Upload
mike-cronin
View
223
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 1/69
- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.;AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR.
Plaintiffs ,
vs.
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOLDISTRICT; LAWRENCEMARSHALL; EVA JACKSON; ANDRHJ-JOC, INC.
Defendants .
§§§§§§§§§§§
§§
Case No. 4:10-CV-04872JURY REQUESTED
PLAINTIFFS, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR.,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TOFILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
NOW COME Plaintiffs, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. and GILRAMIREZ, JR., (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and file this Motion for Leave to
File their Second Amended Complaint, in support thereof would respectfully show the
following:
1. Plaintiffs have issued subpoenas to third parties concerning issues of fact
relevant to the determination of this case.
2. Plaintiffs have also received responses to discovery from the existing
parties.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 1 of 5
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 2/69
- 2 -
3. As a result of this discovery, Plaintiffs require adding parties to this case.
4. In the discovery, Plaintiffs have learned that Defendant RHJ has been
making payments of $2,500 a month to Defendant and HISD Board
Member Lawrence Marshall's campaign treasurer Joyce Moss Clay.
5. RHJ responded to discovery requests that there are no records of Clay's
work product received in exchange for the $2500 a month.
6. Clay utilizes and entity called JM Clay and Associates to receive these
payments. Plaintiffs have been unable to locate any formation registration
for this entity.
7. Plaintiffs have also learned in discovery that Lawrence Marshall operates
an entity called Marshall & Associates for "consulting services" to which
payments were received that are relevant to this case
8. Plaintiffs subpoenaed records from Fort Bend Mechanical, LTD ("FBM").
FBM permitted Plaintiffs to inspect their documents. Plaintiffs designated
some of the documents for copying and now FBM refuses to produce the
copies. In the documents reviewed by Plaintiffs' counsel was a copy of a
check for $25,000 made payable to the Larry Marshall from an account
owned by David Medford, FBM's principal. No record of this payment
appears on the Marshall Campaign Finance Disclosure forms.
9. Also discovered in the FBM documents are invoices and checks
demonstrating that FBM has been making $3,000 a month payments to
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 2 of 5
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 3/69
- 3 -
Joyce Moss Clay. Again, no documents were discovered in the records
justifying work product commiserate with such payments.
10. Also in the FBM records were invoices demonstrating an expensive stand-
by generator was installed at Clay's residence by FBM.
11. The generator was installed at or about the time FBM was selected as a
contractor to replace Plaintiffs in HISD's JOC program.
12. Other records, yet to be copied by FBM but reviewed by Plaintiffs' counsel,
reveal other payments or emoluments made by FBM for the purpose of
influencing HISD and Defendant Marshall.
13. As a result of these events and others, Plaintiffs require amendment of their
Complaint to add additional necessary parties.
14. Additional facts to support the amendment are contained in the attached
proposed Second Amended Complaint.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court grant them leave
to file their Second Amended Complaint which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 3 of 5
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 4/69
- 4 -
Dated this 11 th day of October, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
BRAZIL & DUNN
/s/ Chad W. DunnChad W. Dunn – Attorney in ChargeTBN 24036507; Fed. I.D. No. 33467K. Scott BrazilTBN 02934050; Fed. I.D. No. 25854201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530Houston, Texas 77068Telephone: (281) 580, 6310
Facsimile: (281) 580-6362E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
T HE G REENWOOD P RATHER L AW F IRM Kelly Greenwood PratherTBN 00796670; Fed. I.D. No. 218291300 McGowen StreetHouston, Texas 77004Telephone: (713) 333-3200
Facsimile: (713) 621-1449E-Mail: [email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that co-counsel Kelly Greenwood Prather sent an email to defense counselconcerning this Motion earlier today. After several hours, no final decision had beenmade by Defendants as to whether they opposed this Motion for Leave.
By: /s/ Chad W. Dunn
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 4 of 5
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 5/69
- 5 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 11, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoingdocument with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,Houston Division, using the electronic case filing system of the Court. The electroniccase filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document byelectronic means:
John M. HopkinsArturo G. MichelThompson & Horton, LLP3200 Southwest Freeway, Ste. 2000Houston, TX 77027
(Attorneys for Defendants Houston Independent School District and Lawrence Marshall)
Michael J. StanleyStanley, Frank & Rose, LLP7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259Houston, TX 77024( Attorneys for Defendants RHJ-JOC, Inc.and Eva Jackson )
/s/ Chad W. Dunn
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 5 of 5
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 6/69
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 7/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 2
(hereinafter referred to as “ Medford ”); FBM MANAGEMENT, LLC (hereinafter
referred to as “ FBM”); JOYCE MOSS CLAY (hereinafter referred to as “ Clay”) and JM
CLAY and ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as “ Clay”) (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “ Defendants ”), and in support thereof would show the Court as follows:
I.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. is a domestic limited liability company
and is a citizen of the State of Texas.
2. Plaintiff, Gil RAMIREZ, Jr. is an individual who is a citizen of the United States
and the State of Texas.
3. Defendant, HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT is a governmental
unit of the State of Texas and it may be served through its President, Greg Meyers
at 4400 West 18th Street, Houston, Texas 77092.4. Defendant, LAWRENCE MARSHALL is a Citizen of Texas and was the 2009
President of the HISD Board of Trustees, is a current member of the HISD Board
of Trustees and he may be served at 4400 West 18th Street, Houston, Texas
77092. He is sued in his individual and personal capacities as more further
described below.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 2 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 8/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 3
5. Defendant, MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES is an unknown business entity that
serves as the alter-ego for Defendant LAWRENCE MARSHALL and may be
served at 4400 West 18th Street, Houston, Texas 77092.
6. Defendant, EVA JACKSON, is a citizen of Texas and may be served at 7643
South Freeway, Houston, Texas 77021.
7. Defendant RHJ-JOC, INC. is a domestic-for-profit corporation and it can be
served through its registered agent, EVA JACKSON, at 7643 South Freeway,
Houston, Texas 77021.
8. Defendant FORT BEND MECHANICAL, LTD. is a domestic limited partnership
and it can be served through its registered agent, David L. Medford at 13623
Stafford Road, Stafford, Texas 77477.
9. Defendant FBM MANAGEMENT, LLC. is a domestic limited liability company
that serves as the general partner for FORT BEND MECHANICAL, LTD and itcan be served through its registered agent David L. Medford at 13623 Stafford
Road, Stafford, Texas 77477.
10. DAVID L. MEDFORD is an individual who upon information and belief resides
in Fort Bend County, Texas and may be served at 13623 Stafford Road, Stafford,
Texas 77477.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 3 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 9/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 4
11. JOYCE MOSS CLAY is an individual who upon information and belief resides in
Harris County, Texas and may be served at 3618 Elmcrest Drive, Houston, Texas
77088.
12. JM Clay and ASSOCIATES is an unknown business entity that serves as the alter-
ego for Defendant JOYCE MOSS CLAY and may be served through her at 3618
Elmcrest Drive, Houston, Texas 77088.
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under U.S. CONST . art 3, §2, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S. CONST ., Amend. XIV, § 1; 18 U.S.C. § 1964; and
other statutes and laws.
14. Venue is proper in this district in that a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to these claims occurred in this district. Furthermore, the contractunderlying the claims in this case requires this Court as venue.
III.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15. Plaintiff, The Gil Ramirez Group, L.L.C., is a commercial construction and repair
business founded and principally owned by Gil Ramirez, Jr.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 4 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 10/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 5
16. Several years ago, the Houston Independent School District conducted an $800
million bond issue to construct new schools and repair and update outdated
schools.
17. In order to fairly administer this money for school repairs, the school district
adopted a preferred bidder system.
18. The school district is divided into the northern and southern region.
19. Contractors were invited to bid.
20. Each bidder was required to submit lengthy documents.
21. Plaintiffs spent tens of thousands of dollars to participate in the bid process.
22. Three contractors are selected for the northern region and three contractors are
selected for the southern region.
23. Defendant FBM, run by Defendant Medford, was one of the contractors approved
by HISD.24. Defendant FBM is a business that competes directly with the Plaintiffs and others
for government repair and construction work.
25. Plaintiffs were one of the contractors approved by HISD.
26. As part of the process, a “bid book” is prepared. This bid book describes what
each contractor can charge for individual elements of a project. For example,
changing a light bulb has a certain dollar value. Obtaining a ladder, if necessary to
install the light bulb, requires a certain amount of money. Weekend work requires
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 5 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 11/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 6
a certain amount of money. If there was something out of the ordinary not
included in the bid book, Plaintiffs were required to submit 3 proposals as a “non
pre-priced item."
27. Once the contract was signed and in place, attached as Exhibit A, the Plaintiffs
began to bid on projects.
28. For example, when a roof would collapse from heavy rains, or an air conditioner
would fail, HISD would send out a notice to the three approved contractors of the
project in that region. Those contractors would schedule a site visit to prepare a
scope of work and coordinate with subcontractors to review scope in the field for
bids. The Contractors would then prepare proposals using the pre-priced RS
Means process.
29. The vast majority of the bids were won by the Plaintiffs because they were
recommended by a third party CMPA to be the best value to the district at themost competitive price.
30. Plaintiffs routinely received praise for the quality and timeliness of their work.
31. The often acceptance by HISD of Plaintiffs' bids in this program was to the
detriment of FBM and Medford.
32. After the attached contract was signed and in force, a longtime member of the
HISD Board of Trustees, Defendant Marshall became President.
33. Defendant Marshall’s political donor is Defendant Eva Jackson.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 6 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 12/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 7
34. Defendant Marshall’s political donor is also Medford.
35. Medford made payments to Marshall totaling at least $27, 500.00 that were
labeled as campaign contributions. See attached Exhibit "B."
36. The payments from Medford to Marshall were not included on Marshall's
campaign finance reports.
37. Upon information and belief Defendant Marshall’s political donor is also FBM.
38. Eva Jackson is the owner of Defendant RHJ-JOC, Inc.
39. Defendant RHJ-JOC, Inc. is a business that competes directly with the Plaintiffs
and others for government repair and construction work.
40. Eva Jackson and others are presently being investigated by criminal authorities for
corrupt dealings with public leaders in an effort to obtain government contracts.
41. When Defendant Marshall took over as President of HISD Board of Trustees, he
approached Dr. Abe Saavedra, then current Superintendent for HoustonIndependent School District, about arranging for Defendant Jackson and her
company to receive the same bid work awarded Plaintiffs.
42. Under HISD custom, if the President and the Superintendent agree on the use of a
contractor, that contractor can be selected without a Board vote so long as the
services are deemed “professional services.”
43. Defendant Marshall explains to Dr. Saavedra that he expected Defendant Jackson
to become a contractor for HISD.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 7 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 13/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 8
44. Defendant Marshall intends for Defendant RHJ, Jackson, FBM and MEDORD to
receive most, if not all, of the HISD work.
45. Dr. Saavedra refused to agree with Defendant Marshall on this issue.
46. Defendant Marshall then tells Dr. Saavedra he has lost confidence in Dr.
Saavedra’s running of the school district.
47. Defendant Marshall states that he would move forward to obtain an agreement
from the school board forcing out Dr. Saavedra.
48. The principal, if not the exclusive, reason Dr. Saavedra is pushed out is so that
Defendant Marshall can award contracts as he desires and more specifically to
Defendants.
49. Once Dr. Saavedra is out, Defendant Marshall immediately makes certain all the
contracts for the approved contractors are cancelled, including Plaintiffs.
50.
No cause is stated for cancellation of Plaintiffs' contract.51. Defendant Marshall orders HISD staff to perform a new bid process.
52. HISD's Chief of Bidding opposes the re-bidding process and is adamant the
original process was fair.
53. The Chief of the Bidding is ultimately fired by HISD.
54. Once the new bidding process starts, all six of the contractors who had previously
been qualified and had been doing the work are deemed to be ineligible under the
new bid terms.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 8 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 14/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 9
55. Initially only Defendant Jackson's company is approved as eligible.
56. Ultimately, at least two other contractors are approved as eligible.
57. FBM is again approved as eligible.
58. Upon information and belief, RHJ and FBM now receive the greatest share of the
work.
59. Defendant Marshall's close personal friend and campaign treasurer is Defendant
Joyce Moss Clay.
60. Clay runs an alter ego entity called Defendant JM Clay and Associates.
61. Clay receives or has received $2,500 per month from Defendant RHJ for
"consulting services."
62. Clay receives or has received $3,000 per month from Defendant FBM for
"consulting services."
63.
There are no records to evidence Clay actually creating or performing any work product.
64. Clay also received from FBM the installation of an expensive stand-by generator.
65. After an extensive review of FBM's records, no invoice was discovered to Clay for
the generator.
66. Clay was paid by RHJ and FBM for her relationship to Marshall.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 9 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 15/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 10
67. Clay then transfers by cash, check and/or other emolument(s) the payments she
receives to Marshall, Marshall's benefit and/or his alter ego Marshall &
Associates.
68. FBM records reveal it made payments to LM Consulting Group, LLC whose
principal is a partner at the law firm defending Eva Jackson and RHJ.
69. Moreover, for at least 10 years now HISD has been siphoning purpose specific
bond money to use for operating costs.
70. For example, when Plaintiffs would bill a particular job, they were expected upon
payment to return two percent of that fund back to HISD.
71. This two percent is called a marketing fee. For example, if Plaintiffs were paid
$100 to do a repair at a particular elementary school, they were expected to send a
check back to HISD for $2.
72.
Upon information and belief, the two percent is then put into HISD’s general fundand is used for operating expenses.
73. HISD siphons at least two bond issues in this manner.
74. FBM records indicate it has paid the 2% fee back to HISD.
75. Also, a bond issued in 1993 by HISD has remained, in large measure, unspent and
is being siphoned to pay operating expenses.
76. The laws require a bond election. The bond election must state specifically the
use of the funds. Law requires the bonds be actually spent on these funds.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 10 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 16/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 11
77. Defendants have conspired together in the unlawful and inequitable awarding of
contracts to Defendants RHJ, Jackson, FBM and Medford.
78. Defendant HISD has administered bond funds in a manner in violation of the law
and at the detriment of Plaintiffs.
79. The suspicious HISD bid process has even been questioned by the new, current
Superintendent, Terry Grier.
80. Superintendent Grier stated publicly, at a recorded meeting, "I have seen a
procurement department made up of independent folks rate bids from a variety of
different companies across the district to do a lot of different work, and then I've
seen staff -- just for whatever reason -- pull names off of a list and put other names
back on a list, (with) no rhyme or reason except, quite frankly, influence where
influence has no business coming from."
81.
All of the foregoing, including other acts, occurred in order that the Defendantscould benefit economically.
IV.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1:
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – 14 th Amendment
82. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 11 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 17/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 12
83. Defendants HISD and Marshall, in his official capacity, acting under color of state
law, deprived Plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by
committing acts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment protections against
deprivation of certain procedural and substantive rights, i.e, life, liberty and
property, without constitutionally adequate procedures.
84. Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously terminated Plaintiffs’ rights under the
attached contract without good cause and without providing Plaintiffs due process
of law.
85. Defendants also failed to give Plaintiffs equal protection under the law.
86. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Marshall was acting under his
authority as President and/or member of the HISD Board of Trustees.
87.
Defendant HISD and Marshall's actions were pursuant to an official policy,practice or custom of HISD as adopted by Marshall as its chief executive. Such
proximately led to the events in question and Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.
88. Alternatively or in addition, Defendant Marshall's actions were not within the
scope of his authority, he was not performing discretionary duties and/or he did
not act in good faith and therefore is not entitled to immunity.
89. As a result of Defendants’ conduct , Plaintiffs suffered damages.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 12 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 18/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 13
90. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction prohibiting Defendant from
awarding any more work or funds without either honoring Plaintiffs contract or re-
submitting the work for bid in a fair process unencumbered by preferential
treatment.
V.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 2:
Violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
91. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
92. Defendants engaged in racketeering behavior.
93. From not later than 2008 to the present, Defendants Marshall (for himself and for
HISD as its chief policy maker), Jackson, RHJ, FBM, Medford and Clay, and
their agents and co-conspirators formed a RICO "enterprise" within the meaningof 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) that engaged in or affected foreign and/or interstate
commerce.
94. Alternatively, Defendants and their agents and co-conspirators constituted an
association in fact for a common purpose with a continuous existence separate and
apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which they engaged. This
association in fact constituted an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §
1961(4).
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 13 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 19/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 14
95. The Defendants' enterprise exists separate from the unlawful acts committed.
96. Each Defendant is an "individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial
interest in property" and, as such, each constitutes a "person" within the meaning
of 18 U.S.C. §1961 (3).
97. The Defendants are engaged in interstate acts of commerce and the acts alleged
herein have a potential effect on commerce.
98. Over a period of years and continuing to the present, Defendants with their co-
conspirators or agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1962(b) through a pattern of
racketeering activity, have acquired and maintained an interest in resources to their
own benefit.
99. Over a period of years and continuing to the present, Defendants with their co-
conspirators or agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1962(c) through a pattern of
racketeering activity, gained profit or income for their benefit.100. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants, and their agents and co-
conspirators conducted, or participated directly or indirectly in the conduct of the
affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1)(5), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c).
101. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(d), combined and conspired together and with their agents and co-
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 14 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 20/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 15
conspirators to conduct the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity.
102. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to effect the objects thereof, the Defendants
committed overt acts.
103. These acts include activity described in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) including:
a. bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201);
b. wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343); and
c. money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956).
104. The bribery included payments and other emoluments to Defendant Marshall in
exchange for preferential treatment to the other Defendants.
105. The wire fraud included acceptance and transmission of payments to secure the
support of Defendant Marshall.
106.
The wire fraud included acceptance and transmission of payments from HISD thatbut for the bribery would not have been made.
107. The money laundering occurred with the payment of 2% or more of all bid
projects back to HISD as a "fee."
108. The racketeering activity has occurred over time and threatens to continue
occurring.
109. Defendants' acts alleged herein have substantial effect within the United States.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 15 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 21/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 16
110. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1962 (b),(c) and (d) Plaintiffs have suffered injury to business, property,
reputation and livelihood.
111. The injuries suffered by each Plaintiff were reasonably foreseeable or anticipated
by the Defendants as the natural consequence of Defendants' acts.
112. Plaintiffs seek treble damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 3:
Breach of Contract/Breach of Duty of Good Faith
113. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
114. Plaintiff The Gil Ramirez Group, L.L.C. had a valid, enforceable contract with
Defendant HISD which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."115. Defendant HISD breached this contract in numerous respects.
116. Defendant HISD's breach of contract included failing to make payments for work
performed as required under the terms of the contract.
117. Defendant HISD's breach of contract included failing to comply with contract
terms regarding the term of the agreement and extensions of same.
118. Defendant HISD's breach of contract included failing to adhere to the contract
terms in compliance with HISD's duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 16 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 22/69
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 23/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 18
VIII.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 5:
Quasi Estoppel
128. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
129. Defendant HISD invited bids and performed for a while under the contract
attached.
130. Defendant HISD now has taken the inconsistent action of backing out of the bid
process it adopted only so as to favor other contractors who are principal
benefactor of Defendant Marshall, President of the Board.
131. It is inequitable to allow Defendant HISD to take such action when there is no
legitimate basis to do so.
IX.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 6:
Tortious Interference with Existing Contract
132. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
133. Plaintiff had the valid contract attached.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 18 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 24/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 19
134. The defendants MASRAHALL, in his individual capacity, Jackson, RHJ, FBM
and Medford willfully and intentionally interfered with the contract so as to secure
the business for their own benefit.
135. The interference was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs ’ damages.
136. Plaintiffs incurred actual damage or loss.
X.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 7:
Tortious Interference with Prospective Contract
137. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
138. There was a reasonable probability that the Plaintiffs would have entered into
additional contracts with HISD.
139.
The defendants MASRAHALL, in his individual capacity, Jackson, RHJ, FBMand Medford intentionally interfered with the relationship.
140. The Defendants' conduct was independently tortious or unlawful.
141. The interference was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' damages.
142. Plaintiffs suffered actual damage or loss.
XI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 8:
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 19 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 25/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 20
Declaratory Judgment
143. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
144. Plaintiffs request the Court enter a declaratory judgment against HISD that the
subsequent bid process awarding the described work to Jackson, RHJ, FBM and
Medford was illegal or were procured by fraud.
145. Plaintiffs request the Court find that the bid process must be re-started in
compliance with all laws and without preference to any person or party.
XII.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 9:
Civil Conspiracy
146. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
147. Defendants Marshall, in his individual capacity, RHJ, Jackson, FBM, and Medford
are a combination of two or more persons.
148. One object of the combination was to accomplish unlawful purposes or a lawful
purpose by unlawful means.
149. Each of the members of this conspiracy had a meeting of the minds on the course
of action.
150. One or more of the members committed an unlawful act, overt act to further the
object or course of action.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 20 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 26/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 21
151. Plaintiffs suffered injury as a proximate result of the wrongful act.
XIV.
REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
152. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing by reference.
153. Plaintiffs request the Court enjoin Defendant HISD from further awarding work of
contracts based upon the unlawful bid procedure outlined above.
154. If the Plaintiffs’ Injunctive Relief is not granted, irreparable harm is imminent.
155. The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because the substantial damages
and harm from Defendants ’ conduct are incalculable and a money judgment could
not serve as adequate compensation for the wrong inflicted on the Plaintiffs.
XV.
ATTORNEYS FEES
156.
Plaintiffs request award of their reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees for thisaction including the constitutional claims and claims arising under the contract.
See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 2201 and Tex. Civ.
Prac.& Rem. Code § 38.001.
157. Defendants are not entitled to qualified or sovereign immunity because
Defendants ’ actions clearly violate an established constitutional right and
Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established
law at the time of the incident.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 21 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 27/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 22
XVI.
JURY DEMAND
158. Plaintiffs assert their rights under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and demands, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a trial by
jury on all issues.
XVII.
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter
judgment against Defendants consistent with the relief requested herein, and for any and
all relief to which Plaintiffs may show they are entitled.
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 22 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 28/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 23
Dated this 11th day of October, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
BRAZIL & DUNN
/s/ Chad W. DunnChad W. Dunn – Attorney in Charge TBN 24036507; Fed. I.D. No. 33467K. Scott BrazilTBN 02934050; Fed. I.D. No. 25854201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530Houston, Texas 77068
Telephone: (281) 580, 6310Facsimile: (281) 580-6362E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
T HE G REENWOOD P RATHER L AW F IRM Kelly Greenwood PratherTBN 00796670; Fed. I.D. No. 218291300 McGowen StreetHouston, Texas 77004
Telephone: (713) 333-3200Facsimile: (713) 621-1449E-Mail: [email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 23 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 29/69
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – Page 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 11, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoingdocument with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,Houston Division, using the electronic case filing system of the Court. The electroniccase filing sys tem sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document byelectronic means:
John M. HopkinsArturo G. MichelThompson & Horton, LLP3200 Southwest Freeway, Ste. 2000Houston, TX 77027
(Attorneys for Defendants Houston Independent School District and Lawrence Marshall)
Michael J. StanleyStanley, Frank & Rose, LLP7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259Houston, TX 77024( Attorneys for Defendants RHJ-JOC, Inc.and Eva Jackson )
/s/ Chad W. Dunn
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 24 of 24
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 30/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 1 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 31/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 2 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 32/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 3 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 33/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 4 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 34/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 5 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 35/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 6 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 36/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 7 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 37/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 8 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 38/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 9 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 39/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 10 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 40/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 11 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 41/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 12 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 42/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 13 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 43/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 14 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 44/69
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 45/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 16 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 46/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 17 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 47/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 18 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 48/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 19 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 49/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 20 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 50/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 21 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 51/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 22 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 52/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 23 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 53/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 24 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 54/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 25 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 55/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 26 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 56/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 27 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 57/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 28 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 58/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 29 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 59/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 30 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 60/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 31 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 61/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 32 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 62/69
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 63/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 34 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 64/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 35 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 65/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 36 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 66/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 37 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 67/69
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-2 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 38 of 38
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 68/69
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION
THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.;AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR.
Plaintiffs ,
vs.
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOLDISTRICT; LAWRENCE MARSHALL;EVA JACKSON; AND RHJ-JOC, INC.
Defendants .
§§§§§§§§§§
§§
Case No. 4:10-CV-04872JURY REQUESTED
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS,THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR.,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILESECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
BE IT REMEMBERED and came on to be heard Plaintiffs, THE GIL RAMIREZ
GROUP, L.L.C. and GIL RAMIREZ, JR., Motion for Leave to File their Second
Amended Complaint in the above-entitled and numbered cause. After considering the
Motions, pleadings on file, arguments of counsel, and after due consideration, it is
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs, THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.
and GIL RAMIREZ, JR., Motion for Leave to File their Second Amended Complaint is
GRANTED.
SIGNED this ____ day of _______________________, 2011.
PRESIDING JUDGE
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-4 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 1 of 2
8/3/2019 Marshall Court Filings I
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marshall-court-filings-i 69/69
APPROVED AND ENTRY REQUESTED:
BRAZIL & DUNN
/s/ Chad W. DunnChad W. Dunn – Attorney in Charge TBN 24036507; Fed. I.D. No. 33467K. Scott BrazilTBN 02934050; Fed. I.D. No. 25854201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530Houston, Texas 77068Telephone: (281) 580, 6310
Facsimile: (281) 580-6362E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
T HE G REENWOOD PRATHER L AW F IRM Kelly Greenwood PratherTBN 00796670; Fed. I.D. No. 218291300 McGowen StreetHouston, Texas 77004Telephone: (713) 333-3200
Facsimile: (713) 621-1449E-Mail: [email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 52-4 Filed in TXSD on 10/11/11 Page 2 of 2