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