Peter G. Milne, P.C., Peter G. Milne, Individually, and Healy, Milne & Associates, P.C. v. Val Ryan and Joy Ryan ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                           ACCEPTED
    06-14-00106-CV
    SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
    TEXARKANA, TEXAS
    3/9/2015 9:42:31 AM
    DEBBIE AUTREY
    CLERK
    NO. 06-14-00106-CV
    IN THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS         FILED IN
    6th COURT OF APPEALS
    TEXARKANA, TEXAS           TEXARKANA, TEXAS
    3/9/2015 9:42:31 AM
    ____________________________________________________
    DEBBIE AUTREY
    Clerk
    PETER G. MILNE, INDIVIDUALLY, PETER G. MILNE, P.C. &
    HEALY, MILNE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
    Appellants,
    V.
    VAL RYAN & JOY RYAN,
    Appellees.
    ____________________________________________________
    Appeal from the 4th Judicial District Court of Rusk County, Texas
    The Honorable J. Clay Gossett, Presiding
    ____________________________________________________
    BRIEF OF APPELLEES
    ____________________________________________________
    JAMES A. HOLMES                                 JOHN R. MERCY
    Texas Bar No. 00784290                          Texas Bar No. 13947200
    THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES HOLMES, P.C.            MERCY CARTER TIDWELL, LLP
    212 South Marshall                              1724 Galleria Oaks Drive
    Henderson, Texas 75654                          Texarkana, Texas 75503
    (903) 657-2800                                  (903) 794-9419
    (903) 657-2855 (fax)                            (903) 794-1268 (fax)
    jh@JamesHolmesLaw.com                           jmercy@texarkanalawyers.com
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES VAL & JOY RYAN
    ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
    IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL
    In addition to the counsel listed in Appellants’ Brief, please note the
    appearance of the following additional counsel for Appellees:
    John R. Mercy
    Texas Bar No. 13947200
    MERCY CARTER TIDWELL, LLP
    1724 Galleria Oaks Drive
    Texarkana, Texas 75503
    (903) 794-9419
    (903) 794-1268 (fax)
    jmercy@texarkanalawyers.com
    !i
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
    TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii-iii
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv-vi
    ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
    STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
    ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-24
    1.       Appellants do not have standing to appeal the trial court’s certification of
    Appellees’ claims against Richard Hicks because the order does not
    “injuriously affect” Appellants and “merely affects the rights of others.”. . . 9
    2.       Even assuming Appellants have standing, the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion by concluding that members of a class consisting of all person
    who “paid a fee for enjoined services performed by Richard Hicks” were
    presently ascertainable by reference to objective criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
    3.       Even assuming Appellants have standing, the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion by certifying Appellees’ claims of unconscionable conduct and
    breach of fiduciary duty because to allow Hicks to retain fees he was
    expressly enjoined from collecting would be unconscionable as a matter of
    law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
    4.       Even assuming Appellants have standing, the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion when it concluded that Appellees’ claims of unconscionable
    conduct and breach of fiduciary duty were typical of the absent class
    members because all of the class members’ claims arise from the same
    violation of the 2001 injunction and and all class members seek the same
    relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
    !ii
    5.      The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it certified Appellees’
    request for declaratory judgment because the money damages flow directly
    and automatically from the requested declaration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
    CONCLUSION & PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9.4(E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
    APPENDIX
    2001 Agreed Permanent Injunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TAB A
    Hicks’ Amended Answers to Plaintiffs’ 1st Interrogatories . . . . . . . . . TAB B
    !iii
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
    CASES                                                                                      PAGE(S)
    Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 
    151 F.3d 402
    (5th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
    Bailey v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co., 
    83 S.W.3d 840
     (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2002, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-15, 19, 20-21
    Bhatia v. Piedrahita, 
    756 F.3d 211
    (2d Cir. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12
    Bratcher v. Monumental Life Insurance Co.,
    
    365 F.3d 408
    (5th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-24
    Brown v. Todd, 
    53 S.W.3d 297
    (Tex. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
    Cedar Crest Funeral Home, Inc. v. Lashley, 
    889 S.W.2d 325
     (Tex. App. — Dallas 1993, no writ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
    Charlie Thomas Courtesy Leasing, Inc. v. Taylor, 
    44 S.W.3d 684
     (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
    Chastain v. Koonce, 
    700 S.W.2d 579
    , 583 (Tex. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    Childs v. Haussecker, 
    974 S.W.2d 31
    (Tex. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
    City of the The Colony v. N. Tex. Mun. Water Dist., 
    272 S.W.3d 699
     (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2008, pet. dism’d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
    Clements v. League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 
    800 S.W.2d 948
     (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1990, no writ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
    Ford Motor Co. v. Sheldon, 
    22 S.W.3d 444
    (Tex. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
    In the Interest of L.K., 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10569
    (Tex. App. — Tyler 2012, pet. denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
    In the Interest of R.T.M., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12935
    (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2014, no pet. h.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10, 12
    !iv
    In re: Turner Bros. Trucking Co., 
    8 S.W.3d 370
     (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1999, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-17
    Intratex Gas Co. v. Beeson, 
    22 S.W.3d 398
    (Tex. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
    James v. City of Dallas, 
    254 F.3d 552
    (5th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
    Kendrick v. Allright Parking, 
    846 S.W.2d 453
     (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1992, writ denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
    Latham v. Castillo, 
    972 S.W.2d 66
    (Tex. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    Mack v. McKenzie, 
    900 S.W.2d 445
     (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1995, writ denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
    Matbon, Inc. v. Gries, 
    287 S.W.3d 739
     (Tex. App. — Eastland 2009, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
    McAllen Med. Ctr. v. Cortez, Inc., 
    66 S.W.3d 227
    (Tex. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
    Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 
    914 S.W.2d 602
     (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1995, writ dism’d.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
    Missouri Pac. RR. v. American Statesman, 
    552 S.W.2d 99
    (Tex. 1977) . . . . . . . . 17
    Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 
    186 F.3d 620
    (5th Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . 19
    Oxford Finance Cos., v. Velez, 
    807 S.W.2d 460
     (Tex. App. — Austin 1991, writ denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-19
    Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Yarbrough, 
    405 S.W.3d 70
    (Tex. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
    Ski River Dev., Inc. v. McCallla, 
    167 S.W.3d 121
     (Tex. App. — Waco 2005, pet. denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Mktg. on Hold Inc., 
    308 S.W.3d 909
    (Tex. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . 20
    Tex. Workers’ Comp. Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer, 
    988 S.W.2d 750
    (Tex. 1999) . . . . 9
    Torrington v. Stutzman, 
    46 S.W.3d 829
    (Tex. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
    !v
    Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 
    140 S.W.3d 351
    (Tex. 2004) . . . . . . . .9
    STATUTES
    TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.302(a) (West 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
    TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.45(A)(3) (West 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    RULES
    TEX. R. CIV. P. 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 25
    !vi
    ISSUES PRESENTED
    1.   Do Appellants have standing to appeal the trial court’s certification of
    Appellees’ claims against Richard Hicks when the order does not
    “injuriously affect” Appellants and “merely affects the rights of others?”
    2.   Did the trial court abuse its discretion by concluding that members of a class
    consisting of all person who “paid a fee for enjoined services performed by
    Richard Hicks” were presently ascertainable by reference to objective
    criteria?
    3.   Assuming Appellants have standing, did the trial court abuse its discretion
    by certifying Appellees’ claims of unconscionable conduct and breach of
    fiduciary duty when Hicks had been expressly enjoined from collecting fees
    for his services?
    4.   Assuming Appellants have standing, did the trial court abuse its discretion
    when it concluded that Appellees’ claims of unconscionable conduct and
    breach of fiduciary duty were typical of the absent class members when all
    of the class members’ claims arise from the same violation of the 2001
    injunction and and all class members seek the same relief?
    5.   Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it certified Appellees’ request
    for declaratory judgment when the money damages flow directly and
    automatically from the requested declaration?
    !vii
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    For many years, Richard Hicks owned and operated a Medicaid planning
    service under the name “Elder Advisory Services.” (1 CR at 130-31.) Hicks is not
    and has never been a licensed attorney in the State of Texas or any other state.
    (E.g., 3 CR at 326.) In 2001, as a result of an investigation and complaint filed by
    the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the State Bar of Texas, the 114th
    Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas permanently enjoined Hicks and
    persons in active concert or participation with him from “engaging in, or aiding or
    abetting any person in engaging in, the following acts unless they are at the time of
    such acts (i) an attorney duly licensed by the State of Texas or (ii) employees of an
    attorney duly licensed by the State of Texas and working under the direct and
    active supervision of an attorney duly licensed by the State of Texas:
    a.     preparing a qualified income trust (otherwise known as a Miller
    trust);
    b.     preparing Powers of Attorney;
    c.     advising persons regarding the creation of a Miller Income Trust or a
    Power of Attorney provided that this restraint shall not prohibit a
    person enjoined by this judgment from referring a person to an
    attorney licensed to practice law in Texas for the purpose of obtaining
    advice from such attorney regarding the creation of a Miller Income
    Trust or a Power of Attorney;
    d.     selling, advertising, mailing representations concerning or
    recommending the purchase of a Miller Trust;
    !1
    e.   preparing for any person other than Defendants documents for the
    creation of a Miller Trust;
    f.   providing advice to any person other than Defendants concerning a
    Miller Trust;
    g.   providing advice for a fee to any person other than Defendants
    regarding how that person, or a relative (by marriage or
    consanguinity) or a principal under a power of attorney may become
    qualified for Medicaid benefits;
    h.   providing advice for a fee to any person other than Defendants
    regarding how that person, or a relative (by marriage or
    consanguinity) or a principal under a power of attorney may become
    qualified for benefits available under any program administered by
    the Social Security Administration or the Texas Department of Human
    Services;
    i.   making case specific recommendations for a fee to any person
    regarding how that person or a relative (by marriage or
    consanguinity) or a principal under a power of attorney may become
    eligible for Medicaid benefits;
    j.   making case specific recommendations for a fee to any person
    regarding how that person or a relative (by marriage or
    consanguinity) or a principal under a power of attorney may become
    eligible for benefits available under any program administered by the
    Social Security Administration or the Texas Department of Human
    Services;
    k.   aiding, assisting or representing applicants and recipients in
    procuring Medicaid benefits from the Texas Department of Human
    Services for a fee and
    l.   advertising assistance in procuring Medicaid benefits for a fee by any
    form of media including but not limited to mail, fax, internet,
    seminars, radio, television, newspaper, email or by solicitation by
    spoken word.”
    !2
    (Appx. at Tab A -- Agreed Permanent Injunction & Final Judgment at pp. 1-3
    [hereinafter referred to as the “Injunction”].)
    Following entry of the Injunction, Hicks sought an association with a
    licensed Texas attorney in order to continue his practice. (4 RR at 11.) In 2004,
    Hicks began discussing with Peter G. Milne an association whereby Hicks would
    provide Medicaid pre-planning and qualification services to clients of Milne’s
    firms. (1 CR at p. 130, ¶ 4.) Prior to entering into any agreement, Hicks told
    Milne of the requirements of the Injunction and provided Milne with a copy to
    review.    (E.g., 3 CR at 331-32.)       Although Hicks made Milne aware of the
    Injunction and told him that he was required to be an employee of a law firm to
    provide Medicaid planning services, Milne did not hire him as an employee of
    Peter G. Milne, P.C. or Healy, Milne & Associates, P.C. (E.g., 4 RR at p. 14, ll.
    11-20.) In fact, Milne never even contemplated hiring Hicks as an employee. 
    Id. Instead, Milne
    associated with Hicks in what he would call an “independent
    contractor” arrangement under which Hicks was to “interview potential clients,
    intake approved clients, gather and analyze financial data, draft documents and
    correspondence for review and approval and make application for Medicaid
    assistance on behalf of retained clients.” (1 CR at p. 130, ¶ 4.) Hicks and Milne
    split the fees by Hicks on a percentage basis with Hicks receiving as much as 75%
    of the fees. (E.g., 4 RR at p. 16, ll. 12-16.)
    !3
    Throughout their association, Hicks and Milne jointly marketed their
    services with brochures and fliers touting “Elder Advisory Services” as “A Service
    of Peter G. Milne, P.C.” and/or Healy, Milne Law Firm. (E.g., 8 RR at pp. 138-41,
    160-63, 288.)
    !4
    Hicks also frequently used used Peter G. Milne, P.C. business cards and
    letterhead and signed his name as an “Associate” of the law firm. (E.g., 8 RR at
    pp. 165, 167.)
    !5
    Under the auspices of this relationship with Milne, Hicks provided enjoined
    services to 465 clients after January 1, 2005 without ever becoming a licensed
    attorney or an employee of a licensed attorney. (E.g., 3 CR at 326; Appx. at Tab B
    — Hicks’ Amended Answers to 1st Interrogs at No. 4.)          Hicks also provided
    enjoined services to an additional 114 clients originated by Milne or his law firms
    (Milne’s “Acknowledged Clients”). (E.g., Appellants’ Brf. at 4.) For his services,
    Hicks received $728,932.16 in fees from the 465 “un-acknowledged clients” and
    $320,120.75 in fees from Milne’s firms as his share of the fees paid by the
    firms’Acknowledged Clients for Hicks’ enjoined services. (E.g., Appx. at Tab B —
    Hicks’ Amended Answers to 1st Interrogs at Nos. 4-5 & 7.) Hicks has provided a
    list of all persons who paid him for enjoined services during his association with
    Milne, admitted that all of the services he provided were within the scope of the
    Injunction and testified that Milne did not provide “direct and active
    supervision.”   (E.g., 3 CR at 335.)    In fact, he recalls that Milne specifically
    authorized him to work completely independently on 127 client files without any
    supervision of any kind. (3 CR at 337-40.)
    Val & Joy Ryan brought this action on behalf of all persons who paid a fee
    for enjoined services performed by Hicks during his association with Milne and his
    firms. They alleged causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and
    unconscionable conduct. They also alleged that Hicks and Milne and/or his firms
    constituted a joint venture, joint enterprise, partnership and/or conspiracy. They
    !6
    moved the trial court to declare that neither Hicks, Milne or Milne’s firms could
    receive fees for the enjoined services because Hicks was not an “employee” of
    Milne or his firms. They asked court to order a refund of all fees paid for enjoined
    services together with treble and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees.       On
    November 26, 2014, the trial court certified Appellees’ claims of breach of
    fiduciary duty and unconscionable conduct against Richard Hicks. (3 CR at 526.)
    The trial court declined to certify Appellees’ claims of unconscionable conduct and
    breach of fiduciary duty against Appellants. 
    Id. In this
    appeal, Appellants seek to
    challenge (1) the propriety of the class definition; (2) the certification of the
    unconscionable conduct claim against Hicks on grounds of predominance; (3) the
    certification of both the unconscionable conduct and breach of fiduciary duty
    claims against Hicks on grounds that Appellees’ claims are not typical of the class
    as a whole and (4) the certification of the declaratory judgment class against
    Appellants because the monetary relief predominates.        Richard Hicks did not
    appeal any portion of the trial court’s order.
    !7
    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
    Appellants have no standing to challenge the trial court’s certification of
    Appellees’ claims against Richard Hicks because they are not personally aggrieved
    by that decision. Even assuming Appellants have standing, the trial court did not
    abuse its discretion. The trial court did not certify a fail-safe class because the
    class members are presently ascertainable by reference to objective criteria without
    reference to the merits of the case. No individualized inquiries will be necessary to
    determine Appellees’ claims for unconscionable conduct because Hicks’ conduct
    was unconscionable as a matter of law. Appellees’ claims are typical of the class as
    a whole in that they arise out of the same course of conduct as those of the class as
    a whole and are based on the same legal theories. Finally, the trial court properly
    concluded that declaratory relief was appropriate because the damages sought will
    flow automatically from the court’s interpretation of the 2001 permanent
    injunction.
    !8
    ARGUMENT
    1.    Do Appellants have standing to appeal the trial court’s certification of
    Appellees’ claims against Richard Hicks when the order does not
    “injuriously affect” Appellants and “merely affects the rights of others?”
    Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction. Brown v. Todd, 
    53 S.W.3d 297
    , 305 (Tex. 2001).     Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or
    conferred by agreement, and it must be considered by a court sua sponte. Univ. of
    Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 
    140 S.W.3d 351
    , 358 (Tex. 2004). Only a party
    whose own interest has been prejudiced has standing to appeal. E.g., Torrington v.
    Stutzman, 
    46 S.W.3d 829
    (Tex. 2000). Thus, as this Court has recently noted,
    “appealing parties may not complain of errors that do not injuriously affect them or
    that merely affect the rights of others.” In the Interest of R.T.M., 2014 Tex. App.
    LEXIS 12935, *11 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2014, no pet. h.)(citing Tex. Workers’
    Comp. Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer, 
    988 S.W.2d 750
    , 752 (Tex. 1999)). Likewise, in
    Matbon, Inc. v. Gries, 
    287 S.W.3d 739
    (Tex. App. — Eastland 2009, no pet.), the
    Eastland Court of Appeals held that a party could not appeal a trial court’s order
    awarding sanctions against its attorneys when the attorneys themselves did not
    appeal. 
    Id. at 740.
    In R.T.M., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12935, this Court found that parents
    whose rights were being terminated had no standing to appeal the trial court’s
    decision to place their children with the State of Texas rather than with a relative
    who had intervened in the case. 
    Id. at 11-12.
    The intervenor did not appeal. 
    Id. !9 at
    11. This Court found that although the parents’ appeal “shared facts” with the
    intervenor’s potential complaint over the placement decision, “the legal impact of
    the rulings on the different categories of individuals are not related.” 
    Id. In such
    a
    situation, the Court reasoned, “the alleged error would not ‘injuriously affect’ the
    parents.”   
    Id. Therefore, they
    did not have the standing to bring the issue on
    appeal, and the Court could not address it. Id.; see also In the Interest of L.K.,
    2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10569 (Tex. App. — Tyler 2012, pet. denied).
    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently dismissed an appeal of a class
    certification order after concluding that the appellant had no standing to appeal.
    Bhatia v. Piedrahita, 
    756 F.3d 211
    (2d Cir. 2013). In 
    Bhatia, 756 F.3d at 211
    , the
    district court certified a class in connection with the settlement of claims against
    various defendants implicated in the Berhard Madoff Ponzi scheme.        
    Id. at 215.
    A
    group of non-settling defendants appealed to challenge a provision of the
    settlement agreement which provided that investors submitting claims under the
    settlement consented to the jurisdiction of the trial court solely for purposes of the
    settlement. 
    Id. They contended
    that this provision “prejudice[d] their rights to
    assert that participation in the settlement should bar or limit investor claims against
    them in other litigation.”     
    Id. The investors
    countered that the non-settling
    defendants had no standing to appeal the court’s decision because they were not
    directly affected by the court’s order. 
    Id. The Second
    Circuit agreed and dismissed
    the appeal. 
    Id. !10 In
    so holding, the court first noted that standing is a threshold requirement of
    the propriety of judicial intervention. 
    Id. at 217.
    In order to meet this requirement,
    the court held, a party must have sustained an “injury in fact.” 
    Id. at 218.
    More
    particularly, the party must have suffered the “invasion of a legally protected
    interest in a manner that is concrete and particularized and actual and imminent,
    not conjectural or hypothetical.” 
    Id. (emphasis added).
    In addition, the injury
    must be fairly traceable to the alleged conduct and it must be likely that the injury
    will be redressed by a favorable decision.       
    Id. Thus, a
    non-settling defendant
    generally lacks standing to object to a court order approving a partial settlement
    unless it demonstrates that it will “sustain some formal legal prejudice as a result
    of the settlement.” 
    Id. In this
    case, the court continued, the non-settling defendants
    contend that the final order “effectively strips them of defenses against the settling
    plaintiffs in other fora.” 
    Id. This allegation,
    the court held, “does not rise to the
    required level of formal legal prejudice necessary for standing.” 
    Id. That level
    of
    standing, the court noted, “exists only in those rare circumstances when, for
    example, the settlement agreement formally strips a non-settling party of a legal
    claim or cause of action . . . invalidates a non-settling party’s contract rights or the
    right to present relevant evidence at trial.” 
    Id. It is
    not sufficient for appellants to
    show that they were “somehow undercut through the loss of some practical or
    strategic advantage.” 
    Id. at 219.
    Because the non-settling defendants have not
    done so, the court concluded, the appeal must be dismissed. 
    Id. !11 Here,
    even more than in 
    Bhatia, 756 F.3d at 211
    , Appellants have suffered
    no “formal legal prejudice” by virtue of the court’s order certifying the claims
    against Richard Hicks. Cf. 
    Bhatia, 756 F.3d at 219
    . While in 
    Bhatia, 756 F.3d at 211
    , the court had approved an agreement arguably impacting substantive rights of
    the non-settling defendants, in this case there is no agreement dictating substantive
    rights. The court’s order is purely procedural. It does nothing to strip Appellants
    of any claim or defense, invalidate any of their contractual rights or preclude them
    from presenting relevant evidence at trial. Cf. 
    id. at 218.
    Nothing in the court’s
    order, for example, in any way impairs Appellants’ right to seek contribution or
    indemnity from Hicks or to prove and enforce any agreement they may have had
    with him. 
    Id. At most,
    the court’s order “undercuts” Appellants’ litigation position
    by depriving them of some “practical or strategic advantage” which they might
    conceivably advance had the court not certified the claims against Hicks. Cf. 
    id. at 219.
    This is not sufficient to establish standing to appeal. 
    Id. Just as
    this Court
    held in R.T.M., because the court’s certification of the claims against Hicks does
    not “injuriously affect” Appellants and “merely affects the rights of others,”
    Appellants lack standing to assert Issues Nos. 2 and 3 and that portion of their
    appeal should be dismissed. Cf. In the Interest of R.T.M., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS
    12935 at *11.
    !12
    2.    Assuming Appellants have standing, did the trial court abuse its discretion
    by concluding that the members of a class consisting of all person who “paid
    a fee for enjoined services performed by Richard Hicks” were presently
    ascertainable by reference to objective criteria?
    As this Court has noted, a properly defined class is essential to the
    maintenance of a class action. Bailey v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co., 
    83 S.W.3d 840
    , 851
    (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2002, pet. dism’d w.o.j.).          Such a class definition
    determines who is entitled to notice, who is entitled to relief, what relief can be
    awarded, and who will be bound by the judgment. Ford Motor Co. v. Sheldon, 
    22 S.W.3d 444
    , 453 (Tex. 2000). This means that class members must be ascertainable
    by reference to objective criteria. Charlie Thomas Courtesy Leasing, Inc. v. Taylor,
    
    44 S.W.3d 684
    , 687 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Thus, the
    class "should not be defined by criteria that are subjective or that require an
    analysis of the merits of the case." Intratex Gas Co. v. Beeson, 
    22 S.W.3d 398
    , 403
    (Tex. 2000).      Additionally, while the definition cannot be overly broad, see
    McAllen Med. Ctr. v. Cortez, Inc., 
    66 S.W.3d 227
    (Tex. 2001), the fact that some
    class members may ultimately not prevail on their claims for money damages does
    not make them "claim-less" or transform their uniform interest in the declaratory
    relief into individual issues precluding class certification, see Clements v. League
    of United Latin Am. Citizens, 
    800 S.W.2d 948
    , 951 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi
    1990, no writ).
    !13
    In 
    Bailey, 83 S.W.3d at 840
    , for example, this Court affirmed the
    certification of a class consisting of all persons “to whom or on whose behalf [the
    defendants] paid personal injury protection benefits in the form of drafts naming
    health care providers as sole or additional payees since February 1, 1996.” 
    Id. at 849.
    In so holding, the Court directly overruled the defendant’s objection that the
    court would have to determine the merits of some of the issues in the case in order
    to determine the members of the class. 
    Id. at 850.
    To the contrary, this Court
    noted, determining membership in the class required only that the trial court
    identify (1) persons to whom the defendant had made personal injury protection
    benefit payments since February 1, 1996; (2) checks including providers as a
    named payee and (3) to whom or on whose behalf the payments had been made.
    
    Id. at 851.
    All of these questions, this Court noted, could be answered by reference
    to objective criteria, namely, the defendant’s own payment records. 
    Id. Further, this
    Court noted that the definition did not require any analysis of the merits of the
    case in order to identify the members of the class expressly holding that the
    definition “avoids inclusion of merit-based criteria that would create a fail-safe
    class.” 
    Id. at 852.
    In this case, the trial court likewise certified a class which is presently
    ascertainable by reference to objective criteria. Cf. 
    Bailey, 83 S.W.3d at 840
    . The
    trial court’s Order specified that the class would include only those persons who
    “paid a fee for enjoined services performed by Richard Hicks since January 1,
    !14
    2005.” (Clerk’s Record at Vol. 4, p. 527.)      The trial court further specified that
    “enjoined services” included only those services listed in the 2001 permanent
    injunction issued by the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. 
    Id. Thus, in
    order to identify the members of the class, the court need only identify (1)
    persons who paid a fee to Richard Hicks (2) for any service listed in the permanent
    injunction (3) since January 1 of 2005. As in 
    Bailey, 83 S.W.3d at 840
    , the
    members of the class may thus be identified by reference to objective criteria and
    without any analysis of the merits of the parties’ claims. Nothing about that
    exercise requires an analysis of the merits of the parties’ claims.
    To the contrary, Appellees have already conducted this analysis and
    identified every member of the proposed class. During the July 10, 2014 hearing,
    Appellees provided the trial court with a spreadsheet identifying 460 individuals
    to whom Hicks provided enjoined services since 2005. (8 RR at Pls.’ Ex. 1.) In
    addition Appellees provided the court with documentation from all 460 files
    evidencing the services Hicks provided and the fees he collected. In his Amended
    Answers to Appellees’ First Interrogatories, Hicks confirmed that accuracy of this
    information and identified five additional class members. (Appx. at Tab B —
    Hicks’ Answers to Interrog. Nos. 4-5.) He further confirmed that all of the services
    he provided to these clients were within the scope of the 2001 injunction. 
    Id. at Answer
    to Interrog. No. 4. Thus, not only are the class members “presently
    ascertainable” — they have been identified. Cf. 
    Bailey, 83 S.W.3d at 840
    .
    !15
    3.    Assuming Appellants have standing, did the trial court abuse its discretion
    by certifying Appellees’ claims of unconscionable conduct when Hicks had
    been expressly ordered not to provide the enjoined services for a fee?
    The Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act expressly provides that a consumer
    may recover damages for an unconscionable action or course of action that is the
    producing cause of damages. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.45(a)(3) (West 2015).
    An unconscionable action or course of conduct is any “act or practice that, to a
    consumer’s detriment, takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability,
    experience or capacity of the consumer to a grossly unfair degree.”       
    Id. at §
    17.45(5)(a). To prove an unconscionable action or course of action, a plaintiff
    must show that the defendant “took advantage of his lack of knowledge and that
    the resulting unfairness was glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete and
    unmitigated.”   Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Morris, 
    981 S.W.3d 667
    , 677 (Tex.
    1998).   The test is whether the consumer was taken advantage of to a grossly
    unfair degree. Latham v. Castillo, 
    972 S.W.2d 66
    , 72 (Tex. 1998). In making this
    determination, the court examines the entire transaction and applies an objective
    standard for which scienter is irrelevant. Chastain v. Koonce, 
    700 S.W.2d 579
    , 583
    (Tex. 1985).
    Courts routinely determine unconscionability as a matter of law. E.g., Ski
    River Dev., Inc. v. McCallla, 
    167 S.W.3d 121
    , 136 (Tex. App. — Waco 2005, pet.
    denied); In re: Turner Bros. Trucking Co., 
    8 S.W.3d 370
    , 375 (Tex. App. —
    Texarkana 1999, no pet.).   In fact, the Business & Commerce Code, expressly
    !16
    empowers courts to determine whether a contract or clause is unconscionable as a
    matter of law. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.302(a) (West 2015); McCallla, 167 at
    136. In performing such an analysis, this Court has held that it “examines the
    entire atmosphere in which the agreement was made; the alternatives, if any,
    available to the parties at the time the contract was made; the ‘non-bargaining
    ability’ of one party and whether the contract was oppressive or unreasonable.” In
    re: Turner Bros. Trucking 
    Co., 8 S.W.3d at 375
    . The goal of the court’s analysis is
    to “determine if the method by which the agreement was procured or the terms of
    the agreement were such as to warrant this Court’s intervention.” 
    Id. at 376.
    Similarly, just as with any other issue of fact, a court may determine
    unconscionability as a matter of law “when reasonable minds could not differ
    about the conclusion to be drawn from the facts in the record.”         See Oxford
    Finance Cos., v. Velez, 
    807 S.W.2d 460
    , 466 (Tex. App. — Austin 1991, writ
    denied); see also Childs v. Haussecker, 
    974 S.W.2d 31
    , 44 (Tex. 1998)
    (commencement of limitations period); Missouri Pac. RR. v. American Statesman,
    
    552 S.W.2d 99
    , 105 (Tex. 1977)(causation of damages); City of the The Colony v.
    N. Tex. Mun. Water Dist., 
    272 S.W.3d 699
    , 732 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2008, pet.
    dism’d)(ratification of contract); Mack v. McKenzie, 
    900 S.W.2d 445
    , 449 (Tex.
    App. — Texarkana 1995, writ denied)(causation); Kendrick v. Allright Parking,
    
    846 S.W.2d 453
    , 458 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1992, writ denied)(foreseeability).
    !17
    In Oxford Finance Cos., v. Velez, 
    807 S.W.2d 460
    , 466 (Tex. App. — Austin
    1991, writ denied), the Austin Court of Appeals expressly held that the conduct in
    question rose to the level of unconscionability as a matter of law.        
    Id. at 466.
    There, a homeowner borrowed money to finance improvements to her property.
    When she discovered defects in the contractor’s work, she refused to make the
    payments. The lender foreclosed on her home and sold it to an investment
    company.       After the trial court voided the foreclosure and sale, the investment
    company — which had lost all rights in the property it had purchased — sought
    restitution of the money it had paid. The trial court ordered the lender to make
    restitution.   On appeal, the lender correctly noted that there had been no jury
    finding that its retention of the money would be unconscionable, but the court
    refused to disturb the trial court’s order. “As a matter of law,” the court held, “[the
    lender’s] retention of the purchase price under these circumstances would be
    unconscionable.” 
    Id. at 466
    (emphasis added).
    In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying
    Appellees’ claims for unconscionable conduct because Hicks’ conduct was
    unconscionable as a matter of law. Cf. 
    Oxford, 807 S.W.2d at 460
    . No reasonable
    mind could conclude that Hicks did not take “grossly unfair” advantage of the class
    members by practicing law in direct violation of an express court order.           Cf.
    American 
    Statesman, 552 S.W.2d at 105
    .          Likewise, no reasonable mind could
    conclude that any member of the class would have agreed to pay Hicks for his
    !18
    services had they known that he was expressly forbidden from providing those
    services for a fee. Cf. 
    id. Thus, unlike
    in Peltier Enters., Inc. v. Hilton, 
    51 S.W.3d 616
    , 623-24 (Tex. App. — Tyler 2000, no pet.), there is no need in this case for the
    fact finder to make “individual inquiries into whether and to what extent each of
    these clients, or their POA or responsible parties on their behalf, were taken
    advantage of due to lack of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity, if
    any.” (Appellants’ Br. at 14.) Hicks was forbidden from providing the enjoined
    services. He was forbidden from collecting fees for these services. Under these
    circumstances, his conduct was unconscionable as a matter of law. Cf. 
    Oxford, 807 S.W.2d at 466
    .
    4.       Assuming Appellants have standing, did the trial court abuse its discretion
    by finding that Appellees’ claims for unconscionable conduct and breach of
    fiduciary duty against Hicks were typical of all class members when each of
    the class members’ claims arise from the same violations of the 2001
    injunction and and all class members seek the same relief?
    The test for typicality is not demanding.   E.g., Mullen v. Treasure Chest
    Casino, LLC, 
    186 F.3d 620
    , 625 (5th Cir. 1999). Generally, it requires that the
    class representative possess the same interests and suffer the same injuries as the
    class.     Bailey v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co., 
    83 S.W.3d 840
    , 853 (Tex. App. —
    Texarkana 2002, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). The claims need not be identical or perfectly
    coextensive, so long as they are “substantially similar.” E.g., Cedar Crest Funeral
    Home, Inc. v. Lashley, 
    889 S.W.2d 325
    , 331 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1993, no writ).
    !19
    The critical inquiry is whether the class representative’s claims have the same
    essential characteristics as those of the class as a whole. Microsoft Corp. v.
    Manning, 
    914 S.W.2d 602
    , 613 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1995, writ dism’d.).
    Thus, a class representative’s claim is typical when “it arises from the same event
    or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class
    members, and if his or her claims are based on the same legal theory."          E.g.,
    Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Yarbrough, 
    405 S.W.3d 70
    , 79 (Tex. 2013); Sw. Bell Tel.
    Co. v. Mktg. on Hold Inc., 
    308 S.W.3d 909
    , 920 (Tex. 2010). So long as the claims
    arise from a similar course of conduct and share the same legal theory, factual
    differences will not defeat typicality.   E.g., James v. City of Dallas, 
    254 F.3d 552
    (5th Cir. 2001); 
    Bailey, 83 S.W.3d at 854
    .
    In 
    Bailey, 83 S.W.3d at 840
    , this Court applied the typicality test in a class
    action.   There, the class sought a declaration that the policy and the Texas
    Insurance Code required the carrier to pay benefits directly to the insured unless it
    had received an assignment of benefits executed by the covered person. 
    Id. The carrier
    argued that Bailey’s claims were not typical because, unlike Bailey, some
    members of the class had actually executed and delivered an assignment. 
    Id. at 854.
    In rejecting this challenge, the Court noted that Bailey’s claims arose out of
    the same course of conduct as those of the class as a whole — “Kemper’s
    interpretation of the insurance agreement.” 
    Id. This common
    course of conduct,
    the Court reasoned, “provides the nexus between the injuries suffered by Bailey
    !20
    and those suffered by the other members of the class.” 
    Id. Thus, “Although
    the
    particular facts of each class member’s case may differ, Bailey’s concerns over
    timeliness and adequacy [of the assignment] are typical concerns shared by the
    class.” 
    Id. Here, as
    in 
    Bailey, 83 S.W.3d at 840
    , Appellees’ claims arise from the same
    course of conduct and are based on the same legal theories as those of the class as a
    whole. Cf. 
    id. at 853-54.
    Appellees contend that Hicks committed the unauthorized
    practice of law in violation of the Injunction. They state claims for unconscionable
    conduct and breach of fiduciary duty and seek a refund of the fees which the
    Injunction expressly forbid him from collecting. By definition, every member of
    the class has been subjected to the same course of conduct (i.e. Hicks provided
    enjoined services to every member of the class) and sustained the same damages
    (i.e. each member of the class paid a fee to Hicks for enjoined services). Whether
    Hicks’ conduct constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and/or an unconscionable
    course of conduct “are typical concerns shared by the class.” Cf. Bailey, 
    840 S.W. 2d
    at 854.    These concerns exist regardless of whether a class member had a
    written contract with Hicks or what Hicks may have told them about his
    relationship with Appellants. Cf. Appellants’ Brf. at 15. Because the claims of
    Appellees and those of the class as a whole claims arise from the same course of
    conduct and share the same legal theory, such factual differences cannot defeat
    typicality. Cf. 
    Bailey, 840 S.W.2d at 854
    .
    !21
    5.    Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it certified Appellees’ request
    for declaratory judgment when the money damages flow directly and
    automatically from the requested declaration?
    Rule 42(b)(2) authorizes a class action when the party opposing the class has
    acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole
    thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
    relief.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 42(b)(2). A properly defined (b)(2) class is “united by a
    collective harm that centers on the defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct, not on
    individual injury.” Bratcher v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 
    365 F.3d 408
    , 415 (5th
    Cir. 2004). As the Fifth Circuit has explained, (b)(2) certification “does not extend
    to cases in which the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly
    to money damages.” Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 
    151 F.3d 402
    , 412 (5th Cir.
    1998). Therefore, to be viable in a Rule 42(b)(2) class action, the monetary relief
    must “flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the
    basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief.”    
    Id. at 415.
       More simply, the
    monetary relief must be “capable of computation by means of objective standards
    and not dependent in any significant way on the intangible, subjective differences
    of each class member’s circumstances.” 
    Id. Additional hearings
    to resolve the
    disparate merits of each individual’s case should be unnecessary. 
    Id. In Bratcher,
    365 F.3d at 408, the Fifth Circuit examined whether claims for
    money damages predominated in a class action alleging that the insurance
    companies had unlawfully charged black policyholders higher rates than white
    !22
    policyholders. 
    Id. There, the
    plaintiffs sought to certify a (b)(2) class to prohibit
    the collection of discriminatory premiums, reform the policies and obtain
    restitution of past overcharges. 
    Id. at 412-13.
    The trial court refused to certify the
    class on grounds that the monetary relief did not flow from liability to the class as
    a whole because “many and a variety of individualized hearings would be required
    to determine personalize harm to each individual plaintiff.” 
    Id. at 418.
    On appeal,
    the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that even though individual damages would
    depend on the “idiosyncrasies of each specific policy,” they could be “objectively
    calculated through the use of standardized formulas or restitution grids.” 
    Id. at 419.
    In so holding, the court specifically noted that “[t]his is not a case in which
    class members are entitled to a one size fits all refund.” 
    Id. at 418.
    Nonetheless,
    none of the claims necessarily implicated the subjective differences of each
    plaintiff’s circumstances. 
    Id. Assuming that
    unlawful discrimination is found, the
    court reasoned, class members wold automatically be entitled to the difference
    between what a black customer and a white customer paid for the same policy. 
    Id. In the
    court’s view, such damages flowed directly from liability in much the same
    manner as an award of backpay results from a finding of employment
    discrimination. 
    Id. Thus, certification
    was appropriate even though the calculation
    of damages might require the construction of thousands of restitution grids because
    the “variables are identifiable on a classified basis” and none of them was “unique
    !23
    to particular plaintiffs.” 
    Id. at 419.
    “The prevalence of variables common to the
    class,” the court noted, “makes the damage computation virtually a mechanical
    task.” 
    Id. In this
    case, the damages could hardly flow more directly and automatically
    from the requested declaratory judgment.           In 2001, the 114th Judicial District
    Court permanently enjoined Richard Hicks from collecting fees for specific
    services unless he became either a licensed attorney or an employee working under
    the direct and active supervision of a licensed attorney.         It is undisputed that
    throughout the class period, Hicks was neither an attorney nor an employee of an
    attorney. It is likewise undisputed that he provided the very services which the
    court forbid him to provide to every member of the class and that every member of
    the class paid him a fee for those services. Appellees seek a declaration that Hicks
    is not entitled to any of the fees which the court prohibited him from collecting. If
    the court makes the finding, every member of the class would be entitled to an
    automatic refund of the fees paid for the enjoined services. There will be no need
    for additional hearings, extrinsic evidence or individualized inquiries.        Unlike
    Bratcher, nothing in this case requires even the construction of formulas or grids.
    Cf. 
    Bratcher, 365 F.3d at 419
    .        It is truly a case in which “class members are
    entitled to a one size fits all refund.” Cf. 
    id. at 418.
    !24
    CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    Richard Hicks did not appeal any portion of the trial court’s order. Because
    the order does not injure Appellants and only affects the rights of Hicks, Appellants
    have no standing to challenge the court’s certification of Appellees’ claims of
    unconscionable conduct and breach of fiduciary duty against Hicks. Even
    assuming that Appellants have standing to appeal these issues, the trial court did
    not abuse its discretion in certifying Appellees’ claims under Rule 42, Tex. R. Civ.
    P. The class is presently ascertainable by reference to objective criteria without
    any sort of inquiry into the merits of the case.         Likewise, common issues
    predominate in Appellees’ claims for unconscionable conduct because the conduct
    of Richard Hicks was unconscionable as a matter of law. Thus, there is no factual
    dispute that would require individualized inquiry of the sort imagined by
    Appellants. In the same way, Appellees’ claims are typical of those of the class as
    a whole in that they arise from the same course of conduct and assert the same
    legal theories and damages.     Finally, the money damages in this case do not
    predominate in that they flow directly from the requested declaratory relief.
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, VAL & JOY RYAN
    respectfully pray that the Order of the trial court be, in all respects, AFFIRMED
    and that this Court grant such other and further relief to which they are justly
    entitled.
    !25
    Respectfully submitted,
    THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES HOLMES, P.C.
    By: /s/ James A. Holmes
    James A. Holmes
    State Bar No. 00784290
    212 SOUTH MARSHALL
    HENDERSON, TEXAS 75654
    (903) 657-2800
    (903) 657-2855 (fax)
    jh@JamesHolmesLaw.com
    MERCY CARTER TIDWELL, LLP
    John R. Mercy
    Texas Bar No. 13947200
    1724 Galleria Oaks Drive
    Texarkana, Texas 75503
    (903) 794-9419
    (903) 794-1268 (fax)
    jmercy@texarkanalawyers.com
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
    !26
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9.4(e)
    1.   This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Texas Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 9.4.(e) because, according to Apple Pages 5.5.2 word
    count function, it contains 6,014 words on pages 1-25 excluding the parts of
    the brief exempted by Rule 9.4.(e)(i)(1).
    2.   This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Texas Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 9.4.(e) because it has been prepared in proportionally
    spaced typeface using Apple Pages 5.5.2 software in Times New Roman 14
    point font in text and Times New Roman 12 point font in the footnotes.
    /s/ James A. Holmes
    James A. Holmes
    !27
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of Appellees Val
    & Joy Ryan was served by electronic service and/or email to the following Counsel
    of Record on this, the 9th day of March 2015.
    Peter G. Milne
    PETER G. MILNE, P.C.
    327 West Houston
    Tyler, Texas 75702
    pmilne@tylertaxlaw.com
    J. Chad Parker
    THE PARKER FIRM, P.C.
    3808 Old Jacksonville Road
    Tyler, Texas 75701
    cparker@theparkerfirm.net
    /s/ James A. Holmes
    James A. Holmes
    !28