --
    11                   MR. MOSSER:   Thank you very much, Judge.
    12                   THE COURT:    I know how it feels to get
    13   older, but...
    14                   MR. MOSSER:   I appreciate it, Judge.
    15                   THE COURT:    Okay.   Thank you.
    16                   MR. MOSSER:   Yes, ma'am.
    17                   MR. MEADE:    Thank you.   Have a good week,
    18   Your Honor.
    19                   THE COURT:    Thank you.
    20                   (Proceedings concluded.)
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-39
    Motion to Compel
    26
    1    STATE OF TEXAS
    2    COUNTY OF HARRIS
    3         I, DARLENE STEIN, Official Court Reporter in and
    4    for the 133rd District Court of Harris, State of
    5    Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing
    6    contains a true and correct transcription of all
    7    portions of evidence and other proceedings requested
    8    in writing by counsel for the parties to be included
    9    in this volume of the Reporter's Record in the
    10   above-styled and numbered cause, all of which
    11   occurred in open court or in chambers and were
    12   reported by me.
    13        I further certify that this Reporter's Record of
    14   the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the
    15   exhibits, if any, offered by the respective parties.
    16        I further certify that the total cost for the
    17   preparation of this Reporter's Record is $312.00 and
    18   was paid by Mr. Andrew Meade.
    19
    /s/Darlene Stein_________
    20                           DARLENE STEIN, CSR
    Texas CSR 2557
    21                           Official Court Reporter
    133rd District Court
    22                           Harris County, Texas
    201 Caroline, 11th Floor
    23                           Houston, Texas 77002
    Telephone: (713) 368-6402
    24                           Expiration: 12/31/2014
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-40
    Exhibit 4   A-41
    A-42
    Exhibit 5   A-43
    Exhibit 6   A-44
    A-45
    5/4/2015 2:00:20 PM
    Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
    Envelope No. 5138641
    By: JIMMY RODRIGUEZ
    Filed: 5/4/2015 2:00:20 PM
    Cause No. 2014-10896
    Los Cucos Mexican Cafe VIII, Inc.;                            In the District Court of
    Los Cucos Mexican Cafe IV, Inc.;
    Manuel Cabrera; and Sergio Cabrera,
    Plaintiffs
    v.
    Harris County, Texas
    8650 Frisco, LLC d/b/a Estilo Gaucho
    Brazilian    Steakhouse;   Mandona,
    LLC; Galovelho, LLC; Bahtche,
    LLC; Claudio Nunes; and David Jeiel
    Rodrigues,
    Defendant                                                     133rd Judicial District
    Plaintiffs’ Fourth Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and for Sanctions
    The Court has ordered Plaintiffs to produce certain financial documents on four separate
    occasions. Defendants have refused to do so. Plaintiffs request that the Court obviate the need for
    further document production by striking Defendants’ pleadings.
    Background
    At a June 23, 2014 hearing, the Court orally ordered Defendants to produce certain
    financial documents. Exhibit 1, Transcript of Motion to Compel Hearing at 23:2–9. Defendants
    pretended that, they “ha[d] never been served with an order from the court to produce
    documents,” they were not required to do so. Exhibit 2 Letter from Mosser to Stephens. On July
    28, 2014, the Court again ordered Defendants to produce all responsive documents “by August 1,
    2014.” Exhibit 3, Order on Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Compel. Defendants improperly served an
    inadequate production. On March 30, 2015, the Court ordered Defendants a third time to produce
    all responsive documents “by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1, 2015.” Exhibit 4, Order on
    Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order. Defendants again violated the Court’s
    order by making a woefully incomplete production.
    Exhibit 7                                           A-46
    On the morning of Monday, April 27, the Court ordered Defendants to (1) produce all
    responsive documents and (2) pay a $1,000 sanction. Exhibit 5, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Third
    Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order. The Court further ordered that, “[s]hould Defendants fail to
    comply with this order within forty-eight hours of the signature hereof, Defendants and their
    attorneys of record will be asked to personally appear and show cause as to why they should be
    held in contempt of this Court.” 
    Id. Once again,
    Defendants ignored this order.
    On Thursday, April 30, Plaintiffs informed Defendants of their failure to comply with the
    Court’s order and demanded production of the documents and payment of the sanction before
    noon on Monday, May 4. Exhibit 6, Letter from Haren to Mosser. At 4:50 p.m. on Friday,
    May 1, Defendants sent the following response:
    Exhibit 7, Letter from Mosser to Stephens. Even though the order was available from the Court’s
    office and through the District Clerk’s website, Plaintiffs forwarded a copy of the order to
    Defendants on Sunday, May 3. Exhibit 8, Letter from Haren to Mosser.
    Background
    The Court has ordered Defendants to produce certain documents on four separate
    occasions. Defendants have refused or failed to comply all four times. Defendants’ most recent is
    excuse is that they were not “served” a copy of the Court’s order. See Exhibit 7, Letter from
    Mosser to Stephens As the Court may recall, this was the same explanation Defendants offered
    2
    A-47
    for their failure to comply with the original order compelling production. See Exhibit 2, Letter
    from Mosser to Stephens. This excuse was invalid both times it was made. Regardless of
    whether Defendants “served” a copy of the Court’s order, “[t]he law charges all parties and their
    lawyers with notice of all orders and judgments that the court renders in the case.” Welborn
    Mortg. Corp. v. Knowles, 
    854 S.W.2d 328
    , 331 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, writ denied). For this
    reason alone, Defendants are deemed to have known the contents of the Court’s order.
    Moreover, “[t]he law charges one who has knowledge of facts that would cause a prudent
    man to inquire further with notice of the facts that, by use of ordinary intelligence, he would
    have learned.” 
    Id. Defendants appeared
    at the April 27 hearing telephonically, so they were
    aware that the Court ordered them to produce documents and pay a sanction. Defendants were
    further aware that copies of the order could have been easily obtained by calling the Court’s
    clerk or by visiting the District Clerk’s website. A reasonably prudent attorney who was ordered
    to pay a sanction and produce documents would make an effort to obtain such orders rather than
    remaining deliberately ignorant.
    Further, Defendants received actual notice at 1:57 p.m. on April 30 that the Court had
    signed an order requiring Defendants produce documents and pay a sanction within 48 hours.
    See Exhibit 6, Letter from Haren to Mosser. Thus, Defendants had at least 94 hours between
    receipt of actual notice of the terms of the Court’s order and the filing of this motion.
    As a sanction for Defendants’ fourth failure to comply with the Court’s order, Plaintiffs
    ask the Court to order that:
       Defendants’ attorneys pay Plaintiffs a sanction for all attorneys’ fees incurred in
    attempting to obtain the requested documents;
       Defendants and their attorneys appear and show cause as to why they should not be
    held in contempt; and
       Defendants be disallowed from conducting any discovery in this case.
    3
    A-48
    Plaintiffs are hopeful that such a sanction will be sufficient to ensure future compliance
    with the Court’s orders and Defendants’ obligations under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
    Conclusion
    Defendants continue to ignore the Court’s orders. Plaintiffs pray that the Court further
    sanction Defendants and order Defendants and their attorneys to show cause as to why they
    should not be held in contempt. Plaintiffs further pray for all other relief to which they are
    entitled.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Hawash Meade Gaston
    Neese & Cicack LLP
    /s/ Samuel B. Haren
    Andrew K. Meade
    State Bar No. 24032854
    Jeremy M. Masten
    State Bar No. 24083454
    Samuel B. Haren
    State Bar No. 24059899
    2118 Smith Street
    Houston, Texas 77002
    713-658-9001 (phone)
    713-658-9011 (fax)
    ameade@hmgnc.com
    jmasten@hmgnc.com
    sharen@hmgnc.com
    Stephens & Domnitz, PLLC
    Kelly D. Stephens
    State Bar No. 19158300
    P.O. Box 79734
    Houston, Texas 77279-9734
    281-394-3287 (phone)
    832-476-5460 (fax)
    kstephens@stephensdomnitz.com
    4
    A-49
    Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated
    David Kinder
    State Bar No. 11432550
    112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800
    San Antonio, Texas 78205
    210-554-5500 (phone)
    210-226-8395 (fax)
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    Certificate of Conference
    I sent two letters to opposing counsel in an effort to obtain the documents and payment
    without further judicial intervention. I further tripled the time for compliance from the two days
    allowed by the Court to six. Despite this, Defendants still have not complied with the Court’s
    order.
    /s/ Samuel B. Haren
    Samuel B. Haren
    Certificate of Service
    A true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record via
    electronic service on May 4, 2015.
    James C. Mosser
    Nicholas D. Mosser
    Mosser Law PLLC
    17110 Dallas Pky, Suite 290
    Dallas, Texas 75248
    /s/ Samuel B. Haren
    Samuel B. Haren
    5
    A-50
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    1
    1                        REPORTER'S RECORD
    VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME
    2                TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2014-10896
    3
    4    LOS CUCOS MEXICAN CAFE VIII(   IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
    INC.;LOS CUCOS MEXICAN     (
    5    CAFE IV,INC.; MANUEL       (
    CABRERA;AND SERGIO CABRERA (
    6                               (
    VS.                        (    HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
    7                               (
    8650 FRISCO,LLC D/B/A ESTILO
    8    GAUCHO BRAZILIAN           (
    STEAKHOUSE; MANDONA,LLC;   (
    9    GALOVELHO,LLC;BAHTCHE,     (
    LLC; CLAUDIO NUNES; AND    (
    10   DAVID JEIEL RODRIGUES      (   133rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    11   _______________________________________________________
    12
    MOTION TO TRANSFER
    13   _______________________________________________________
    14
    15              On the 23rd day of June, 2014, the following
    16   proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and
    17   numbered cause before the Honorable JACLANEL McFARLAND,
    18   Judge Presiding, held in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
    19        Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype
    20   machine.
    21
    22
    23                          DARLENE STEIN
    OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
    24                      133RD DISTRICT COURT
    HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    Exhibit 1                         A-51
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    2
    1                          APPEARANCES
    2    Mr. Andrew K. Meade
    SBN 24032854
    3    Mr. Samuel B. Haren
    SBN 24059899
    4    2118 Smith Street
    Houston, Texas 77002
    5    Telephone: (713)658-9001
    Telephone: (713)658-9011 (Fax)
    6    Attorney for Plaintiffs
    7
    Mr. Nicholas D. Mosser
    8    SBN 24075405
    Mr. James Mosser
    9    SBN 00789784
    17110 Dallas Parkway, Suite 290
    10   Dallas, Texas97 75248
    Telephone:) (972)733-3223
    11   Telephone:   (972)267-5072
    Attorney for Defendants
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-52
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    3
    1                       CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
    2    June 23, 2014
    3                                                 PAGE
    4    Proceedings...............................     4
    5    Argument by Mr. Meade.....................     6
    6    Argument by Mr. Mosser....................    11
    7    Proceedings concluded.....................    25
    8    Reporter's Certificate....................    26
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-53
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    4
    1                         (P R O C E E D I N G S)
    2                           June 23, 2014
    3
    4                     THE COURT:    This is Cause No. 2014-10896.
    5    And if everyone would announce who they are and who they
    6    represent, please.
    7                     MR. MEADE:    Andrew Meade and Sam Haran for
    8    the Plaintiffs.
    9                     THE COURT:    Mr. Mosser, if you'll announce
    10   who you are and who you represent, please.
    11                    MR. MOSSER:   I'm sorry?
    12                    THE COURT:    Announce who you are and who
    13   you represent.
    14                    MR. MOSSER:   Yes, ma'am.    This is James
    15   Mosser, Mosser Law Firm, PLLC, appearing telephonically
    16   on behalf of all Defendants.
    17                    THE COURT:    Okay.    I will tell you that I
    18   don't have the motions in front of me.       My law clerks
    19   have gone to get them.   For some reason, even though you
    20   are on the docket, they thought it had been pulled.       So,
    21   anyway, but I'm going to let y'all go ahead and start.            I
    22   think it's Plaintiff's motions.        So, I'm going to let
    23   them go ahead and start while the law clerks are bringing
    24   in the actual written motions.
    25                    MR. MEADE:    All right.   Your Honor, if
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-54
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    5
    1    you'll recall, this is a -- my client supplied about
    2    $950,000 in some equipment for a restaurant --
    3                    MR. MOSSER:   Your Honor, if he could get
    4    closer to the microphone or speak up louder, it would be
    5    easier to hear.
    6                    THE COURT:    Yeah.   Well, I'll put the
    7    phone a little closer.   But, you know, have you got a
    8    storm in Dallas?    Is that the problem or what?    You know,
    9    when you don't show up, it's -- we can only do the best
    10   we can do.
    11                   You know, that's why when I practiced law,
    12   I didn't depend on Southwest.    Now, going to committee
    13   meetings, I depended on Southwest a lot.      I was on a lot
    14   of Baptist boards that met over on North Washington, the
    15   Baptist building.    But when I had a case, I usually drove
    16   down the night before or drove up or drove west or east or
    17   wherever I was going.
    18                   MR. MEADE:    And -- and for convenience,
    19   Your Honor, we will try to set hearings in the case on
    20   Fridays and Mondays to make that more convenient.
    21                   THE COURT:    Well, we don't have hearings
    22   on Fridays.   So, they have to be on Mondays.
    23                   MR. MEADE:    Mondays.
    24                   And so, the situation that we've got
    25   here -- Your Honor will recall that we had previously
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-55
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    6
    1    noticed depositions for early May of the Defendants, that
    2    those depositions had been quashed.    So, we set a Motion
    3    to Compel.    The Court ordered the depositions to occur in
    4    June.    We agreed on dates that were put into the Court's
    5    order, which was June 9th and 10th for six depositions to
    6    occur.
    7                     On the Sunday before -- June 9th was a
    8    Monday.    10th was a Tuesday.   On the Sunday before,
    9    Mr. Mosser left a message on Mr. Stephen's phone, saying
    10   that he wouldn't be attending the depositions nor would
    11   his clients because -- and they subsequently filed a
    12   motion.    Mr. Mosser apparently has a nervous system injury
    13   of some sort that he came down with the day before the
    14   depositions.    And there is nobody else within his
    15   four-person law firm who's qualified to sit in a chair and
    16   defend a deposition.
    17                    He then went and set his Motion to Transfer
    18   Venue, offered us some dates in late July that -- or --
    19   that conflict with a trial that I have in Judge
    20   Englehart's court.    And then when I rejected those dates,
    21   offered dates in August.
    22                    And we have run into a problem now, which
    23   is that I leave the country on Saturday for two and a half
    24   weeks.    I get back and have five days to prepare for a
    25   week-long trial in Judge Englehart's court.    And then at
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-56
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    7
    1    the end of the week that I'm in trial with Judge Englehart
    2    is their Motion to Transfer Venue.    We have taken the
    3    position, which is correct under the rules, that discovery
    4    should not be and cannot be, in fact, abated while a
    5    Motion to Transfer Venue is pending.
    6                    They have taken the position and even set
    7    for today and then withdrew a Motion to Stay all
    8    proceedings while they have the opportunity to have that
    9    Motion to Transfer Venue heard.
    10                   We're going to have to take these
    11   depositions before the Motion to Transfer Venue hearing.
    12   We need them ordered and compelled, and we need the Motion
    13   to Transfer Venue hearing pushed back till that can
    14   happen.
    15                   But we also need Mr. Mosser or his clients
    16   to pay the costs of the depositions that were ordered -- I
    17   took Certificates of Nonappearance on all six
    18   depositions -- and that they ought to have to bear the
    19   cost on each of those.
    20                   The next issue that we have is as you'll
    21   recall, we have an accountant that worked for the company
    22   in New Braunfels and then a new accountant in Dallas.         We
    23   had the -- the letter and correspondence where they said,
    24   you know, turn over all records and destroy all in your
    25   possession.   And -- and we had to move to compel the
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-57
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    8
    1    accountant to produce the records from New Braunfels, and
    2    he did produce the records to us.
    3                   But we have also asked for certain
    4    financial records, including tax records and other
    5    financial documents from the Defendants themselves; and
    6    soon we will -- and, also, their new accountant, who will
    7    soon have to come down on a Motion to Compel, as well,
    8    although that's not part of today.
    9                   The -- the other issue that is part of
    10   today is their responses and objections to our requests
    11   for production, which deal with the financial and tax
    12   records.
    13                  Starting with the tax records, there are
    14   numerous reasons why as members of the company and --
    15   that -- that we're entitled to the tax records of an LLC.
    16   First of all, the statute allows it.
    17                  Second, we need to prepare our own tax
    18   returns.
    19                  Third, how they chose to characterize our
    20   capital contributions, the proportion of what is
    21   characterized as a loan and capital contribution and all
    22   of that is going to be relevant to the parties' agreement
    23   or disagreement about our membership status and -- and how
    24   much money is owed in terms of -- our position is that
    25   part of the money was loaned and part of it was a capital
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-58
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    9
    1    contribution, and -- and they may or may not disagree,
    2    although they haven't disclosed their theory of the case
    3    to us at all in any way.   That will be relevant, those tax
    4    records.
    5                    The other financial records, which include
    6    bank account statements, we're -- we're entitled to the
    7    books and records, again, of the company; but, also, these
    8    bank account statements are going to be relevant to
    9    whether distributions -- because under the -- under the
    10   limited liability company act, under the partners' oral
    11   agreement, and under the written agreements that were
    12   exchanged, we would be entitled to distributions of
    13   distributable cash.
    14                   None have been made to us.   We believe some
    15   have been made to the Defendants, substantial
    16   distributions, and that there is distributable cash.    We
    17   believe that, but we don't have the records to show it,
    18   and the bank statements will go a long ways towards that.
    19                   What we've met with to date is an objection
    20   every step of the way and resistance even to Court-ordered
    21   depositions.   And -- and the objection that was made, for
    22   example, to the accountant's records was that objection of
    23   privilege that the Texas courts don't recognize.    Well, it
    24   was made again in response to requests for production
    25   after the Court had already ruled on the objection in
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-59
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    10
    1    relation to the accountant.
    2                    They made other objections; for example,
    3    objecting that the Texas Finance Code provides the
    4    exclusive means to get bank account statements, even bank
    5    account statements of a party.    I -- I assure you that I
    6    will go to the bank, under the Texas Finance Code, and get
    7    the bank statements separately.    But that doesn't
    8    alleviate the obligation of a party to produce those bank
    9    statements.
    10                   So, a recommendation in -- in one of my
    11   motions is really -- it's really -- we're asking for the
    12   relief but sort of recommending a path for the Court,
    13   would be to appoint a discovery master in the case.     I
    14   don't mind coming down here once a week, and I suspect we
    15   will be back here again in a week.     And I'll tell you why.
    16                   You know, we had these grills.   I -- I
    17   don't know if you remember the -- the unique grills.
    18   Well, we have reason to believe that the grills have been
    19   destroyed.    And I've asked for an inspection of the
    20   collateral, of -- of the property.     They haven't responded
    21   to it.   I'm going to be asking the Court for it and
    22   probably having to move it to compel.
    23                   When these depositions do occur, I suspect
    24   I'm going to meet with a series of objections and probably
    25   instructions to the witness not to answer and that sort of
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-60
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    11
    1    thing.   And I -- and we can have the depositions in your
    2    chambers.    I leave it to the Court's discretion of how we
    3    deal with these issues; but I would rather, if we can
    4    avoid it -- and I -- I know that judges, including
    5    yourself, don't like us coming down here all the time on
    6    Motions to Compel.    I would like to avoid them, if
    7    possible.    And so, the appointment of a discovery master
    8    is one suggestion to do that.
    9                     And I'll let Mr. Mosser respond.
    10                    THE COURT:    Mr. Mosser?
    11                    MR. MOSSER:   Yes, ma'am.
    12                    THE COURT:    You may respond.
    13                    Hello?
    14                    MR. MOSSER:   Yes, ma'am.   I'm right here.
    15                    THE COURT:    Where -- you want to respond?
    16                    MR. MOSSER:   Oh, yes, ma'am.    I surely
    17   will.    Thank you.
    18                    May it please the Court?    Let me go
    19   backwards a little bit here.     Let's start with the grills
    20   are being destroyed, which is a false statement made by
    21   counsel.    It has become custom in this case.    The problem
    22   is we sent notice to counsel that he should come and pick
    23   up the grills, and counsel told us they weren't going to
    24   pick up the grills.
    25                    So, we told them if they leave the grills
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-61
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    12
    1    that they claim they loaned to my clients, we told them,
    2    If you don't pick them up, we'll just put them in storage;
    3    and you can pay the storage bill when you get here.
    4    Nobody said they were going to destroy them, and it's just
    5    outrageous that he would say those kinds of things.
    6                    As for bank accounts, the Finance Code does
    7    provide the method by which he can obtain the bank
    8    accounts.   But let's assume he doesn't want to do that and
    9    I'm required to deliver bank accounts.   If the Court will
    10   recall, he mentioned that he held a deposition on written
    11   questions for Mr. -- I can't remember the accountant's
    12   name -- Hal Holtman, I think -- to produce all the records
    13   he had related to anything with my clients.
    14                   Now, if you will recall from the -- the
    15   Temporary Injunction hearing, Mr. Holtman went and
    16   testified on everything we told him he shouldn't be
    17   testifying on; and then he subsequently, based on comment
    18   from counsel this morning, delivered all the documents he
    19   had to the Plaintiff's lawyers in this case.   That
    20   includes the tax returns, all bank statements, all the
    21   income statements, all the financial statements,
    22   everything related to the business until Mr. Holtman was
    23   fired.
    24                   Now, the Court ordered that.   Mr. Holtman
    25   turned them over, over our objection.    So, I don't think
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-62
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    13
    1    that we're required to produce records in a duplicitous
    2    manner that have already been produced by the accountant
    3    in this case.
    4                     And, secondly, those documents were
    5    produced to opposing counsel who has yet to this day
    6    served them on us.   When he gets discovery from whatever
    7    source it's from, he's required to serve everybody in the
    8    lawsuit, all parties, a copy of that discovery.    He has
    9    not done so.    So, I don't have any.
    10                    Going back to the top of the complaint from
    11   opposing counsel, I'm 69 years old; and I can't help it if
    12   my sacral iliac joint gets sprained, inflamed, bruised,
    13   and strained.    I can't do anything about that.   We
    14   immediately notified, upon determination that I was
    15   immobile, that this deposition had to be reset or
    16   postponed.
    17                    I think it's outrageous that I can't even
    18   pick up the phone and call a counsel for a medical problem
    19   that he won't reset depositions for or even respond to the
    20   telephone calls.   I think it's outrageous that they file
    21   motions claiming that they've had a conference with
    22   opposing counsel, which is plainly false.   They didn't
    23   have any conference with us.   In fact, they filed these
    24   motions and then claimed that they had a conference after
    25   they filed the motion.
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-63
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    14
    1                     As for offering dates, we offer to set a
    2    date in July; and understanding trial schedules, as I do,
    3    I was required to file a Motion to Continuance on -- let's
    4    see -- that date that he wanted to do these, the 16th,
    5    17th, somewhere in there because I had a special setting.
    6    I had to go into that court and request the Court reset
    7    the special setting in that case because of my sacral
    8    iliac sprain.
    9                     I don't under -- I suppose five years ago
    10   when I had my quadruple bypass surgery, opposing counsel
    11   would complain because that was just an excuse.    These are
    12   not excuses.    These are real-live things.   We've offered a
    13   second set of dates.   Counsel didn't even respond to them.
    14                    Now, counsel also says that we don't -- we
    15   should take depositions to get proof for the Motion to
    16   Transfer Venue.    I don't think the Motion to Transfer
    17   Venue is set for today, but he puts it in his -- in his
    18   response or his Third Amended Motion to Compel, and I
    19   don't understand.   He believes that the testimony given in
    20   open court on the record and sworn to by his clients can't
    21   be used in Motion to Transfer Venue.   At some point in
    22   time, the Court will have to rule on that motion; and I
    23   will be happy to defend that issue.
    24                    As for costs, counsel fails to properly
    25   prepare any cost statements, hasn't made any cost
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-64
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    15
    1    statements, hasn't suffered from any problems other than
    2    my sacral iliac joint sprain; and I don't think he would
    3    like me sitting in his conference room, taking the
    4    narcotics that I was taking and the side effects that go
    5    with it.
    6                    So, he has all of the financial records we
    7    believe that exist, delivered by Holtman over our
    8    objection.   He did not properly serve the accountant --
    9    the new accountant in Texas, which is more than 150 miles
    10   and -- away, and he doesn't have a right to get anything
    11   from him.
    12                   And as for tax records from the LLC,
    13   they're not members.   They never have been members.
    14   They're not members.   They rejected the opportunity to
    15   become a member, and that's clear testimony in the
    16   Temporary Injunction hearing.
    17                   So, I think I've covered the waterfront.
    18   But as far as tax returns, the State of Texas has made
    19   very clear by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
    20   in Houston -- I think every Court of Appeals has said it
    21   is an abuse of discretion requiring the disclosure of
    22   Federal income tax returns if other documents can provide
    23   the information necessary.
    24                   But in order to even search out and get
    25   that information, opposing counsel is required to provide
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-65
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    16
    1    the relevancy and materiality that's necessary as to his
    2    claims.   He has none.   He hasn't presented any.     He hasn't
    3    asked for any.    He hasn't said a single word that shows
    4    that a tax return, a financial statement, or any of these
    5    other intrusive and burdensome matters are necessary for
    6    his claims.    And the Court should deny his motions in
    7    total.
    8                     Thank you.
    9                     THE COURT:    When do you want to take the
    10   depositions?
    11                    MR. MEADE:    Well --
    12                    MR. MOSSER:   I'm sorry, Judge?
    13                    THE COURT:    I'm -- I'm asking your
    14   opposing counsel when he wants to take the depositions.
    15                    MR. MEADE:    I knew you were going to ask
    16   that, and I think the simplest answer to that is before
    17   the Motion to Transfer Venue is heard.
    18                    THE COURT:    Okay.
    19                    MR. MEADE:    The more complex answer is
    20   after the week of the 21st of July because I have a trial
    21   that entire week.    But we are set number one.     So, we
    22   will go; and I will be done that week because it's a
    23   breach of contract case.
    24                    So, following that week, I only have one
    25   day that I have a -- I have a deposition currently set
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-66
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    17
    1    that I'm defending on the 28th of July.       Otherwise, I am
    2    wide open to -- to take these depositions.
    3                     THE COURT:    Okay.   Counsel, you heard
    4    that, I assume.    So, pick a date after his trial in Judge
    5    Englehart's court and not on July -- what?
    6                     MR. MEADE:    28th.
    7                     THE COURT:    -- 28th that you can produce
    8    your people for depositions.
    9                     MR. MOSSER:   I'm looking at the calendar
    10   now, Judge.
    11                    THE COURT:    Okay.
    12                    MR. MOSSER:   I would recommend August 4th
    13   and 5th, and I -- I would like to also add, Judge, that
    14   four of the depositions that were set, two of them -- on
    15   two separate days, two of them were set at exactly the
    16   same time.    And then the next day, two more were set at
    17   exactly the same time, which I would discourage that
    18   concept as appropriate.
    19                    MR. MEADE:    And -- and here would be my
    20   response.    If Mr. Mosser would cooperate with me --
    21                    MR. MOSSER:   But the 4th and the 5th are
    22   good with me, Judge.
    23                    MR. MEADE:    If Mr. Mosser would cooperate
    24   with me a little bit and let me know -- these are an
    25   individual -- two individuals and four corporate
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-67
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    18
    1    representatives who may be, and I suspect will be, those
    2    same individuals -- could all be taken possibly at the
    3    same time or concurrently with each other.      But
    4    Mr. Mosser hasn't identified who are -- who's going to be
    5    the corporate representative.    So, I don't know how else
    6    to do it.
    7                    If he will identify who will be the
    8    corporate representatives for those entities, I will
    9    notice the -- the depositions so that they don't conflict
    10   timewise with one other another.
    11                   MR. MOSSER:   As you previously noticed,
    12   the doc -- the areas of inquiry, Mr. Rodriguez will be
    13   the deponent.
    14                   MR. MEADE:    On all, Mr. Mosser?
    15                   MR. MOSSER:   Yes.
    16                   MR. MEADE:    Okay.   Then I will -- I will
    17   set it up so that they don't conflict with one another.
    18                   MR. MOSSER:   Thank you.
    19                   THE COURT:    Okay.   So, pick, the 4th of
    20   the 5th of August?
    21                   MR. MEADE:    It will be both, Your Honor.
    22                   THE COURT:    Oh, both.
    23                   MR. MEADE:    Yeah.
    24                   THE COURT:    Okay.   All right.   The
    25   depositions are set for the 4th and the 5th.       And
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-68
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    19
    1    Plaintiff's counsel will send notice, but they are now
    2    set.    He'll send notice as to time and place, I assume,
    3    which I assume you've already -- where -- where are they
    4    going to be?
    5                     MR. MEADE:    Well, as Mr. Mosser doesn't
    6    have an office here in Houston --
    7                     THE COURT:    Okay.
    8                     MR. MEADE:    -- I'm just going to do them
    9    at my offices here in Houston, Your Honor.
    10                    THE COURT:    Right.    And I presume that's
    11   okay with you, Mr. Mosser?
    12                    MR. MOSSER:   Oh, yes, ma'am, that's fine
    13   with me.
    14                    THE COURT:    Okay.    Now, as to fees of the
    15   nonappearance, I'm not going to order anything at this
    16   time.    I will consider it later as the case progresses,
    17   depending on how discovery goes.        So, I will just hold
    18   that under advisement.
    19                    What else was there?
    20                    MR. MEADE:    The objections, which I think
    21   lie in the Third Motion to Compel, which are Motions to
    22   Compel the responses to discovery that ask for a
    23   variety -- it's -- it's a variety of financial
    24   information, including bank statements and -- and tax
    25   returns.
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-69
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    20
    1                     THE COURT:    Mr. Mosser, have -- does your
    2    client have the bank statements?
    3                     MR. MOSSER:   I'm sorry, Judge?
    4                     THE COURT:    Does your client have the bank
    5    statements?
    6                     MR. MOSSER:   I think Mr. Holtman has them,
    7    and opposing counsel has collected everything Holtman
    8    has.    And I would like the Court to order opposing
    9    counsel to deliver those documents that he got from the
    10   third-party witness Holtman to us.
    11                    THE COURT:    Well, let me ask -- that --
    12   that wasn't my question.
    13                    MR. MOSSER:   I understand.
    14                    THE COURT:    My question is:   Does your
    15   client have them?
    16                    MR. MOSSER:   No.   I think -- I think
    17   Holtman has them all.
    18                    THE COURT:    So, your client didn't keep a
    19   copy?
    20                    MR. MOSSER:   Nobody sends out copies of
    21   bank statements any more, Judge.
    22                    THE COURT:    Sure they do.   I get them
    23   every month.
    24                    MR. MOSSER:   I appreciate that, Your
    25   Honor.   Let me put it a different way.    Many businesses
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-70
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    21
    1    do not get bank statement in paper form.
    2                    THE COURT:    Well, do they get them
    3    electronically where they can print them out?
    4                    MR. MOSSER:   My understanding, Your Honor,
    5    is that Holtman has all the bank statements.
    6                    THE COURT:    So, your client doesn't get
    7    the e-mail saying, Your bank statement is ready to be
    8    printed out; or they can't go in and print it out?
    9                    MR. MOSSER:   I haven't made that
    10   particular inquiry.
    11                   THE COURT:    Yeah.
    12                   MR. MOSSER:   Because they're with the bank
    13   and the accountant.
    14                   THE COURT:    Well, my guess is your client
    15   has access to them by -- if they -- if they're not like
    16   me and they don't pay to get a paper statement or get a
    17   paper statement, they get an e-mail saying, Your bank
    18   statement is online.   And you just log in, and you can
    19   print it out.
    20                   MR. MOSSER:   I understand what the Court
    21   is saying, but my suggestion is that they already have
    22   all of that stuff.    They got it from Holtman.
    23                   MR. MEADE:    Your Honor, if I -- if I could
    24   add one -- as Your Honor may recall, they -- the
    25   Defendants fired Mr. Holtman, who is the CPA, from the
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-71
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    22
    1    company in March, terminated my client's access and his
    2    access to all of the bank accounts.     Then -- then hired a
    3    new accountant located up in Dallas and identified him as
    4    the new CPA, to which Holtman was supposed to and did
    5    send all of the information.
    6                   As far as account statements, the -- it's
    7    an ongoing duty, in fact, and they -- they have the
    8    duty -- even if, in fact, we had gotten all of the
    9    information and -- and Mr. Mosser has just said he doesn't
    10   actually know what we've gotten.     Even if had gotten all
    11   of the information, it wouldn't alleviate their
    12   responsibility to produce it, too, because, for example,
    13   we might be missing a page of a bank statement.     We might
    14   want to use a 173, you know, authentication means for the
    15   documents.
    16                  But there are certainly post termination of
    17   Mr. Holtman, zero financial records that we have access to
    18   but that the Defendants have access, custody, and control
    19   over those documents exclusively; and that's what we're
    20   asking for.
    21                  THE COURT:    Okay.   So --
    22                  MR. MEADE:    Their current accountant has
    23   all of it, and they have all of it.
    24                  THE COURT:    All right.
    25                  MR. MOSSER:   Well, we don't really know
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-72
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    23
    1    that.
    2                    THE COURT:    Well, I'm going to overrule
    3    your objections and tell you to produce it if it's
    4    available to you.
    5                    MR. MOSSER:   From the time that Holtman
    6    was terminated?   Because they already have everything
    7    else.
    8                    THE COURT:    No.   Just from what they've
    9    requested.
    10                   MR. MOSSER:   And will you order them to
    11   deliver us what Holtman has?
    12                   MR. MEADE:    I don't need to be ordered to,
    13   Your Honor.   I will -- I haven't had him even ask me.         If
    14   you send me a letter asking for it --
    15                   THE COURT:    Well, he's asking now.     Send
    16   it to him.
    17                   MR. MEADE:    I'll send it to him, Your
    18   Honor.
    19                   THE COURT:    Yeah.   I'm not going to order
    20   him, but he -- he said on the record now he's going to
    21   send you copies of it.
    22                   MR. MEADE:    Well, in fact, if it's
    23   easiest, I will upload it onto FPT link; and you can
    24   download it from your computer today.
    25                   THE COURT:    You want to do that, Counsel?
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-73
    MOTION TO COMPEL
    24
    1                     MR. MOSSER:   Which kind of link?
    2                     THE COURT:    I don't know.   It's over my
    3    head.
    4                     MR. MEADE:    I will suggest a couple of
    5    means by which I can deliver the documents to you,
    6    Mr. Mosser.
    7                     THE COURT:    He will -- he will get them to
    8    you.
    9                     MR. MEADE:    You can choose the most
    10   convenient means to you.
    11                    THE COURT:    Okay.   On the -- I've looked
    12   at the interrogatories, your objections are overruled.
    13                    What else have we got?
    14                    MR. MEADE:    The requests for production
    15   objections that were --
    16                    THE COURT:    Yeah, and they're overruled,
    17   also.
    18                    Anything else?
    19                    MR. MEADE:    And -- nothing else unless
    20   Your Honor -- and I -- and from what Your Honor said
    21   earlier, I think you're not inclined to appoint a master
    22   at this --
    23                    THE COURT:    I'm not.
    24                    MR. MEADE:    -- point in the discovery.
    25   So, I won't --
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-74
    Motion to Compel
    25
    1                    THE COURT:    And we will reset --
    2                    MR. MEADE:    -- belabor the point.
    3                    THE COURT:    -- the motion for change of
    4    venue until after the deposition.
    5                    MR. MEADE:    Thank you, Your Honor.
    6    Nothing else today.
    7                    THE COURT:    Anything else?
    8                    MR. MOSSER:   No, Your Honor.
    9                    THE COURT:    Counsel, I hope you feel
    10   better.   I know --
    11                   MR. MOSSER:   Thank you very much, Judge.
    12                   THE COURT:    I know how it feels to get
    13   older, but...
    14                   MR. MOSSER:   I appreciate it, Judge.
    15                   THE COURT:    Okay.   Thank you.
    16                   MR. MOSSER:   Yes, ma'am.
    17                   MR. MEADE:    Thank you.   Have a good week,
    18   Your Honor.
    19                   THE COURT:    Thank you.
    20                   (Proceedings concluded.)
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-75
    Motion to Compel
    26
    1    STATE OF TEXAS
    2    COUNTY OF HARRIS
    3         I, DARLENE STEIN, Official Court Reporter in and
    4    for the 133rd District Court of Harris, State of
    5    Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing
    6    contains a true and correct transcription of all
    7    portions of evidence and other proceedings requested
    8    in writing by counsel for the parties to be included
    9    in this volume of the Reporter's Record in the
    10   above-styled and numbered cause, all of which
    11   occurred in open court or in chambers and were
    12   reported by me.
    13        I further certify that this Reporter's Record of
    14   the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the
    15   exhibits, if any, offered by the respective parties.
    16        I further certify that the total cost for the
    17   preparation of this Reporter's Record is $312.00 and
    18   was paid by Mr. Andrew Meade.
    19
    /s/Darlene Stein_________
    20                           DARLENE STEIN, CSR
    Texas CSR 2557
    21                           Official Court Reporter
    133rd District Court
    22                           Harris County, Texas
    201 Caroline, 11th Floor
    23                           Houston, Texas 77002
    Telephone: (713) 368-6402
    24                           Expiration: 12/31/2014
    25
    DARLENE STEIN
    A-76
    From:},|OSSEB
    HILL PlLl-C                                     st72287 5072                               g7/ 1?/2914l0: 33               S235P.001,,'001
    MorisERL,qw PLLC
    l?llCD.qI-L.{sPeRxrv,,\'t',sitrrrnllit).D-rlr-.r,s.TRx+sr5:41i.!)ll-:33-3:l3.F
    9 r1i2x - 2 6 , - - 5 l l r 2
    NIo55PPf,;11t.q1.111
    J u l y1 2 , 2 O 1 4
    Via Facsirmile:832-476-5450
    KellyStephens
    P O Box'79734
    -f
    Houston, €X?S77279
    R E : L o s C u c o sV l l l , I n c .[ ] t i a l . ,v . U 6 5 0F r i s c oL L C ,e t a l .
    D e a rM r . S t e p h e n s
    Apparentlymy priorletterwas too r;ubtle,I will try to be more blunt.
    T h e r ei s n o " c u r r e n t lsyc h e d u l e dr \ u g u s t1 , 2 0 1 4i n s p e c t i o nb"e c a u s ey o u h a v ef a i l e dt c ,
    servea properrequestpLlrsuant                     to the rules.
    We haveneverbeen serve                            

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-15-00423-CV

Filed Date: 5/8/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016