You are on page 1of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 52 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, INC. (LULAC) v. TEXAS LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, LINDA CHAVEZ, Individually, BEA MARTINEZ, Individually, and JOEY CARDENAS, Individually

Civil Number EP:12-cv-0296

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND RULE 60(b) MOTION COMES NOW Defendants, FLORINDA CHAVEZ, Individually, BEATRICE MARTINEZ, Individually and JOE CARDENAS, III, Individually, by and through their undersigned attorneys of record, and, files this Reply to Plaintiffs Brief in Response to Defendants Rule 60(b) Motion. For cause of action, Defendants would show unto the Court the following: I. OBJECTION 1. Defendants object to the facts as testified by opposing Counsel. Counsel has actually sworn

to facts contained within Plaintiffs response. Opposing Counsel is acting as a witness wherein he is also an attorney in the litigation. Defendants object and request these facts be stricken. Further, if Counsel is to be a witness in this matter that he be recused from his representation. Opposing Counsel cannot serve as an attorney and a witness.1

See Tex. State Bar R. art. X, 3.06

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 52 Filed 02/28/14 Page 2 of 8

II. REPLY 2. The Plaintiffs continue to use the Judgment in this cause against the Defendants even though

the Judgment that was entered did not mention or state the Defendants would be removed from LULAC and/or sanctioned by LULAC. The Plaintiff is overreaching and expanding the use of the Judgment in ways that were not contemplated or agreed to by the Defendants. As stated within the last Motion for Declaratory Judgment, the Defendants would not have agreed to the Judgment if it contained any provision or language that would have allowed LULAC to remove them as LULAC members or sanction them. 3. The Plaintiff in its response state there was a laundry list of complaints against the

Defendants and includes facts within the Response about these alleged complaints. But these complaints were never raised or even mentioned in the complaint that was heard by the National Board.2 The only evidence was the Agreed Judgment that was entered and was attached to the letter by Mr. Fidel Acevedo, the individual that outlined the charges against the Defendants.3 4. The Defendants request the Court declare that the Judgment does not allow LULAC to

remove them as a member and/or sanction them and/or issue an Injunction to prevent LULAC from sanctioning them and/or removing them as members of LULAC. The Plaintiff is attempting to use the backdoor to prevent these Defendants from ever running for an elected office within LULAC. The Court prevented the Plaintiff from being able to use this Judgment to not allow the Defendants

See attached Exhibit 1, Declaration of Florinda Chavez. Id.

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 52 Filed 02/28/14 Page 3 of 8

to run for an elected office so now the Plaintiff is trying to use this Judgment to remove and/or sanction them as members of LULAC.4 5. Further, the Defendants are seeking relief from this Judgment due to the misrepresentations

of the Plaintiff. Based upon the conduct of the Plaintiff, they will continue to use this Judgment in ways that were not agreed to by the Defendants. Defendants request relief from this Court pursuant to Rule 60. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants FLORINDA CHAVEZ, Individually, BEATRICE MARTINEZ, Individually and JOE CARDENAS, III, Individually, respectfully pray that the court grant their requested relief, either at law or in equity, to which they may show themselves to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, GALE,WILSON & SNCHEZ, PLLC ROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ. MARK ANTHONY SNCHEZ, ESQ. 115 East Travis Street, 19th Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: (210) 222-8899 Telecopier: (210) 222-9526 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

By: /s/ Robert W. Wilson, Esq. ROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ. TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 00794868 MARK ANTHONY SNCHEZ, ESQ. TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 00795857

Id.

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 52 Filed 02/28/14 Page 4 of 8

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that he has electronically submitted for filing a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing in accordance with the Electronic Case Files System of the Western District of Texas on the 28th day of February, 2014. By: /S/ ROBERT W. WILSON ROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been provided to counsel for Plaintiffs on this the 28th day of February, 2014, as follows: Mr. Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. The Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. 111 Soledad, Suite 1325 San Antonio, Texas 78205 lrvlaw@sbcglobal.net Mr. Ray Velarde Attorney at Law 1216 Montana Ave. El Paso, Texas 79902 rayvelarde2003@yahoo.com Mr. Manuel G. Escobar, Jr. Attorney at Law 201 West Poplar San Antonio, Texas 78212 escobarm1@aol.com [ [ [ [ XX ] ] ] ] First Class Mail Facsimile; 210-225-2060 CM,RRR E-Mail Transmission

[ [ [ [ XX

] ] ] ]

First Class Mail Facsimile; 1915-542-2341 CM,RRR E-Mail Transmission

[ [ [ [ XX

] ] ] ]

First Class Mail Facsimile; 1210-212-5653 CM,RRR E-Mail Transmission

By: /S/ ROBERT W. WILSON ROBERT S. WILSON

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 52 Filed 02/28/14 Page 5 of 8

EXHIBIT "1"

000133

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 52 Filed 02/28/14 Page 6 of 8

EXHIBIT "1"

000134

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 52 Filed 02/28/14 Page 7 of 8

EXHIBIT "1"

000135

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 52 Filed 02/28/14 Page 8 of 8

EXHIBIT "1"

000136