IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
RODNEY D. VANNERSON. ENOS CABELL, TOM ROBERSON, THE JOINT VENTURE OF THREE FRIENDS
Plaintiffs,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. _____________
VINCENT PAUL YOUNG, JR., VINCENT YOUNG INC., and, DELPHINE M. JAMES
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, Plaintiffs, Rodney D. Vannerson, Enos Cabell, Tom Roberson and the Joint Venture of Three Friends (hereinafter referred to as "Vannerson," "Cabell," Roberson and "Three Friends Venture respectively and collectively as "Plaintiffs") complaining of Vincent Paul Young, Jr., Vincent Young, Inc. (hereinafter jointly with Vincent Paul Young, Jr., referred to as Young), and Delphine M. James (hereinafter referred to as James; and collectively with Young as Defendants) and for cause of action would show this Honorable Court as follows:
Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 1 of 7 __________________________________ Plaintiffs Original Complaint PAGE - 2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This suit is filed to enforce and collect money due under a settlement agreement which was incorporated into a Consent Judgment issued in Cause No. 4:08-CV-03649; Vincent Paul Young, Jr. et al, vs. Rodney D Vannerson et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the Underlying Case). (Docket Entry No. 77 therein). Pursuant to the Courts Consent Judgment this Court . . . shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of implementing and enforcing the Confidential Settlement Agreement. (Docket Entry No. 77 therein, p. 2 Paragraph I.A. Jurisdiction). Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Judgment, the Parties agreed to present any disputes under this Settlement Agreement, including without limitation any claims for breach or enforcement of the Confidential Settlement Agreement, exclusively to this Court. (Id.)
THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs, Rodney D. Vannerson, Enos Cabell, Tom Roberson are individuals, each residents of Harris County, Texas. The Joint Venture of Three Friends is an informal venture of these three. 3. Defendant Vincent Paul Young, Jr., is an individual resident of Travis County, Texas, who may be located for service of process at his place of business: Vincent Paul Young, Jr. c/o Vincent Young, Inc. 1707 Directors Blvd., Suite 370 Austin, Travis County, Texas 78744
Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 2 of 7 __________________________________ Plaintiffs Original Complaint PAGE - 3 4. Defendant Vincent Young, Inc., is a Texas Corporation which may be located for service of process by and through its registered agent as follows: Elton R. Lockings 6200 Savoy, Suite 548 Houston, Harris County, Texas
5. Defendant, Delphine M. James, is an individual who may be located for service of process at her principle place of business as follows: Delphine M. James Law Offices of Delphine M. James 2616 South Loop West, Suite 415 Houston, Harris County, Texas 77054
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. In the Underlying Case, the Young (the plaintiffs in the Underlying Case) sued the Plaintiffs herein (defendants in the Underlying case) for a Declaratory Judgment concerning the ownership of certain trademark applications and violation of the Lanham Act. Defendant James was Youngs attorney of record in the Underlying Case. 7. The parties in the Underlying Case reached a settlement agreement at mediation before the Magistrate Judge Milloy on April 30, 2010, and read the settlement into the record taken down by the court reporter. (Docket entry No. 62 therein). The settlement agreement was eventually reduced to writing and signed by the parties hereto (the Settlement Agreement). See the Settlement Agreement, filed under seal herewith as EXHIBIT A. 8. The essential terms of the settlement were that Vannerson would assign his entire right, title and interest in and to his pending intent to use trademark applications, along with all good will associated with those marks, to Young. Young were to pay Plaintiffs herein a sum reflected in the Settlement Agreement and in the agreement read into the Court record. Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 3 of 7 __________________________________ Plaintiffs Original Complaint PAGE - 4 9. In the ensuing months, both parties filed motions asserting breach of the Settlement Agreement and for reinstatement of the case. Those disputes were settled and Consent Judgment incorporating the Settlement Agreement was entered on October 14, 2010. (Docket Entry No. 77 in the Underlying Case). 10. Again, the parties each filed motions asserting that the other side had failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement and the Consent Judgment and seeking enforcement of the settlement. 11. On July 11, 2012, this court issued its Memorandum and Order confirming performance by the Plaintiffs herein under the Settlement Agreement. (Docket Entry No. 120 in the Underlying Case). 12. In that Memorandum and Order, the Court concluded that: the record amply demonstrates, the PTO confirmed that defendant Rodney Vannerson assign[ed] the entire interest and the goodwill of trademark applications 78786883, 78786073, and 78786069 to Plaintiff [Vince] Young six days after the settlement agreement was executed. (Docket Entry No. 100, at 6). ; and that, There was no material breach of the settlement agreement of the settlement agreement on this basis. (Docket Entry No. 120, at 5 in the Underlying Case). 13. The Court found no record that the Defendants had repudiated the settlement. (Docket Entry No. 120, at 6 in the Underlying Case). 14. The Court further found that settlement agreement and consent judgment remain in place. (Docket Entry No. 120, at 8 in the Underlying Case). Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 4 of 7 __________________________________ Plaintiffs Original Complaint PAGE - 5 15. Further under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Young was to pay into the IOLTA account of Delphine James, Attorney at Law, . . . . the amount due under the Settlement Agreement. Ms. James then assumed the responsibility of paying such sums to Plaintiffs herein upon their performance under the Settlement Agreement. Ms. James assumed the role of trustee for such funds and had both a contractual and a fiduciary responsibility (to both her clients and the Plaintiffs herein) to timely and properly distribute said funds. (See paragraph 4 of Exhibit A attached under seal hereto). She failed to comply with her contractual and fiduciary responsibilities. 16. Plaintiffs herein, having fully performed under the Settlement Agreement, assert that the funds required to be paid to them under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Judgment have not been tendered or paid by the Defendants. CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I Breach of the Settlement Agreement by all Defendants
17. Plaintiffs herein aver that by failing to pay the amounts agreed upon in the above referenced Settlement Agreement, the Defendants have jointly, and severally, breached the Settlement Agreement. Count II Breach of Trust and Fiduciary Duty
18. Plaintiffs herein aver that James has breached both the trust placed in her, as well as, her fiduciary duty to timely and properly distribute the funds. She has admitted that the required funds were paid into her IOLTA account; but claims to have returned them to her client. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that she retained such funds and used them for her own benefit. Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 5 of 7 __________________________________ Plaintiffs Original Complaint PAGE - 6 Count III Conversion of Funds
19. Plaintiffs herein aver that James has converted funds paid in trust to her for her own benefit. Demand has been made for payment by Plaintiffs to James and no such payment has been forthcoming. Count IV Attorneys Fees
20. Pursuant to paragraph 13 of the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A attached hereto and filed under seal) and Sec. 38.001 et seq of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Plaintiffs herein seek recovery of their reasonable and necessary Attorneys fees required by the prosecution of this action. Count V Exemplary Damages
21. In light of the knowing and willful acts of James, including but not limited to her continued misrepresentations to the court concerning payment under the agreement, and her conversion of the funds held in trust, Plaintiffs seek exemplary damages as and against James not to exceed three (3) times the amount due.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, Rodney D. Vannerson, Enos Cabell, Tom Roberson and the Joint Venture of Three Friends, pray that the Court, upon final hearing hereof, issue judgment against the Defendants for all damages shown, exemplary damages, reasonable and necessary attorneys fees, pre and post judgment interest as accrued, and for such other and further relief as they may show themselves justly entitled and for which they shall ever pray. Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 6 of 7 __________________________________ Plaintiffs Original Complaint PAGE - 7 Dated: August 7, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Kelly D Stephens /s/ Kelly D Stephens Attorney-in-charge Texas State Bar No. 19158300 Stephens & Domnitz, PLLC 281-394-33287 832-476-5460 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS RODNEY D. VANNERSON, ENOS CABELL, TOM ROBERSON AND THE JOINT VENTURE OF THREE FRIENDS
Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 7 of 7 Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 1 of 2 Case 4:14-cv-02263 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 08/07/14 Page 2 of 2