in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson

ACCEPTED
01-15-00567-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
12/14/2015 12:39:08 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK

No. 01-15-00567-CV
FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT
HOUSTON, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/14/2015 12:39:08 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

MACKEY GLEN PETERSON, TONYA PETERSON, DON LESLIE
PETERSON AND LONNY PETERSON, APPELLANTS

v.

SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, INC., D/B/A SILVERADO SENIOR
LIVING SUGAR LAND, APPELLEE

Appendix Tab 50 - 57

P. Alan Sanders
Tx. State Bar No: 17602100
Joshua Davis
Tx. State Bar No. 24031993
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
Weslayan Tower, Suite 1400
24 Greenway Plaza
Houston, Texas, 77046
(713) 659-6767
(713) 759-6830 – Fax
Alan.Sanders@LewisBrisbois.com
Josh.Davis@LewisBrisbois.com
TAB 50
 DATA-EN'I'RY FILE

PICK UPT
PICK UP HISDATE
DATA-ENTRY /2014 6:45:24 P
Stan Stan.
THIS DATE County C
HarrisCC'nty
Harris

PROBATECOURT
PROBATE COURT11
CAUSE NO. 427,208- 401

RUBY S. PETERSON,Individually,
RUBY S.PETERSON, Individually, § IN PROBATECCOURT
INPROBATE OURTNO.l
NO. 1
MACKEY
MACKEY ("MACK") GLEN PETERSON
("MACK") GLEN PETERSON §
PETERSON, Individually,NextFriend
PETERSON, Next Friend §
Attomey-in
Attorney-in F actforRUBY
Fact for RUBY
PETERSON, DON
PETERSON, DON LESLIE PETERSON §
LESLIE PETERSON
t. . Next Friend,
Individually,Next Friend, Attorney-in-
FactofRUBY S. PETERSON,LONNY
Fact of RUBY S.PETERSON, LONNY §
PETERSON, Individually
PETERSON, and Next Friend §
Individually andNextFriend
t-• OfRUBY
Of RUBY S
S..Peterson
Peterson
0
vs.
VS. OF
§
CAROL
CAROL A NNE
ANNE M ANLEY
MANLEY AND
AND §
O DAVID PETERSON,
DAVID PETERSON, SILVERADO
SILVERADO §
LIVING CARE
SENIOR LIVING
SENIOR CARE FACILITY
FACILITY §
TANNA M
TANNA CMILLAN,
MCMILLAN,
LINDA LAVINSON,
LINDA LAN/UNISON, §
DR. REBECCA C
DR.REBECCA LEARMAN
CLEARMAN
§ HARRISCOUNTY,TEXAS
HARRISCOUNTY, TEXAS

SILVERADO'S 91aMOTION
SILVERADO’S DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
TODISMISS
MOTIONTO
SOLE REMAINING CLAIM
PLAINTIFFS' SOLE REMAINING CLAIM
BREACH AND/ORBREACH
OF TRUSTAND/OR
BREACH OFTRUST
OFFIDUCIARY DUTY
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Defendant,Silverado
Defendant, eniorLLiving,
SilveradoSSenior iving,Inc.d/b/aSilverado SeniorLivingSugarLand
Inc. d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land
DismissPursuant TRCP9la in
thisMotionto Dismiss Pursuanttoto TRCP 91a in response
responsetto
o Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs’
(Silverado) files this Motion to
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"or "Petcrs0ns”) FourthAmended OriginalPetitionandContest to
(collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "Petersons") Fourth Amended Original Petition and Contest to
Guardianship in support thereof,wouldrespectfully showuntotheCourt s follows:
Guardianship Application,) in support would respectfully show unto the Courtaas follows:
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs theirFourth Amended Original PetitiononOctober 6, Atparagraphs
1. Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Original Petition on October 6, 2014.2 At paragraphs
87-88,Plaintiffs ssertaa newcause
87-88, Plaintiffs aassert
of actionagainstSilverado—breachof
new cause of action against Silverado —
trustand/or
breach of trust and/or
breachof duty.See
breach of fiduciary duty. See id.

On withtheCourtandincorporated byreference ifsetoutfullyherein.
I On file with the Court and incorporated by referenceas
as if set out fully herein.
2 /d

4835-7047-5552.l
4835-7047-5552.1

Silverado Appx. 0410
No. 1-15-567-CV 1496
 2. On November 110,
2. OnNovember 0,2014,theCourtgranted Silverado's pending
2014, the Court grantedSilverado’s 91aMotion
pending9la toDismiss
Motionto Dismiss

regardingall causes ooffaction
allcauses ledprior
actionppled otheOctober
priortto 6, 2014pleading
the October6,2014 pleading amendment.3

3.
3. Silverado
Silverado attempted to avoid
attempted to avoid tthe necessity of
henecessity of incurringthe
theexpense of draftingand
expenseofdrafting filingthis
andfiling this

motion; however, Plaintiffs
motion; however, Plaintiffs refusal
refusalto voluntarilynonsuit
tovoluntarilynonsuitthe causeoof
thecause actionaand/or
faction nd/orclarify
clarify

their
their p osition
position necessitates
necessitatesthis
this filing.4
4. Silverado files
4. Silverado filesthisMotion
this Motiontto Dismisswithin
oDismiss withinssixty
ixtydays of the dateDefendant
daysofthedate Defendantwas
was served

with the amended p
withtheamended leading.TEX.
pleading. TEX.R.CIV. P.91a.3(a)
R. Civ.P. 91a.3(a)
UNDISPUTEDMATERIALFACTS
UNDISPUTEDMATERIALFACTS

5. Ruby
5. Peterson is
Ruby Peterson of SilveradoSenior
residentofSilverado
is aaresident SeniorLiving, Inc.dd/b/a
Living,Inc. /b/aSilverado SeniorLiving
Silverado Senior Living

Sugar L
Sugar and.
Land.
6. RubyPeterson executeddurablepowerooffattomey
6. Ruby Peterson executedaa durablepower
infavorofCarolManley andDavid
attorney in favor of Carol Manley and David
Peterson. Thedurable
Peterson. The durable p owerooff attomey
power
executedbyRubyPeterson infavorofCarol
attorney executed by Ruby Peterson in favor of Carol
Manley as ratifiedbythisCourt nrecommendation oftheappointed
Manley andDavid
and DavidPeterson
Petersonw
was by this Courtoon recommendation of the appointed
guardianandattorney ad RubyPeterson examined by andcompetent
guardian and attorney ad litem.5 Ruby Peterson was
was examined byaa qualified and competent
physician andwasdeclared tolack Any documents relied ponbyPlaintiffs
Any documents relieduupon
for
by Plaintiffs for
physician and was declared to lack capacity.6
alleged authority behalfofRubyPeterson which ereexecuted inlate2013
any alleged authoritytoact
any on behalf of Ruby Peterson whichw
to act on were executed in late 2013

10,2014onfileandinco oratedbyreference
See9laOrderEnteredonNovember as set
3 See 91a Order Entered on November 10, 2014 on file and incorporated by reference as if set
outfully herein.
out fully herein.
SeeExhibit A-3toSilverado’s Application
forAttomey FeesPursuant toRule9laOrder
4 See Exhibit A-3 to Silverado'swith
Entered o nNovember 10, 2014on Application forandincorporated
theCourt Attorney Fees Pursuant to Rule 91a
byreference Order
asif setout
Entered on November 10, 2014 on file with the Court and incorporated by reference as if set out
fullyherein.
fully herein.
First totheJurisdiction
Plea
Amended
SeeDefendants’ Amended
&First Answer
on
withthe5 See Defendants'
and First Amended Plea toifthe
byreferenceas setoutJurisdiction & First Amended Answer on file
fullyherein.
with the Court and incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein.
6 1d

4835-7047-5552.1
4835-7047-5552 I

Silverado Appx. 0411
No. 1-15-567-CV 1497
 afterRuby
after Peterson
Ruby Peterson hadbeen
had declared
been declared to lackcapacity were
tolack expressly
wereexpressly rejected
rejected bythis
by this

Court.7

7. addition, Plaintiffs
Inaddition,
7. In recently
Plaintiffs recently settled
settled w ithCarol
with Manley andDavid
Carol Manley TheRule
and David Peterson. The Rule11
ll
N
Agreement onfile
Agreement on with theCourt
filewith admits
the Court admits andacknowledges:
and acknowledges: a) the 1993 P
a)the1993 Power ofAttorney
owerof Attorney
N
remains inforceand
remains in effect;b)
force and effect; b)theNovember 2013revocation
the November 2013 invalid;and,
wasinvalid;
revocation was and,c)asksthe
c) asks the

Courtto
Court to issue declaring
issuefindings declaring thesame.8
the
0
N Furthermore,
8. Furthermore, during
during thecourse
the course ofthe
temporary
of the temporary injunction
injunction hearing
hearing which
which began
began on July28,
onJuly 28,
8.
N
N andlasted
2014and
2014 totaloffivedays,
foraa total
lasted for of five days, Carol Manley
CarolManley underoath
testified under thatall
oaththat care
all care

administered
administered to Peterson
RubyPeterson
to Ruby bySilverado
by Silverado Senior Living,
SeniorLiving, Inc.d/b/a
Inc. Silverado
d/b/aSilverado Senior
Senior

Living
Living Sugar Landwas
SugarLand herdirection
wasatather basedupon
orbased
direction or herapproval
uponher ofphysician
approval of orders.
physician orders.

RULE STANDARD
9la STANDARD
RULE 91a

Rule 9
9. Rule
9. 1aofthe
91a Texas R
of the Texas ulesof
Rules ofCivil
Civil Procedure allows
Procedure allows aaparty tomove
partyto thecourt
movethe dismiss
todismiss
courtto aa

groundless
groundless cause ofaction.
cause R.Civ. P.9la.
of action. TEx. R. TheRule
P. 91a. The provides
Ruleprovides inpertinent
in part:
pertinent part:

[A]party
[A] partymay
maymove dismissaa cause
to dismiss
move to causeof actionon
of action on the grounds tthat
thegrounds hatithas no
it has no

basis law
inlaw
basis in or f
or act.
fact. Acause
A causeofaction
of actionhas
has basis
nobasis
no inlaw
in lawif the a
ifthe llegations,
allegations, taken
taken

true, ttogether
astrue,
as ogether withinferences reasonably
with inferences reasonably drawn
drawn from donot
them,do
fromthem, noteentitle
ntitle tthe
he
claimant
claimant the relief ssought.
to therelief
to ought.A causeof
A cause actionhas
ofaction hasno
nobasis in fact
basisin factif no
if no

reasonable person
reasonable person could
could believe
believe the factsppleaded.
thefacts leaded.
TEX.R. Before R
P. 91a. Before
R. Civ.P.91a. 91a, Texas p
ule9la,Texas
Rule rocedure
procedure did nothave
did not counterpart
have aa counterpart to Rule
to Rule

l2(b)(6)
12(b)(6) ofthe
of Federal
the Federal Rules ofCivil
Rulesof Procedure.
Civil Procedure. Fort Bend
F Wilson,
v.Wilson,
Bend Cnty. v. 825S.W.2d
825 S.W.2d

251, 253(Tex.
251,253 App.—
(Tex. App. —Houston [14thDist.]1992,
Houston[14th owrit).While
Dist.] 1992,nno writ). While not Rule 91a is
identical, Rule9la
not identical, is

7 M.
SeeOrder
See
8
Granting
Order Granting Authority
Authority forGuardian
for AdLitem
Guardian Ad Litem & Attorney AdLitem
&Attomey Ad Litem to Execute
toExecute
Peterson Rulell Agreement at Exhibit A,
Peterson Rule 11 Agreement at Exhibit A, ¶2.

4835-7047-5552.1
4835-7047-5552.1

Silverado Appx. 0412
No. 1-15-567-CV 1498
 tothefederal
analogousto the federalrulel2(b)(6)
rule 12(6)(6)aand
ndTexas courtshhave
Texascourts averelied onthe
reliedon caselaw
thecase law

interpretingRulel2(b)(6) in makingddecisions
as instructiveinmaking
Rule 12(6)(6)as ecisions underR
under ule91a.Wooley
Rule 91a. Wooleyv.
v.

Schaffer, No.14-13-00385-CV at*10,
No. 14-13-00385-CVat *10,22014
014Tex.
Tex.A pp.LLEXIS
App. EXIS88983
983(Tex.
(Tex.App.
App.H ouston
Houston
N
[14th
[14th Dist.]
Dist.]A ug.114,
Aug. 4,22014)
014)quoting ((Bell All.Corp.
Corp.vv..T
Twombly, 550 U.S.544,
544,5570,
70,1127
27
N
S.Ct. 1955, 1
S.Ct.1955, 67L.Ed.2d929(2007)
167 v.Iqbal,
L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (Ashcroftv. Iqbal,5556
56U.S.662,
U.S. 662,6678,
78,129S.Ct.1937,
129 S.Ct. 1937,
173L.Ed.
173 L.Ed.22d
d868(2009)); seealso,((GoDaddy.com,
868 (2009));see also, ((GoDaddy.com,LLC v.Hollie
LLCv. Toups,429S.W.3d
HollieToups, 429 S.W.3d752
752
C
N (Tex.
(Tex. A
App. —Beaumont,
pp.— Beaumont,2014, et.denied)
2014,ppet. denied)((Lopez-Welch
Lopez- State FarmLloyds,
Welchv.v.State Lloyds,3:14-CV-
3:14-CV-
N
N 2416-L,
2416-L, 22014
014U.S.
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154741
154741(N.D.
(N.D.TTex. Oct. 31, 2014))(Plascencia
ex.Oct.31,2014)) (Plascenciav.v.State
State

Farm Lloyds,
Lloyds, No.4:14-CV-524-A,
No. 4:14-CV-524-A,2014U.S.Dist.LEXIS135081
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135081(N.D.
(ND.TTex.
ex.Sept.25,
Sept. 25,
2014))
2014)) (Oldham v. Nationwide
(Oldham v. Nationwide Ins.Co.ofAm.,
Co.of Am.,3:14-CV-575-B,2014U.S.Dist.LEXIS
3:14-CV-575-B, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
107044;2014WL3855238(N.D. ex.Aug.5,2014))).
107044; 2014 WL 3855238 (N.D.TTex. Aug. 5, 2014))).
10.Rulel2(b)(6) allowsdismissalif plaintifffails"to stateaaclaim
10. Rule 12(6)(6) allows dismissal ifaa plaintiff fails "tostate
whichrelief canbe
upon which reliefcan
claimupon be
granted[.]"FED.R.CIV.P. l2(b)(6).For complaintto surviveaaRulel2(b)(6)
granted[.]" FED. R. Cry. P. 12(b)(6). Foraa complaintto
motion
Rule 12(6)(6) motiontoto
dismiss,it mustccontain
dismiss, itmust
ontain ""enough
enough facts
factstto
ostate claimtoreliefthatisplausibleonitsface."
stateaa claim to relief that is plausibleon its face."
BellAtl.
Bell Atl. Corp.v.
Twombly, 550U.S.544,570(2007).Facialplausibility requires factsthat
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Facial plausibility requires facts that
allowthe "todrawthereasonable inference thatthedefendant isliableforthe
allow the court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
alleged."
misconduct Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009).Essentially,
underthe
misconduct alleged." Ashcroftv.
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Essentially, under the
federalrulesa complaint isliberally construed infavoroftheplaintiff andallwell-pleaded
federal rules a complaint is liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff and all well-pleaded
factsaretakenas true. 566U.S.at v. 551U.S.89,94
facts are taken as true. Ashcroft, 566 U.S. at 678-79; Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).Thatsaid,"[t]hreadbare recitalsoftheelements ofacauseofaction by
(2007). That said, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by
mereconclusory statements, donot 556U.S.at 678.Rulel2(b)(6)
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Rule 12(6)(6)
dismissal ifthecourtdetermines
isappropriate beyond doubtthattheplaintiff
areasonable
dismissal is appropriate if the court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff

4835-7047-5552.I

Silverado Appx. 0413
No. 1-15-567-CV 1499
 I

canprove
can prove no setof
noset to support aa claim
of facts to that w
claim that would ntitlehhim
ouldeentitle to relief.
imto Tex.
v.Tex.
relief. Scanlan v.

A&M 343F.3d533,536
Univ.,343
A&M Univ., (5thCir.2003).
F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).

ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT

A. donothave
A.Plaintiffs' do standing
not have standing inthis
in case.
this case.
itJ
Plaintiffs
ll. Plaintiffs
11. lackstanding
lack to pursue
standing to claimson
pursueclaims behalfof
onbehalf ofRubyPeterson andthis
Ruby Peterson and this case mustbe
casemust be
41 recite suitisis
thatsuit
ea dismissed
dismissed for want o
forwant offsubject Plaintiffs
subject matter jurisdiction.9 Plaintiffs own pleadings
ownpleadings recite that

beingbrought
being onbehalf
brought on ofRubyPeterson
behalfof byMackey
Ruby Peterson by Mackey Peterson, DonPeterson
Peterson,Don andLonny
Peterson and Lonny

Peterson
Peterson as "Next Friend"
as "Next of Ruby P
Friend" ofRuby eterson.
Peterson. The Amended
TheFourth Amended Original
Original Petition
Petition asserts
asserts
Sd
aanewcause
new cause ofofaction forbreach
action for oftrust
breach of trustand/or fiduciary
and/orfiduciary duty againstSilverado forthe
dutyagainst Silverado for the aa
failurettoohonor
failure Ruby’s
honorRuby's new powers
newpowers of Allclaims
ofattorney.10 All brought
claims brought on behalfofRuby
onbehalf of Ruby
Peterson byPlaintiffs
Peterson bedismissed
mustbe
by Plaintiffs must forlack
dismissed for ofstanding.
lack of standing.

12.A
12. acknowledged byPlaintiffs
Assacknowledged several
by Plaintiffs several timesin
times intheir Amended
their Fourth Amended Original
Original Petition,
Petition,

Ruby Peterson
RubyPeterson executed
executed durable
aa durable ofattorney
powerof
power attomey infavor
in ofCarol
favor of Manley
Carol Manley andDavid
and David

Petersonin
Peterson Thedurable
in 1993)1 The ofattorney
powerof
durable power attomeyexecuted by RubyPetersoninfavorof
executedby Ruby Peterson in favor of

Manley
CarolManley
Carol andDavid
and Peterson
David Peterson was ratified
was ratified by thisCourt
bythis Court on recommendation
onrecommendation of the
ofthe
appointed
appointed guardians
guardians ad Ruby
adlitem.I2 Ruby Peterson
Peterson was declared lack
wasdeclared totolack capacity.I3 Any Any
documents
documents relied
relied u
upon Plaintiffs for
PonbbyYPlaintiffs allegedaauthority
anYalleged
for any uthority toact
to act on
behalfofRuby
onbehalf of Ruby
Peterson w
Peterson hichwere
which in late
executedin
were executed late2013 afterRub
2013 after Y
Ruby Peterson hadbeendeclared
Petersonhad been declared to
lack
to lack

9 See First Plea
Amended
Defendants’ Jurisdiction.
tothe
See Defendants' First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction.
19
SeeFourth Amended
See Fourth Amended
Application
Guardianship
Original
Original at
Petition
Petition andContest
and Contest to
to Guardianship Application at ¶87.
11
Id. on filewith
on file theCourt
with the andincorporated byreference asififset
Court and incorporated by reference as setout fullyherein.
out fully herein.
First
Defendants’
See Plea &First
totheJurisdiction
Amended Answer
Amendedon
12 See Defendants' First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction & First Amended Answer on
filewith
file theCourt
with the andincorporated
Court and byreference
incorporated by asififset
reference as setout fullyherein.
out fully herein.
13Id
13

4835-7047-5552.1

Silverado Appx. 0414
No. 1-15-567-CV 1500
 expressly rejected
were expressly
capacity were rejected bythis Plaintiffs
by this Court." Furthermore, Plaintiffs acknowledge
nowacknowledge
now

andadmit
and admit that hepurported revocation
that tthe revocation was
was invalid.I5 The continued
Thecontinued pursuit
pursuit ofthis
of causeooff
this cause

actionisiswaste
action ofjudicial
wasteof resources
judicial resources harassing.
and harassing.

Standing
13.Standing
13. constitutional
isaa constitutional
is prerequisite
prerequisite tofiling
to 369
suit. Heckman v.v.Williamson Cty., 369
filingsuit.
S.W.3d
S. 137, 150 (Tex.22012).
W.3d 137,150(Tex. 012).Generally,
Generally, for havestanding,
plaintiffttoo have
fora plaintiff theremust
standing, there beaa
mustbe
concrete
concrete injuryto
injury theplaintiff
to the andaa real
plaintiff and realcontroversy between
controversy between tthe parties tthat
heparties hatwillbe
will be

resolved
resolved bythe court.IId.d.at
by the court. 154.AAcourt
at154. court doesdoes not
not have
have jurisdiction
jurisdiction claimby
overaaclaim
over byaa
Cpl Subject jurisdiction isessential
plaintiff whodoes
plaintiff who does not avestanding
nothhave to assert it.
standing toassert it. Id. Subject matter
matter jurisdiction is essential

totheauthority
to ofaa court
the authority of todecide
courtto case andis
a case
decide a never presumed.
and is never Tex.Ass’n
presumed. Tex. ofBus.
Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex.
v.Tex.
Air Bd.,852S.W.2d
Air Control Bd., 440, 443-44 (Tex.1993).In
852 S.W.2d 440,443-44 orderto
(Tex. 1993). In order adequately
toadequately allegean
allege an
injuryforstanding
injury for standing p urposes,
purposes, aa plaintiff must s
plaintiff must howthattheinjury
show personal
waspersonal
that the injury was to the
tothe
plaintiff,
plaintiff, thanaathird
ratherthan
rather party. H
third party. eckman,
Heckman, 369 S.W.3d
369S.W.3d at
at 155. Plaintiff
155.Plaintiff hastheburden
has to
the burden to
demonstrating hassubject jurisdiction.
factsaffirmatively demonstrating that
allegefacts
allege that tthe
hetrial courthas
trial court matter
subject matter jurisdiction.

Id.
at446.
Id. at 446.

14.As
14. those h
Asthose olding
holding thedurable power
the durable power ofattorney
of attorney confirmed and
bythisCourt,CarolManley
confirmed by this Court, Carol Manley and

David
David Peterson
Peterson a retheonly
are personswith
the only persons standing
withstanding to
to bring claimson
bringclaims behalfof
onbehalf ofRuby
Ruby

Peterson.
Peterson. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs have failed
havefailed properly
toproperly
to plead factsw
pleadfacts hich
which ddemonstrate
emonstrate that
Plaintiffs
thatPlaintiffs have
have

standing
standing bringany
tobring
to claims
anyclaims onbehalf
on ofRuby
behalfof Ruby Peterson.
Peterson.

15.B
15. ecause
Because itisclear
it romPlaintiffs’
is clear ffrom pleadings tobring claims
lackstanding
thatPlaintiffs anyclaims
Plaintiffs' pleadings that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring any

on behalf
on ofRuby
behalf of the Court does
Peterson, theCourt
Ruby Peterson, does n
not have jjurisdiction
othave urisdiction to hear P
to hear laintiffs’
Plaintiffs'
claims,
claims,

andtheCourt
and must d
the Court must ismiss
dismiss Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs' suit against
suitagainst these Defendants
theseDefendants initsentirety.
in
Heckmon,
its entirety. Heckman,

14 Id.
SeeOrder
15
See Granting
OrderGranting Authority
Authority forGuardian
for AdLitem
Guardian Ad &Attomey
Litem & AdLitem
Attorney Ad Litem to
Execute
toExecute
Peterson
Peterson Rule Agreement
11Agreement
Rule 11 Exhibit
atExhibit
at A,¶2.
A,

4835-7047-5552.1

Silverado Appx. 0415
No. 1-15-567-CV 1501
 369 at150;
S.W.3d see at536
F.3d
also, 343 asPlaintiffs
isappropriate
369 S.W.3d at 150; see also, Scanlan, 343 F.3d at 536 (Dismissal is appropriate as Plaintiffs

canprove
can noset
prove no offacts
setof standing).
facts ttoosupport standing).

B. Silverado
B.Silverado RubyPeterson
beliable totoRuby
cannot be Peterson (or purportedly
(oranyone purportedly suingon
suing her
onher
PJ behalf).

16. Silverado
16.Silverado cannot
cannot beheld
be held liable forrelying
liablefor durable
uponaa durable
relying upon power ofattorney
power of attomey and/or medical
and/or medical

§751.056;
powerofofattorney. TEX. ESTATES CODE §751.056;
power HEALTH
TEXAS HEALTH AND
AND SAFETY
SAFETY CODE
CODE
?s, §166.l60.
§166.160.

17.Specifically, theTexas
17. the Texas E states
Estates Code provides
Codeprovides inrelevant
in relevant part:

If durable
Ifaa durable ofattorney
powerof
power attorney isused,
is third-party
used, aa third-party who ingood
reliesin
whorelies faithon
good faith on
the ofan
actsof
the acts attomey
anattorney infact
in oragent
fact or performed
agent performed inthe
in the scope ofthe
scopeof power of
the power of

isnot
attorney is notliable tothe
liableto principal.
the principal.

§751.056.
TEx. ESTATES CODE dditionally,theTexasHealth
§751.056.AAdditionally, and Safety Codeprovides
the Texas HealthandSafety Code provides

that:
that:

Anattending
An physician,
attending physician, health
health residential
orresidential
or provider,
careprovider,
care or a person acting
oraperson as
acting as

an foror
agentfor
anagent orunder thephysician’s
underthe provider’s
orprovider's
physician's or control
control isnot
is subject
notsubject to
to

criminal
criminal orcivil
or liability
civilliability andhas
and engaged
notengaged
has not inunprofessional
in conduct
unprofessional conduct foran
for an
actor
act omission
oromission ifthe
if the act or omission.
act or isdone
omission.....is ingood
done in good faith underthe
faithunder terms o
theterms off

themedial
the ofattorney,
powerof
medial power attorney, the directives
thedirectives ofthe
of the agent, andthe
agent,and provisions of
the provisions of

thissubchapter.
this subchapter...
..
AND SAFETY CODE§166.l60(b).
TEXAS HEALTHAND §166.160(b).

18. During
18.During tthe
hecourse ofthe
courseof temporary
the temporary whichbegan July28,2014and
hearing
injunction onJuly 28, 2014 and
injunction hearing which began on

lastedfor
lasted total o
foraatotal days, Carol
offfive days, Manley testified under
Carol Manley under oath that a
oaththat care administered
allllcare administered to
to

RubyPeterson
Ruby bySilverado
Peterson by Senior
Silverado Senior Living,
Living, Inc.d/b/a
Inc. Silverado
d/b/aSilverado Senior
Senior Living
Living SugarLand
Sugar Land

was at herdirection
wasat or based
her direction or based u
upon her approval ofphysician
ponherapproval orders. Furthermore,
of physicianorders.
Plaintiffs
Furthermore, Plaintiffs

4835-7047-5552.1

Silverado Appx. 0416
No. 1-15-567-CV 1502
 admit
admit intheir
in their llive
ivepleading
pleadingthatSilverado
that Silveradoacted
actedpursuant toaadurable
pursuantto powerof
durablepower attorneyfor
ofattorney for

0
Ruby
Ruby Peterson
Peterson iin

performing
favor o
nfavor
performing theactions
offDefendants

about which
the actions about which P
·
Defendants Carol
CarolA
Ann

laintiffs
Plaintiffs
Manleyaand
nnManley ndDavid
DavidTroy

arecomplaining.
arecomplaining.As
Petersonin
TroyPeterson in

matteroflaw,
Asaamatter of law,SSilverado
ilverado
cannot beliable
cannot oRuby
be liable tto Ruby P eterson
Peterson for any actions
for any or inactions
actionsor inactionsofSilverado
of Silveradowhich
whichw ere
were

performed
performed iin
nreliance ponthedurable
reliance uupon poweroof
the durablepower f attomey and/orm
attorneyand/or edicalofofpower
medical poweraattorney
ttorney

in favor ofCarol
infavor AnnManley
of Carol Ann Manleyand David
andDavid Troy
Troy Peterson.
Peterson. TEX.
TEX. ESTATES§751.056;
ESTATES CODE §751.056;

see also,Scanlan,
see Scanlan, 343
343F.3dat536
F.3dat 536(Dismissal
(Dismissalisappropriate asPlaintiffs
is appropriateas Plaintiffscanprove
can provenno setof
oset of
factswhich
facts which would
would entitle
entitlethem torelieffromtheseDefendants).
themto relief from these Defendants).
C. Plaintiffs’
C. Plaintiffs' ofTrustand/or
Breach of Trust and/or Breach ofFiduciary
of FiduciaryD utyCause
Duty CauseofAction
of Actionhhas
asnono
basis iin
basis nlaw or fact
law or fact aand mustb
ndmust beedismissed.
dismissed.
19.
19. F urthermore,
Furthermore, the cause ooffaction
the cause actionhhas
asno
nobasis
basisiin
nfact
factaas noreasonable
sno reasonableperson ouldbelieve
personccould believe
thefacts pleaded.
the facts pleaded.TEX.
TEX.R.
R. Civ.P.91a.
Plaintiffs’
P. 91a. Plaintiffs'allegation
allegationispremised onmultiple
is premisedon multiplefallacies:
fallacies:
1)theNovember
1) the November 15,2013revocation valid;2)the new powersoof
was valid; 2) thenewpowers
15, 2013 revocationwas
f attorney erevalid;
attorneywwere valid;
and,3)Silverado hadlegalnoticeof TheCourt’srulings,testimonytthe
and, 3) Silverado had legal notice of either.16 The Court's rulings, testimonyaat thetemporary
temporary
injunctionhearing, andPlaintiffs judicialadmissions
own judicial admissionsas
injunction hearing, and Plaintiffsown
memorialized intheRulell
as memorialized in the Rule 11
conclusively
conclusivelynegate
thesefacts. Plaintiffs proceed withthebaseless and
negate these facts. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs proceed with the baseless and
that:"Silverado
allegation had dutytoacknowledge
andhonorRuby’s
unsupported allegation that: "Silverado hadaa duty to acknowledge and honor Ruby'snew
new
powersofattorney.Plaintiffs allegeandwould rovetthat
powers of attorney. Plaintiffs allege and would pprove
hatRubyandtheyhavesustained
Ruby and they have sustained
substantialdamagesas aproximate resultofSilverado’s breachoftrustand/orbreachof
substantial damagesasa proximate result of Silverado's breach of trust and/or breach of
dutyregarding
Ruby’s of Plaintiffs
admitthatthe1993
new- powers
fiduciary duty regarding Ruby'snew powers of attorney."17 Plaintiffs admit that the 1993
durable ofattomey remains effective andthattheNovember 2013revocation
durable power
power of attorney remains effective and that the November 2013 revocationwas
was

See Original
FourthAmended Petition
at 87-88.
See Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Original Petition at In 87-88.
17
16
ri
1d.

4835-7047-5552.1
4835-7047-5552.1

Silverado Appx. 0417
No. 1-15-567-CV 1503
 I

Noreasonable
invalid.18 No couldbelieve
personcould
reasonable person believe the factspleaded;
thefacts therefore,the
pleaded; therefore, thecause
causeof of

action
action hasnot
has basis
notbasis infact
in andmust
fact and mustbedismissed.
be TEX.
dismissed. TEx. R.Civ. P.9la.
R. P. 91a.

Additionally thechallenged
20.Additionally
20. cause of
the challenged cause of action, takenas
action,taken astrue, together
true,together withinferences
with inferences

reasonably
reasonably drawn
drawn fromit,it,does
from entitle
notentitle
does not Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs to therelief
tothe sought
reliefsought Silverado
asSilverado
as doesnot
does not
oweaa dutyof
owe and/or ffiduciary
trust and/or
duty of trust iduciarydduty to Plaintiffs.
utyto TEx. R.CIV.
Plaintiffs. TEX. Plaintiffs Fourth
P. 91a. Plaintiffs
R. Civ. P.9la. Fourth

Amended Original
Amended Original Petition
Petition failstosetouteven
fails threadbare
to set out even aa threadbare recitation
recitation ofelements
of forthe
elements for the

of action
causeof
cause allegedor
actionalleged attemptto
evenattempt
or even fair notice
to satisfy fair noticerequirements or meet
requirements or facial
meetaa facial

plausibility
plausibility standard.
standard. 566U.S.
Ashcroft, 566 att 678-79;
U.S. a 678-79; FED. P. 12(b)(6). To establish
R. Civ.P.l2(b)(6).To
FED.R. establish aa

breachof
breach trustand/or
of trust fiduciary
and/orfiduciary duty, Plaintiffs
duty,Plaintiffs would firsthaveto
would fiduciary
proveaafiduciary
first have to prove

relationship existedbetween
relationship existed Silverado
betweenSilverado and themselves. Lundy
andthemselves. Lundy v.
v. Masson, 260 S.W.3d, 482,
260S.W.3d, 482,

Dist.]2008,pet. denied).ThenPlaintiffs wouldhave
have aa
501 (Tex.App.
501 (Tex. —Houston
App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). Then Plaintiffs would

burden
burden prove tthat
ttooprove hatSilverado
Silveradobreached
breached dutywithin
aaduty within tthe scope o
hescope the underlying fiduciary
offtheunderlying fiduciary

relationship them.JJoe
betweenthem.
relationship between oe v.
v. Two Thirty NineJt.
TwoThirty 145S.W.3d
Nine Jt. V, 145 150,159-60
S.W.3d 150, (Tex.
159-60 (Tex.

2004).However,
2004). However,Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs failed
failed allege
toallege
to factual
anyfactual
any allegations
allegations whichwould
which wouldsupport
support aa

fiduciary
fiduciary relationship
relationship and/or
and/or relationship
relationship of trust a
oftrust ndconfidence
and existed b
confidence existed etween
between
Silverado
Silverado

andthemselves
and themselves such dutywould
thataaduty
suchthat would arise support the
arisettoosupport cause o
the cause action lloosely
offaction oosely alleged. I9

Threadbare
Threadbare recitals
recitals supported
supported byconclusory
by allegations
conclusory allegations do
do not satisfy
notsatisfy facial
plausibility
facialplausibility
standards.
standards. 550U.S.
Twombly, 550 U.S. a 570; Ashcroft, 566U.S.
att 570; 566 U.S. at 678-79;FED.R.CIV.P.l2(b)(6).
at 678-79; FED. R. M. P. 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs breach
Plaintiffs breach oftrust
of and/or
trustand/or breach
breach offiduciary
of dutycause
fiduciary duty ofaction
causeof hasnobasis
action has no
inlaw
basis in law

andmust R. P.9la.
bedismissed.
TEX.
and must be dismissed. TEX. R. Civ. P. 91a.

18
SeeOrder
See Granting
Order Granting Authority
Authority forGuardian AdLitemtoExecute
AdLitem&Attomey
for Guardian Ad Litem & Attorney Ad Litem to Execute
Peterson
Peterson R ule11Agreement
Rule ExhibitA,
at Exhibit
11 Agreement at A,¶2.
19
Plaintiffs’
SeePlaintiffs'
See Fourth
FourthAmended Petition.
Original
Amended Original Petition.

4835-7047-5552.1
4835-7047-5552.1

Silverado Appx. 0418
No. 1-15-567-CV 1504
 I

CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

21.Plaintiffs’
21. breach
Plaintiffs' breach oftrust
of and/or
trustand/or breach
breach offiduciary
of dutycause
fiduciary duty causeofaction
of hasno
action has nobasis inlaw
basisin law
factand
orfact
or andmust bedismissed.
mustbe TEX.
dismissed. TEX. P. 91a. The challenged
R. Civ.P.9la.The
R.CIV. cause o
challenged cause action, taken
offaction, taken a
ass

togetherwith
true, together withinferences reasonably
inferences reasonably ddrawn
rawnfromit,doesnot entitlePlaintiffs
from it, does not entitle Plaintiffs to the
to the
sought
reliefsought
relief forthefollowing
for reasons:
the following reasons: 1) Plaintiffs
l) Plaintiffs lack standing;
lackstanding; 2)Silverado
2) cannot
Silverado cannot be
be

held forrelying
liablefor
held liable relying on durable and/or
onaa durable medical
and/or medical power
power ofattorney
of attorney asaa matter
as of law; a
matter oflaw; nd,
and,

3)Silverado
3) doesnot
Silverado does notowe and/or duty
duty and/or
oweaa fiduciary duty duty of oPlaintiffs.
trust tto
of trust Furthermore, the
Plaintiffs. Furthermore, the

ofaction
causeof
cause bedismissed
mustbe
action must dismissed asno reasonable
as no reasonable person could
person believe
could believe the facts p
thefacts leaded.
pleaded.

As result, P
Asaa result, laintiffs’
Plaintiffs' breachofoftrust
breach and/orbreach
trustand/or breachof cause ofaction
dutycause
offiduciary duty of action must be
mustbe
dismissed.
dismissed. TEX. R. Civ. P.9la;FED.
TEX.R. P. l2(b)(6);
R. Civ. P.
P. 91a; FED.R.CIV. 12(6)(6); see also,Scanlan,
see also, 343F.3d
Scanlan, 343 F.3d at 536.
at 536.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES
ATTORNEYS' FEES

22.Inaddition
22. to dismissal,
In addition to Silverado
dismissal, Silverado prays for
prays costs a
for costs ndattorneys’
and under
feesfromPlaintiffs
attorneys' fees from Plaintiffs under

TEX. R. Civ. P. 91a.
Respectfully submitted,
Respectfully submitted,

/S/
Josh
Davis
K.
LEWIS BISGAARD
BRISBOISBISGAARD
LEWISBRISBOIS

/S/ Josh K. Davis

DAVIS
JOSH K. DAVIS
StateBar 24031993
& SMITH,LLP
& SMITH, LLP

‘ State Bar N o.24031993
No.
R.JOHNSON
CHRISTIAN
CHRISTIAN R. JOHNSON
BarNo.24062345
State
State Bar No. 24062345
Weslayan Tower, Suite 1400
East
24 Plaza
Greenway
Weslayan Tower, Suite
24 East Greenway Plaza
Houston,Texas77046
1400

Houston, Texas 77046
659-6767
(713)659-6767
(713) Telephone
Telephone
(713)759-6830
(713) Facsimile
759-6830 Facsimile
Josh.davis@lewisbrisbois.com
Christian.iohnson(Oewisbrisbois.com
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS FOR FORDEFENDANTS,
DEFENDANTS,
SILVERADO
SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, IINC.
SENIORLIVING, NC.D/B/A
D/B/A
SENIOR
SILVERADO LAND
SUGAR
LIVING
SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING SUGAR LAND

4835-7047-5552.1
4835-7047-5552.1

Silverado Appx. 0419
No. 1-15-567-CV 1505
 CERTIFICATE
CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE
OF SERVICE

C hereby c
IIhereby ertify
certify tthat true and
hataa true and correct copy ofthe
correct copy foregoing instrument
of the foregoing instrument was served
was served uupon all
ponall
counsel
counsel ofrecord
of record via facsimile,
viae-file, facsimile, handdelivery
hand deliveryand/or
and/or mail,return
certified mail, retum receipt
receipt requested
requested on
on
this3rdDecember, 2014.
this 3rd December, 2014.
N
47
Candice
LSchwager
Candice L Schwager
TheSchwager
The Firm
LawFirm
Schwager Law
111 1417
1417 R amada
Ramada Dr.
Dr.
Houston,Texas
Houston, Texas77062
77062
Attorney for
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Sarah Pacheco
Patel
Sarah Patel Pacheco
Crain,Caton
Crain, Caton&&James, PC
James, PC
1401McKinney
1401 Street
McKinney Street
1700F
1700 iveHouston
Five Center
Houston Center
Houston, Texas77010
Houston, Texas 77010
for Carol M
Attorneys forCarol
Attorneys anley
Manley andDavid
and David Peterson

JillW.Young
Jill W. Young
Maclntyre, McCulloch,
MacIntyre, McCulloch, &Young,
Stanfield & LLP
Young, LLP
2900Weslayan, Suite150
2900 Weslayan, Suite 150
Houston,Texas
Houston, 77027
Texas77027
W.Russ
W. Russ J ones
Jones
Underwood, JonesScherrer
Underwood, Jones &Malouf,
Scherrer & PLLC
Malouf, PLLC
5177Richmond
5177 Ave,Suite505
Richmond Ave, Suite 505
Houston, 77056/S/
Texas77056
Houston, Texas

/S/ Josh
Josh K
K. Davis
Davis

JOSH K. DAVIS
11
111111

111111111

4835-7047-5552.1

111

Silverado Appx. 0420
No. 1-15-567-CV 1506
TAB 51
 I

FILED
|/2014 6 PM
art
DATA-ENTRY rk

PICK UP THIS DATE
PROBATE COU
PROBATE COU

NO. 427,208" 401
("MACK")GGLEN
MACKEY("MACK")
MACKEY LENPETERSON,§ § ININPROBATE
PETERSON, PROBATE COURT NO.1
COURTNO. 1
PETERSON; TONYAPETERSON,
PETERSON; TONYA PETERSON, §
Individually and
andasasNext riendoof
NextFFriend RUBY §§
fRUBY
PETERSON; DON LESLIE PETERSON; §
PETERSON; DON LESLIE PETERSON; §

CAROL
CAROL P ETERSON,
PETERSON, and §§
Individually and
as Next Friend, of RUBY PETERSON;
as
Next Friend, of

§ RUBY PETERSON; §

and LONNY PETERSON,
andLONNY PETERSON, § _

§
Plaintiffs,
-·
Plaintiffs,

V.
§ .
SILVERADO
SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING,
SENIOR INC.,
LIVING, INC., §§
d/b/a S ilveradoSenior Living SugarLand,§
—Sugar Land, §
d/b/a Silverado Senior Living —
Defendants.
Defendants. § § HARRIS
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS TEXAS
FIFTH A
FIFTH MENDED
AMENDED PETITION
PETITION

TO:THEHONORABLE
TO: JUDGE
THE HONORABLE JUDGE LLOYD
LLOYD WRIGHT:
WRIGHT:

NOW COME, MACKEY GLEN PETERSON; TONYA PETERSON,
NOW COME, MACKEY GLEN PETERSON; TONYA PETERSON,

Individually Friend of RUBYPETERSON;DON LESLIE
NextFriend
Individuallyand
and as
as Next of RUBY PETERSON; DON LESLIE

PETERSON; CAROL
PETERSON; CAROL PETERSON, Individuallyand
PETERSON, Individually as NextFriend
and as of RUBY
Next Friend of RUBY
PETERSON;and LONNYPETERSON
PETERSON; and LONNY ("Plaintiffs"),file
PETERSON("Plaintiffs"), file this FIFTH
this FIFTH

AMENDED PETITION
AMENDED PETITION complaining
complaining of DEFENDANT
ofDEFENDANT SILVERADO
SILVERADO
SENIOR
SENIOR
LIVING,INC.,d/b/a SilveradoSeniorLiving
LIVING, INC., d/b/a Silverado SugarLand
—Sugar
Senior Living —
("SILVERADO"),
Land ("SILVERADO"),
andin
and supportwould
in support theCourt
showthe
wouldshow follows:
asfollows:
Court as
1
1

Silverado Appx. 0421
No. 1-15-567-CV 1537
 DISCOVERYPLAN
CONTROL
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

Discovery
Discovery inthis
in beconducted
tobe
this lawsuit to underLevel
conducted under ofRule190.1
Level33 of ofthe
Rule 190.1 of the

TexasRules
Texas ofCivil
Rulesof Procedure.
Civil Procedure. Tex. Civ.P.
Tex.R. Civ. P.190.1.
190.1.
DECLARATORY
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffsaallege
Plaintiffs llegeandwould
and would prove thatthey
prove that maybe
they may entitledto
beentitled declaratory
todeclaratory
judgment
judgment as oflawthatthe1993
matterof
as aa matter Durable
law that the 1993 Durable Power ofAttorney
Powerof appointing
Attorney appointing
CarolManley
Carol andDavid
Manleyand David was revokedaass ofNovember
was revoked 15,2013.Tex.
of November 15, Civ.Prac.
2013. Tex. Civ. Prac.
&Rem. 37.001—37.005
Code etseq.
& Rem. Code 37.001-37.005 et seq.
JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION andVENUE
and VENUE
has
ThisCourt ofthislawsuit.
Venue in
ismandatory
This Court has jurisdiction of this lawsuit. Venue is mandatory in Harris
County,
County, Texas.
Texas.
PARTIES
PARTIES

11 MACKEY
MACKEY ("MACK")
("MACK") GLEN PETERSON, is
GLEN PETERSON, is a
a resident ofHays
residentof HaysCounty,
County,
Texas.
Texas.

22 TONYA("TONYA")N
TONYA Individually,and
PETERSON,Individually,
("TONYA")NPETERSON, as Next
andas Next Friend of
Friendof
RubyS.
Ruby S.Peterson
Peterson is resident
isaaresident ofHays
of County,
Hays County, Texas.
Texas.

LESLIE PETERSON
DONNIE LESLIE
DONNIE "DON"),is
PETERSON (("DON"),
residentof HarrisCounty,
33 is a
a resident of Harris County,
Texas.
Texas.
2

Silverado Appx. 0422
No. 1-15-567-CV 1538
 "| 4
4 PETERSON
CAROLPETERSON
CAROL ("CAROL
("CAROL PETERSON"),
PETERSON"), Individually, and Next
as Next
and as

Friendof
Friend ofRuby S.Peterson
Ruby S. resident
isaaresident
Peterson is of County,
ofHarris County, Texas.
Texas.
resident
55 LONNY PETERSON
LONNY PETERSON is ofHarris
isaaresident of County,
Harris County, Texas.

66 SILVERADO
SILVERADO SENIOR L
SENIOR IVING,
LIVING, INC., d/b/aSilverado
INC.,d/b/a Senior
Silverado Senior Living
Living —

SugarLand
Sugar Land("Silverado") isaacorporation
("Silverado") is corporation doing business
doingbusiness inTexas,
in locatedat
Texas, located 1227
at1227
St.Sugarland,
7th St. Sugarland,Texas77478and
Texas maybe
77478 and may servedwith
beserved throughits
processthrough
with process its
designated
designated aagent forservice,
gentfor Corporation
service, Corporation Service Company
ServiceCompany d/b/aCSCLawyers
d/b/a CSC Lawyers

Incorporating
Incorporating Service
Service Company,
Company, 211E. St.Suite
211 E. 7th St. 260,Austin,
Suite 260, Austin, Texas, 78701-
Texas,78701-
3218.
3218.

BACKGROUND

77 RubyS.Peterson
Ruby ("Ruby")
S. Peterson ("Ruby") isthe93-year
is oldmother
the 93-year old ofMack,
mother of Mack, Don, Lonny,
Don,Lonny,

David ("David") Peterson
David("David") Peterson a ndCarol
and ("CarolM
Carol Manley ("Carol anley").
Manley"). Rubyhasbeen
Ruby has been aa

resident Silverado
atSilverado
resident at at times
alltimes
atall relevant
relevant tothis
to this c ase.
case.

N 88 1993,Ruby
In1993,
In Rubyand
andherhusband, deceased,
nowdeceased,
her husband, now executed durableppower
executed aa durable of
owerof
N
appointing
attorneyappointing
attorney CarolManley
Carol andDavid
Manleyand astheir
David as agents.
their agents.

99 David andCarol
David and Manleymoved
Carol Manley Rubyto
movedRuby Silverado
toSilverado onor
on aboutAugust
or about 27,
August27,
2013.
2013.

3
3

Silverado Appx. 0423
No. 1-15-567-CV 1539
 VIOLATIONS OFATTORNEY
OFPOWER
VIOLATIONS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

26 Plaintiffs Tonya
26 TonyaandCarolPeterson allegeandwould
and Carol Peterson allege provethat
and would prove Carol
thatCarol
Manleyand
Manley andDavidhaveexceeded theirauthority
David have exceeded their and/orabused
authority and/or theirpower
abused their poweras
as

Ruby's agents for
Ruby's agents medical
for medical decisions. wit,
Towit,
decisions. To Carol
Carol Manley
Manley and
and David
David hired
hired Dr.
Dr.

Merklto
Merkl provideaa diagnosis
to provide diagnosis ofsevere
of dementia,
severedementia, whichthey
which theyknew shouldhave
orshould
knew or have
known
known was false,so
was false, theycouldcommit
sothey Rubyto
could commit Ruby toreside Silverado
resideatatSilverado andprevent
and prevent
herfromleaving.Oneofthe reasons,
her from leaving. One of the reasons, CarolManley
Carol ManleyandDavid
and David chose Dr.Merkl
choseDr. Merkl

andSilverado
and becausetthey
wasbecause
Silverado was heywanted Rubyto
wanted Ruby beforced
to be takemedication
totake
forced to that
medication that

shemay
she otherwise
mayotherwise refuseto
refuse take,andtheywanted
to take, exercise
toexercise
and they wanted to complete
complete control
control

Ruby'splace
overRuby's
over ofresidence.
placeof residence. -
27
27 PlaintiffsTonya
Plaintiffs and Carol Peterson a
Tonya andCarolPeterson llegeand
allege andwould thatSilverado
provethat
would prove Silverado

conspired
conspired w ithCarol
with Manleyand
Carol Manley andDavid,
David, whose medicalpower
whosemedical ofattorney
powerof didnot
attorneydid not
become effectiveaand/or
become effective nd/orwas
wasrevoked, toprevent
revoked, to Rubyfromexercising
prevent Ruby herrights
from exercising her rights
0 leave
toleave
to Silverado
Silverado togo
to theBaytown
gototothe BaytownChurch
Church ofChrist;
of tovisit
Christ; to Plaintiffs
visitPlaintiffs at their
attheir
N
N
homes;to
homes; to go outtoeat
goout orgo
to eat or shopping
go shopping withPlaintiffs;
with and/orto
Plaintiffs; and/or tomove
moveto nursing
toaa nursing
home thatiscloser
home that herchurch
is closer ttoo her inBaytown.
church in Baytown.
OF
ACTION
CAUSES
CAUSES OF ACTION

A
A FALSE IMPRISONMENT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT

10
10

Silverado Appx. 0424
No. 1-15-567-CV 1546
 28
28 Texas law
Texas defines false
law defines false imprisonment as the unlawful restraint of
as the an
of an

individual’s
individual's personal lliberty
personal ibertyor freedom of
or freedom movementagainst
of movement against hhis
is or herwill.
or her will.
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs a llegeandwould
allege and would prove thatSilverado
provethat hasrestricted
Silverado has Ruby’smovement
restricted Ruby's movement
to and
to and from
from the premises
thepremises without
without order.
aacourt order.

29
29 Todate,
To Courthas
noCourt
date, no hasdeclared Rubyto
declared Ruby beincompetent
tobe orto
incompetent or lackcapacity.
tolack capacity.

There is no
There is presumption
nopresumption ofincompetence
of incapacity.
orincapacity.
incompetence or
30 Plaintiffs
30 Caroland
Plaintiffs Carol andTonya
Tonya P eterson,
Peterson, asnext
as next friends ofRuby,
friendsof claimall
Ruby, claim allofher
of her

rightsunderthe
rights ElderlyBill
under the Elderly Bill of Rightsfoundin
of Rights Section102of
found in Section theHuman
102 of the Human
ResourceC
Resource including: (a)Anelderly
odeincluding:
Code individual
(a) An elderly individual hasall therights,
has all the benefits,
rights, benefits,

responsibilities, and privileges granted
responsibilities, andprivileges granted by the constitution andlawsof
by theconstitution thisstate
and laws of this state
andtheUnited
and States,except
the United States, exceptwhere lawfully
wherelawfully restricted.
restricted. Theelderly
The individual
elderly individual has
has

the rightto
the right befree
tobe interference,
freeofofinterference, coercion,
coercion, discrimination, and reprisalin
andreprisal in
exercising
exercising tthese
hesecivilrights. (b)Anelderly
civil rights. (b) individual hastheright
An elderly individual has the right to betreated
to be treated

withdignity andrespect
with dignity and forthepersonal
respectfor integrity
the personal integrity oftheindividual,
of the individual, without regard
withoutregard

to race,religion,
to race, nationalorigin, sex,
religion,national sex,age, disability,
age, disability, marital status,oorr source
marital status, of
sourceof

payment. This
payment. means thatthe
This means elderlyindividual:
that the elderly (1) has the right
individual: (1)hasthe right to makethe
to make the

individual's
individual's ownchoices
own regarding
choicesregarding theindividual's
the personal
individual's personal affairs,care,
affairs, benefits,
care,benefits,
and services; (2)hastheright
andservices; befreefromabuse,
tobe
(2) has the right to free from abuse, neglect, andexploitation...
neglect,and exploitation...

Tex.H
Tex. um.Resource
Hum. ResourceCode 102.003.
Codess102.003. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Caroland
Carol andTonya Peterson
Tonya Peterson allege
allege
11

Silverado Appx. 0425
No. 1-15-567-CV 1547
 andwould
and thatSilverado
provethat
would prove Silverado been violatedthis
beenrepeatedly violated thisStatute withrespect
Statute with respect
Ruby's
toRuby's
to rights.
rights.

31 Plaintiffs
31 Plaintiffs Carol
Carol and
and Tonya
Tonya Peterson,
Peterson, as next
as next friends
friends of Ruby,
ofRuby, claim allofofhherer
claim all

rightsundertheTexas
rights under the Texas A dministrative
Administrative Code19.401,
Code 19.401, et whichguarantees
seq.,which
et seq., guarantees the
the

elderly
elderly withtheuninhibited
with the uninhibited right
right to freeaccess
to free andegress
accessand egressof theirfacilities
oftheir in
facilities in

whichthey
which theyreside, mandating
reside, mandating that
that an patient’s
elderlypatient's
anelderly privacyrights
privacy rightsbe
berespected
respected
theirreceiptof unopenedmail,telephone
by
by not interfering
notinterfering in any
in anymanner withtheir receipt
manner with of unopened mail, telephone

calls,private
calls, meetingareas
private meeting withtheirfamily.Section
areas with 19.401
their family. Section 19.401 specifically
specifically states
states

thefollowing
the guarantees:
following guarantees:

Theresident
a. The
a. resident hastheright exercisehis
to exercise
has the right to hisrights asa
rights as residentat
a resident atthe facilityand
thefacility and

asacitizen orresident oftheUnited States.
as a citizen or resident of the United States.
b.The
b. resident
The resident hasthe
has right
theright tobe
to free
befree ofinterference,
of coercion,
interference, coercion, or
discrimination, or
reprisal fromthe
reprisal from thefacility inexercising
facility in hisrights.
exercising his rights.

c. In
c. thecase
In the ofaaresident
caseof residentadjudged
adjudged incompetent
incompetent underthelawsof theState
under the laws of the of
State of

Texasby
Texas ofcompetent
by aa court of competentjurisdiction, the
the rightsof theresident
rights of the residentare
are
exercisedbbyy the
exercised the person appointeduunder
personappointed nderTexaslaw
Texas law to acton
to act theresident's
onthe resident's
behalf.
behalf.

d. facilitymust
The facility
d. The complywith
mustcomply with all applicable
allapplicable provisionsof
provisions of the
theHuman
Human

Resources C
Resources ode,T
Code, itle6,
Title andChapter
6, and 102.An
Chapter 102. Anindividual
individual may notbe
may not denied
bedenied
12
12

Silverado Appx. 0426
No. 1-15-567-CV 1548
 appropriate
appropriate careon thebasisof
care on the hisrace,
basis of his religion,
race,religion, color, nationalorigin,
color,national origin,sex,
sex,
age, handicap,
age,handicap, status,or
marital status, orsource ofpayment.
source of payment.

Thefacility
e. The
e. allowtheresident
mustallow
facility must theright
the resident the right to observe
toobserve hisreligious
his beliefs.
religious beliefs.

Thefacility mustrespect
The facility must thereligious
respect the religious beliefs oftheresident
beliefsof inaccordance
the resident in with
accordance with

42United
42 States
United States Code
Code §1396f.
§1396f.

32Section
32 Section 19.401,
19.401, etet seq.,
seq., further
further mandates
mandates thatallnursing
that homefacilities
all nursing home facilitiesunder
under

thejurisdiction
the of the
jurisdiction of theDepartment
Department of AgingandDisability
ofAging privacywith
ensureprivacy
and Disability ensure with
respectto
respect accommodations,
toaccommodations, medicaltreatment,
medical treatment,personalcare,
personal care,access, visitation,
access, visitation,

andother
and otherpotentially invasive,uunwanted
potentially invasive, nwantedoorr intrusive acts
acts or practicesbbyy the
or practices the
19.401.
facility. 19.401.

33
33 Plaintiffsaallege
Plaintiffs llegeandwould prove thatSilverado
and would prove failedor
that Silverado failed refusedto
orrefused provide
toprovide
Plaintiffs
privacy
privacy to Rubyand
to Ruby thePlaintiffs regarding
and the phonecalls,
regardingphone personal
orpersonal
calls, mail, or
visitation
visitation with
with Plaintiffs.

34 Plaintiffs would Rubyand
that Ruby theyhave
havesustained
sustained
34 Plaintiffs allegeand
allege and would prove
prove that and they

substantial
substantial damages
damages proximate
asaa proximate
as resultof
result ofSilverado's wrongful
Silverado's wrongful imprisonment
imprisonment of
of

Ruby.Specifically,
Ruby. Plaintiffs
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege andwould
allegeand thatSilverado
provethat
would prove placedthem
Silverado placed them

in reasonable
in reasonable fearof
fear harmfulor
of harmful offensive
oroffensive contactor
contact orarrest by lawenforcement
bylaw enforcement

13
13

Silverado Appx. 0427
No. 1-15-567-CV 1549
 authorities,
authorities, when Silverado wrongfully
when wrongfully o rderedthem
ordered them to leavethe
to leave and
the premises and

issuedcriminal
issued criminal whenthey
trespasswarnings, when
trespass theyattempted visitRuby
tovisit
attempted to Rubyat Silverado.
atSilverado.
35
35 Plaintiffsfurtherallegeand wouldprove
Plaintiffs further allege and would provethat Silverado's
thatSilverado's wrongful
wrongful

imprisonment
imprisonment of
of Rubyand wrongfuldenial
Ruby and wrongful denialof visitationwas
of visitation intentional
wasintentional and
and

malicious,
malicious, suchthatSilverado
such that Silverado should beassessed
shouldbe exemplary
assessed exemplary punitive
orpunitive
or damages.
damages.

B
B ASSAULT
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
AND BATTERY

36
36 Plaintiffs a
Plaintiffs llegeand
allege andwould
would prove thatSilverado
provethat hascommitted
Silverado has assaultand
committed assault and
battery of Ruby
battery of Rubywith respectto
with respect psychotropic
topsychotropic drugsforced
drugs heragainst
uponher
forced upon her
against her

willinfoodandotherwise. Plaintiffs
will in food and otherwise. Plaintiffs allegeand
allege andwould thatSilverado
provethat
would prove knew
Silverado knew

or
or should haveknown
shouldhave thatRubyrefused
known that Ruby refused to takemedications
totake thatshecomplained
medications that she complained

made
hersick.
made her sick.
37
37 Plaintiffsallege
Plaintiffs allegeandwould thatSilverado
provethat
and would prove placedRuby
Silverado placed Rubyinreasonable
in reasonable

fearof harmfulor
fear of aa harmful offensive
oroffensive and/orforcing
contactand/or
contact forcingor herintotaking
or tricking her into taking

whichshe
drugs,which
drugs, sherefused takevoluntarily
totake
refused to becausethey
voluntarily because made herfeelsick.
theymade her feel sick.

38
38 Plaintiffsallege
Plaintiffs allegeand
andwould thatRubysustained
provethat
would prove substantial
Ruby sustained substantial damages
damages

proximate
asaa proximate resultof wrongful
ofSilverado's and/orbattery.
assaultand/or battery.
as result Silverado's wrongful assault .
39
39 Plaintiffs ffurther
Plaintiffs andwould
urtherallege and thatSilverado's
provethat
would prove wrongful
Silverado's wrongful assault
assault

andbattery
and intentional
wasintentional
battery was andmalicious,
and suchthat
malicious, such Silverado
that Silverado shouldbe
should beassessed
assessed

exemplary
exemplary orpunitive
or damages.14
punitive damages.
14

Silverado Appx. 0428
No. 1-15-567-CV 1550
 OF
TRUST
CBREACH FIDUCIARY
OF
BREACH
and DUTY
C BREACH OF TRUST and BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

40Plaintiffs Carol
40 Carol andTonya
and Peterson
Tonya Peterson allege
allege andwould
and prove
would prove thatRuby
that Ruby

revoked the1993
the 1993 Power
Power o
offAttorney
Attorney o
on November 15,2013.Silverado
nNovember hadaa duty
15, 2013. Silverado had duty
acknowledge
toacknowledge
to thefactthatRuby
the revoked
fact that Ruby revoked the1993
the ofattorney.
powerof
1993 power attorney.
41
41 Plaintiffs C
Plaintiffs aroland
Carol andTonya Peterson a
Tonya Peterson llegeandwould
allege and would prove thatRubyand
prove that Ruby and

theyhavesustained substantialdamages
they have sustained substantial proximate
damages as aa proximate resultof
result Silverado's
of Silverado's

breachof
breach and/orbreachof
trustand/or
of trust dutyregarding
breach of fiduciary duty regarding its actions,which
itsactions, which
interfered,infringed
interfered, infringed or deniedRuby's
or denied andthe
Ruby's rights and Plaintiffs'
thePlaintiffs' rights,when
rights, when

Silverado
Silverado rrepeatedly
epeatedly eniedRuby's
ddenied Ruby's rrequests to thechurch
go to
equeststtoo go ofherchoice,
the church of go
her choice, go

outtoeat andgo
out to eat and visitPlaintiffs
tovisit
goto Plaintiffs at theirhomes,
attheir despiteexpress
homes, despite expressnotice ofRuby's
noticeof Ruby's

revocation ofthe1993
revocation of the 1993 power ofattorney
power of attorneyoonnNovember 15,2013.
November 15, 2013.

42
42 Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Carol andTonya
Carol and TonyaPeterson allege
Peterson allege and would
andwould prove
prove that
that Silverado
Silverado

intentionally
intentionally and maliciously failed
andmaliciously failed or refusedto
or refused to honor andrecognize
honorand Ruby's
recognize Ruby's

revocation
revocation ofherprevious ofattorney,
powerof
of her previous power attomey, andinstead,
and continued
instead, continued tohonor
to and
honorand
N
recognize of attorney,
the1993power suchthat
hadbeenrevoked,
which
recognize the 1993 power of attorney, which had been revoked, such that

Silverado
Silverado should beassessed
shouldbe exemplary
assessed exemplary orpunitive
or damages.
punitive damages.

E CONSPIRACY
E

15

Silverado Appx. 0429
No. 1-15-567-CV 1551
 43
43 Plaintiffs claimdamages
claim damages againstthe Silveradobased
against the Silverado based on alleged
thealleged
on the

CarolManley,
amongCarol
conspiracy among Manley,David andSilverado
David and Silverado to accomplish
to accomplish unlawful
anunlawful
an

Conspiracy
purpose. Conspiracy existshere
exists herebecause thereare
because there (l) two
are(1) twoor
ormore (2)an
persons,(2)
more persons, an
·~ objectto
object accomplished, (3)
beaccomplished,
to be meetingoofftheminds
(3) aa meeting theobject
onthe
the minds on ofthe
object of course
the course

ofaction,
of (4)one
action, (4) oneormore unlawful,
or more unlawful, overt acts, and(5)damages
acts,and theproximate
asthe
(5) damages as proximate

result.
result.

44
44 PlaintiffsC
Plaintiffs arolandTonya
Carol and Tonya Peterson
Peterson allege andwould
allege and thatSilverado
provethat
would prove Silverado

agreed withCarolManley
agreedwith andDavid
Carol Manley and violateor
toviolate
David to Ruby`s
orinfringe Ruby's rightsagainst
rights against

falseimprisonment and/orassault
false imprisonment and/or assaultand
andbattery, under thefactsalleged
battery, under inthis
the facts alleged in case.
this case.

Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs C arolandTonya
Carol and Tonya Peterson
Peterson alsoallegeandwould thatSilverado
provethat
also allege and would prove Silverado

agreedwith
agreed withCarol Manleyand
Carol Manley andDavid violateor
toviolate
David to Plaintiffs'
thePlaintiffs'
orinfringe the rightsto
rights to
r!) visitation
visitation with
with Ruby,
Ruby, under
under the
the ffacts
acts alleged
alleged inthis
in this c ase.
case. Silverado
Silverado also
also took
took one
one

or more
or unlawful,overt
moreunlawful, overtacts againstRuby
acts against Rubyandthe Plaintiffs,
andcaused
and the Plaintiffs, and them
caused them

damages
damages proximate
asaa proximate
as result ofsuchwrongful
resultof acts.
such wrongful acts.
PRE-JUDGMENT
PRE-JUDGMENT AND
AND POST JUDGMENT INTEREST
POST JUDGMENT INTEREST
0 45 Plaintiffsaallege
llegeandwould provethatSilverado themof
45 Plaintiffs and would prove that Silverado h asdeprived
has deprived them the
of the

use of such
use of suchfundsthat beawarded
maybe
funds that may awardedas damages iin
actualdamages
as actual n this
thiscase.
case.As
As aa

proximate
proximate result,
result, tthey have been deprived o
heyhavebeendeprived offtheopportunity investsuch
to invest
the opportunity to suchfunds
funds

16
16

Silverado Appx. 0430
No. 1-15-567-CV 1552
TAB 52
 FILED
12/5/2014 4:32:08 PM
DATA ENTRY Stan Stanart
PICK UP THIS DATE c rk
County Clerk

CAUSE
PROBATE
COURT
1
PROBATE COURT 1
Harris County

CAUSE NO.427208-401
427208-401

INRE:
IN RE: G UARDIANSHIP
GUARDIANSHIP OF
OF § INTHE
IN THEPROBATE
PROBATECOURT
COURT
§
RUBY
RUBY P ETERSON,
PETERSON, § NUMBER
NUMBERONE
ONE
ut
0 PROPOSED
PROPOSEDWARD
WARD § HARRIS
HARRISCOUNTY,
COUNTY,TEXAS
TEXAS

Transferred
Transferred from
from the
the 129th JudicialDistrict
District
CAUSE
CAUSEN O.22014-40980
NO. 014-40980

0
MACKEY
MACKEY ("MACK")
("MACK")GLEN
GLENP ETERSON,
PETERSON,§§ INTHE
IN THEDISTRICT
DISTRICTCOURT
COURT
PETERSON,
PETERSON, Individually,
Individually,NextFriend
Next Friend §§
ofRUBY
of RUBY PETERSON,
PETERSON, DON
DONLESLIE
LESLIE §§
PETERSON, and
PETERSON, Individually andas asNext
Next §§
Friend,
Friend, ofRUBY
of RUBYPETERSON,
PETERSON,and and §
LONNY
LONNY PETERSON,
PETERSON, Individuallyandand §§
Next
Next F riendooffRUBY
Friend RUBY S.PETERSON,
S. PETERSON, §§
Plaintiffs, §
V.
V. §§ HARRIS
HARRISCCOUNTY,
OUNTY,
TEXAS
TEXAS
CAROL
CAROLANNE
ANNEM ANLEY,
MANLEY, §
DAVID
DAVID PETERSON,
PETERSON,SILVERADO
SILVERADO §
SENIOR LIVINGCARE
SENIOR LIVINGCARE FACILITY,
FACILITY, §§
TANNA M
TANNA CMILLAN,
MCMILLAN,
LINDALAVINSON,
LINDA LAVINSON,DR.REBECCA
DR. REBECCA §§
CLEARMAN,
CLEARMAN, DR.CHRIS
DR. CHRISMERKYL
MERKYL §§
Defendants. §§ 129TH
129THJJUDICIAL
UDICIAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT
BRIEFINSUPPORT OFMOTION
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONTO
TORECONSIDER
RECONSIDERAND
ANDRESCIND
RESCIND
RULE91ADISMISSAL OFSILVERADO
RULE 91A DISMISSAL OF SILVERADOAND
ANDSANCTIONSORDERS
SANCTIONS ORDERS
andJoshDavisshouldbesanctioned
formisrepresenting
Silverado and Josh Davis should be sanctioned for misrepresentingknown
knownfacts
factsto
to
theCourtand twofrivolous
pleadings
underRules10and13and/or ursuanttotothe
the Court and filing two frivolous pleadings under Rules 10 and 13 and/orppursuant the
inherentauthorityto sanction.Tex.R. Civ.P. 10,13.Despiteevidencein the
Court's inherent authority to sanction. Tex. R. Civ. P. 10, 13. Despite evidence in the
record
Silverado
that KNEWOF
THE
REVOCATION
OF
THE
1993
POWER
OF
record that Silverado KNEW OF THE REVOCATION OF THE 1993 POWER OF
ATTORNEYAND2013DURABLE POWEROFATTORNEY DESIGNATING
ATTORNEY AND 2013 DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY DESIGNATING
DONANDMACKPETERSON, Silverado by andthroughattorneyJoshDavis
DON AND MACK PETERSON, Silverado by and through attorney Josh Davis

Silverado Appx. 0431
No. 1-15-567-CV 1434
 misre resentedthetruth
misrepresented to this HonorableJudgeviathefollowing
the truthtothis Judge via the followingsstatement:
tatement:
"Plaintiffs’
"Plaintiffs' claims h ave
have no basis
no basis inlaw
in law and
and m ust
must be dismissed.
be dismissed. TEX.R.
R.C IV.
P.
Civ. P.
. 9la.
91a. Eachof Plaintiffsccauses
Each of Plaintiffs ausesof
of action,
action, ttaken
akenas true, togetherw
as true,together ithinferences
with inferences
reasonably
reasonablydrawn
drawnfromthem,
from them,ddoonot
notentitle
entitlePlaintiffs
Plaintiffstotothereliefsought
the relief soughtffor
ortwotwo
reasons: 11))Plaintiffs
reasons: Plaintiffs llack
ack standing;and,2)
and, 2)Defendants
Defendantsccannot
annotbe beheldliable
held liable
forrelying on adurableand/ormedical
for relying ona owerof
durable and/or medicalppower ofattorney as amatteroflaw.
attorneyasa matter of law.
As
As a result,
result, P laintiffs’claimsforfalseimprisonment,
Plaintiffs' claims for false imprisonment,assaultassaultaand
nd battery,andand
conspiracy must bedismissed.
conspiracy must be dismissed. TEX.
TEX.R.CIV.
R. Civ.P.91a;
P. 91a; FED.R.CIV.
R. CmPP. .12(b)(6);
12(b)(6);see
see
0 also,
also,SScanlan
canlanv. v.Tex.
Tex.A &MUniv.,
A&M Univ.,343F.3d533,
343 F.3d 533,553636(5thCir.2003)."
(5th Cir. 2003)."

Silverado cannotclaim
Silverado cannotclaimthatitdid notknow
that it didnot knowthe powerof
thepower ofattorney wasrrevoked
attorneywas evoked
because
because in
in response to DonPeterson
response to Don Petersontendering
tenderingtherevocation
the revocationanddurable
and durablepower
power
of
of attorney to Silverado
attorney to on November
Silverado on November115,
5,2013after
2013 after dulyrecordedin
duly recorded inproperty
property
records,Silverado
records, Silveradocalledthe
called the police
police to
to threaten
threaten PLAINTIFFS. Furthermore,
PLAINTIFFS. Furthermore,
Davisintentionally
Davis intentionallymisstates
misstatesthe
thelaw
lawin
infailing tociteTexasHealthand
failingto cite Texas Health andSafety
Safety
CodeSection166.155,
Code Section 166.155,whichmandated
which mandatedthat
thatas soon as Silverado
assoonas Silveradoreceived
receivedthe
the
revocation
revocationand new durable
andnew powerof
durablepower attorney November115,
ofattorneyNovember 5,2013,they
2013, theyhad
hadaa
statutoryduty to placeit
statutory dutyto
in Ruby Peterson'sffile
place it in RubyPeterson’s ileand ensurethat
and ensure thatall
all employees
employees
knewaboutit. Tex.HealthandSafety Code 166.155.DDavis
knew about it. Tex. Health and SafetyCode166.155. avisthenmisstates
then misstatesthelaw
the law
in citingthe FederalRule12(b)(6)when
in citing the Federal Rule 12(b)(6) w henTexasCourtshave
Texas Courts haveexpresslYconcluded
expressly concluded
that althoughoriginallymodeledafter FRCP 12(b)(6),RRule
that although originally modeled after FRCP12(b)(6), ule 91a wasnot
91awas notan
an
extensionofthefederalRuleandshould not be citedas
extension of the federal Rule and shouldnotbecited assuch,yethedoes
such, yet he doesanyway.
anyway.
Theforeoing asserted inbadfaithwithintentional distortion ofknownfacts nd
was asserted in bad faith with intentional distortion of known factsaand
The foregoing was
law. Moreover,the questionof whetherPLAINTIFFShave standingPOST-
law. Moreover, the question of whether PLAINTIFFS have standing POST-
SETTLEMENTagreementwhereSILVERADO wasnot
SETTLEMENT agreement where SILVERADOwas notaaparty
partyto
this contract,nor
to thiscontract, nor
thirdparty doesnotrenderlegitimate claimsillegitimate particularly where
third party beneficiary, does not render legitimate claims illegitimate particularly where
theagreement isarguably voidforillegality.
the agreement is arguably void for illegality.

Silverado Appx. 0432
No. 1-15-567-CV 1435
 The Texas Health
TheTexas Health andSafety Code regarding
and Safety Code regarding M edical
Medical Powersoof
Powers fAttorney
Attorney
0 provides
providestthat
hatonlythe
only the principal terminate aa medical
can terminate
principal can power of
medicalpower of attorney,
attorney,can
can

revoke even ifincompetent
revoke even if incompetentandwithout
and without rregard
egardto competency,and
to competency, oncerevoked,
andonce revoked,
a thedocument is terminated
the document is terminated a ndcannot
and cannot b
beerevived
revived b
byyaa settlement agreement. Sec.
settlement agreement. Sec.
0
166.155.
166.155. T hisis
This trueas
is particularly true RubyPeterson, who
astotoRuby is presumed
who is presumed competent
competent

under
under tthe
heTexas
TexasE statesCCode
Estates odeuntil eterminedby
untilddetermined jury
byaa tobe
juryto incompetentbyclear
beincompetent by clear

and convincing evidence.
and convincing evidence.Forthis reason, tthe
For this reason, heCourterredallowing RussjJones
Court erred allowing Russ onesand]ill
and Jill

Young to signthe
Young to sign the agreement
agreement o
onn Ruby’s
Ruby's behalf. Ruby
RubyPetersonis necessaryparty
Peterson isaanecessary party
absent
absent ffrom
romtheRule11and
the Rule 11 and cannot
cannot eeven reviveaaterminated
venrevive powerof
terminatedpower ofattorney.
attorney.

Tex.H
Tex. ealthaand
Health ndSafety
SafetyC ode1166.155.
Code 66.155.
Sec.166.155.REVOCATION.
Sec. 166.155. REVOCATION.(a) Amedical power
(a) A power of
of attorneyisis
revoked
revoked by:
by:
(1)
(1) oral writtennotification anytimeby
or written notificationatatany
oral or theprincipal
time bythe tothe
principalto the
agent
agent or
licensedor certified
or aa licensed or certified health orresidential
healthor are provider
residentialccare provideror
or
by other act evidencing
any other act
by any
evidencingaa specific
specific intent to revokethe
intentto revoke the power,
power,
withoutregard to whetherthe principalis competentoor
without regard to whether the principal is competent r the
the
principal'smental state;
principal's mentalstate;
(2) executionby the principalof subsequentm
(2) execution by the principal of aa subsequent edical powerof
medicalpower of
attorney;
attorney; or
or
(3) the divorceof the principaland spouse,ififthe is the
(3) the divorce of the principal andspouse, spouse isthe
thespouse
principal's agent, unlessthe medicalpower of attorneyprovides
principal's agent, unless the medical power of attorney provides
otherwise.
otherwise.
(b) A principal'slicensedor certifiedhealth or residentialcare
(b) A principal's licensed or certified health or residential care

Silverado Appx. 0433
No. 1-15-567-CV 1436
 providerwho
provider whoisis informedof or providedwith
informed ofor provided withaa revocationofofaa

power of
medical power of attorneyshallimmediately
attorney shall immediatelyrrecord
ecordthe
therevocation
revocationin
in

theprincipal's
the principal'smedical
medicalrecord
recordandgive
and givenotice
noticeoof
ftherevocation
the revocationtothe
to the

agentand any knownhealthandresidential
agent and any careproviders
known health and residentialcare providerscurrently
currently
responsible
responsible ffor
ortheprincipal's
the principal'scare.
care.
Addedby Acts 1991,72nd
Added by Acts 1991, 72ndLeg.,ch. 16, Sec.3.02(a),
Leg., ch. 16, Sec. 3.02(a),eeff.
ff. Aug.26,
Aug. 26, 1991.
1991.
Renumbercd
Renumberedfrom
from Civil Practice
Civil Practice &Remedies
& RemediesCode
CodeS ec.1135.005
Sec. 35.005 and
and
amended
amended byActs1999,
by Acts 1999,776th
6thLeg.,
Leg.,ch.450,Sec.1.05,
ch. 450, Sec. 1.05,eeff.
ff.Sept.1,1999.
Sept. 1, 1999.

Moreegregious
More egregiousis
is JOSHDAVIS’
JOSH DAVIS' aattempt
ttempttto securemandatory
o secure ttomeysfeesin
mandatoryaattorneys fees in

excess ooff$115,000
excess $115,000 ffor
orhisclient
his clientw hileknowing
while knowinghhe
emissed
missedthedeadline tofileeither
the deadlineto file eitherRRule
ule
9la Motion,mandating
91a Motion,m andatingsanctions
sanctionsunderRule10and
under Rule 10 and13.Tex.R.
13. Tex. R.Civ.P
Civ. P10,
10,13.
13.He
He
blatantlyfailedto meettthe
blatantly failedtomeet
hetime
timedeadline tofileeither
deadlineto file eitherR ule91aMotion
Rule toDismiss
91a Motionto Dismissby
by
filingthefirst
filing the first frivolousmotiononOctober
motionon October 117,
7,2014andthesecond
2014 and the secondhisweek—more
his week—morethan
than
60 daysafterappearingin Court, tto
60 days after appearing in Court, o attendandparticipate
attend and participate iin
n the temporary iinjunction
the temporary njunction
hearings July29,2014—thus
on July 29, 2014—thuswaiving
waivingsservice.
ervice.This
hearings on meansthatthelastpossible
Thismeans that the last possibleday
day
he couldfile Rule91aMotionwas September
he could file aa Rule 91a Motion was September 229,
9,2014—rendering
2014—renderingbothMotions
both Motions
frivolous as a matter
frivolous asa
oflaw.
matter of law.

9la.3Time forMotionandRuling. Amotionodis-
91a.3 Time for Motion and Ruling. A motiontto missmust
dis- missm ustbbe:
e:

1. (a)filedwithin60daysafterthefirstpleading containingthechallenged causeoof
1. (a) filed within 60 days after the first pleading containing the challengedcause f
actionisservedonthemovant;
action is served on the movant;

BadfaithisclearinDavisandSilverado’s knowingly deceptiveuseofRule9la
Bad faith is clear in Davis and Silverado's knowingly deceptiveuse of Rule 91atoto

Silverado Appx. 0434
No. 1-15-567-CV 1437
 gain
gain mandatoryattomeys’
attorneys' feesthey notentitled
arenot
fees they are entitledto matteroof
as amatter
toasa flaw.As
law. As stated,the
the
C.; Rulell
Rule 11 purportsto change history ratherthan
purports to changehistoryrather thansettleclaimsand
settle claims andrenderRuby’s
render Ruby's

revocation
revocation aa nullity,
nullity, w hichthe
which the parties
parties are incapableof
are incapable of doing.FURTHERMORE,
doing. FURTHERMORE,
Cl
0 THIS
THIS ISARED
IS A RED H ERRING
HERRING AS
AS DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTSNEVR
NEVRHAD
HADA NY
ANYABILITY
ABILITYTO
TO
CO
HOLD
HOLD RUBY
RUBY PETERSON
PETERSONAGAINST
AGAINSTH ERWILLAND
HER WILL ANDFORCIBLY
FORCIBLYDRUG
DRUGHER
HER
(ADMITTED
(ADMITTEDB
BY DAVIDPETERSON,
YDAVIDPETERSON,CAROL
CAROLANNMANLEY
ANN MANLEYANDDR.CHRIS
AND DR. CHRIS

MERKL). An agent cannot holdthe
An agentcannothold theprincipalagainstherwill, nordoesthat
principal against her will,nor does thatagent
agent
CI
0 havethe
have the right
right or power in
or power in the
the law
law to
to overcome the willof
overcomethe the principalwith
will of the principal with
respect o Ruby’srefusalofpsychotropic
respect tto Ruby's refusal of psychotropicdrugsthat
drugs thatmadeher
made hersickthat weregiven
sick thatwere given
againstherwishes
against her wishes for
forovera yearby
over ayear by Silverado
Silveradow ithno
with
legal righttotodothis.Even
no legalright do this. Even

now, Ruby
now, Ruby is being held
is being held against
againsther
her will and was
will and founddruggedagain
was found drugged again over
over
Thanksgiving
Thanksgivingholidays,
holidays,ssuch
uchthatDEFENDANTS
that DEFENDANTSare arecontinuing
continuingthe same courseof
thesamecourse of
conduct
conduct that got themsued.
that got them sued.

III.P
III. URPOSE
PURPOSEOF
OFRULEE
RULEE91A
91A
JOSHDAVIS isknowingly violatingRule91ain
JOSH DAVIS is knowingly violatingRule twofrivolous
91a intwo filings nderRRule
frivolous filingsuunder ule
9labecause theyareboth
91a because theyare
beyond thedeadline
both beyond the deadlineto
file.Rule
to file.R ule9la wasenacted
91awas tostreamline
enactedto streamline
litigation expedited byproviding meansofgetting
litigation expedited by providingaameans
ridofpatently
of getting rid of patently unmeritoriousclaims,
claims,
"providing idealbalance between lowering
an ideal balance between loweringcosts
"providing an
andimproving fairness, whilestill
costs and improving fairness, while still
providing to the civilcourtsystem." H.B.274.As withothertort reform
access to the civil court system." H.B. 274. As with other tort
providingaccess reform
legislation,once HouseBill 274 bill was enrolled,the TexasSupremeCourthad
legislation, once House Bill 274 bill was enrolled, the Texas Supreme Court had
out
authorityto adoptandimplement rules tocany
authority to adopt and implement rulesto
thelegislation. Byitsorderdated
carry out the legislation. By its order dated
Nov.13,2012,theTexasSupremeCourtpromulgated Rule91a,which wassubject
Nov. 13, 2012, the Texas Supreme Court promulgated Rule 91a, whichwas subjectto
to
changefollowingpubliccomment periodthatclosed onFeb.1,2013.
change followingaa public comment period that closedon
Afterthat
Feb. 1, 2013. After that
commentperiod,thecourtmade minorrevisions totherule —which is now final,
which isnow
comment period, the court made certain minor revisions to the rule——

Silverado Appx. 0435
No. 1-15-567-CV 1438
 effective
effective March 1,
1,2013.
2013.

Despite
Despite tthe fact that the originalversion
hefactthatthe versionoof
fthebillmade
the bill madereference tothe
referenceto the federal

the
enrolled
enacted
and eliminated
version any reference.
such The of
text
rules, the enrolled and enacted version eliminated any such reference. The text of

theoriginal
the original vversion
ersionofHB274specified:
of HB 274 specified:
The
The SupremeCourt
Supreme Courtshall
shalladopt
adoptrules toprovidefor
rulesto thefair
provide forthe fair and
and early
early
dismissal
dismissalofnon-meritorious cases ...and
of non-meritoriouscases andshall
shallmodel
modelthe
therules
rulesafter
afterRules
Rules99
and
and 1
12,2,
the F
the ederal
Federal Rulesof
RulesofC ivil
CivilProcedure, tothe
Procedure,to thee possible.
xtent
extent H.B.274.
possible.H.B.274.
However, noreference
However, no to theFederal
referencetothe FederalRules
Rulesisfound
is foundinthe enrolledversion
in theenrolled versionof
of
HB
HB 274,whichprovides:"The
274, which provides: "The Supreme
SupremeC ourtshalladopt
Court toprovide
shall adopt rulesto provideforthe
for the
dismissal
dismissalof
of causesof actiontthat
causesofaction hathhave
avennoobasis
basisiin
nlaw or fact
lawor fact o
onnmotion
motion and
and without
without

evidence.Therulesshallprovide
evidence.The rules shall providethatthemotion todismiss
that the motionto dismisssshall
hallbegranted ordenied
be grantedor denied
within45
within 45 days
days of thefilingof
the filing of themotion to dismiss." H.B.274.TheTexasSupreme
the motion to H.B. 274. The Texas Supreme
Courtadopted
Court adopted Rule9la,
Rule 91a, which states, ""A
which states, A cause
causeof
ofactionhas nobasisin
action hasno basis inlawif
law ifthe
the
allegations,
allegations, taken
taken as true, togetherwithinferences
as true,together with inferencesrreasonably
easonablydrawnfromthem,do
drawn from them, do
not entitletheclaimant o thereliefsought.
not entitle the claimanttto the relief sought.A causeofactionhas
Acause nobasisin
of action hasno basis infactif
fact if
no reasonable ersoncouldbelieve
no reasonable pperson could believethefactspleaded."
the facts pleaded."Thereis
There isnothing
nothingunbelievable
unbelievable
aboutSilverado falselyimprisoning assaultingRubyPeterson.They’ve
an assaulting RubyPeterson.
about Silverado falsely imprisoningan They'vebeen
beensued
sued
in HarrisCountyforthis samethingforwhich
in Harris County for this same aninjunction
thing for whichan wasgrantedbyJudge
injunctionwas granted by Judge
Grant Dorffman. Furthermore,
Texaslaw
Grant Dorffman. Furthermore, Texas law definesfalseimprisonment
false imprisonmentas
holding
as holdingaa
person
againsttheirwillwithoutlegalauthority, whichispreciselywhatDEFENDANTS
person against their will without legal authority, which is precisely what DEFENDANTS
havedone.See Big TownNursingHomev Newman,461S.W2a'195,(Tex.1970).
have done. See Big Town Nursing Home v Newman, 461 S.W.2d 195, (Tex. 1970).
(statingthatFalse is the directrestraintof of thephysical
(stating that False imprisonment is the direct restraint ofoneperson
one person of the physical
libertyofanotherwithoutadequatelegal andholdingthat
liberty of another without adequate legal justification and holding that

Silverado Appx. 0436
No. 1-15-567-CV 1439
 There iis
There s ample
ample eevidence
vidence to sustain
to sustain jury findings..givenDefendant
Defendantrestrained
restrained Plaintiff

againsthis
against his willillegally,
will illegally,prevented
preventedhim
him fromusingthephoneand
using the phone andtoldhe
told hecould
couldnot
not

leave for 51days,
51 days, w hichisfar
which is farlessthanSilverado
less than Silveradohhas
asdone.
done.").
Cr,
0 Just as in
Just as in BigTown
Big Town Nursing
Nursing H ome,Silverado
Home, Silveradoacted
acted"inthe utterdisregard
"in theutter disregardof
of
CO
rs
plaintiff's legalrights,
rights,kknowing
nowingthere was no courtorderforcommitment,
therewasno order for commitment,andthatthe
and that the
admission agreementprovided
admission agreementprovidedhe not tobekept
wasnotto
hewas be keptaagainst
gainst
hiswill.”
his will."R ule9la
Rule usesthe
91auses the
0
phrase
phrase "nobasisinlaw or fact",
"no basis in law or fact",bbut
utisisnot mirroroof
notaamirror fthegroundless
the groundlessstandard
standardinRule13.
in Rule 13.
Cr!
0 Instead, the plausibilitystandard
Instead, theplausibility governsggiven
standardgovems iventhattheCourt lookatatfacts
annotlook
that the Courtccannot factsother
other
than as rrecited
than as ecited to decide
to decidethe
them otion.
motion.
IV.
IV. SANCTIONS
SANCTIONSAGAINST
AGAINSTSCHWAGER
SCHWAGER
NOT
NOTJUSTIFIED
JUSTIFIEDANDMUSTB
ANDMUSTBEERECSINDED
RECSINDED
WhetherunderRule 10 or RuleI3
Whether under Rule 10or Rule 13 of the Texas
of the TexasRulesof CivilProcedure,
Rules of Civil Procedure,
sanctions are not
sanctions are
againstSchwageron anybasis,
not justified against Schwageronany otwithstanding
basis,nnot withstandingthefailure
the failuretoto
establishgoodcausebbyy specificfacts
establish good cause
statedintheorder.Thiswas
facts stated in the order.This notdone.
wasnot done.Good
Goodcause
cause
is notstated,norarefactsstatedto notifyas to whythesanctions
wereordered.Asstated
is not stated, nor are facts stated to notify as to why the sanctions were ordered. As stated
in to sanctions motionsandsupplements, Schwager’s Article Section8/ First
response to sanctions motions and supplements, Schwager's ArticleI I Section 8 /First
in response
AmendmentRightswere
Amendment Rightsw ereviolatedin patently discriminatoryorderhighlypunitive
violated in aa patently discriminatory order highly punitive
without Muchlike prohibitedpostfactolaw,whichseekstopunishwithout
without cause.
cause. Much likeaa prohibitedex
ex post facto law, which seeks to punish without
anynoticeto the allegedly inviolationofwhattherules/lawconsistsof,thisorder
any notice to theperson
person allegedly in violation of what the rules/law consists of, this order
doesthe sameby the Courtstatingas the casebeganthe intentnotto interferewith
does the same by the Court stating as the case began the intent not to interfere with
Schwager’sprotectedspeechandrefusingto do so—followed by egregious$10,000
Schwager's protected speech and refusing to do so—followed byan
an egregious $10,000
sanctiontoPacheco’s clientsnotwithstanding thepriorguarantee. Art.I 8,
sanction to Pacheco's clients notwithstanding the prior guarantee. Art. I Sec. 8, 10 Amend
Const.SeeResponseto SanctionsandSupplemental
filings well of
U.S. Const. See Response to Sanctions and Supplemental filingsas
as wellas
as Affidavit of

Silverado Appx. 0437
No. 1-15-567-CV 1440
 Inability t0pay.
Inability to Rule13provides:
pay. Rule 13 provides:

"Thesignatures of
"The of attorneys or
or parties certificate
partiesconstitute a certificate bythemthat
by them that

they have
they read the
have read pleading,motion
the pleading, or other
motion or paper; that
other paper; to the
that to the best of their
best of their
informationand
knowledge,information
knowledge, beliefformedafter
and belief formed after reasonable inquirythe
reasonableinquiry instrument
the instrument

is not
is groundlessand
notgroundless broughtin
and brought in bad faith,or
bad faith, groundlessand
or groundless broughtfor
and brought the
for the

purposeof
purpose harassment....."
of harassment ..." Tex.
Tex.R. Civ.P
R. Civ. 13.Courtsshall
P 13. that pleadings,
Courts shall presume that
0
motions
andother arefiled
papers ingood Id.Sanctions
faith. beissued
cannot
motions and other papers are filed in good faith. Id. Sanctions cannot be issued
C) andbadfaith,"the particularsof whichmustbe
without showingof
withouta showing goodcause
of good causeand bad faith, "the particulars of which must be
-
inthesanction
stated This
order."wasnot November
done 2014.
10, Texas have
courts
stated in the sanction order." This was not done November 10, 2014. Texas courts have

historically employed
employed an objective standardin
an objective determiningw
standard in determining whether pleadingis
hetheraa pleading is

groundless,
groundless, looking
looking to the facts available ttoo thelitigant
to thefactsavailable andthecircumstances
the litigant and at thetime
the circumstances at the time

suit was
suit Asidefrombasingthe
wasfiled. Aside sanctions
from basing the sanctions motionson
motions falseallegations
onfalse that
allegations that

PLAINT1FFS’
PLAINTIFFS' pleadings frivolousSOUGHT
pleadings were frivolous SOUGHT TO
TO BE ILLUSTRATED
BEILLUSTRATED BY
BY

NOTHING MORE THAN
NOTHING MORE THAN ACONTRACT TO WHICH
A CONTRACT TO WHICH THEY ARE N
THEY ARE OT
NOT P RIVY
PRIVY OR
OR

BENEFICIARIES,
BENEFICIARIES, the order
the doesnot
orderdoes stateany
not state anyparticulars, whichconstitute
particulars,which good
constitute good

Tex.R.
cause.Tex.
cause. Civ.P
R. Civ. 13.Furthermore,
P 13. Furthermore, showing
noshowing
no ofbad
of faithwas
bad faith demonstrated
wasdemonstrated
on the part
on the ofSchwager,
part of Schwager,mandatory under Rule 10.Tex.R.
mandatoryunderRule Civ.P.
10. Tex. R. Civ. 10.Schwager
P. 10. Schwager

lengthhergoodfaithmotive,
explainsaatt length
explains which is
her good faith motive, which bepresumed
to be
is to presumedbytheCourt
by the Court

anyway.S
anyway. eeamended
See of inability
amended affidavit of inabilityto
to pay. Noevidence
pay. No introducedto
wasintroduced
evidence was to
controvert
this and
controvert this the goodfaith
overcome the
and overcome presumptionenjoyed.
good faith presumption enjoyed. In fact, no
In fact, no
admissible e
admissible videncew
evidence introducedat
asintroduced
was allagainst
at all Schwagerttoo justifysanctions,
against Schwager but
justify sanctions, but

patent hearsayand
patent hearsay unauthenticatedw
and unauthenticated web pages, which
ebpages, were never proven to
which wereneverproven have
to have

been authoredbySchwager.
evenauthored
been even Tex.R.Evid802,901.
by Schwager. Tex. R. Evid 802, 901.

Silverado Appx. 0438
No. 1-15-567-CV 1441
 V. R
V. ULE
RULE 91A
91ANOT
NOTA PPLICABLE
APPLICABLE ANDS
AND TANDARD
STANDARDNOT
NOTM ET
MET
0 Rule91apermits
Rule 91a permits aa courtto allegationstthat
court to disregard factual allegations hat "a
"areasonable
reasonable
person could not believe."SSilverado
person couldnotbelieve." ilverado everestablished
nnever establishedthis.To sayafter
this. Tosay afteraacase
case

settles
settles aand the parties' sstanding
ndtheparties’ tanding iissaamatter
matterooffquestionably
questionablyenforceable
enforceablecontract-to
contract—to

whichSilverado wasnot
which Silveradowas party and is notaathirdpartybeneficiary
notaapartyandisnot third party beneficiary afterthefiling
the filing
deadline
deadline entirelydisregards
entirely disregardsthe
theletterand
letter andspiritofthe law. Whilelegalconclusions
spirit of thelaw.While legal conclusions

can provide tthe
can provide heframework
frameworkof
ofaa complaint,they mustbesupported
theymust be supportedby
by factualallegations.
allegations.
Crl
0 Fromthe
From the outset,PLAlNTIFFS’ pled exhaustive
outset, PLAINTIFFS' pled exhaustive ffactual
actualallegations.
allegations."Whenthere
"When there

are well-pled factual
are factual allegations,a courtshould
acourt assumetheir
shouldassume andtthen
their veracityand hen
determine
determinewhether
whetherthey
they plausiblygive
giverrise
iseto an entitlement
to an to relief."
entitlement to H.B.274.
relief."H.B. 274.
Rule91arequires morethan
Rule 91a requires more "aformulaic
than"a formulaicrecitation
recitationofofthe
theelements
elementsoof
f aacause
causeof
of
action"
action" and
andD EFENDANTS
DEFENDANTSreceived
receivedmuchmorethan
muchmore thanaaformulaic
formulaicrecitation
recitationof
oftthe
he
elements
elements ffrom
romday
day one.
one.

"Except in
"Except in aa case broughtunder
case broughtundertthe
heFamily
FamilyC odeora
Code casegoverned
or acase governedby
by
Chapter14oftheTexasCivilPractice
Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil P ractice
andRemedies
and RemediesCode,
Code,aa partymay
may

move to
move dismiss causeofaction
to dismissaacause onthegrounds
of actionon the groundsthatithas nobasisinlaw
that it hasno basis in law
or fact.A cause of
or fact. A cause
actionhas no basisin
of action has no basis in lawif
law if theallegations,
the allegations,taken
takenas
as
true,together withinferences reasonably drawnfromthem,ddo
true, together with inferences reasonably drawn fromthem,
onot entitle
not entitle
theclaimant
the claimantto
thereliefsought.A causeofaction
to the relief sought. Acause
has nobasisin
of action hasno basis infactif
fact if
noreasonable
no reasonableperson
couldbelieve thefactspleaded." Rule9la.
person could believe the facts pleaded." Rule 91a.
The followingillustratesthe differencebetweenthe FederalRulesandRule
The following illustrates the difference between the Federal Rules and Rule
91awhichDavisglossesover:
91a which Davis glosses over:

Silverado Appx. 0439
No. 1-15-567-CV 1442
 Legal
Legal Insufficiency

FRCPl2(b)(6) —"Failure
FRCP 12(b)(6) — "Failureto stateaa claim
to state upon whichrelief
claim upon canbe
which reliefcan be

granted"
granted"

TRCP91a
TRCP 91a —"[A]llegations. .. .. .do
"[A]llegations notentitlethe
donot entitle the claimanttototherelief
the relief

sought."
sought."

Factual Insufficiency
FRCPl2(b)(6)
FRCP 12(b)(6) ——Must
Mustcross "the line betweenppossibility
cross"thelinebetween ossibilityaand
ndplausibility
plausibility
of
of entitlement to relief" BellAtlantic
entitlementto Bell AtlanticC orp.v.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550U.S.544,
550 U.S. 544,
570(2007).
570 (2007).
TRCP
TRCP 9la
91a——"[N]o personcould
"[N]o reasonableperson couldbelieve
believethefactspleaded."
the facts pleaded."NNot
ot
once did Davis show
once didDavis showwhy anyoftheclaims
whyany of the claimsppled
ledwith80+ pagesoffactual
with 80+pages of factual
backup
backupcould not be
couldnot believable.This
be believable. This Rule was intended
Rule was to dismiss
intendedto dismiss

patently frivolous
patently frivolouscclaims
laimssuch asroutinely
suchas routinely filedbyprisoners
by prisonersppro
rosesewith
with
bizarre
bizarre factualallegations thatcould
allegationsthat couldnever be believable.
neverbe believable.Davis/
Davis /
Silveradofailedutterlyinthisendeavor.
Silverado failedutterlyin this endeavor.
VI. MEDIATED SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT CONTRACTTO
VI. MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTAACONTRACT
TO WHICH
WHICH
SILVERADOWAS NOT APARTY NOR ATHIRD PARTY
SILVERADO WAS NOT A PARTY NOR A THIRD PARTYBENEFICIARY
BENEFICIARY
Thebackground rule for enforceability of mediatedsettlementagreements,
The background rule for enforceability of mediated settlement
agreements,as
as
describedintheTexasADRAct,providesthatthesettlementagreementisenforceable
described in the Texas ADR Act, provides that the settlementagreement
is enforceableas
as
any othercontract, andthe incorporate the termsooffthesettlement
may incorporate theterms
any other contract, and the court may the settlementagreement
agreement
intothecourt’s decree. Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code § 154.071.Although
into the court's final decree. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 154.071. Although
the settlementagreementarisesfromthe suit,enforcement
of a mediationagreement,
the settlement agreement arises from the suit, enforcement of a mediation agreement,
if reachedthroughcourt-ordered mediation,mustbe determined in breach—of-
even if reached through court-ordered mediation,must
even be determined inaa breach-of-

Silverado Appx. 0440
No. 1-15-567-CV 1443
 cause ofaction
contract cause of action uunder
ndernnormal
ormalrules
rulesofpleading
of pleadingandevidence.
and evidence.SeeCadle
See CadleC 0.v.v.
Co.

Castle, 913S.W.2d
913 S.W.2d 6 27(Tex.
627 (Tex. A pp.—
App. Dallas11995,
—Dallas 995,writdenied).
writ denied).Thus, nymediated
Thus,aany mediated

settlementis
settlement as a contract. See
is enforceableasa v.D
See Hardmanv. ault,
Dault, 2S.W.2d
2 S.W.2d378,
378,380
380

(Tex. App.—
(Tex. App. —SanAntonio
San Antonio 1999, opet.)(citing
1999,nno pet.) (citingC.P.&R.C.§
C.P. & R.C. §154.07l(a)).
154.071(a)).AA wrinkleisis
added
added in
in to this provision ooffthe
to thisprovision TexasADRActwhenreconciling
the TexasADR Act when reconcilingwithRule11ofthe
with Rule 11 of the

Texas Rules
Texas Rules ofCivilProcedure,
of Civil Procedure,which states,""Unless
whichstates, Unlessotherwiseprovided
providedintheserules,
in these rules,

agreement between
no agreement
no orparties
between attorneysor partiestouching anysuitpending
touchingany will beenforced
suit pendingwillbe enforced

CJ unless iittbeinwriting,
unless be in writing, signed
signedaand
ndfiled
filedwith
withthe
thepapers
papersaas partoftherecord,
spart orunless
of the record,or unlessitit
bemade
be made in court aand
open court
in open ndentered
enteredofrecord."
of record."TTex.
ex.RR..Civ.P.
Civ. P.11.
11.
Contract
Contract law governs agreementsmade
law governs pursuanttotorule
agreements madepursuant rule11.Ronin
11. Roninv.v. Lerner,
77 S.W.3d
S.W.3d 883,886(Tex.
883, 886 (Tex. A pp.—Houston
App.—Houston[lst
[1stDist.]1999, opet.).A
Dist.] 1999,nno contractisislegally
pet.). Acontract legally
binding
bindingonlyif
only if its
its terms
terms are sufficientlydefinitetotoenable
are sufficiently to understand
enableaa court to understandtthe
he
parties’
parties' o bligations.
obligations. SeeFortWorth Indep.SSch.
See Fort WorthIndep. ch.Dist. v.CityofFortWorth,
Dist.v. City of Fort Worth,222
2S.W.3d
S.W.3d
831,846(Tex.2000)."
831, 846 (Tex. 2000)." Each contract sshould
Each contract houldbe
be considered
consideredsseparately
eparatelytotodetermine
determineits
its

material tenns."
terms." T.O.Stanley
StanleyBootCo.,Inc. v.BankofElPaso,847S.W.2d
Boot Co., Inc.v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d218,221
218, 221
(Tex.1992).
(Tex. 1992). T
The parties' iintent
heparties’ ntenttto
o bebound,
be bound, ggenerally
enerallyiis
s aaquestion
questionoffact.SeeHerring
of fact. See Herring

v. H
v. erron
Herron
Lakes
Lakes Estates
Owners Ass’n,
Estates Owners Ass'n, Inc.,No. 14-09-00772-CV,
Inc.,No. 14-09-00772-CV,2011
2011WL
WL22739517,
739517,
atat
*3(Tex. App.—Houston [14thDist.] an.4,2011,
*3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]JJan. opet.)(mem.
4, 2011,nno pet.) (mem.oop.)
p.)(citing Foreca,758
(citingForeca, 758
at
S.W.2d at 746.
Courtsin Texaswillnotcreate
Courts in Texas will not create
third-party beneficiary contracts
contractsby
by
Giventhat Silveradoneitherattendedmediation,
implication. Given that Silverado neither attended mediation,nnor was aparty
or wasa partyor
or
third party to the agreement,they cannottake
third party beneficiary to the agreement, theycannot
advantageof an
take advantage ofan
agreementthat is nothing morethan
agreement that is nothingmore
settlementbetweenotherpartiesfor which
than aa settlement between other parties for which

Silverado Appx. 0441
No. 1-15-567-CV 1444
 consideration wasgiven
considerationwas givenby the parties.
bythe parties.A gain,the
Again, theRulell
Rule 11 purports to change
purportsto change
Tr
0
Cy history by ignoring tthe
history byignoring heprincipal’s revocationwhich
principal's revocationwhichis
isillegal.
illegal.Tex.
Tex.H ealthSafety
Health Safety

Code
Code ss 166.155.
166.155. But at best,aftermediation,
But at best, after mediation,the
theonlychallenge thatcouldbe
only challengethat could bemade
made

wouldbe to PLAINTIFFS’
would be to PLAINTIFFS' standing,
standing,w hichisby
which no means proven.BBut
is bynomeansproven. utthisdoes
this doesnot
not
invalidate
invalidatePLAINTIFFS’
PLAINTIFFS'claims
claimsatall, ordoes
at all,nnor doesiit
tentitled
entitledSilverado
Silveradoto onecent
toonecent

from PLAINTIFFS.
from PLAINTIFFS.Thelatefiled Rule91aMotions
The late filedRule91a Motionsdeny
denythem mandatoryfees
themmandatory feesasa
as a
N matter oflaw
matter of law because
becausethey
theyccannot
annotrely on91a
relyon91aaand theclaims
ndthe be reinstatedand
mustbereinstated
claimsmust and
51
N
orderrescinded.
order rescinded.
VII.CONCLUSION&
VII.CONCLUSION&PRAYER
PRAYER
The foregoingarguments
The foregoing arguments cclearly demonstrate tthat
learlydemonstrate hat NEITHER SILVERADO,
NEITHERSILVERADO,
DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTSNOR
NORTHE
THE AD LITEMSpresentedADMISSIBLE
AD LITEMS presented ADMISSIBLEeevidence
videncetoto

overcome tthe
overcome he goodfaithpresumption
good faith presumption Schwager
Schwager enjoysandaffirmatively
enjoys and affirmatively established.
established.
Tex.
Tex. R Civ. P. 10,13.Badfaithisrequired
R..Civ.P. 10, 13. Bad faith is requireduunder
nderbboth
othRules10and13.Moreover,
Rules 10 and 13. Moreover,until
until
settlement,ALL OF PLAINTIFFS
settlement,ALLOF PLAINTIFFSCCLAIMS wereperfectly
LAIMSwere perfectlyvalidand
valid andsupported
supportedby
by
evidencepresented during threedaysoftestimony——even Defendants’ owntestimony.
evidence presented during three days of testimony—even Defendants'own testimony.As
As
such,whenthepleadingwas
such, when the pleading w as filed,whichistheonlytime Court may
which is the only timeaa Courtm ayevaluate,
evaluate,no
claim
no claim
made
made was
frivolous broughtinbadfaith orto
was frivolousoorr brought in bad faithor
harass. ex.R.CivP.
to harass.TTex. R. Civ P. 10,13.Evidence
10, 13. Evidence
is requirednot
is required n ot speculationbybad actors.Given
speculation by badactors.
thattheclaimspledJuly18,2014
Given that the claims pled July 18, 2014
includedthevery claims
included the very
Silverado andtheother ttorneys
claims Silverado and the otheraattorneys
take issuewith,Silverado had
take issue with, Silverado had
aa duty
duty to
theRule91aMotionno laterthanSeptember
to file the Rule 91a Motion no
29,2014andfailed.As
later than September 29, 2014 and failed. Asaa
matteroflaw,JoshDavisandSilverado haveknowingly patently Motions
matter of law, Josh Davis and Silverado have knowingly filed patently frivolous Motions
designedto harassandwrongfully obtain$115,000+ fromPLAINTIFFS afterfalsely
designed to harass and wrongfully obtain $115,000+ from PLAINTIFFS after falsely
imprisoningand assaultingtheir mother in a clear conspiracy—pr0vable by
imprisoning and assaulting their mother in a clear conspiracy—provable by

Silverado Appx. 0442
No. 1-15-567-CV 1445
 evidence.
Assuch,
Silverado entitled
wasnever tohave
ANY 9lA
RULE
circumstantial evidence. As such, Silverado was never entitled to have ANY RULE 91A

MOTIONG
MOTION RANTED
GRANTED ANDISNOT
AND ENTITLEDTOATTORNEYS’
IS NOTENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS'FEES
FEESATALL.
AT ALL.
The
The Court cannot award
Court cannot eesttooSilverado
awardffees Silveradounder
underRule
Rule991a
laand otherRule
noother
andno RuleoorrStatute
Statute

has been pled,
hasbeen pled, w ithTexas
with otallowing
Texas nnot allowingfees
feesabsent statutoryauthority.
absentstatutory Tex.CCiv.
authority.Tex. iv.PPrac.
rac.&&
Rem. C
Rem. ode38.001
Code 38.001et
etseq.
seq.
Rule9la
Rule 91a does not permit
does not permit aa partyto essentially
party to essentially missthedeadline
miss the deadlineandseeks
and seeks

mandatoryfees
mandatory asJosh
feesas Davisiis
JoshDavis strying o do.This
tryingtto do. Thisisdeception ontheCourt
is deceptionon the Courtandshould
and should
be
be sanctioned.
sanctioned.It must be
It must be sanctioned
sanctioneduunder Rule 10and13
nderRulel0 to deterbadfaithabusive
and 13to deter bad faith abusive
litigation
litigationtactics
tacticsuused
sedthroughout
throughoutthistrial.
this trial.A llattomeys
All savePlaintiffs’
attorneyssave Plaintiffs'attorneys
attorneysare
are
guilty
guilty ofunclean
of unclean hhands
andsaand shouldbbe
ndshould etreated nequal
treatedoon equalgground
roundbbefore
eforetthis
hisCourt,
Court,rather
rather
than
than singled out for
singled out grosslyunfairpunishment
for grossly unfair punishmentininviolation
violationofofthe US and
theUS and Texas
Texas
Constitution
Constitutionandthe veryrulescitedby
and thevery movants.Forthis
rules cited by movants. reason,tthe
For thisreason, sanctionsoorders
hesanctions rders
mustberescinded
must be rescinded anddismissed
alongwiththe Rule91adismissal.
and dismissed along withtheRule91a dismissal.Allclaims
against
All claims against
Silverado
Silveradom
must be reinstated.
ustbe reinstated.PLAINTIFF
S pray
PLAINTIFFS praythat uponreinstatement,
thatupon
this casebe
reinstatement, thiscase be
retumed o District
returned tto
Courtforfurtherdisposition.PLAINTIFFS andSCHWAGER
District Court for further disposition. PLAINTIFFS and SCHWAGER
respectfully allotherandfurtherrelief towhich
request all other and further reliefto
respectfullyrequest
they maybejustlyentitled
which theymay
law
be justly entitledatat law
or inequity.
or in equity.
Respectfullysubmitted by:
Respectfully submitted by:

SBN17304200
Holbrook
1006 Road
PhilipM.Ross
Philip M. Ross
SBN 17304200
San
Antonio,Texas
78218
Phone:210/326-2100
1006 Holbrook Road
San Antonio, Texas 78218
Email:
ross_law@hotmail.com Phone: 210/326-2100
Email:
ross_law@hotmail.com

Silverado Appx. 0443
No. 1-15-567-CV 1446
 CandiceLSchwager
L Schwager
0
SCHWAGER
SCHWAGER LAW FIRM
0 1417
1417 Ramada
o. . Houston,Texas77962
Houston,Texas 77962
Tel:
Tel:8832.315.8489
32.315.8489

co
0 Peterson
Fax:832.514.4738
Fax:

Peterson
Mackey
Lonny
MackeyG
832.514.4738
schwagerlawfirm@live.com
AttorneyforDonL.
Attorney for Don L.

LonnyPPeterson
G
eterson
Peterson
aand
nd
Peterson

N CERTIFICATEOFS
CERTIFICATEOF ERVICE
SERVICE

I hereby ccertify
Ihereby ertifytthat
hatoonnthis dayofOctober
this 21'tday of October2014
2014assoon astheDr.’s
as soonas the Dr.'srecord
record
was forwarded
was forwardedfortheCourt’s
for the Court's review.
review.The samehhas
Thesame asbeen
beenserved nthefollowing
servedoon the following
counsel:
counsel:

W.
W. R ussJJones
Russ ones
Underwood,
Underwood, Jones,
Jones, SScherrer
cherrer
&
& Malouf,PLLC
Malouf, PLLC
5177 Richmond
5177 Richmond Ave.,
Ave., SSuite
uite505
505
Houston, TX77056
Houston, TX 77056
W.Young
Jill W. Young
Sarah
SarahP.Pacheco
P. Pacheco
Maclntyre, McCulloch,
Macintyre, McCulloch, Stanfield
Kathleen Beduze
KathleenT.
T. Beduze
&Young, LLP
& Young, LLP
1401McKinney
1401 McKinneySt.
St.
2900 Weslayan,Suite150
2900 Weslayan, Suite 150
1700FiveHouston Center
1700 Five Houston Center
Houston,TX77027
Houston, TX 77027
HoustonTX77046
Houston TX 77046
loshK.Davis
Josh K. Davis
Brisbois,
Lewis, Bisgaard LLP
&Smith,
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
Weslayan Tower,Suite1400
Weslayan Tower, Suite 1400
24Greenway Plaza
24 Greenway Plaza
Houston,TX77010
Houston, TX 77010
by
by e-fileon
December 5,2014.
on December 5, 2014.

CandiceLSchwager
Candice L Schwager

Silverado Appx. 0444
No. 1-15-567-CV 1447
TAB 53
 FILED
` .’12/8/2014 4:48:M
12/8/2014 4:48
PROBATE
PROBATE COURT
COURT 1
1
DM DATA ENTRY
PICK UP THIS DATE
RUBY
RUBY S.PETERSON,
S. INCAP
PETERSON, INCAP
-401
CAUSE NO. 427,208

O MACKEY
MACKEY ("MACK")
("MACK") GLEN PETERSON
GLENPETERSON § INPROBATE
IN COURTNO.
PROBATE COURT NO.I1
PETERSON; TONYA
PETERSON; PETERSON
TONYA PETERSON §
Individually
Individually and Next Friend of
as NextFriend
and as of §
RUBYPETERSON;
RUBY PETERSON; DON DONLESLIE PETERSON;§
LESLIE PETERSON;

WV ZZtiV rS IR
PETERSON,
CAROLPETERSON,
CAROL andas
Individually and Next §
asNext
Friend PETERSON; and
of RUBY PETERSON;
FriendofRUBY LONNY
and LONNY §
PETERSON,
PETERSON, §
GPI
VS.
VS.
0
ry
SILVERADO
SILVERADO SENIOR
SENIOR LIVING,
LIVING, INC.
INC. §
d/b/aSILVERADO
SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING — §

LZ
d/b/a SENIOR LIVING —
SUGAR
SUGAR LAND
LAND § HARRIS
HARRIS COUNTY,
COUNTY, TE S
TEXZ4S

DEFENDANT’S
DEFENDANT'S FIRSTSUPPLEMENT
FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO FIRSTAMENDED
T0 FIRST AMENDED
PLEA TO THEJURISDICTION
PLEAT0 THE JURISDICTION & FIRSTAMENDED
&FIRST ANSWER
AMENDED ANSWER

Silverado Senior Living,Inc.
Defendant, Silverado d/b/aSilverado
Living, Inc. d/b/a SeniorLivingSugarLand
Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land

("Silverad0")
("Silverado") thisFirst
files this Supplement
First Supplement itsFirst
toits
to Amended
First Amended Pleato
Plea theJurisdiction
tothe andFirst
Jurisdiction and First

Amended
Amended Answer previously
Answer tiledon
previously filed September
onSeptember 25, andrespectfully
25, 20141 and requests
respectfully requests ruling.
aa ruling.

SUPPLEMENTATION
SUPPLEMENTATION

Plaintiffs filedaa Fifth
Plaintiffs filed Fifth Amended Petition
Amended Petition tojointheir
to join their respective spouses,
respective spouses, Tonya Peterson
TonyaPeterson and
and

CarolPeterson,
Carol Peterson, Thursday,
onThursday,
on December
December 4,2014
4, inan
2014 in improper
animproper attempt
attempt tore-litigate
to claims
re-litigate claims which
which

have eensettled
havebbeen and/or
settled and/or otherwise
otherwise adjudicated
adjudicated butforthemeritless
but breach
for the meritless breach offiduciary
of dutycause
fiduciary duty cause
whichmay
which alsobedismissed
mayalso foraa lack
be dismissed for ofsubject
lackof matter
subject matter the Court isisaware,
jurisdiction.2 AsAsthe aware,

Onfile with
1 On theCourt
withthe andincorporated
Court and byreference
incorporated by if
setout
asif set
reference as fullyherein.
out fully herein.
Onfile with
2 0n and incorporated
the Court and
with theCourt incorporated bybyreference
reference as set out ffully
asififsetout ullyherein. (Plaintiffs
herein. Compare (Plaintiffs
Amended
FifthAmended
Fifth Petition)
Petition) (Plaintiffs’
with (Plaintiffs' Original
Original Petition,
Petition, Amended
Amended Petition
Petition andJury
and Demand,
Jury Demand,
SecondA
Second mended
Amended Petitionand
Petition andJuryDemand, Amended P
Third Amended
Jury Demand, Third etitionand
Petition andContest to Guardianship
Contest to Guardianship
Application,
Application, andFourth
and Amended
Fourth Amended Petition)
Petition) allofwhich
all areon
of which are filewiththisCourt
on file and/orthe
with this Court and/or thel29th
129th
Judicial District
Judicial Court aand
District Court ndare incorporated
are incorporated byreference as if
by reference as setout
if set fullyherein.
out fully Seealso
herein.See
Silverado’s
Silverado's Motion
9la Motion
91a T
TooDismiss Plaintiffs’
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Sole Remaining
SoleRemaining Claim
Claim Breach
Breach OfTmst
Of and/or
Trust and/or
Breach
Breach OfFiduciary
Of Fiduciary Duty currently
Dutycurrently pending
pending which
which isalso
is also on with the
onfile with court and
the court incorporate
and incorporate by
by
reference
reference asififset
as setout fullyherein.
out fully herein.
(footnote
(footnote ccontinued)
ontinued)

4831-8080-3104.1

Silverado Appx. 0445
No. 1-15-567-CV 1509
 existing
existing Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs recently
recently settled
settled w ithCarol Manley
with and David
Manley and David P eterson.
Peterson. TheRule
The Rule11
lIAgreement
Agreement

onfile with
on with theCourt admits
the Court admits and acknowledges:
andacknowledges: a)the1993
a) Power
the 1993 Power ofAttorney
of remains
Attorney remains inforce
in force a nd
and

effect;b)
effect; theNovember
b) the 2013revocation
November 2013 revocation w invalid;aand,
as invalid;
was nd,c) askstheCourt
c) asks the Court to issuefindings
to issue
wTi
declaring
declaring the Nevertheless,
the same.3 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs andnewly
and newly jjoined
oinedPlaintiffs
Plaintiffsfile their Amended
theirFifth Amended
petition individually
petitionindividually andas
and friendofRuby
nextfriend
asnext of Ruby Peterson, butdo
Peterson, but have authority
not have
do not authority a nd/orsstanding
and/or tanding

to bringsuch
tobring suchclaims
claims behalf
onbehalf
on ofRuby
of Peterson
Ruby Peterson forthe
for reasons
the reasons enumerated
enumerated intheFirst
in Amended
the First Amended

the Jurisdiction
Plea ttoothe
Plea Jurisdiction which are reinforced
which are by Plaintiffs’
reinforced by Plaintiffs' judicial
judicial admissions.4
lJ
Subject-matterjurisdiction
Subject-matter isaaquestion
jurisdiction is question oflaw.
of CityofDallas
law. City v..Carbajal,
of Dallas v 324S.W.3d
Carbajal, 324 S.W.3d537,
537,

538(Tex.
538 (Tex. 2 010).Lackof
2010). subject-matterjurisdiction
Lack of subject-matter isfundamental
jurisdiction is andcan
fundamental error and beraised
canbe atany
raised at any
time.Sivley
time. v.Sivley,
Sivley v. S.W.2d
972S.W.2d
Sivley, 972 850,855
850, 855(Tex.App.
(Tex.App. —Tyler
— Tyler11998,
998, no pet.). While
no While tthere and has
hereisisand has

been
been a motion pending
a motion before
pending before thecourt,
the a court can
court, a inquire into
can inquire itsjurisdiction
into its jurisdiction on itsown
on its initiative
own initiative

without
without motion
aa motion time.See
atany time.
at Texas
See Texas Workers
Workers' ’Comp. Comm
Comp. Comm ’nv.
'n Garcia,
v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d
893S.W.2d 504,5517
504, 17
n.l5(Tex.
n.15 (Tex. 1995). When
1995).When the claim isisnot
theclaim within
notwithin thecourt’s
the jurisdiction
court's jurisdiction andtheimpediment
and to
the impediment to

jurisdiction beremoved,
cannotbe
jurisdiction cannot theclaim
removed, the must b
claim must beedismissed.
dismissed. American Motorists
American Motorists Co.v.
Ins. Co. v.Fodge,
63S.W.3d
63 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. 2
801,805(Tex. 001);see
2001); Thomas
seeThomas v.Long,
v. 207S.W.3d
Long, 207 334,338(Tex.
S.W.3d 334, 2006).
338 (Tex. 2006).

PRAYER
PRAYER

WHEREFORE,
WHEREFORE, PREMISES
PREMISES CONSIDERED,
CONSIDERED, Defendant,
Defendant, Silverado
Silverado Senior
Senior Living,
Living, Inc. d/b/a
Inc.d/b/a
Silverado
Silverado Senior
Senior Living
Living SugarLand
Sugar prays tthat
Land prays hattthis
hisCourt grant Defendant’s
Court grant FirstA
Defendant's First mended
Amended Pleato
Plea to

the Jurisdiction
the Jurisdiction anddismiss
and Plaintiffs’
dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
claims intheir
in entirety,
their entirety, that Plaintiffs
thatPlaintiffs takenothing
take nothingby way of
byway of

3 See OrderGranting
SeeOrder Granting Authority
Authority forGuardian
for AdLitem
Guardian Ad &Attomey
Litem & AdLitem
Attorney Ad Litem to Execute
to Execute
Peterson R
Peterson ule11Agreement
Rule ExhibitA,
at Exhibit
11 Agreement at A, ¶2.
4 See id.

4831-8080-3104.1
4831-8080-3104.1 2
2

Silverado Appx. 0446
No. 1-15-567-CV 1510
 theirsuit
their Defendant,
suitagainst Defendant, andthat
and Defendant
thatDefendant beawarded
be taxable
awarded taxable ofCourt
costsof
costs Court andthat
and thattthe
heCourt
Court

suchother
grantsuch
grant otherand
andfurther reliefto
further relief whichDefendant
towhich Defendantisjustly
is entitled.
justly entitled.

submitted,
Respectfully submitted,

by LEWIS SMITH,
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
LLP

/s/Josh
KDavis
/s/ Josh K Davis

DAVIS
JOSH K. DAVIS
StateB
State arN
Bar o.24031993
No. 24031993
iN CHRISTIAN
CHRISTIAN R. JOHNSON
StateB
State arNo.24062345
Bar No. 24062345
Weslayan
Weslayan Tower, Suite1400
Tower, Suite 1400
24Greenway Plaza
24 Greenway Plaza
Houston,
Houston, Texas 77046
Texas 77046
(713)659-6767
(713) 659-6767 Telephone
Telephone
759-6830
(713)759-6830
(713) Facsimile
Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
LIVING,
SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, INC. D/B/A
LIVINGLAND
SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING SUGAR LAND

4831-8080-3104.1
4831-8080-3104.1 3

Silverado Appx. 0447
No. 1-15-567-CV 1511
 CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

hereby c
IIhereby ertify
certify tthat
hataa true
true and
and correct copy ofthe
correct copy of the foregoing
foregoing instrument
instrument was served
was served all
uponall
upon
0. counselof
counsel ofrecord viae-file, facsimile,
record via facsimile,handdelivery and/or
hand and/orcertified
certified
mail,return
mail, receiptrequested
returnreceipt requestedon
on
this8thDecember,
this 2014.
8th December, 2014.
co

Philip
Philip M.Ross
M. Ross
1006
1006 H olbrook
Holbrook Road
Road
SanAntonio,
San Antonio, Texas78218
Texas 78218
Attorney for
for Plaintiffs

Candice
Candice LSchwager
L Schwager
TheSchwager
LawFirm
The Schwager Law Firm
1417
1417 R amada
Ramada Dr.
Dr.
Houston,
Houston, Texas 77062
Texas 77062
Attorney for
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Sarah
Sarah Patel
Patel Pacheco
Pacheco
Crain,Caton
Crain, Caton& &James, PC
James, PC
1401McKinney
1401 Street
McKinney Street
1700
1700 F iveH
Five ouston
Houston Center
Center
Houston,
Houston, Texas77010
Texas 77010
Attorneys for
Attorneys for Carol Manley andDavid
Manley and David P eterson
Peterson

JillW.Young
Jill W. Young
Maclntyre,
Maclntyre, McCulloch,
McCulloch, &Young,
Stanfield & LLP
Young, LLP
2900Weslayan,
2900 Suite150
Weslayan, Suite 150
Houston,
Houston, Texas 77027
Texas 77027

W.R
W. ussJJones
Russ ones
Underwood,
Underwood, JonesScherrer
Jones & Malouf, PLLC
Scherrer & PLLC
5177Richmond
5177 Richmond Ave,Suite505
Ave, Suite 505
Houston, Texas
Houston, 77056
Texas 77056

/S/
Josh
K.
Davis
/S/ Josh K Davis

JOSH
K.DAVIS
JOSH K. DAVIS

4831-8080-3104.1 44

Silverado Appx. 0448
No. 1-15-567-CV 1512
TAB 54
 1

1 APPELLATE COURT CASE NO. 01-15-00567-CV & 01-15-00586-CV

2 TRIAL COURT CASE NO. 427,208 & 427,208-401
FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
3 IN THE GUARDIANSHIP * IN THEHOUSTON,
PROBATETEXASCOURT OF
9/15/2015 10:04:54 AM
4 *
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
5 RUBY PETERSON, * HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S

6 *

7 INCAPACITATED ADULT * COURT NUMBER (1) ONE

8

9 APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO RULE 91(A)

10 AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND RESCIND RULE 91(A) DISMISSAL

11 AND SANCTIONS HEARING

12

13 Came to be heard on this the 9th day of December,

14 2014, Application for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Rule 91(A)

15 and Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Rule 91(A) Dismissal and

16 Sanctions Hearing, in the above-entitled and numbered cause,

17 and all parties appeared in person and/or being represented by

18 Counsel of Record, before the Honorable Loyd Wright, Judge

19 Presiding.

20

21 VOLUME _12_ OF 13

22

23 O R I G I N A L

24

25

Silverado Appx. 0449
RR Vol. 12
 2

1 APPEARANCES

2
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS, MACKEY GLEN PETERSON, DON
3 LESLIE PETERSON AND LONNY PETERSON:

4 Candice L. Schwager Leonard
State Bar No. 24003603
5 1417 Ramada Dr.
Houston, Texas 77062
6 Telephone: (832)315-0355

7 Phil Ross
State Bar No. 17304200
8 1006 Holbrook Rd
San Antonio, TX 78218-3325
9 Telephone: (210)326-2100

10
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING
11 CENTER SUGAR LAND:

12 Josh Davis
State Bar No. 24031993
13 Christian Renee 'CJ' Johnson
State Bar No. 24062345
14 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77046-2410
15 Telephone: (713)659-6767

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Silverado Appx. 0450
RR Vol. 12
 3

1 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX

2 Page

3 Attorneys arguments on motions.......................... 4

4 Court recesses.......................................... 54

5 Court Reporter's Certificate............................ 55

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Silverado Appx. 0451
RR Vol. 12
TAB 55
 ‘ . ‘ 12
12

EM
PROBATE COURT 1 1 s
rk
C0 my
RUBY
RUBY S.PETERSON, INCAP
S. PETERSON, INCAP
CAUSE NO. 427,208-4°1

MACKEY
MACKEY ("MACK”) GLEN
("MACK") GLEN PETERSON
PETERSON § INPROBATE COURT
IN PROBATE COURT NO.1I
NO.
PETERSON;
PETERSON; TONYA PETERSON
TONYA PETERSON §
Individually and Next F
as Next
and as riend
Friend ooff §
RUBY
RUBY P ETERSON;
PETERSON; DON
DON LESLIE
LESLIE PETERSON; §
CAROL
CAROL PETERSON,
PETERSON, Individually
Individually andas
and Next
asNext §
Friend of RUBY P
Friend ofRUBY ETERSON;
PETERSON; and LONNY
and LONNY §
PETERSON,
PETERSON, §
41
VS.
VS. §
SILVERADO
SILVERADO LIVING,INC.
SENIORLIVING,
SENIOR INC. §
d/b/a SILVERADO
d/b/aSILVERADO SENIOR
SENIOR LIVING
LIVING — — §
SUGARLAND
SUGAR LAND § HARRIS COUNTY,
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
TEXAS

SILVERADO’S TOPLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSE
SILVERADO'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION
MOTION TO COUNTER
TORECONSIDER RULINGS. COUNTER MOTION F
MOTION ORSANCTIONS
FOR SANCTIONS
AND BRIEF
AND INSUPPORT
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF TORECONSIDER
OFMOTION TO AND
RECONSIDER AND RESCIND
RESCIND

Silverado SeniorLiving,Inc.
Defendant,Silverado
Defendant, d/b/aSilverado
Senior Living, Inc. d/b/a SeniorLiving
Silverado Senior Land
Living Sugar Land

("Silverado") files thisResponse
this Response to Plaintiffs’
to Plaintiffs' Motion
Motion Reconsider
toReconsider
to Rulings
Rulings with Affidavit of
with of

Inabilityttoo Pay
Inability PayandCounter Motionfor
and Counter Motion forSanctions and/orApplication
Sanctions and/or Applicationof CleanHands
of Clean Doctrine
Hands Doctrine
.
(“Motionto
("Motion Reconsider")
to Reconsider") andBriefin
and ofMotion
Brief in Support of Motionto Reconsider
toReconsider andRescind
and Rule9lA
Rescind Rule 91A

Dismissal of Silverado andSanctions
Dismissal ofSilverado ("Brief in
Orders("Brief
and Sanctions Orders in Support"):

OBJECTIONS
OBJECTIONS

Plaintiffs filed aaNotice
Plaintiffs ofHearing
Notice of onDecember
Hearing on December 3, their ""Motion
2014 setting their
3,2014 Motion to Reconsider
to Reconsider

Rescind
andRescind
and theJudge’s
the Orders
Judge's Orders Dismissing
Dismissing Claims
Claims Brought
Brought byPlaintiffs
by against
Plaintiffs against Silveradoand
Silverado and

Sanctioning
Sanctioning Candice
Candice S chwager"
Schwager" forNovember 9, 2014 at 3:00PM.
for November 9,2014at Silverado
3:00 PM. Silverado objectsto
objects thedate
to the date

andtime
and ofhearing
time of hearing as has already p
asitithasalready assedaand
passed ndmoves to quash
moves to on thatbasis.Silverado
quash on further
that basis. Silverado further

Plaintiffs
1 Plaintiffs Motion
Motion to Reconsider
toReconsider andBrief
and inSupport
Brief in areon
Support are withthe
on file with theCourt andincorporated
Court and incorporated
byreference as if
by reference as if setout fullyherein.
set out fully herein.

4815-8867-2544,1

Silverado Appx. 0452
No. 1-15-567-CV 1516
 objects
objectsaand
ndmoves
movestto
o quashas the notice does
as thenotice does notset a particular motion
not set a motion butevent(s)
but event(s)and
and

"supporting briefs."
"supporting briefs." Tothe extent Plaintiffs
To the extent Plaintiffswish haveaamotion
tohave
wishto motionaand/or
nd/ormotions heard,Silverado
motionsheard, Silverado

requests proper notice
requests proper oreview
noticetto reviewthe respond,adequately
the briefing,respond, argumentand
prepareargument
adequatelyprepare andappear.
appear.
Silverado
Silverado further bjectstthat
furtheroobjects hatPlaintiffs’
Plaintiffs' Motion o Reconsider
Motiontto Reconsideris vagueandambiguous
isvagueand ambiguous

insofar aassSilverado
insofar annotddetermine
Silverado ccannot etermine whethersanctions
whether aresought
sanctionsare soughtagainst Josh Davisindividually.
againstJoshDavis individually.
WhileMr.Davisis not mentioned
While Mr. Davis is not nywherein
mentioned aanywhere inthe
the bodyof
body of the argument sseeking
the argument eekingsanctions,
sanctions,
N
namehim
Plaintiffsname him individually
individuallyin
inthe
the prayer. Silveradoobjects,
prayer. Silverado objects,specially excepts,sseeks
specially excepts, eeks
N
clarificationand an opportunity
and an opportunityto respondiif
torespond fPlaintiffs areinfactseeking
Plaintiffsare in fact seekingssanctions
anctions againstits
against its
counsel.
counsel.
Subject o the
Subjecttto
foregoingobjectionsandwithoutwaivingthe same,Silverado
the foregoing objections and without waiving thesame,
filesthe
Silverado files the
followingsubstantive limitedothemotion
response limitedtto
following substantive response
andbriefingasindicated
the motion and briefingas
herein.
indicated herein.
RESPONSE
RESPONSE

A) MOTION
A) MOTION T0
TO RECONSIDER MUSTBE
DENIED
BE DENIED
Plaintiffs’ MotiontoReconsider askstheCourttoreconsider
Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider asks the Courtto
andrescind its91aOrder
reconsider and rescind its 91a Order
enteredonNovember 10,2014whichdismissed Plaintiffs’ falseimprisonment, assaultandbattery,
entered on November 10, 2014 which dismissed Plaintiffs' false imprisonment, assault and battery,
andconspiracy
and conspiracy causes
ofactionpursuant toRule9l R. P.91a.Plaintiffs asksthe
causes of action pursuant to Rule 91a.2 TEX. R. Ov. P. 91a. Plaintiffs asks the Court
toreconsider itsruling na spirited yetmisguidedargument thatdoes in address
to reconsider its rulingoon a spirited-- yet misguided-- argument that does not inanyway
any way address
Rule9laorthestandard governing the v. No.14-13-00385-CV, 2014
Rule 91a or the standard governing the same.3 Id.; Wooley v. Schaffer, No. 14-13-00385-CV, 2014
Tex.App.LEXIS8983at *10(Tex.App.Houston[14thDist.]Aug.14,2014)quoting((Bell
Tex. App. LEXIS 8983 at *10 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2014) quoting ((Bell Ad.

SeeDef`endants’
Motion
toDismiss Rule91a(seeking
toTRCP
Pursuant dismissal
onthebasisthat
2 See Defendants' had
PlaintiffsclaimsMotion to Dismiss
no basisin Pursuant toWithdrawal
law); TRCP Rule andReply
91a (seeking
todismissal onR
Plaintiffs’the basis that
esponse to
Plaintiffs claims had no basis in law); Partialalso
Motion toDismiss PursuanttoTRCP 9la;see Withdrawal and Reply
OrderGranting to Plaintiffs'
91aMotion Response
toDismiss to
entered
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to TRCP 91a; see also Order Granting 91a Motion to Dismiss entered
on November10,2014all on filewiththeCourtandincorporated byreferenceas if setout fully
on November 10, 2014 all on file with the Court and incorporated by reference as if set out fully
herein.
herein.
Plaintiffs’
Motion
toReconsider
atpg.1-2.
3 See Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider at pg. 1-2.

2
4815-8867-2544.1 2

Silverado Appx. 0453
No. 1-15-567-CV 1517
 Corp.
Corp. vv.. Twombly,
Twombly,550U.S.544,570,127S.Ct.1955,
550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955,1167
67L.Ed.2d929(2007)
L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (Ashcroftv.v.Iqbal,
lqbal,
556U.S.
556 U.S.6662,
62,678,129S.Ct.
678, 129 S.Ct.1937,
1937,1173
73L.Ed.
L.Ed.22d
d868(2009)).Likewise, requestthatthe
868 (2009)). Likewise, Plaintiffsrequest that the

Court reconsider
reconsiderits
its ruling pursuant to theclean-hands
pursuantto the clean-handsdoctrine
doctrinebbased
asedon
on Ms.Schwager’s
Ms. Schwager's

interpretation ofthefacts
interpretation of the factsw hichiissequally
which equallyiinapplicable
napplicable toRule
to Rule 91a.4See
SeeTEX.
Tex.R.
R. Civ.P.91a.7;
P. 91a.7;see
see
also v. Chase
also Drake v. Chase Bank, 2014
2014No.02-13-00340-CV,
No. 02-13-00340-CV, 2014Tex.App.Lexis12572
2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex.
(Tex. A pp.—
App.

Fort WorthNov.
FortWorth Nov.220,
0,2014, pet.h.).TheMotion
opet.
2014,nno toReconsider
h.). The Motionto Reconsiderdoes notsubstantively
doesnot substantivelychallenge,
challenge,
N
assert aa legalbasis
assert to reconsider
legal basis to reconsider and/or
and/or aaddress
ddresstthe meritsoftheRule91a;therefore,
hemerits of the Rule 91a; therefore,ititmust
mustbe
be
denied.
denied.
B) INSUPPORT &
B) PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN
SANCTIONS BE DENIED
& REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS MUSTBEDENIED

Plaintiffs’ BriefinSupportis challengingto
Plaintiffs' Brief in Support ischallenging
tofollow;
follow;however,
however,Silverado addressesthesalient
Silveradoaddresses the salient
and/orrelevant pointsbelow.Forthesakeofclarity, theportions
and/or relevant points below. For the sake of clarity, the portions ofthe
BriefnSupport
of the Briefiin Supportwhich
whichaare
re
whollyinapplicable and werenot
wholly inapplicable and were
raisedbytheRule91a atissue
not raised by the Rule 91aat
sectionsIIininpart,
are sectionsIIII
issueare part,IV,Vand
IV, V and
Section
IVrelates Sanctions
andhasnothing dowith
toSanctions and has nothing to
V1.5 Section IV relates to fees pursuanttotoRule
to do with mandatory feespursuant Rule
9la.See TEX.R.CIV. P.91a.7;seealso
91a. See TEX. R. Civ, P. 91a.7;see
Drakev.Chase
also Drakev.
Bank,2014No.02—13·00340—CV, 2014Tex.
Chase Bank, 2014 No. 02-13-00340-CV, 2014 Tex.
App. Lexis12572 (Tex.App.-FortWorth Nov.20,2014, nopet.
App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014,no
h.).Section Vis anattempt
pet. h.). Section V isan attemptto
to
recitethe91adismissalstandardwhena causeofactionhasno basis however,Silverado
recite the 91a dismissal standard when a cause of action has no basis in fact; however, Silverado
moved for9ladismissalPlaintiffs claims hadnobasis in Forthe samereasons,Section 111 is
moved for 91a dismissal as
as Plaintiffs claims hadno basis in law.6 For thesamereasons, Section III is
irrelevantbeginning atpagesixwiththeboldsection starting at"A causeooffaction has nobasis in
irrelevant beginning at page six with the bold section starting at "Acause action hasno basis in
fact..."through thesecond tolastsentence inthesection. Additionally,Section IIIisirrelevant
and
fact..." through the second to last sentence in the section. Additionally, Section III is irrelevant and

4
See
See id.
(P1aintiffs’
Compare BriefinSupport)
with(Defendants’ toDismiss
Motion Pursuant
toTRCP
5 Compare (Plaintiffs' Brief in Support) with (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to TRCP
Rule91a(seeking dismissalonthebasisthatPlaintiffsclaimshadno basisinlaw))and(Partial
Rule 91a (seeking
Withdrawal dismissal
andReply on the Response
toPlaintiffs’ basis thatto
Plaintiffs
Motion tclaims had Pursuant
oDismiss no basis to
in TRCP
law)) and (Partial
91a).
Withdrawal and Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to TRCP 91a).
6Id

4515-8867-2544.1
33

Silverado Appx. 0454
No. 1-15-567-CV 1518
 argumentative
argumentative andimproper
and initsreference
improper in its reference to extrinsic
anextrinsic
to an injunction
injunction whichisiswell
which outside
well outside ofthe
of the

Court’s
Court's Rule91a
Rule 9laanalysis. Section
analysis. Section VI themediated
VIrelates totothe settlement
mediated settlement agreement
agreement withthe
onfile with
on the

Court. Although
Court.Although Silverado
Silverado canuse
can judicial
use judicial admissions
admissions and/or
and/or partyopponent
party opponentadmissions
admissions forany
for any
C,

N purpose, theagreement
purpose, the agreementreferenced
referenced isnot
is ofthe
partof
notpart Rule991a
the Rule laMotion
Motion to Dismiss which
to Dismiss wasgranted
which was granted

andiscurrently
and is currently aatt issue.'

AsPlaintiffs
As argument
Plaintiffs argument isislimited tono
limited to basis
nobasis ininfact versus
fact versus basis
nobasis
no ininlaw—ititiswholly
law — in
is wholly in

The only
applicable.8 The to reconsider
argument to
only argument reconsider and/or rescind theRule
and/or rescind the Rule 9 1a Motion
91a Dismiss
toDismiss
Motion to raised
raised
N
the Brief
bythe
by Support which
Brief iinnSupport which c ouldcconceivably
could onceivably beconsidered to address
be considered to thelegal
address the issuesfforming
legal issues orming
thebasis
the ofthe
basis of Rule91a
the Rule 9lawhich granted
wasgranted
which was November
onNovember
on 10,2014
10, 2014isisthetiming ofthe
the timing of motion itself.
the motion itself.

1)The
1) The9la Motion
91a Motion to Dismiss
toDismiss Timely
wasTimely
was Filed
Filed

Plaintiffs rguethatSilverado
Plaintiffsaargue late-filedttheir
that Silverado late-filed heirRule9la Motionto
Rule 91a Motion Dismiss;however,
to Dismiss; they
however,they
citetheRulewhich
correctlycite
correctly that Silverado h
statesthatSilverado
the Rule which states adto
had within sixty(60)daysof
file the motion within
to filethemotion sixty (60) days of

R.Civ.
Tex.R.
service. Tex. Civ. P 91a.3 (emphasis
P..9la.3 (emphasis added). Silverado
added). Silverado notserved ininthis
wasnot
was butcchose
case,but
this case, hosettoo
voluntarily
voluntarily e nteran
enter anappearance whenit
appearance when it became clearthatPlaintiffs
becameclear that Plaintiffs w erenot
were goingto
notgoing servethem
to serve them

priorttoo the
prior thetemporary
temporaryinjunction
injunction hearing. Assuch,
hearing. As Silverado
such, Silverado waived
waived service
service themoming
the ofthe
morning of the

temporary
temporary injunction
injunction hearing byyfiling Defendants’
hearing b Pleato
Defendants' Plea theJurisdiction,
tothe Original
Jurisdiction, Original Answer
Answer and
and

Request
Request for Silverado
forDisclosure.9 Silverado made
made itsfirst court
its courtappearance
appearanceinthis
in matter
this matter thatsame
that dayto
sameday to

monitor thetemporary
monitor the temporaryinjunction
injunction hearing
hearing — July28,
—July 28,22014.
014.AAssit was never served,
it was Silverado
served, Silverado used
used

date from which
thedate
the itwaived
which it waived service andvoluntarily
service and entered
voluntarily entered anappearance
an to calculate
appearance to itsdeadline.
calculate its deadline.

7 Id.
8 Compare (Plaintiffs’
(Plaintiffs' BriefininSupport) with
Brief (Defendants’
with (Defendants' Motion
Motion Dismiss
toDismiss
to Pursuant
Pursuant to TRCP
toTRCP
Rule 9la(seeking
Rule 91a dismissal
(seeking dismissal on
on thebasis
the basis t hat
that P laintiffs
Plaintiffs claims
claims h ad
had no
no basis
basis i
innlaw))
law)) a nd
and (Partial
(Partial
Withdrawal
Withdrawal and Reply ttoo Plaintiffs’
andReply Response
Plaintiffs' Response Motion
toMotion
to Dismiss
toDismiss
to Pursuant
Pursuant to TRCP991a).
toTRCP la).
Onfilewith
9 On theCourt
file with the andincorporated
Court and incorporated bybyreference
reference as ifset
as if setout fully herein.
out fully herein.

4815-8867-2544.1 4
4

Silverado Appx. 0455
No. 1-15-567-CV 1519
 The sixtieth
The sixtiethdayfollowing
day followingJuly
July28,
28,22014
014expired onSeptember
expiredon September26,2014.
26, 2014.SSilverado's
ilverado’s Rule
Rule

9laMotion to Dismiss
91a Motion to was timely
Dismiss was onSeptember
timely filedon September25,2014.
25, 2014.TEX.
TEX.R.
R. Civ.P.91 a.3.Following
P. 91a.3. Following

the
the filing Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs' Fourth
Fourth Amended
Amended Petition, timelyffiled
Petition, Silveradotimely ileditsPartial
its PartialWithdrawal
Withdrawaland
and

Reply oPlaintiffs’
Replytto Plaintiffs' Response to Motion
Response to to Dismiss
Motion to DismissPursuant toTRCP
Pursuantto TRCP991a
1aon
onNovember
November6,2014
6, 2014to
to
address
address tthe
heallegations
allegations andparties
and parties w hichwere
which voluntarily nonsuited.
were voluntarily nonsuited.TEX.
TEX.R.
R. Civ.P.9la.5.The9la
P. 91a.5. The 9Ia
in
Motion toDismiss
Motion to wastimely
timely filedwithin ixtydays
withinssixty daysoof
fSilverado’s
Silverado's waiverofservice.
of service.TEX.
TEX.R.
rR
Dismisswas R. Civ.

P. 9
P. 1a.3.
iN
N 91a.3.

2)
2) Plaintiffs Sanction Request
Request Should
Should Be
BeDenied
Denied

seek sanctions
Plaintiffs seek sanctions against
against Silverado
Silveradoand
andMr.
Mr.D avis
Davisfor"misrepresenting
for "misrepresentingknown
knownffacts
actstoto
theCourt
the Court andfiling wofrivolouspleadings
and filingttwo underR
pleadingsunder ules1100and13and/or
Rules pursuanttototheCourt’s
and 13 and/orpursuant the Court's
inherent Thebasis
inherent authority. '1° The basis o
offthesanctions
the sanctionssought
soughtareas
are as follows:

1) TheRule9la
1) Motion(s)wereuntimely;
The Rule 91a Motion(s)were untimely;therefore,
therefore,they arefrivolous;
theyare frivolous;
2)
2) Silverado
Silveradoknewof the November
knew of the November 115,
5,2013revocation
2013 revocationbbecause
ecauseititwas
wasrecorded
recordedin
in
propertyrecords,shouldhaveplaced inRuby
property records, should have placedititin RubyPeterson’s
Peterson'sfileandmade sureall
file and madesure all
employeesknewaboutit;and,
employees knew about it; and,
3) Mr.Davismisstates thelawbystringciting12(b)(6) withRule91a.
3) Mr. Davis misstates the law by string citing 12(b)(6) withRule91a.
Tuming othefirstissue,
Turning tto
it isunclear whatspecific "frivolous" and/oruntimely motions
the first issue, it is unclear what specific "frivolous" and/or untimely motions
Plaintiffsreferoas
Plaintiffs refer tto
thereis nopin
as there isno
citeintheBriefin However, although miscalculated by
pin cite in the Brief in Support. However, although miscalculated by
aa coupleofdays,Plaintiffs concedeso long
couple of days, Plaintiffs concede so
theoriginal 9laMotiontoDismiss
as the original 91a Motionto
longas Dismisswas
filedon or
was filedonor
beforeSeptember 29,2014it was timely.1 1 Asillustrated
before September 29, 2014 itwas
above,Silverado’s 91aMotion
Asi llustrated above, Silverado's 91a toDismiss
Motion to Dismiss
istimely beforetheCourtevenbyPlaintiffs
is timely before the Courteven
standards.
by Plaintiffs standards.

SeePlaintiffs’ BriefinSupportat 1.
1° See Plaintiffs' Brief in Supportat 1.
SeeBriefinSupportat 4.
" See Brief in Support at 4.

4815-8867-2544.1
55

Silverado Appx. 0456
No. 1-15-567-CV 1520
 0
Withrregard
With egard ttoothesecond issue,Silverado
the second issue, Silveradowasnot
was given
notgiven ofthe
notice of anddid
the revocation and did not
not
I 0
I 0 accept
accept theNovember 15,22013
the November 15, 013revocation
revocation at any time.
at any Therepresentations
time. The representationsrelated
related thisissue
tothis
to are
issue are

egregious.
egregious. admit
Plaintiffs admit that theNovember
thatthe 2013revocation
November 2013 revocationwas seekto
yetseek
wasinvalid12 yet tohave Mr.
have Mr.

Davis andSilverado
Davis and sanctioned
Silverado sanctioned forprotecting
for theelderly
protecting the andenforcing
elderly and enforcingtheeffective
the 1993P
effective 1993 ower
Power of
of

Attomey.
Attorney.

Finally, Plaintiffs
Finally, Plaintiffs seektotoimpose
seek impose sanctions
sanctions foraamisstatement
for misstatement oflaw
of withregard
law with regardtoI12(b)(6)
to 2(b)(6)
0
andRule
and Rule91a
9labeing
being a nalogous.
analogous. Texas
Texas Appellate
Appellate Court’s
Court's applying
--applying State
State law--are
law areclearly
clearly construing

Rule 91aasa
Rule91a facialplausibility
as a facial plausibilitystandard
standard akinto
akin to theT andIqbal
the Twombly and standard.
Iqbal standard. Wooley,
Wooley, 2014
2014

Tex.App.
Tex. LEXIS8983
App. LEXIS 8983at *10quoting
at *10 550U.S.
quoting (((Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570)(Iqbal,
at 570) 556U.S.
(Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678));see
at 678)); see
also,((GoDaddy.com,
also, LLCv.v.Hollie
((GoDaddy.com, LLC HollieToups,
Toups, 429S.W.3d 752(Tex.
429 S.W.3d 752 App.—
(Tex. App. Beaumont, 2014,
—Beaumont, 2014, p et.
pet.

denied))
denied)) (Lopez-Welch
(Lopez-Welch v. State
v. FarmLloyds,
State Farm Lloyds,3:14-CV-2416-L,
3:14-CV-2416-L, 2014
2014 U.S. Dist.LEXIS
U.S. Dist. LEXIS154741
154741

(N.D.Tex.Oct.31,2014))
(N.D. (Plascencia
Tex. Oct. 31, 2014)) (Plascencia v.State
v. State Farm Lloyds,
Lloyds, No.4:l4—CV-524-A, 2014U.S.
No. 4:14-CV-524-A, 2014 Dist.
U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 135081
LEXIS135081 ((N.D.
N.D.TTex. Sept. 2
ex.Sept. 5,2014))
25, (Oldham
2014)) (Oldham v. Nationwide Ins.Co.ofAm.,
v. 3:14-CV-575-B,
Ins. Co.ofAm., 3: I 4-CV-575-B,

2014U.S.Dist.LEXIS107044;
2014 2014WL3855238
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107044; 2014 (N.D.Tex.
WL 3855238 (N.D. Tex.Aug.5,2014))). EvenPlaintiffs
Aug. 5, 2014))). Even Plaintiffs

acknowledge
acknowledge that
that a "plausibility standard
"plausibility standard governs."13

Allpleadings
All ingood
arefiled in
pleadings are faithandinfurtherance
good faith and in furtherance ofdefense.
of defense.

PRAYER
PRAYER

WHEREFORE,
WHEREFORE, PREMISES
PREMISES CONSIDERED,
CONSIDERED, Defendant,
Defendant, Silverado
Silverado Senior
Senior Living,
Living, Inc.d/b/a
Inc. d/b/a
Silverado
Silverado Senior
Senior Living
Living Sugar
Sugar Landprays
Land praysthat thisCourt
thatthis Courtgrant itsobjections,
grantits objections, deny
deny Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Motion
Motion

to Reconsider
to Reconsider and/orRescind
and/or RescindandBrief
and inSupport,
Brief in Support, deny Plaintiffs
denyPlaintiffs Motion
Motion forSanctions
for andthat
Sanctions and that

12
See OrderGranting
SeeOrder Granting Authority
Authority forGuardian
for AdLitem
Guardian Ad Litem &Attomey AdLitem
& Attorney Ad Litem to Execute
to Execute
Peterson
Peterson R ule11Agreement
Rule at Exhibit
11 Agreement at ExhibitA
A,, V.
13 See Brief
See inSupport
Brief in Section
atSection
Support at III,final sentence.
III, sentence.

4815-8867-2544.1 66

Silverado Appx. 0457
No. 1-15-567-CV 1521
 Defendant beawarded
Defendant be taxable
awarded taxable costs
costs ofCourt
of andthat
Court and thatthe
theCourt grant
grant such
such other
other andfurther relief
and relief to
to

which Defendant
which Defendant isjustly
is entitled.
justly entitled.

Respectfully
Respectfully submitted,
submitted,
N
LEWIS
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP LLP
KDavis
/s/ Josh K. Davis

O DAVIS
JOSH K. DAVIS
N
StateB
State arNo.24031993
Bar No. 24031993
3 N CHRISTIAN
CHRISTIAN R. JOHNSON
StateB
State arNo.24062345
Bar No. 24062345
Weslayan
Weslayan Tower, Suite1400
Tower, Suite 1400
24Greenway
24 Plaza
Greenway Plaza
Houston,
Houston, Texas 77046
Texas 77046
659-6767
(713)659-6767 Telephone
(713)
Facsimile
Telephone
(713) 759-6830 Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
SILVERADO
LIVING,
SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, INC. DA3/A
SILVERADO SUGAR
LIVING LAND
SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING SUGAR LAND

4815-8867-2544.1 7

Silverado Appx. 0458
No. 1-15-567-CV 1522
 OFSERVICE
CERTIFICATE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

IIhereby certify
hereby certify tthat
hataatrue andcorrect
true and copyofthe
correct copy foregoing instrument
of the foregoing served
wasserved
instrument was all
uponall
upon
counsel
counsel ofrecord
of viae-file,
record via facsimile,
e-file, facsimile, hand delivery
handdelivery and/or
and/or mail,return
certified mail, retum receipt
receipt requested
requested on
on
this9thDecember,
this 2014.
9th December, 2014.

PhilipRoss
Philip M. Ross
Holbrook
1006Holbrook
1006 Road
Road
Antonio,
SanAntonio,
San Texas 78218
Texas 78218
Attorney for
Attorney for Plaintiffs

CandiceLL Schwager
Candice Schwager
TheSchwager Firm
LawFirm
The Schwager Law
1417
Ramada
Dr.
1417 Ramada Dr.
Houston,
Houston, Texas 77062
Texas77062
Attorney for
for Plaintiffs

Sarah Pacheco
Patel
Sarah Patel Pacheco
Crain,
Caton PC
&James,
Crain, Caton & James, PC
1401McKinney
1401 Street
McKinney Street
1700 Center
FiveHouston
1700 Five Houston Center
Houston, 77010
Texas
Houston, Texas 77010
Attorneys for Manley
for Carol Manley and David P
andDavid eterson
Peterson

Jill
W.Young
Jill W. Young
Stanfield
McCulloch,
Maclntyre, LLP
&Young,
Maclntyre, McCulloch, Stanfield & Young, LLP
2900Weslayan,
2900 Suite150
Weslayan, Suite 150
Houston, 77027
Texas
Houston, Texas 77027

W.RussJones
W. Russ Jones
Scherrer
Jones
Underwood, &
Underwood, Jones Scherrer & Malouf, PLLC PLLC
Richmond
5177 Ave,Suite
505
5177 Richmond Ave, Suite 505
Houston, 77056
Texas
Houston, Texas 77056
/S/Josh
/S/ JoshK. Davis
K.Davis
DAVIS
JOSH K. DAVIS

4815-8867-2544.1 88

Silverado Appx. 0459
No. 1-15-567-CV 1523