Ir CAUSE NO. 12-04971 Or: CINAL JEFFERY S. MAYES, IN THE DISTRICT COURT JUSTINE INGELS, ESTATE OF JUSTIN CLAPP, RICARDO DONATO, CYSTAL DOPKINS, and CYNTHIA KARLE, Plaintiffs, vs. DALLAS COU! DAWN WILCOX, BRIAN COX, JUSTIN FOSTER, and AFTERMATH, INC., 0 cc 1 CO Defendants. 4a™ pistriGt Court= AFTERMATH, INC.’S NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 1.06 AND 1.07 MOTION TO TRANSFER FILED IN THE 68™ DISTRICT COURT AND, SUBJECT THERETO, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ORIGINAL ANSWER, AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Aftermath, Inc. (“Afiermath” or “Defendant”), which hereby notifies the Court that it has filed in the 68" District Court of Dallas County a Dallas Local Rule 1.06 and 1,07 Motion to Transfer the above cause to the 68" District Court of Dallas County, Texas, the original court in which Plaintifis filed a case arising out of the same transactions complained of herein. Subject to the Motion to Transfer, and without waiving same, Aftermath hereby specially excepts to and answers the Original Petition filed by Jeffery S. Mayes (“Mayes”), Justine Ingels (Ingels”), Estate of Justin Clapp (“Clapp Estate”), Ricardo Donato (“Donato”), Cystal Dopkins (Dopkins”), and Cynthia Karle (“Karle”), sometimes collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” AFTERMATH, INC'S NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 1.06 AND 1.07 MOTION TO TRANSFER FILED IN IBJECT THERETO, )RIGINAL ANSWER, INTERCLAIMS Page 1Also subject to the Motion to Transfer, and without waiving same, Aftermath as Counter- Plaintiff hereby files its counterclaims against Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants. For such Motion to Transfer, and subject thereto, for such Special Exceptions, Answer, and Counterclaims, Defendant would show as follows: L NOTICE OF MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO DALLAS COUNTY LOCAL RULES 1.06 AND 1.07 1 On April 13, 2012, Jeffrey Scott Mayes filed a cause of action in the 68" District Court of Dallas County, Cause No. DC-12-04138-C (“First Case”), Citation in the First Case was issued for Brian Cox. Then on April 24, 2012, Jeffrey Scott Mayes, Roberto Donato (also identified by Plaintiffs as Ricardo Donato), Justine Ingels, and Crystal Dopkins (also identified by Plaintiffs as Cystal Dopkins) filed in the First Case Petitioners’ Verified Amended Petition to Authorize Pre-Suit Oral Depositions Pursuant to Rule 202 (“Amended Presuit"), thereby amending the First Case. The Amended Pre-Suit also requested Citations to be issued for Brian D. Cox, Dawn Wilcox, Justin Foster, and Aftermath, Inc, (the “Aftermath Group”). In addition, the Amended Pre-Suit stated: “Cynthia Kyle [also identified by Plaintiffs as Cynthia Karle]. . . may also be interested parties.” 5 ‘On May 3, 2012, the same Plaintiffs named in the First Case as amended, along with Cynthia Karle and the Estate of Justin Clapp (for whom Justine Ingels is the representative), filed Plaintiffs’ Original Petition & Request for Disclosure (“Petition”) against the Aftermath Group in the present case (“Later Case”), Citations were issued for each named Defendant in the Later Case, and thus far only Aftermath, Inc. and Brian Cox have been served. 3. Plaintiffs violated Dallas Local Rule (“DLR”)1.08 and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (“TRCP”) 13, by failing to notify both the 68" and the 44" Judicial District Courts of Teel" DISIRICT COURT AND, SUBJECT THERETO. ‘SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ORIGINAL ANSWER, AND COUNTERCLAIMS Page 2Dallas County of the style, cause, number, and relation between the First Case and the Later Case. 4. DLR 1.07 regarding mandatory transfer of cases states that: “The following types of cases shall be subject to transfer under Local Rule 1.06: (a) [any ease arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as an earlier ease, particularly if the earlier case was dismissed by plaintiff before final judgment.” Emphasis added. Both the First Case and the Later Case include the same parties and basically the same allegations, which in some instances are identical, In fact, most of the language describing alleged facts, the basis for the suits, and reasons for filing the pleadings are identical. This First Case is still pending in the 68" Judicial District Court, and even if it had been dismissed by Petitioners, would still require the notification and scrutiny called for by the DLR in order to avoid inappropriate forum shopping, 5. In re City of Coppell, 219 8.W.3d 552 (Tex App. Dallas 2007), which addressed DLR 1.06 and DLR 1,07, holds that DLR 1.06 allows for permissive transfer if the cases are “so related” that it “would facilitate orderly and efficient disposition of the litigation.” Moreover, DLR 1.07 “requires” that if the cases “arise out of the same transaction or occurrence” they must be transferred to the carlier court. 6. The cases filed by Plaintiffs in the 68" Judicial District Court and the 44" Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas set forth the same basic facts and allegations about the same transactions or occurrences, and are filed by or refer to the same parties. The essential facts on which both claims for relief are made are in fact nearly identical. Pursuant to Local Rules 1.06 and 1.07, the above cause should be transferred to the 68" Judicial District Court, which has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. AFTERMATH, INC.'S NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 1.06 AND 1.07 MOTION TO TRANSFER FILED IN ‘THE 68™ DISTRICT COURT AND, SUBJECT THERETO, ‘SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ORIGINAL ANSWER, AND COUNTERCLAIMS Page 3