Laboe Labrado v. Aurora Legarreta ( 2024 )

ACCEPTED
08-23-00271-CV
EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS
EL PASO, TEXAS
08-23-00271-CV 10/29/2024 5:11 PM
ELIZABETH G. FLORES
CLERK
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
RECEIVED IN
8th COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 10/29/2024 5:11:22 PM
EL PASO, TEXAS ELIZABETH G. FLORES
Clerk
NO. 08-23-00271-CV
FILED IN
8th COURT OF APPEALS
EL PASO, TEXAS
10/31/2024 10:01:00 AM
LABOE LABRADO
ELIZABETH G. FLORES
Clerk
Appellant,
v.
AURORA LEGARRETA
Appellee.
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Laura Enriquez
State Bar No. 00795790
LAURA ENRIQUEZ AND
ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, PLLC
1212 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79902
(915) 335-0333
enriquez@leeplaw.com
Attorney for Appellant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Contents..................................................................................................... i
Index of Authorities ............................................................................................... ii
Summary of Reply Argument ..................................................................................1
Reply Argument ......................................................................................................2
I. The evidence pointed to in Appellee’s brief is legally and
factually insufficient to establish actual fraud by Laboe Labrado ………2
II. Helmer is not applicable standard for piercing the corporate veil
in this case………………………………………………………………………………………..4
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................5
Prayer .....................................................................................................................6
Certificate of Compliance........................................................................................7
Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................7
i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Helmer v. Rusco Operafing, LLC, 2022 Tex App. Lexis 2100 ………………………..1,2,4,5
Hoffman v. Dandurand, 180 S.W.3d 340, 347 (Tex-App Dallas 2005, no pet.)………5
Mancorp v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex. 1990)……………………………………….3
Moore v Hooters of America, LLC, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 2091……………………………….3
TransPecos Banks v Strobach, 487 S.W.3d, 722, 731
(Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) …………………………………………………………….1
STATUTES
TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 21.223 ………………………………………………………………………….4
TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 101.002 ………………………………………………………………………..4
ii
SUMMARY OF REPLY ARGUMENT
Appellee confinues to make a closing argument on mafters rejected by the
jury that are irrelevant to this appeal. There is no evidence or factually insufficient
evidence of actual fraud which is defined as involving dishonesty of purpose or
intent to deceive. TransPecos Banks v. Strobach, 487 S.W.3d 722, 731 (Tex. App—
El Paso 2016, no pet.). Evidence of the use of a personal credit card by Laboe
Labrado, the use of his credit history to purchase vehicles used in the business for
the benefit of El Paso Bright Beginnings, LLC, no corporate formalifies, and alleged
fraudulent transfers do not rise to the level of actual fraud as defined by the
statute. Evidence that Laboe Labrado alleged took any monies from El Paso Bright
Beginnings is also irrelevant since he was a member of the LLC. The jury rejected all
claims of fraudulent transfers. CR 342-351.
The facts were undisputed that the bankruptcy was filed more than two
years and three months after the lawsuit because of the loss of enrollment. CR5
and RR52. Any argument by Appellee that the jury rejected the reason for the filing
of the bankruptcy is speculafion.
Appellee aftempts to use the Helmer v. Rusco case in their brief to argue that
intermingling of corporate and personal funds alone was sufficient to pierce the
corporate veil based upon alter ego theory is misplaced. Helmer v. Rusco
1
Operafing, LLC 2022 Tex App. Lexis 2100. The Helmer case decided the standard of
piercing the corporate veil for the purpose of establishing personal jurisdicfion
only. Id. Footnote 5 of that opinion clearly explains that fraud which is vital to
piercing the corporate veil under the Business Organizafion Code has no place in
assessing veil piercing for the purpose of establishing jurisdicfion. Id. at fn 5.
REPLY ARGUMENT
I. The evidence pointed to in Appellee’s brief is legally and factually
insufficient to establish actual fraud by Laboe Labrado
The evidence pointed to by Appellee does not pertain to the issue appealed
that there is no evidence to establish actual fraud. Appellee cites to alleged
evidence of taking of El Paso Bright Beginnings monies, taking of corporate
property for personal use, alleged disappearance of equipment, taking of corporate
assets, Labrado’s girlfriend use of a vehicle as an employee, 601 Resler claim,
commingling of funds, conversion and misuse of corporate assets, charges to other
businesses for rent, no corporate formalifies, confusion of corporafion, and change
of maintained value to show that there is evidence to pierce the corporate veil. All
of those issues are not evidence of actual fraud. Instead, Appellee reargues issues
that the jury rejected on the fraudulent transfer of assets in quesfions nos. 4 and 5
in the jury charge as indicated in the judgment. CR 342-351. Any claimed transfers
by Laboe Labrado in the bankruptcy court pefifion where he was quesfioned were
2
rejected by the jury. 2 RR 84, 86-87 and CR 342-351. The fact that the bankruptcy
filing alleged manipulafion of assets is not evidence but were merely allegafions in
a suit. Those allegafions were prosecuted by Appellee in this case and the jury
made no findings of any fraudulent transfers. CR 342-351. Those claims were
rejected by the jury. Id. Appellee aftempts to raise issues on the no liability findings
that would have required an appeal.
Appellee failed to show that there was such unity between the Laboe
Labrado and El Paso Bright Beginnings, LLC that the separateness of the single
corporafion has ceased. See Mancorp v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex. 1990).
A corporate affiliate like Laboe Labrado who was a member of the LLC may be held
liable for a corporafion’s obligafions only if it demonstrates that the affiliate caused
the corporafion to be used for the purpose of perpetrafing and did perpetrate an
actual fraud on the oblige primarily for the direct personal benefit of the affiliate.
Id. Actual fraud involves dishonesty of purpose or intent to deceive. Id. at 731. In
Moore v. Hooters of America, the Court explained that corporafions including, as
here, limited liability corporafions are separate legal enfifies that insulate owners
and/or shareholders from personal responsibility. Moore v. Hooters of America, LLC,
No. 11-21-00168-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 2091 at 6-7 (Tex. App.-Eastland March
30, 2023, pet. denied.) Accordingly, there is nothing illegal or wrong with a growing
3
business dividing sectors of that business and/or assets and separafing them into
disfinct corporafions or businesses, even if one of the reasons for doing so it to
minimize the assets at risk in the event of a liability lawsuit. Id.In this case, the daycare was set up as a limited liability company. It was not
done to perpetuate any fraud on the Appellee. The evidence that Appellee points
to does not pertain to the fraud required by Texas law and the Business Organizafion
Codes. See TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 21.223; See TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE §101.002.
The facts were undisputed that the bankruptcy was filed more than two years and
three months after the lawsuit because of the loss of enrollment. CR5 and RR52.
Any argument by Appellee that the jury rejected the reason for the filing of the
bankruptcy is speculafion.
II. Helmer is not applicable standard for piercing the corporate veil in this case
Appellee aftempts to use the Helmer v. Rusco case in their brief to argue to
the Court that intermingling of corporate and personal funds alone is sufficient to
pierce the corporate veil based upon alter ego theory. Helmer v. Rusco Operafing,
LLC 2022 Tex App. Lexis 2100. However, the Helmer case decided the standard of
piercing the corporate veil for the purpose of establishing personal jurisdicfion
only. Id. Footnote 5 of that opinion clearly explains that fraud which is vital to
piercing the corporate veil under the Business Organizafion Code has no place in
4
assessing veil piercing for the purpose of establishing jurisdicfion. Id. at fn 5.
Helmer only established what are sufficient minimum contacts for the exercise of
personal jurisdicfion when there is an aftempt to pierce the corporate veil. Id. The
standard delineated by the Appellee in this case is irrelevant to the analysis in this
appeal. However, even in Helmer, the Court states that the fact that on several
occasions the member of the LLC withdrew funds and used the funds for an
unrelated purpose is insufficient to pierce the corporate veil because a member is
enfitled to receive distribufion of company funds. Id. cifing Hoffman v. Dandurand,
180 S.W.3d 340, 347 (Tex-App Dallas 2005, no pet.) Furthermore, the Court
reversed the denial of the special appearance. Helmer v. Rusco Operafing, LLC 2022
Tex App. Lexis 2100.
Addifionally, the Helmer case does not stand for the proposifion that the
intermingling of corporate and personal funds alone was sufficient to pierce the
corporate veil based upon alter ego theory as stated in Appellee’s brief. Id. Even if
that were the case, that Court was only determining whether sufficient minimum
contacts exist to establish personal jurisdicfion without the requirement of fraud
which is necessary and missing in Appellee’s case. Id. at fn 5.
In conclusion, there was no evidence or factually insufficient evidence of
actual fraud by Laboe Labrado.
5
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant LABOE LABRADO
respecffully prays that the Court reverse the judgment of the trial court and render
judgment that Plainfiff take nothing against LABOE LABRADO.
Respectfully submitted,
By;__/s/ Laura Enriquez_________
Laura Enriquez
State Bar No. 00795790
LAURA ENRIQUEZ AND
ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, PLLC
1212 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79902
(915) 335-0333
enriquez@leeplaw.com
6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This Brief of Appellant complies with the type-volume limitations of Rule
9.4(i)(2)D because this Brief contains 1232 words, excluding the parts of the Brief
exempted by Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1).
____/s/ Laura Enriquez_____
Laura Enriquez
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 29th day of October 2024, a true and correct copy
of this Brief of the Appellant was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court
using the e-filing system service provider, which will serve a copy of same on the
following counsel for Appellee:
James Scherr
Rodrigo V. Ramos
Scherr & Legate, PLLC
109 N. Oregon, 12th Floor
El Paso, Texas 79901
(915) 544-0100
(915) 532-1759
jamesscherr@scherrlegate.com
rramos@scherrlegate.com
____/s/ Laura Enriquez_____
Laura Enriquez
7
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Jeanette Williams on behalf of Laura Enriquez
Bar No. 795790
jwilliams@leeplaw.com
Envelope ID: 93715040
Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument
Filing Description: REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Status as of 10/31/2024 9:14 AM MST
Associated Case Party: Laboe Labrado
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Laura Enriquez enriquez@leeplaw.com 10/29/2024 5:11:22 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Aurora Legarreta
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
James Scherr 17745400 jim@jamesscherrlaw.com 10/29/2024 5:11:22 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Rodrigo Ramos 794494 rramos@scherrlegate.com 10/29/2024 5:11:22 PM SENT
Jeanette Williams jwilliams@leeplaw.com 10/29/2024 5:11:22 PM SENT
Priscilla Franco pfranco@scherrlegate.com 10/29/2024 5:11:22 PM SENT
Adrian Acosta adacosta@scherrlegate.com 10/29/2024 5:11:22 PM SENT