8/18/2020 9:03 AM

Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-20-004263
Victoria Benavides
NO.D-1-GN-20-004263
________

AMIT PATEL, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

§
Plaintiff §
§
v. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
70 RAINEY STREET OWNER LLC, §
SACKMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., ALAN §
SACKMAN, CARTER “CJ’ SACKMAN, §
JR., LISA MATULIS-THOMAJAN, §
JENNIFER LADNER, AND WORTH §
ROSS MANAGEMENT CO., INC. §
§ 353rd
Defendants. _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION (CLASS ACTION)

Plaintiff Amit Patel (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, brings this Class Action Petition

against Defendants 70 Rainey Street Owner, LLC, Sackman Enterprises, Inc., Alan Sackman,

Carter “CJ” Sackman, Lisa Matulis-Thomajan, Jennifer Ladner, and Worth Ross Management Co.

Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and alleges

as follows:

DISCOVERY LEVEL

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of the Texas Rule of Civil

Procedure 190.4, and requests that the Court enter a discovery control plan order tailored to the

circumstances of this suit. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in excess of $2,000,000.00.

NATURE OF THE CASE

2. Plaintiff and the class purchased condominiums at the Seventy Rainey complex

located at 70 Rainey Street, Austin, Texas 78701 (the “Condos”). The MARKZEFF designed

Condos were touted and advertised to be luxury condominiums with thoughtfully crafted

architecture, custom kitchens with professional grade appliances, and exceptional finishes
throughout the home. Defendants represented that the Condos were meticulously constructed and

that the quality of the Condos would be consistent with the approximately $1,000.00 per square

foot price tag—a price that makes the property among the most expensive ever in Austin.

Defendants also promised to conduct at least three walk-through inspections before the Plaintiff’s

inspection of the unit to ensure that there would only be, at best, minor repairs to complete when

the Plaintiff inspected the unit before closing.

3. Instead of the promised luxury homes, the Condos had shoddy workmanship, with

uneven and angled floors, bowed-in walls, poorly cut baseboards, ill-fitting cabinets, uneven and

splotchy paint, and/or additional substantial and material defects. Furthermore, the plumbing

quickly corroded, endangering the health and safety of the owners and their families. Almost

immediately after beginning Plaintiff’s first walk-through of his unit in June 2019, the walk-

through had to be terminated because of the substantial construction defects that were visibly

apparent and which the parties agreed would require a 3-day inspection to fully identify. During

that initial walk-through, Plaintiff placed blue tape on the defects that were identified before the

walk-through was terminated. Defendants expressly represented at that time that all of the

construction defects would be repaired before Plaintiff’s next walk-through.

4. When Plaintiff returned for the second walk-through on July 8, 2019, however,

none of the construction defects in the unit were repaired. In fact, the blue tape that was placed on

certain defects during the original walkthrough remained in place and the defects were left

untouched. During this walk-through, Defendants’ representatives acknowledged the substantial

construction defects in the unit, stated that the walk-through should be terminated and promised

Plaintiff that all of the construction defects in the unit would be repaired at no cost to Plaintiff as

long as Plaintiff proceeded to closing that day. Relying on this representation, Plaintiff closed on

-2-
his condominium. Relying on the promise of quality consistent with the price, Plaintiff and other

class members purchased condominiums located in the Condos.

5. Despite Defendants’ representations, they did not fix or remedy the defects in the

Condos, nor did they reimburse Plaintiff and the class for out of pocket expenses they incurred to

attempt to fix the defects. Defendants continue to refuse to repair all of the construction defects.

Defendants had a duty to remedy these defects, and they breached that duty. Plaintiff is seeking

to certify a class of purchasers of the Condos in order to enforce their rights under warranty and

statute.

THE PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Amit Patel is an individual who resides in and is a citizen of Travis County

in the State of Texas.

7. Defendant 70 Rainey Street Owner LLC (“70 Rainey”) is a limited liability

corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business

at 84 Rainey St. Austin, Texas 78701, and is registered to do business in Texas. Defendant 70

Rainey Street Owner LLC may be formally served with process through the Texas Secretary of

State.

8. Defendant Sackman Enterprises, Inc. (“Sackman”) is a corporation organized under

the laws of New York, with its principal place of business at 165 West 73rd Street, New York, New

York, 110023 and it may be served through the Texas Secretary of State.

9. Defendant Alan Sackman is an individual domiciled in the State of New York and

may be served at 35 Barkers Point Rd., Port Washington, New York 77050, his place of business

located at Sackman Enterprises, Inc., 165 West 73rd Street, New York, New York 10023, or

wherever he may be found.

-3-
 10. Defendant Carter “CJ” Sackman (“CJ Sackman”) is an individual domiciled in the

State of Texas and may be served at 2308 Holly St., Austin, Texas 78702, 70 Rainey St. Apt. 2704,

Austin, Texas 78701, or wherever he may be found.

11. Defendant Lisa Matulis-Thomajan (“Ms. Matulis-Thomajan”) is an individual

domiciled in the State of Texas and may be served at her home located at 2901 Westlake CV,

Austin, Texas 78746, her place of business at Compass Real Estate, 2500 Bee Caves Road,

Building 3, Suite 200, Austin., Texas, 78746, or wherever she may be found.

12. Defendant Jennifer Ladner (“Ms. Ladner”) is an individual domiciled in the State

of Texas and may be served at 9312 Tea Rose Trail, Austin, Texas 78748, her place of business at

Compass Real Estate, 2500 Bee Caves Road, Building 3, Suite 200, Austin., Texas, 78746, or

wherever she may be found.

13. Defendant Worth Ross Management Co., Inc. (“Worth Ross”) is a corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business at 4144 N.

Central Expressway, Suite 580, Dallas Texas 75204. Defendant Worth Ross Management Co.,

Inc. may be formally served with process through its registered agent, Mr. Worth Ross, the

individual, at its principal place of business.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount in

controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as they reside in Texas and/or

have engaged in business in Texas by building and selling the condominiums located at 70 Rainey

Street, Austin, Travis County, Texas 78701 and thus have sufficiently continuous and systematic

contacts to render them at home in the State of Texas. Defendants’ conduct constitutes doing

-4-
business in the State of Texas pursuant to the Texas Long-Arm Statute, Chapter 17.041, et seq.

Further, upon information and belief, Defendants acted in concert at the direction of Alan Sackman

of Sackman to engage in tortious conduct in the State of Texas. As described below, Alan

Sackman exercises a level of control over Sackman and 70 Rainey such that, in reality, Alan

Sackman, Sackman and 70 Rainey constitute the same entity and their contacts should be fused

for jurisdictional purposes.

16. Venue is proper in Travis County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code § 15.002, because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff

and the class members’ claims occurred in Travis County, Texas. Specifically, the condominiums

purchased by Plaintiff and the class members from 70 Rainey are located in Travis County, Texas.

The misrepresentations made by Defendants and poor workmanlike quality of the construction in

the units caused serious harm to Plaintiff and the other class member. Venue is also proper in

Travis County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 15.005 in this suit

against multiple defendants because all of Plaintiff’s claims or causes of action in this lawsuit arise

out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Specifically, all

of Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit arise out of misrepresentations Defendants made with respect

to the construction and repair of the Condos.

FACTS

17. 70 Rainey is the original owner and upon information and belief, builder of the

Condos and is a subsidiary of Sackman. The Condos were advertised as condominiums of

“unquestionable quality” that had been built with “meticulous attention to detail.”1 The Condos

were designed by MARKZEFF, a well-known architecture and design firm based out of New York

1
https://70rainey.com/residences.

-5-
who has designed luxury properties all over the world for high profile companies and celebrities.

The sellers of the condominiums at 70 Rainey claimed the Condos’ “quality and panache are self-

evident.”2 Located in the heart of one of Austin’s most eclectic neighborhoods with easy access

to downtown Austin and close to Lady Bird Lake, 70 Rainey promoted the Condos as a high rise

building and luxury get away in the middle of the city with clean lines and open spaces. 70 Rainey

has over 160 units in the Condos on 34 different floors. The units were priced starting at $400,000

for a small studio and $5 million for the largest penthouse. 70 Rainey’s luxury amenities include

24/7 concierge service, amenity deck with infinity pool and unobstructed views of Lady Bird Lake

from the water’s edge, outdoor oasis with over 50 plant species, and state of the art fitness center

with steam showers and dry-heat saunas. Each individual unit has large windows for natural light,

and an open floor plan for function and utility. Overall, 70 Rainey sold the Condos to buyers as a

unique residence that was tailored to city living in a relaxed environment with plenty of

entertainment and recreational space in the surrounding area.

18. CJ Sackman is the young son of New York City real estate developer Alan

Sackman. CJ Sackman was made the managing director of 70 Rainey and the president of

Sackman in his 20s by his father. Upon information and belief, 70 Rainey is his first time leading

a major luxury real estate development project. Alan Sackman was fully aware of CJ Sackman’s

lack of knowledge regarding major real estate development. However, because CJ Sackman was

his son, he put him in charge anyway. Upon information and belief and as explained below, once

it became clear that CJ Sackman was in way over his head, he made misrepresentations and

promises to sell units that were not finished and cut corners and costs by deviating from the

MARKZEFF design plan. Defendants were aware that the units had substantial defects.

2
https://70rainey.com/residences/interior-specs.

-6-
19. Plaintiff relied on the advertised representations and purchased his unit in July 2019.

Plaintiff expected the quality of the unit to be consistent with 70 Rainey’s advertising, the

substantial cost per square foot, and the elegance and luxury that is expected of a MARKZEFF

designed property. However, what he received was much different. Due to the poor quality of

construction, Plaintiff’s “luxury” unit was basically worthless.

20. Instead of clean lines, he received uneven and angled floors.

-7-
21. Walls throughout the Unit were bowed-in and curved.

-8-
 22. Even though the Condos were brand new, the columns in the unit were already

cracking and the paint was chipping away.

 23. While the cabinets were custom, they were not customized to fit into their assigned

spaces. The “Italian” marble bricks were installed with cracks.

 24. The so-called “exceptional bathroom finishes” were damaged beyond repair and

quickly corroded, putting the tenant and his family’s health at risk. Upon information and belief,

Plaintiff believes this corrosion may have affected the drinking water quality in the building. The

corroded fixtures were made from metal and metals can be toxic and contaminate drinking water

which leads to gastrointestinal issues, damage to the liver and kidneys, mental development

problems in children, and can lead to high blood pressure and kidney problems.
 25. The paint on the walls was uneven. The promised oversized kitchen island and

cabinets was an enormous mess of uneven paneling, crooked and chipped marble, and multicolored

screws.
26. The “European” wide-plank oak floors were noticeably mismatched in color.

27. The baseboards were not level and gapped above the flooring.
 28. Even the front door had deep scratches on it and was misaligned and installed out

of frame, putting the safety of Plaintiff and his family in potential jeopardy as it could not properly

lock.

29. Furthermore, upon information and belief, 70 Rainey deviated from the original

MARKZEFF design plan as a way to cut costs and increase its profits. Instead of sourcing the

cabinets from Italy, as was advertised, 70 Rainey sourced them from businesses in Texas.

30. 70 Rainey also hired sub-standard contractors and failed to properly supervise the

construction work that was done on the Condos. As a result of all these issues, the final buildout

and finish of Plaintiff’s unit looked like the work of first time builder. What was to be a dream

home for Plaintiff and his family, turned out to be a nightmare.

31. When going through the purchasing process, Plaintiff was told that Defendants

perform three walkthroughs of each unit to ensure the quality of materials and construction.

Ms. Matulis-Thomajan and Ms. Ladner (collectively the “Agents”) were the real estate agents and

- 14 -
brokers who represented 70 Rainey and sold Plaintiff his Unit. The Agents promised Plaintiff

during the sales process that three walkthrough inspections would occur prior to the Buyer

walkthrough, and they would personally attend the three walkthroughs. The Agents assured

Plaintiff there would be minimal, if any, punch list items left to repair upon his final walkthrough.

The responsibility of attending preliminary walkthroughs is typical of other agents in Austin for

the sale of similar properties. This service was in the ordinary course of business for luxury real

estate agents and brokers in the Austin area and was especially important to Buyer due to his busy

travel schedule. The Agents also promised that the condominium Plaintiff was purchasing was of

the highest quality, as advertised. Upon information and belief, the Agents quit as the registered

sales agents for the 70 Rainey once they became aware of the defects in the units and 70 Rainey’s

failure to adhere to the MARKZEFF design plan. However, by this time they had already

represented to Plaintiff that his unit would be repaired and convinced him to sign the closing

documents.

32. Plaintiff conducted an initial walkthrough of the Unit in June 2019 with Worth

Ross’s representatives, Martin Salas (“Mr. Salas”) and Terry Arterburn (“Mr. Arterburn”), who

also claimed and held themselves out to be representatives of 70 Rainey. Plaintiff and Mr. Vikas

Patel began blue taping the Unit. However, after a short amount of time, they, along with the

representatives of Worth Ross and 70 Rainey, realized it would take three days to fully complete

the blue tape because of the substantial defects. Based on this realization, the representatives of

Worth Ross and 70 Rainey stated that the walkthrough should be terminated. The representatives

of Worth Ross and 70 Rainey promised Plaintiff that all of the defects would be remedied before

the final walkthrough.

33. Right before closing, Plaintiff and representatives of 70 Rainey and Worth Ross

- 15 -
conducted a final walkthrough of his soon to be unit. Instead of the completed defect-free luxury

condominium that had been promised by Defendants, Plaintiff’s condominium was in shambles.

The blue tape from Plaintiff’s original walkthrough was still where it had been placed the previous

month, with none of the flagged repairs having been completed. It was as if no one had stepped

into the Unit from the time they left to the time they came back. Mr. Salas acknowledged all of

the defects during this final walkthrough. Mr. Salas promised Plaintiff that if he went ahead and

closed, Defendants would ensure that everything was repaired to Plaintiff’s satisfaction.

Additionally, the Agents represented that Defendants would make good on their promises.

Plaintiff relied on Defendants to make truthful representations to him regarding the future repair

of his unit. Based these representations, Plaintiff was induced into signing the closing documents

and purchased a unit in the Condos. The Defendants each profited from Plaintiff’s reliance on

them.

34. Since closing, and upon recommendation of Defendants, Plaintiff has had the

property inspected by multiple professionals and provided multiple inspection reports to 70

Rainey, Sackman and CJ Sackman at his own cost. Even after Plaintiff provided these reports—

as he was specifically requested to do —Defendants have not made any repairs. Furthermore,

Defendants did not reach out to Plaintiff to check on the unit, despite this being customary practice

within the luxury residential real estate market.

35. Plaintiff’s parents live with him in the unit. Plaintiff’s father has been diagnosed

with GNE myopathy, which is a muscular condition that weakens muscles in the legs and arms. It

has caused Plaintiff’s father to walk with a steppage gait and uneven footing. Although Defendants

are aware that Plaintiff’s father lives with him and about his condition, they still refuse to repair

the unlevel flooring in the unit. Due to 70 Rainey’s failure to fix the flooring despite numerous

- 16 -
requests, Plaintiff’s father has fallen on multiple occasions and cut his head, causing Plaintiff and

his family to incur medical expenses.

36. On September 6, 2019, Defendants once again inspected the unit, acknowledged

the substantial construction defects in the unit, and promised to repair all items on the three

separate punch lists provided by Plaintiff. CJ Sackman, as the manager of 70 Rainey and president

of Sackman, further promised to provide Plaintiff and his family with hotel or other lodging

accommodations while the repairs were taking place. CJ Sackman also offered to pay all Plaintiff’s

homeowner’s association fees until the unit was delivered in the condition that was promised at

the time of sale. Plaintiff’s parents were in attendance during these inspections and witnessed the

Defendants’ promises. Upon information and belief, CJ Sackman was authorized to make these

promises by Sackman and Alan Sackman. CJ Sackman needed 70 Rainey to be a success as much

as Plaintiff wanted the unit he was promised when he signed the closing papers on July 8, 2019.

37. Nevertheless, despite multiple post-closing meetings, statements by Defendants

recognizing the defects, and promises to make all necessary repairs. The substantial construction

defects in the unit have not been repaired. Due to Defendants’ failure to repair the unit, Plaintiff

has had to cancel the contract with his interior designer, as the unit was not in a condition to be

decorated and designed. As a result of the contract cancellation, Plaintiff was charged a

cancellation fee by the designer, and he has not been able to fully enjoy his unit. Plaintiff would

not have incurred this fee but-for the Defendants’ failure to sell him the unit as it was promised.

38. Before initiating suit, Plaintiff tried again, multiple times, to have Defendants honor

their commitments without litigation. First, Plaintiff provided Defendants with two reports done

by the inspectors they asked Plaintiff to hire, the Bloodhound and Bridgit reports. Instead, and

contrary to their representations that they would fully repair any defects listed in the reports, 70

- 17 -
Rainey and their representatives only agreed to make some cherry picked repairs contained in the

reports. 70 Rainey stated that any defect they did agree to repair was contingent on Plaintiff

accepting the repairs “as-is.” 70 Rainey ignored the rest of the defects and went back on their

previous promise. Even these cherry picked repairs have not been made.

39. Plaintiff tried a second time to have his unit repaired and to avoid litigation. After

70 Rainey refused to repair the substantial construction defects identified in the Bloodhound and

Bridgit reports, Plaintiff sent a letter to 70 Rainey on May 20, 2020, which, in compliance with

the Residential Construction Liability Act, provided written notice of the construction defects in

his unit and an opportunity to repair Plaintiff’s unit to avoid the cost of litigation for all parties.

After receiving this letter, 70 Rainey’s attorney, Alex Valdes (“Mr. Valdes”), requested an

opportunity to inspect the unit himself. Plaintiff allowed him access to the unit two (2) days later

on May 22, 2020. With Plaintiff’s May 22, 2020 letter in hand, Mr. Valdes asked Plaintiff to

identify certain defects in the unit for him. Plaintiff showed Mr. Valdes the defects, and even

placed a level on the wood floor throughout the unit to demonstrate where the floor was not level.

The fact that the wood floors are not level likely means that the slab on which the wood floor sits

is also not level.

40. On information and belief, this problem is not limited to Plaintiff’s unit but instead

is an issue throughout 70 Rainey. Mr. Valdes acknowledged the significant issues with the

construction of the unit. After conducting his inspection, Mr. Valdes requested that Plaintiff

provide him with construction standards to establish the permissible slope of wood flooring for his

unit. Again, Plaintiff complied and provided the requested standards. Approximately one month

later, in late June 2020, Mr. Valdes requested access to the unit, on two days’ notice, for 70 Rainey

to conduct a limited additional inspection. Plaintiff again complied and 70 Rainey inspected his

- 18 -
unit again. Defendants were fully aware of the abysmal state of the unit that was sold to Plaintiff

and acknowledged it time and time again.

41. Despite 70 Rainey’s repeated inspection of the unit and acknowledgment of the

substantial defects, and their promise to repair those defects completely, 70 Rainey failed to

provide Plaintiff a reasonable offer of repair. On July 4, 2020—the very last day for 70 Rainey to

respond to Plaintiff’s letter—70 Rainey proposed a series of vague and non-committal repairs to

avoid obligating itself to properly repair any of the defects. Instead of agreeing to fix the floors

and ensure they were level, 70 Rainey only agreed to replace some unspecified fifteen floor boards.

70 Rainey did not explain why it would only provide fifteen floor boards instead of fully addressing

the defect. No repair regarding the leveling of the floors was suggested even though it is clearly

required to lay a foundation for a level floor. Further, 70 Rainey completely disregarded the

construction standards for the permissible slope of a wood floor that it had requested and received

from Plaintiff before July 4, 2020. In its written offer of repair, 70 Rainey did not agree to replace

the interior doors with deep scratches, nor did it agree to fix or reinstall the door frames that had

been improperly installed. When attempting to address the holes in the doors, 70 Rainey proposed

to paint over them. Instead of agreeing to fix the uneven size and improperly cut baseboards, 70

Rainey said it would paint and fix with sealant. The cabinets in the unit were defectively installed,

causing scratching, and were improperly aligned, coming loose, and were crooked in their frames.

70 Rainey ambiguously said it would “adjust [the cabinets] where necessary.” The large kitchen

island, a focal point of the unit, was coming apart, uneven, and scratched. 70 Rainey barely

addressed this defect, and did not agree to repair or rebuild the island. Overall, Plaintiff was not

able to ascertain whether 70 Rainey would actually address each defect or make small changes

from the offer of repair. Essentially, 70 Rainey’s offer of repair was to conceal the substantial

- 19 -
construction defects in the unit by applying cheap cosmetic fixes instead of addressing and

repairing the underlying construction defects. Plaintiff sent a second letter to 70 Rainey on July

15, 2020, detailing why the proposed repairs were unreasonable, as described above.

42. On July 25, 2020, again on the very last day to respond to Plaintiff’s July 15, 2020,

letter, 70 Rainey made revisions to its offer of repair, which, once again, demonstrated that it had

no intention of repairing the substantial construction defects in the Unit that it previously promised

to fix. 70 Rainey refused to fix the sloped floor and instead denied that they were aware of a

sloping problem. This was despite being advised repeatedly of the defect, despite the fact that 70

Rainey’s counsel had himself witnessed the sloping with a level when he visited the unit, and

despite the construction guidelines for sloping floors that were provided to 70 Rainey at its

counsel’s request. 70 Rainey refused to replace the kitchen island, which had uneven paneling and

was coming apart. It refused to replace the non-locking front door, or reimburse Plaintiff for any

of the substantial out of pocket expenses Plaintiff had incurred to try and fix the Unit, even when

those expenses were incurred at 70 Rainey’s behest. 70 Rainey also refused to pay Plaintiff’s

homeowner’s association fees, even though CJ Sackman himself had promised it would pay them

from the date of closing until the unit was repaired. 70 Rainey’s offer of repair was unreasonable,

and Plaintiff was left with no option but to pursue this lawsuit to recover the substantial costs he

had incurred and be made whole from the material defects in his unit.

43. During August 2020, additional members of the class began coming forward to

describe their similar experience with 70 Rainey and its agents.

44. 70 Rainey is obligated to repair the unit under both statute and contract. When

Plaintiff purchased the unit, 70 Rainey signed a warranty contract, which states 70 Rainey

“warrants that all construction and materials . . . shall remain free from material defect in

- 20 -
workmanship and quality for the Unit for a period of one (1) year from the date of closing.” The

complaints regarding the unit were made within one year. 70 Rainey was required to make the

repairs under the contract it drafted, and it refused.

45. 70 Rainey admitted that they no longer use the contractor that constructed

Plaintiff’s unit. Upon information and belief, other units in the Condos have the same or similar

issues of poor workmanlike construction quality and violations of the warranty, similar to

Plaintiff’s unit due to the contractor used. None of these defects have been repaired by Defendants,

despite notice, contract, and promises stating Defendants have the obligation to make the repairs.

NOTICE OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

46. Plaintiff provided written notice in writing of the claims made in this Petition,

including a statement of Plaintiff’s economic damages, mental anguish damages, expenses, and

attorney’s fees, more than sixty (60) days before suit was filed in the manner and form required by

Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.505(a) of the DTPA.

47. Plaintiff also provided 70 Rainey with written notice of the construction defects in

the unit and the opportunity to repair those defects before suit was filed as required by Texas

Property Code § 27.004.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

48. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and as a class on behalf of all others

similarly situated pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. This action satisfies the

numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of

Rule 42.

49. If the class brought these causes of action separately, there would be a risk of

inconsistent judgments for varying class members that would establish incompatible standards of

- 21 -
conduct for the party opposing the class.

50. Plaintiff brings these claims for the relief alleged pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil

Procedure 42 on behalf of himself and a class, excluding all Defendants, defined as follows (the

“Class”):

a) All purchasers of condominiums located at 70 Rainey Street, Austin, Texas

78701 whose Condos were purchased from 70 Rainey and have

construction defects which include, but are not limited to:

i. Unlevel and/or mismatched and defective flooring;

ii. Misaligned baseboards;

iii. Cabinets that do not fit into the openings;

iv. Corroding plumbing fixtures;

v. Curved and bowed in walls;

vi. Chipped countertops; or

vii. Other construction defects which are the same or similar to the

construction defects experienced by Plaintiff.

b) The “Class Period” means the period of time from March 1, 2017, until

present.

51. The Members of the Class are ascertainable. They are the current owners of

condominiums located at 70 Rainey, who purchased their units from 70 Rainey. Since 70 Rainey

is the seller of the Condos, they can easily identify the members of the class.

52. Plaintiff is a member of the class he seeks to represent. In July of 2019, he

purchased a condominium that was constructed by that was plagued by significant material

construction defects.

- 22 -
 53. There are approximately 160 units in the Condos, meaning at least 160 individual

owners could be subject to this class action. As such, the Class is so numerous that joinder is

impracticable.

54. The averments of fact and questions of law common to the members of the Class

predominate over any question affecting only individual members. A class action is superior to

other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. A class action

is the superior way of resolving the claims raised in this case because:

a) The questions of law and fact are so uniform across the Class there is no reason

why individual Class members would want to control the prosecution of their own

actions at their own expense;

b) The interests of all parties and the judiciary in resolving these matters in one forum

without the need for a multiplicity of actions are great;

c) The difficulties in managing this class action will be slight in relation to the

potential benefits to be achieved on behalf of each and every Class member and not

just those who can afford to bring their own actions; and

d) Defendants had actual knowledge of applicable Texas law yet acted deliberately in

knowingly by purposefully failing to build the Condos in a good and workmanlike

quality, and inducing the unit owners to sign closing documents when Defendants

knew the defect would not be repaired. Thus, in the absence of a class action,

Defendants likely will be unjustly enriched by millions of dollars to the detriment

of unknowing Class members.

55. Defendants engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to the legal rights

sought to be enforced by Class members. The same statutory violations and breach of warranties

- 23 -
are involved. Individual questions, if any, pale by comparison to the numerous common questions

that predominate.

56. The injuries sustained by Class members flow, in each instance, from a common

nucleus of operative facts.

57. Class members have been damaged by Defendants’ misconduct. Class members

have been forced to live in poorly constructed condominiums after Defendants failed to correctly

construct and/or remedy any construction defects caused by Defendants.

58. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other Class members. Defendants

made and breached their warranty and defected on the promises they made to Plaintiff. Plaintiff

has been forced to live in a poorly constructed condominium with numerous substantial material

construction defects.

59. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff is

familiar with the basic facts underlying the Class members’ claims.

60. Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the other Class members he

seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in class action

litigation and intend to prosecute this action vigorously.

61. Plaintiff’s counsel has successfully prosecuted complex class actions. Plaintiff and

Plaintiff’s counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class members.

62. The class action device is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff and the Class members. The relief sought per individual

Class member is relatively small given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the

potentially extensive litigation necessitated by Defendants' conduct. Furthermore, it would be

virtually impossible for Class members to seek redress on an individual basis. Even if Class

- 24 -
members themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not.

63. Individual litigation of the legal and factual issues raised by Defendants' conduct

would increase delay and expense to all parties and to the court system. The class action device

presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of a single, uniform

adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Defendants

are required by law to maintain the records needed to identify the members of the Class, and on

information and belief, this information is stored in electronic property management databases,

making the information relatively easy to retrieve.

64. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class,

so the asked for relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a whole.

65. For the reasons stated herein, a class action is superior to other available methods

for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

DISCOVERY RULE

66. Defendants are estopped form asserting the affirmative defense of limitations in

this case, as although the Condos broke ground sometime in 2016, they were not completed until

early 2019. The defects in the Condos were not discoverable until, at the earliest, completion and

first walkthroughs of the Condos, which were only possible after construction was finished. Due

to this, Plaintiff and the Class could not have discovered or exercised reasonable diligence to see

the existence of the defects until the beginning of 2019 at the earliest. Plaintiff and the Class are

within the statute of limitations for filing each and every one of their causes of action.

- 25 -
 CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence

A. Claim on Behalf of the Class – 70 Rainey, Sackman, CJ Sackman, and Alan

Sackman

67. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 66 as if fully

set forth herein.

68. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and all class members.

69. 70 Rainey had a duty to Plaintiff and the Class to construct the Condos in a good

and workmanlike manner as advertised as luxury high-rise condominiums worth the hefty price

tag.

70. CJ Sackman, as the managing director of 70 Rainey, had a duty to Plaintiff and the

class to ensure that the Condos were constructed as advertised and with the same quality of

materials and good and workmanlike manner that was contracted for when Plaintiff and the Class

purchased their units. CJ Sackman also had a duty to hire contractors that could deliver the Condos

of the quality that was promised and paid for by Plaintiff and the Class.

71. 70 Rainey and CJ Sackman breached their duties by failing to hire qualified

contractors that constructed the Condos with substantial and material defects that were not

repaired, even after being on notice and acknowledging the defects.

72. Alan Sackman, as manager of Sackman and upon information and belief, the

controller of 70 Rainey, along with Sackman, the primary owner of 70 Rainey, had a duty to

Plaintiff and the Class to ensure that the person overseeing construction of the Condos was

responsible and had experience in performing a project similar to the construction of 70 Rainey.

Instead, Alan Sackman appointed his inexperienced son, CJ Sackman, to manage the construction

- 26 -
of 70 Rainey even though Alan Sackman, Sackman, and 70 Rainey knew CJ Sackman had no

experience overseeing a project of this magnitude. Once it was clear that CJ Sackman was unfit

to oversee construction, Alan Sackman, Sackman, and 70 Rainey had a duty to ensure that someone

with the proper experience oversaw construction of 70 Rainey. Alan Sackman, Sackman, and 70

Rainey allowed CJ Sackman to remain the manger of 70 Rainey and make material

misrepresentations to potential owners.

73. Alan Sackman, Sackman, and 70 Rainey breached their duty when they failed to

remove CJ Sackman as the manager of 70 Rainey and failed to deliver the Condos in the promised

quality of good and workmanlike manner.

74. As a result of 70 Rainey’s negligence in constructing and repairing the Condos, and

Alan Sackman, Sackman, and 70 Rainey’s failure to remove CJ Sackman from control of 70

Rainey, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered significant damages in an amount to be determined

at trial.

B. Claim on Behalf of Plaintiff Individually

75. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 74 as if fully

set forth herein.

76. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself individually. The Agents

undertook a duty to Plaintiff when they promised him they would attend the three preliminary

walkthroughs of his unit before closing to make sure the unit was ready for closing and of the

quality that Plaintiff was paying for. The Agents were aware Plaintiff was relying on this promise

when he signed the closing documents.

77. The Agents breached this duty when, upon information and belief, they failed to

attend a single walkthrough of Plaintiff’s unit and failed to inform him of the substantial defects

- 27 -
in the unit before he closed on his Unit. The Agents further breached their duty to Plaintiff when

they assured him 70 Rainey would make good on its promise and would repair the unit if he

purchased the unit.

78. Worth Ross undertook a duty to Plaintiff when its agent, Mr. Salas, promised

Plaintiff that the unit he was purchasing would be free from defects if he purchased the unit. Mr.

Salas assured Plaintiff that Worth Ross and 70 Rainey would remedy the defects and deliver the

unit in the manner in which it was promised at closing. Worth Ross was aware that Plaintiff was

relying on this promise when he signed the closing documents.

79. Worth Ross breached its duty to Plaintiff when it failed to ensure the defects in the

unit were remedied. Worth Ross made no effort after closing to have Plaintiff’s unit repaired.

80. As a result of the Agents and Worth Ross’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages

in an amount to be determined by a jury.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Express Warranty – 70 Rainey

81. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 80 as if fully

set forth herein.

82. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and all class members.

83. Part of the purchase agreement between Plaintiff or the Class and 70 Rainey was a

warranty. The warranty stated that 70 Rainey, as Seller, “warrants that all construction and

materials . . . shall remain free from material defect in workmanship and quality for the Unit for a

period of one (1) year from the date of closing.”

84. Plaintiff and the Class notified 70 Rainey of the defects within one year (1) year of

from the date of closing of their Units. 70 Rainey breached this warranty as (1) the Condos were

- 28 -
never free from material defect; and (2) the defects were never repaired even after notice was

given.

85. As a result of 70 Rainey failing to correct the defects and breaching the express

warranty, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered significant damages in an amount to be determined

at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Common Law Fraud – 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman

86. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 85 as if fully

set forth herein.

87. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and all class members.

88. As described above, 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman

intentionally made numerous knowing, false, and material misrepresentations to Plaintiff and the

Class.

89. The materially misleading statements and omissions complained herein and

outlined in detail include knowingly:

a) Misrepresenting that the Condos and units would be constructed in a good

and workmanlike manner;

b) Misrepresenting and advertising that that Condos would be well constructed

and made with high quality materials;

c) Misrepresenting that any defect present at the walk through would be

repaired to Plaintiff and the Class’s satisfaction in their individual units;

d) Misrepresenting that Defendant would pay for temporary housing for

Plaintiff and the Class while repairs were taking place, if necessary;

- 29 -
 e) Misrepresenting that all necessary repairs that have been identified would

be made; and

f) Misrepresenting that the Condos were move-in ready.

90. Additional evidence of 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman’s fraud

may be within their exclusive possession and control.

91. These representations were false and/or misleading.

92. The representations and omissions were material to the sale of the Condos to

Plaintiff and the Class members.

93. 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman willfully and wantonly made

these representations to induce Plaintiff and the Class to purchase the Condos. 70 Rainey, Worth

Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman knew that these representations were critical, material

information in its possession that Plaintiff and the Class did not have access to or notice which

demonstrated that the representations were false and/or misleading. As a result, 70 Rainey, Worth

Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman had a duty to disclose this information.

94. Plaintiff and the Class had no knowledge that these misrepresentations were false.

Plaintiff and the Class could not have determined the falsity of the representations; therefore, they

justifiably and reasonably relied on them. If not for these misrepresentations, Plaintiff and the

Class would not have purchased their units in the Condos.

95. As a result of 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman and CJ Sackman’s

misrepresentations, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered significant damages in an amount to be

determined at trial.

- 30 -
 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Statutory Fraud – 70 Rainey, Sackman, Worth Ross, and CJ Sackman

96. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 95 as if fully

set forth herein.

97. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and all class members.

98. Plaintiff brings this claim under Texas Business and Commerce Code

Section 27.01, titled “Fraud in Real Estate and Stock Transactions.”

99. 70 Rainey, Sackman, Worth Ross, and CJ Sackman made representations to

Plaintiff and the class members in order to induce them to enter into contracts and buy units of the

Condos. Specifically, 70 Rainey, Sackman, Worth Ross, and CJ Sackman represented that once

the closing documents were signed, all defects in the Condos would be fixed at no cost. Plaintiff

and the Class reasonably understood this to mean that there units would be repaired and delivered

to be a quality as advertised.

100. 70 Rainey, Sackman, Worth Ross, and CJ Sackman made this material promise

knowing and with actual awareness that the promise was false. They had no intent to repair the

Condos.

101. Plaintiff and the Class relied on these promises when signing the closing documents

and purchasing their units. If 70 Rainey, Sackman, Worth Ross, and CJ Sackman had not promised

to repair the Condos, Plaintiff and the Class would not have closed on their individual units. The

promise was material to their signing the closing contracts.

102. As a result of 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman’s

misrepresentations, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered significant damages in an amount to be

determined at trial.

- 31 -
 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraudulent Inducement – 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman

103. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 102 as if fully

set forth herein.

104. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and all class members.

105. 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman and their agents represented

that once the closing documents were signed, all defects in the Condos would be repaired at no

cost.

106. Plaintiff and class members relied on this promise and representation when they

signed the closing documents.

107. If the representation had not been made, Plaintiff and class members would not

have closed on their units in the Condos.

108. 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman knowingly made this false

representation and never intended to repair the Condos.

109. 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman made the representation to

induce the Plaintiff and class members to act and sign the closing documents to buy the Condos,

despite the substantial material defects.

110. As a result of 70 Rainey, Worth Ross, Sackman, and CJ Sackman misrepresentation

and fraudulent inducement, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered significant damages in an amount

to be determined at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Misrepresentation – All Defendants

111. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 110 as if fully

- 32 -
set forth herein.

112. Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually on behalf of himself.

113. Ms. Matulis-Thomajan and Ms. Ladner, as realtors and brokers for 70 Rainey,

represented to Plaintiff that they would attend walkthroughs throughout the construction of his

condominium unit to ensure that Plaintiff’s unit was going to be the advertised quality of

construction that was promised. Ms. Matulis-Thomajan and Ms. Ladner told Plaintiff that the

building was going to be of luxury quality and construction, that he would have the best views,

and could live comfortably with his family.

114. Upon information and belief, Ms. Matulis-Thomajan and Ms. Ladner did not attend

the preliminary walkthroughs before closing. If they did, they did nothing to remedy the

substantial construction defects in the Unit and concealed them from Plaintiff.

115. Plaintiff relied on Ms. Matulis-Thomajan and Ms. Ladner to inform him of any

material and substantial defects they saw on the walkthroughs. Ms. Matulis-Thomajan and

Ms. Ladner never told him of the material defects. Plaintiff only learned of them when he attended

the walkthroughs and was then was left only to close on the Unit with the promise that the

construction defects would be repaired after closing.

116. 70 Rainey, Sackman, CJ Sackman, and Worth Ross all represented to Plaintiff that

the substantial defects in his unit would be repaired if he signed the closing papers. They each

told him they would ensure that the defects were fully repaired and that his out of pocket costs

would be covered.

117. Plaintiff relied on 70 Rainey, Sackman, CJ Sackman, and Worth Ross’s

representations when he signed the closing documents for his unit. More than a year after closing,

these defendants have still not repaired the unit, and Plaintiff is still living in a unit with substantial

- 33 -
defects.

118. As a result of the Defendants’ negligent misrepresentations, Plaintiff has suffered

significant damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

DTPA–Breach of Implied Warranty – 70 Rainey

119. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 118 as if fully

set forth herein.

120. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself.

121. 70 Rainey warranted and represented that the work and construction of the Condos

would be of a high quality and workmanlike construction. Specifically, 70 Rainey warranted that

the construction would be equal to the industry standard.

122. 70 Rainey knowingly and intentionally breached this warranty when they or their

agent poorly constructed the Condos so that they did not meet industry standard or the specs

provided for in the purchase contracts.

123. 70 Rainey had actual awareness of the construction defects, both as construction

was taking place and when shown by Plaintiff and members of the Class. 70 Rainey knew that

Plaintiff and the Class would rely on this warranty when purchasing a unit of the Condos.

124. The conduct described above was a producing and proximate cause of the damages

to Plaintiff and the Class under the DTPA. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to economic damages,

and because the conduct by 70 Rainey was knowing and intentional, Plaintiff and the Class are

entitled to mental anguish damages and exemplary damages as provided by the DTPA.

- 34 -
 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Specific Performance – 70 Rainey

125. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 124 as if fully

set forth herein.

126. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the Class.

127. 70 Rainey had a contract with Plaintiff and the Class to deliver the Condos of a

certain luxury quality.

128. Plaintiff and the Class performed under the contracts in that they paid for their units.

Plaintiff and the Class tendered performance under the contracts.

129. 70 Rainey failed to perform under the contracts, as they did not provide units that

were of the advertised luxury quality that was promised under the contracts.

130. 70 Rainey is required to specifically perform under the contracts.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the DTPA – 70 Rainey

131. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 130 as if fully

set forth herein.

132. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself.

133. Plaintiff relied on 70 Rainey’s representations regarding the quality of the

construction of the Condos when they purchased the Condos. 70 Rainey made these

representations directly to Plaintiff and the Class and in their advertising of the Condos. If Plaintiff

had known about the true quality and the vast material and substantial defects in the construction

of the Units, he would not have purchased the Condos.

134. 70 Rainey violated the DTPA by making false representations under Texas Civil

- 35 -
Practice and Remedies Code § 17.46(b) (5), (7), (9), (13), and (24). 70 Rainey specifically violated

the DTPA by:

a) Representing that the Condos would have certain finishes, fixtures, and

qualities that were not present;

b) Representing that the Condos were of a particular luxury standard and

quality when they were not;

c) Advertising the Condos as being of “unquestionable quality” and designed

with “meticulous attention to detail” when they were actually poorly

constructed with significant material defects;

d) Knowingly misled and made false statements to Plaintiff and the Class by

stating that the defects that were present at the final walkthrough would be

remedies at no cost to Plaintiff and the Class; and

e) Failing to disclose certain material defects in the construction of the Condos

which were known to Defendants but unknown to Plaintiff and the Class in

order to induce Plaintiff and the Class to purchase the Condos.

135. The conduct described above was a producing and proximate cause of the damages

to Plaintiff and the Class under the DTPA. Plaintiff is entitled to economic damages, and because

the conduct by 70 Rainey was knowing and intentional, Plaintiff is entitled to mental anguish

damages and exemplary damages as provided by the DTPA.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unjust Enrichment

A. Claim on Behalf of the Class – 70 Rainey, CJ Sackman, Worth Ross, Alan

Sackman, and Sackman

136. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 135 as if fully

- 36 -
set forth herein.

137. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the other Class

members.

138. 70 Rainey, CJ Sackman, Worth Ross, under the direction and control of Alan

Sackman and Sackman, fraudulently represented to Plaintiff and the class that the Condos would

be repaired if they signed their closing documents. Relying on this promise, Plaintiff and the Class

did in fact sign, becoming owners of their individual units in the Condos.

139. 70 Rainey, Sackman, CJ Sackman, Alan Sackman, and Worth Ross were unjustly

enriched when Plaintiff and the Class purchased their units. Specifically, 70 Rainey, Sackman,

Alan Sackman, and CJ Sackman monetarily benefited by selling units of the Condos. Worth Ross

benefited by having additional tenants in the building that would pay monthly management fees

to Worth Ross for managing the building.

140. 70 Rainey, Sackman, CJ Sackman, and Worth Ross are responsible to Plaintiff and

the Class for restitution damages in an amount to be determined at trial for their unjust enrichment.

B. Claim on Behalf of Plaintiff Individually – The Agents

141. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 140 as if fully

set forth herein.

142. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself.

143. The Agents negligently represented that they would attend walkthroughs of

Plaintiff’s unit prior to his final walkthrough. Upon information and belief the Agents did not

attend a single walkthrough.

144. The Agents represented to Plaintiff that Defendants would fulfill their promises and

fully repair Plaintiff’s unit. This never happened.

- 37 -
 145. As a result of the Agents’ misrepresentations, Plaintiff signed the closing

documents and purchased his unit, resulting in the Agents receiving a substantial commission from

70 Rainey.

146. The Agents are responsible to Plaintiff and the Class for restitution damages in an

amount to be determined at trial for their unjust enrichment.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Civil Conspiracy – All Defendants

147. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 146 as if fully

set forth herein.

148. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself.

149. Defendants made numerous misrepresentations and omissions of material facts on

which Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied. The objective of the agreement and combination

was to be, and was in fact, accomplished by illegal means, including fraud and fraudulent

inducement.

150. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendants each committed numerous overt acts,

including numerous conversations with Plaintiff in which material misrepresentations of fact were

made.

151. These actions injured Plaintiff by, among other things, inducing him to close on the

purchase of his unit, hire and pay consultants to evaluate the construction defects in the unit, and

pay HOA fees.

152. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiff

sustained significant injury which would not have otherwise occurred in an amount to be

determined at trial.

- 38 -
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND JOINT ENTERPRISE–SACKMAN, ALAN SACKMAN,
70 RAINEY, AND CJ SACKMAN

153. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 152 as if fully

set forth herein.

154. At all relevant times, Alan Sackman and Sackman operated and utilized 70 Rainey

and CJ Sackman (the “Joint Defendants”) as mere instrumentalities such that Alan Sackman,

Sackman, and the Joint Defendants could not manifest separate interests of their own and instead

function solely for the benefit of Sackman. The Joint Defendants are mere tools, conduits, and

alter egos of Alan Sackman and Sackman, by which they do business in an effort to insulate

themselves from risk of liability and conceal its wrongs and injustice. Upon information and

belief, 70 Rainey is a subsidiary of Sackman and solely controlled by Alan Sackman and Sackman.

Alan Sackman is the chairman of the board for Sackman. CJ Sackman is the president of Sackman

and acted at the direction of Alan Sackman. As such, Alan Sackman and Sackman have total

control over 70 Rainey, and CJ Sackman and Sackman are responsible for any and all damages

caused by the Joint Defendants at their direction.

155. Alan Sackman used Sackman, 70 Rainey, and CJ Sackman to commit fraud. This

fraud was for Alan Sackman’s direct personal benefit. Without them making the fraudulent

misrepresentations to Plaintiff and the Class at Alan Sackman’s direction, Alan Sackman would

not have been able to sell the Condos in the condition they were constructed.

156. At all relevant times, Alan Sackman and Sackman, 70 Rainey, and CJ Sackman

have operated as a single business entity and joint enterprise, in that their resources have been

integrated to achieve a common purpose, a community of pecuniary interest in that common

purpose, and an equal right to direct or control the enterprise. Specifically, they have worked to

entice the unknowing public to purchase expensive defective Condos when they knew the Condos

- 39 -
have significant material defects that will not be repaired, despite their representations to the

contrary.

157. At the time CJ Sackman and 70 Rainey made their misrepresentations to Plaintiff

and the Class, they were acting within the scope of the enterprise. As such, Alan Sackman and

Sackman are liable for the wrongful acts of the Joint Defendants and their officers, directors,

agents, employees, and servants in pursuit of their joint business.

158. At all relevant times, the Joint Defendants were acting at the direction of and with

authority from Alan Sackman and Sackman. The conduct of the Joint Defendants, as described

above, occurred in the course and scope of the Joint Defendants’ business. As such, Alan Sackman

and Sackman is liable for the conduct of the Joint Defendants and their officers, directors, agents,

employees, and servants under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

DEMAND FOR JURY

159. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable and pay the jury fee.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that a judgment be entered against Defendants as follows:

- 40 -
A. Specific performance,

B. The reasonable cost of repairs necessary to cure any construction defect;

C. The reasonable and necessary cost for the replacement or repair of any damaged
goods in the residence;

D. Reasonable and necessary engineering and consulting fees;

E. The reasonable expenses of temporary housing reasonably necessary during the

repair period;

F. The reduction in current market value, if any, after the construction defect is
repaired if the construction defect is a structural failure;

G. Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs;

H. Out-of-pocket expenses;

I. Actual damages;

J. DTPA damages, including economic and mental anguish damages;

K. Treble damages under the DTPA;

L. Exemplary damages;

M. Restitution damages;

N. For recovery of all expenses and costs incurred in this litigation, including but not
limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and other professional fees, and expert witness
fees;

O. For post judgment interest at a maximum rate by law; and

P. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

- 41 -
 Respectfully submitted,

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP

By: /s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis

Constantine Z. “Dean” Pamphilis
DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
Texas Bar No. 00794419
Sara E. Wolfe
SWolfe@kasowitz.com
Texas Bar No. 24109688

1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100

Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 220-8800
Facsimile: (713) 222-0843/0940

Attorneys for Plaintiff

- 42 -
 Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Constantine Pamphilis
Bar No. 00794419
dpamphilis@kasowitz.com
Envelope ID: 45460192
Status as of 8/18/2020 11:17 AM CST

Associated Case Party: AMIT PATEL

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Constantine Pamphilis DPamphilis@kasowitz.com 8/18/2020 9:03:08 AM SENT

Managing Attorney'sOffice courtnotices@kasowitz.com 8/18/2020 9:03:08 AM SENT