You are on page 1of 69

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.; AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR. Plaintiffs, vs. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAWRENCE MARSHALL; EVA JACKSON; AND RHJ-JOC, INC. Defendants.

Case No. 4:10-CV-04872 JURY REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR., MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: NOW COME Plaintiffs, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. and GIL RAMIREZ, JR., (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiffs), and file this Motion for Leave to File their Second Amended Complaint, in support thereof would respectfully show the following: 1. Plaintiffs have issued subpoenas to third parties concerning issues of fact relevant to the determination of this case. 2. Plaintiffs have also received responses to discovery from the existing parties.

-1-

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 2 of 5

3. 4.

As a result of this discovery, Plaintiffs require adding parties to this case. In the discovery, Plaintiffs have learned that Defendant RHJ has been making payments of $2,500 a month to Defendant and HISD Board Member Lawrence Marshall's campaign treasurer Joyce Moss Clay.

5.

RHJ responded to discovery requests that there are no records of Clay's work product received in exchange for the $2500 a month.

6.

Clay utilizes and entity called JM Clay and Associates to receive these payments. Plaintiffs have been unable to locate any formation registration for this entity.

7.

Plaintiffs have also learned in discovery that Lawrence Marshall operates an entity called Marshall & Associates for "consulting services" to which payments were received that are relevant to this case

8.

Plaintiffs subpoenaed records from Fort Bend Mechanical, LTD ("FBM"). FBM permitted Plaintiffs to inspect their documents. Plaintiffs designated some of the documents for copying and now FBM refuses to produce the copies. In the documents reviewed by Plaintiffs' counsel was a copy of a check for $25,000 made payable to the Larry Marshall from an account owned by David Medford, FBM's principal. No record of this payment appears on the Marshall Campaign Finance Disclosure forms.

9.

Also discovered in the FBM documents are invoices and checks demonstrating that FBM has been making $3,000 a month payments to
-2-

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 3 of 5

Joyce Moss Clay. Again, no documents were discovered in the records justifying work product commiserate with such payments. 10. Also in the FBM records were invoices demonstrating an expensive standby generator was installed at Clay's residence by FBM. 11. The generator was installed at or about the time FBM was selected as a contractor to replace Plaintiffs in HISD's JOC program. 12. Other records, yet to be copied by FBM but reviewed by Plaintiffs' counsel, reveal other payments or emoluments made by FBM for the purpose of influencing HISD and Defendant Marshall. 13. As a result of these events and others, Plaintiffs require amendment of their Complaint to add additional necessary parties. 14. Additional facts to support the amendment are contained in the attached proposed Second Amended Complaint. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court grant them leave to file their Second Amended Complaint which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

-3-

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 4 of 5

Dated this 11th day of October, 2011. Respectfully submitted, BRAZIL & DUNN

/s/ Chad W. Dunn Chad W. Dunn Attorney in Charge TBN 24036507; Fed. I.D. No. 33467 K. Scott Brazil TBN 02934050; Fed. I.D. No. 2585 4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530 Houston, Texas 77068 Telephone: (281) 580, 6310 Facsimile: (281) 580-6362 E-Mail: chad@brazilanddunn.com E-Mail: scott@brazilanddunn.com THE GREENWOOD PRATHER LAW FIRM Kelly Greenwood Prather TBN 00796670; Fed. I.D. No. 21829 1300 McGowen Street Houston, Texas 77004 Telephone: (713) 333-3200 Facsimile: (713) 621-1449 E-Mail: kgreenwood@midtownlegal.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that co-counsel Kelly Greenwood Prather sent an email to defense counsel concerning this Motion earlier today. After several hours, no final decision had been made by Defendants as to whether they opposed this Motion for Leave.

By:

/s/ Chad W. Dunn


-4-

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 11, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, using the electronic case filing system of the Court. The electronic case filing system sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means: John M. Hopkins Arturo G. Michel Thompson & Horton, LLP 3200 Southwest Freeway, Ste. 2000 Houston, TX 77027 (Attorneys for Defendants Houston Independent School District and Lawrence Marshall) Michael J. Stanley Stanley, Frank & Rose, LLP 7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259 Houston, TX 77024 (Attorneys for Defendants RHJ-JOC, Inc. and Eva Jackson)

/s/ Chad W. Dunn

-5-

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.; AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR. Plaintiffs, vs. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAWRENCE MARSHALL; EVA JACKSON; AND RHJ-JOC, INC. Defendants.

Case No. 4:10-CV-04872 JURY REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND JURY DEMAND TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW Plaintiffs, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. and GIL RAMIREZ, JR.(hereinafter collectively referred to as Plaintiffs),and files this Original Complaint and Request for Permanent Injunction complaining of Defendants HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as HISD); LAWRENCE MARSHALL (hereinafter referred to as Marshall); MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as Marshall); EVA JACKSON (hereinafter referred to as Jackson); RHJ-JOC, INC. (hereinafter referred to as RHJ); FORT BEND MECHANICAL, LTD. (hereinafter referred to as FBM); DAVID MEDFORD

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 1

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 2 of 24

(hereinafter referred to as Medford); FBM MANAGEMENT, LLC (hereinafter referred to as FBM); JOYCE MOSS CLAY (hereinafter referred to as Clay) and JM CLAY and ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as Clay) (hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants), and in support thereof would show the Court as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. is a domestic limited liability company and is a citizen of the State of Texas. 2. Plaintiff, Gil RAMIREZ, Jr. is an individual who is a citizen of the United States and the State of Texas. 3. Defendant, HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT is a governmental unit of the State of Texas and it may be served through its President, Greg Meyers at 4400 West 18th Street, Houston, Texas 77092. 4. Defendant, LAWRENCE MARSHALL is a Citizen of Texas and was the 2009 President of the HISD Board of Trustees, is a current member of the HISD Board of Trustees and he may be served at 4400 West 18th Street, Houston, Texas 77092. He is sued in his individual and personal capacities as more further

described below.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 2

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 3 of 24

5.

Defendant, MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES is an unknown business entity that serves as the alter-ego for Defendant LAWRENCE MARSHALL and may be served at 4400 West 18th Street, Houston, Texas 77092.

6.

Defendant, EVA JACKSON, is a citizen of Texas and may be served at 7643 South Freeway, Houston, Texas 77021.

7.

Defendant RHJ-JOC, INC. is a domestic-for-profit corporation and it can be served through its registered agent, EVA JACKSON, at 7643 South Freeway, Houston, Texas 77021.

8.

Defendant FORT BEND MECHANICAL, LTD. is a domestic limited partnership and it can be served through its registered agent, David L. Medford at 13623 Stafford Road, Stafford, Texas 77477.

9.

Defendant FBM MANAGEMENT, LLC. is a domestic limited liability company that serves as the general partner for FORT BEND MECHANICAL, LTD and it can be served through its registered agent David L. Medford at 13623 Stafford Road, Stafford, Texas 77477.

10.

DAVID L. MEDFORD is an individual who upon information and belief resides in Fort Bend County, Texas and may be served at 13623 Stafford Road, Stafford, Texas 77477.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 3

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 4 of 24

11.

JOYCE MOSS CLAY is an individual who upon information and belief resides in Harris County, Texas and may be served at 3618 Elmcrest Drive, Houston, Texas 77088.

12.

JM Clay and ASSOCIATES is an unknown business entity that serves as the alterego for Defendant JOYCE MOSS CLAY and may be served through her at 3618 Elmcrest Drive, Houston, Texas 77088. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13.

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under U.S. CONST. art 3, 2, 28 U.S.C. 1331, 42 U.S.C. 1983; U.S. CONST., Amend. XIV, 1; 18 U.S.C. 1964; and other statutes and laws.

14.

Venue is proper in this district in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this district. Furthermore, the contract underlying the claims in this case requires this Court as venue. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15.

Plaintiff, The Gil Ramirez Group, L.L.C., is a commercial construction and repair business founded and principally owned by Gil Ramirez, Jr.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 4

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 5 of 24

16.

Several years ago, the Houston Independent School District conducted an $800 million bond issue to construct new schools and repair and update outdated schools.

17.

In order to fairly administer this money for school repairs, the school district adopted a preferred bidder system.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

The school district is divided into the northern and southern region. Contractors were invited to bid. Each bidder was required to submit lengthy documents. Plaintiffs spent tens of thousands of dollars to participate in the bid process. Three contractors are selected for the northern region and three contractors are selected for the southern region.

23.

Defendant FBM, run by Defendant Medford, was one of the contractors approved by HISD.

24.

Defendant FBM is a business that competes directly with the Plaintiffs and others for government repair and construction work.

25.

Plaintiffs were one of the contractors approved by HISD. As part of the process, a bid book is prepared. This bid book describes what each contractor can charge for individual elements of a project. For example, changing a light bulb has a certain dollar value. Obtaining a ladder, if necessary to install the light bulb, requires a certain amount of money. Weekend work requires

26.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 5

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 6 of 24

a certain amount of money. If there was something out of the ordinary not included in the bid book, Plaintiffs were required to submit 3 proposals as a non pre-priced item." 27. Once the contract was signed and in place, attached as Exhibit A, the Plaintiffs began to bid on projects. 28. For example, when a roof would collapse from heavy rains, or an air conditioner would fail, HISD would send out a notice to the three approved contractors of the project in that region. Those contractors would schedule a site visit to prepare a scope of work and coordinate with subcontractors to review scope in the field for bids. The Contractors would then prepare proposals using the pre-priced RS Means process. 29. The vast majority of the bids were won by the Plaintiffs because they were recommended by a third party CMPA to be the best value to the district at the most competitive price. 30. 31. Plaintiffs routinely received praise for the quality and timeliness of their work. The often acceptance by HISD of Plaintiffs' bids in this program was to the detriment of FBM and Medford. 32. After the attached contract was signed and in force, a longtime member of the HISD Board of Trustees, Defendant Marshall became President. 33. Defendant Marshalls political donor is Defendant Eva Jackson.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 6

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 7 of 24

34. 35.

Defendant Marshalls political donor is also Medford. Medford made payments to Marshall totaling at least $27, 500.00 that were labeled as campaign contributions. See attached Exhibit "B."

36.

The payments from Medford to Marshall were not included on Marshall's campaign finance reports.

37. 38. 39.

Upon information and belief Defendant Marshalls political donor is also FBM. Eva Jackson is the owner of Defendant RHJ-JOC, Inc. Defendant RHJ-JOC, Inc. is a business that competes directly with the Plaintiffs and others for government repair and construction work.

40.

Eva Jackson and others are presently being investigated by criminal authorities for corrupt dealings with public leaders in an effort to obtain government contracts.

41.

When Defendant Marshall took over as President of HISD Board of Trustees, he approached Dr. Abe Saavedra, then current Superintendent for Houston Independent School District, about arranging for Defendant Jackson and her company to receive the same bid work awarded Plaintiffs.

42.

Under HISD custom, if the President and the Superintendent agree on the use of a contractor, that contractor can be selected without a Board vote so long as the services are deemed professional services.

43.

Defendant Marshall explains to Dr. Saavedra that he expected Defendant Jackson to become a contractor for HISD.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 7

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 8 of 24

44.

Defendant Marshall intends for Defendant RHJ, Jackson, FBM and MEDORD to receive most, if not all, of the HISD work.

45. 46.

Dr. Saavedra refused to agree with Defendant Marshall on this issue. Defendant Marshall then tells Dr. Saavedra he has lost confidence in Dr. Saavedras running of the school district.

47.

Defendant Marshall states that he would move forward to obtain an agreement from the school board forcing out Dr. Saavedra.

48.

The principal, if not the exclusive, reason Dr. Saavedra is pushed out is so that Defendant Marshall can award contracts as he desires and more specifically to Defendants.

49.

Once Dr. Saavedra is out, Defendant Marshall immediately makes certain all the contracts for the approved contractors are cancelled, including Plaintiffs.

50. 51. 52.

No cause is stated for cancellation of Plaintiffs' contract. Defendant Marshall orders HISD staff to perform a new bid process. HISD's Chief of Bidding opposes the re-bidding process and is adamant the original process was fair.

53. 54.

The Chief of the Bidding is ultimately fired by HISD. Once the new bidding process starts, all six of the contractors who had previously been qualified and had been doing the work are deemed to be ineligible under the new bid terms.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 8

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 9 of 24

55. 56. 57. 58.

Initially only Defendant Jackson's company is approved as eligible. Ultimately, at least two other contractors are approved as eligible. FBM is again approved as eligible. Upon information and belief, RHJ and FBM now receive the greatest share of the work.

59.

Defendant Marshall's close personal friend and campaign treasurer is Defendant Joyce Moss Clay.

60. 61.

Clay runs an alter ego entity called Defendant JM Clay and Associates. Clay receives or has received $2,500 per month from Defendant RHJ for "consulting services."

62.

Clay receives or has received $3,000 per month from Defendant FBM for "consulting services."

63.

There are no records to evidence Clay actually creating or performing any work product.

64. 65.

Clay also received from FBM the installation of an expensive stand-by generator. After an extensive review of FBM's records, no invoice was discovered to Clay for the generator.

66.

Clay was paid by RHJ and FBM for her relationship to Marshall.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 9

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 10 of 24

67.

Clay then transfers by cash, check and/or other emolument(s) the payments she receives to Marshall, Marshall's benefit and/or his alter ego Marshall & Associates.

68.

FBM records reveal it made payments to LM Consulting Group, LLC whose principal is a partner at the law firm defending Eva Jackson and RHJ.

69.

Moreover, for at least 10 years now HISD has been siphoning purpose specific bond money to use for operating costs.

70.

For example, when Plaintiffs would bill a particular job, they were expected upon payment to return two percent of that fund back to HISD.

71.

This two percent is called a marketing fee. For example, if Plaintiffs were paid $100 to do a repair at a particular elementary school, they were expected to send a check back to HISD for $2.

72.

Upon information and belief, the two percent is then put into HISDs general fund and is used for operating expenses.

73. 74. 75.

HISD siphons at least two bond issues in this manner. FBM records indicate it has paid the 2% fee back to HISD. Also, a bond issued in 1993 by HISD has remained, in large measure, unspent and is being siphoned to pay operating expenses.

76.

The laws require a bond election. The bond election must state specifically the use of the funds. Law requires the bonds be actually spent on these funds.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 10

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 11 of 24

77.

Defendants have conspired together in the unlawful and inequitable awarding of contracts to Defendants RHJ, Jackson, FBM and Medford.

78.

Defendant HISD has administered bond funds in a manner in violation of the law and at the detriment of Plaintiffs.

79.

The suspicious HISD bid process has even been questioned by the new, current Superintendent, Terry Grier.

80.

Superintendent Grier stated publicly, at a recorded meeting, "I have seen a procurement department made up of independent folks rate bids from a variety of different companies across the district to do a lot of different work, and then I've seen staff -- just for whatever reason -- pull names off of a list and put other names back on a list, (with) no rhyme or reason except, quite frankly, influence where influence has no business coming from."

81.

All of the foregoing, including other acts, occurred in order that the Defendants could benefit economically. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1: 42 U.S.C. 1983 14th Amendment

82.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 11

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 12 of 24

83.

Defendants HISD and Marshall, in his official capacity, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, by committing acts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment protections against deprivation of certain procedural and substantive rights, i.e, life, liberty and property, without constitutionally adequate procedures.

84.

Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously terminated Plaintiffs rights under the attached contract without good cause and without providing Plaintiffs due process of law.

85. 86.

Defendants also failed to give Plaintiffs equal protection under the law. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Marshall was acting under his authority as President and/or member of the HISD Board of Trustees.

87.

Defendant HISD and Marshall's actions were pursuant to an official policy, practice or custom of HISD as adopted by Marshall as its chief executive. Such proximately led to the events in question and Plaintiffs injuries and damages.

88.

Alternatively or in addition, Defendant Marshall's actions were not within the scope of his authority, he was not performing discretionary duties and/or he did not act in good faith and therefore is not entitled to immunity.

89.

As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 12

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 13 of 24

90.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction prohibiting Defendant from awarding any more work or funds without either honoring Plaintiffs contract or resubmitting the work for bid in a fair process unencumbered by preferential treatment. V. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 2: Violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act

91. 92. 93.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. Defendants engaged in racketeering behavior. From not later than 2008 to the present, Defendants Marshall (for himself and for HISD as its chief policy maker), Jackson, RHJ, FBM, Medford and Clay, and their agents and co-conspirators formed a RICO "enterprise" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) that engaged in or affected foreign and/or interstate commerce.

94.

Alternatively, Defendants and their agents and co-conspirators constituted an association in fact for a common purpose with a continuous existence separate and apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which they engaged. This association in fact constituted an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4).

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 13

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 14 of 24

95. 96.

The Defendants' enterprise exists separate from the unlawful acts committed. Each Defendant is an "individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property" and, as such, each constitutes a "person" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (3).

97.

The Defendants are engaged in interstate acts of commerce and the acts alleged herein have a potential effect on commerce.

98.

Over a period of years and continuing to the present, Defendants with their coconspirators or agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C 1962(b) through a pattern of racketeering activity, have acquired and maintained an interest in resources to their own benefit.

99.

Over a period of years and continuing to the present, Defendants with their coconspirators or agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C 1962(c) through a pattern of racketeering activity, gained profit or income for their benefit.

100.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants, and their agents and coconspirators conducted, or participated directly or indirectly in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1)(5), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c).

101.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), combined and conspired together and with their agents and co-

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 14

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 15 of 24

conspirators to conduct the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. 102. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to effect the objects thereof, the Defendants committed overt acts. 103. These acts include activity described in 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) including: a. bribery (18 U.S.C. 201); b. wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343); and c. money laundering (18 U.S.C. 1956). 104. The bribery included payments and other emoluments to Defendant Marshall in exchange for preferential treatment to the other Defendants. 105. The wire fraud included acceptance and transmission of payments to secure the support of Defendant Marshall. 106. The wire fraud included acceptance and transmission of payments from HISD that but for the bribery would not have been made. 107. The money laundering occurred with the payment of 2% or more of all bid projects back to HISD as a "fee." 108. The racketeering activity has occurred over time and threatens to continue occurring. 109. Defendants' acts alleged herein have substantial effect within the United States.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 15

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 16 of 24

110.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (b),(c) and (d) Plaintiffs have suffered injury to business, property, reputation and livelihood.

111.

The injuries suffered by each Plaintiff were reasonably foreseeable or anticipated by the Defendants as the natural consequence of Defendants' acts.

112.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages. 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). VI. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 3: Breach of Contract/Breach of Duty of Good Faith

113. 114.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. Plaintiff The Gil Ramirez Group, L.L.C. had a valid, enforceable contract with Defendant HISD which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

115. 116.

Defendant HISD breached this contract in numerous respects. Defendant HISD's breach of contract included failing to make payments for work performed as required under the terms of the contract.

117.

Defendant HISD's breach of contract included failing to comply with contract terms regarding the term of the agreement and extensions of same.

118.

Defendant HISD's breach of contract included failing to adhere to the contract terms in compliance with HISD's duty of good faith and fair dealing.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 16

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 17 of 24

119.

These failures to comply with the contract, and others, proximately caused the Plaintiff damages. VII. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 4: Promissory Estoppel

120. 121. 122.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. This claim is made in alternative to Plaintiffs Breach of Contract claim. In the event, Plaintiffs are determined to have not proven one or more elements of their breach of contract claim with respect to one or more of the elements of damage claimed, Plaintiffs pursue a claim for Promissory Estoppel.

123.

Defendant HISD made representations to Plaintiff Ramirez Group that it was adopting a fair and reasonable bid contracting policy.

124.

In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff Ramirez Group undertook significant work and expenses to submit a bid.

125.

In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff Ramirez Group bid work at a lower rate than otherwise would have been expected.

126.

Plaintiffs' reliance was justified and it would be inequitable for Defendant HISD to back out of the representations now.

127.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Ramirez Group suffered damages.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 17

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 18 of 24

VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 5: Quasi Estoppel 128. 129. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. Defendant HISD invited bids and performed for a while under the contract attached. 130. Defendant HISD now has taken the inconsistent action of backing out of the bid process it adopted only so as to favor other contractors who are principal benefactor of Defendant Marshall, President of the Board. 131. It is inequitable to allow Defendant HISD to take such action when there is no legitimate basis to do so. IX. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 6: Tortious Interference with Existing Contract 132. 133. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. Plaintiff had the valid contract attached.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 18

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 19 of 24

134.

The defendants MASRAHALL, in his individual capacity, Jackson, RHJ, FBM and Medford willfully and intentionally interfered with the contract so as to secure the business for their own benefit.

135. 136.

The interference was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages. Plaintiffs incurred actual damage or loss. X. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 7: Tortious Interference with Prospective Contract

137. 138.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. There was a reasonable probability that the Plaintiffs would have entered into additional contracts with HISD.

139.

The defendants MASRAHALL, in his individual capacity, Jackson, RHJ, FBM and Medford intentionally interfered with the relationship.

140. 141. 142.

The Defendants' conduct was independently tortious or unlawful. The interference was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' damages. Plaintiffs suffered actual damage or loss. XI. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 8:

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 19

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 20 of 24

Declaratory Judgment 143. 144. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. Plaintiffs request the Court enter a declaratory judgment against HISD that the subsequent bid process awarding the described work to Jackson, RHJ, FBM and Medford was illegal or were procured by fraud. 145. Plaintiffs request the Court find that the bid process must be re-started in compliance with all laws and without preference to any person or party.

XII. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 9: Civil Conspiracy 146. 147. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. Defendants Marshall, in his individual capacity, RHJ, Jackson, FBM, and Medford are a combination of two or more persons. 148. One object of the combination was to accomplish unlawful purposes or a lawful purpose by unlawful means. 149. Each of the members of this conspiracy had a meeting of the minds on the course of action. 150. One or more of the members committed an unlawful act, overt act to further the object or course of action.
PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 20

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 21 of 24

151.

Plaintiffs suffered injury as a proximate result of the wrongful act. XIV. REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

152. 153.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference. Plaintiffs request the Court enjoin Defendant HISD from further awarding work of contracts based upon the unlawful bid procedure outlined above.

154. 155.

If the Plaintiffs Injunctive Relief is not granted, irreparable harm is imminent. The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because the substantial damages and harm from Defendants conduct are incalculable and a money judgment could not serve as adequate compensation for the wrong inflicted on the Plaintiffs. XV. ATTORNEYS FEES

156.

Plaintiffs request award of their reasonable and necessary attorneys fees for this action including the constitutional claims and claims arising under the contract. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 1983, 18 U.S.C. 1964, 18 U.S.C. 2201 and Tex. Civ. Prac.& Rem. Code 38.001.

157.

Defendants are not entitled to qualified or sovereign immunity because Defendants actions clearly violate an established constitutional right and Defendants conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 21

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 22 of 24

XVI. JURY DEMAND 158. Plaintiffs assert their rights under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and demands, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a trial by jury on all issues.

XVII. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment against Defendants consistent with the relief requested herein, and for any and all relief to which Plaintiffs may show they are entitled.

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 22

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 23 of 24

Dated this 11th day of October, 2011. Respectfully submitted, BRAZIL & DUNN

/s/ Chad W. Dunn Chad W. Dunn Attorney in Charge TBN 24036507; Fed. I.D. No. 33467 K. Scott Brazil TBN 02934050; Fed. I.D. No. 2585 4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530 Houston, Texas 77068 Telephone: (281) 580, 6310 Facsimile: (281) 580-6362 E-Mail: chad@brazilanddunn.com E-Mail: scott@brazilanddunn.com THE GREENWOOD PRATHER LAW FIRM Kelly Greenwood Prather TBN 00796670; Fed. I.D. No. 21829 1300 McGowen Street Houston, Texas 77004 Telephone: (713) 333-3200 Facsimile: (713) 621-1449 E-Mail: kgreenwood@midtownlegal.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 23

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 24 of 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 11, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, using the electronic case filing system of the Court. The electronic case filing system sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means: John M. Hopkins Arturo G. Michel Thompson & Horton, LLP 3200 Southwest Freeway, Ste. 2000 Houston, TX 77027 (Attorneys for Defendants Houston Independent School District and Lawrence Marshall) Michael J. Stanley Stanley, Frank & Rose, LLP 7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259 Houston, TX 77024 (Attorneys for Defendants RHJ-JOC, Inc. and Eva Jackson)

/s/ Chad W. Dunn

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 24

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 1 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 2 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 3 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 4 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 5 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 6 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 7 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 8 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 9 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 10 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 11 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 12 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 13 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 14 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 15 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 16 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 17 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 18 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 19 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 20 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 21 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 22 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 23 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 24 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 25 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 26 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 27 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 28 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 29 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 30 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 31 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 32 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 33 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 34 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 35 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 36 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 37 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 38 of 38

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-4

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.; AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR. Plaintiffs, vs. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAWRENCE MARSHALL; EVA JACKSON; AND RHJ-JOC, INC. Defendants.

Case No. 4:10-CV-04872 JURY REQUESTED

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR., MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BE IT REMEMBERED and came on to be heard Plaintiffs, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. and GIL RAMIREZ, JR., Motion for Leave to File their Second Amended Complaint in the above-entitled and numbered cause. After considering the Motions, pleadings on file, arguments of counsel, and after due consideration, it is IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. and GIL RAMIREZ, JR., Motion for Leave to File their Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. SIGNED this ____ day of _______________________, 2011.

PRESIDING JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-4

Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 2 of 2

APPROVED AND ENTRY REQUESTED:

BRAZIL & DUNN

/s/ Chad W. Dunn Chad W. Dunn Attorney in Charge TBN 24036507; Fed. I.D. No. 33467 K. Scott Brazil TBN 02934050; Fed. I.D. No. 2585 4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530 Houston, Texas 77068 Telephone: (281) 580, 6310 Facsimile: (281) 580-6362 E-Mail: chad@brazilanddunn.com E-Mail: scott@brazilanddunn.com THE GREENWOOD PRATHER LAW FIRM Kelly Greenwood Prather TBN 00796670; Fed. I.D. No. 21829 1300 McGowen Street Houston, Texas 77004 Telephone: (713) 333-3200 Facsimile: (713) 621-1449 E-Mail: kgreenwood@midtownlegal.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

You might also like