Emesowum v. Llagostera et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Defendants Terri Llagostera' s and Oak Leaf Management, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and to Comply with the Court's Order for More Definite Statement (Document No. 28 ), Defendant GAR Associates, LP's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and to Comply with the Court's Order for More Definite Statement (Document No. 33 ), and Defendant Hoover Slovacek LLP's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Document No. 35 ) are GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's § 1983, § 1985, and Fair Housing Act claims, and all of Plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which rel ief can be granted. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling them in an appropriate state court. It is further ORDERED that Defendants GAR Associates, LP's, Pitt Southwest Investors, Inc.'s, Oak Leaf Management Company's, and Terri Llagostera's Motion for Sanctions (Document No. 20 ), Defendants Terri Llagostera's and Oak Leaf Management, Inc.&# 039;s Motion to Show Cause, for Contempt of Court and Sanctions (Document No. 30 ), and Defendants GAR Associates, LP's and Hoover Slovacek LLP's Motion to Show Cause, for Contempt of Court and Sanctions (Document No. 37 ) are DENIED as p rocedurally defective. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Proposed Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan and Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Default Judgment and Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (Document No. 23 ), Plaintiff's Second Motion for Default Judgment (Document No. 27 ), and Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Fund Reasonable Compensation for Expert Witnesses (Document No. 42 ) are DENIED. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BENEDICT EMESOWUM,

§
§

Plaintiff,

§
§

v.

TERRI LLAGOSTERA, MEADOWS
SOUTHWEST APTS., OAK LEAF
MANAGEMENT, GAR ASSOCIATES, LP,
PITT SOUTHWEST INVESTORS,
INC., HOOVER SLOVACEK LLP, and
CHRISTMAS EVE MORGAN,

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-02818

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Defendants.

§

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending

are

Defendants

Terri

Llagostera's

and

Oak

Leaf

Management, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
and to Comply with the Court's Order for More Definite Statement
(Document No. 28)

I

Defendant GAR Associates, LP's Motion to Dismiss

for Failure to State a Claim and to Comply with the Court's Order
for More Definite Statement

(Document No.

Slovacek LLP's Motion to Dismiss
(Document No. 35)
Investors,
Motion

for

,1

33)

I

Defendant Hoover

for Failure to State a

Claim

Defendants GAR Associates, LP's, Pitt Southwest

Inc.'s, Oak Leaf Management's, and Terri Llagostera's
Sanctions

(Document

No.

20) ,

Defendants

Terri

Llagostera's and Oak Leaf Management, Inc.'s Motion to Show Cause,

1

Defendants' earlier-filed
No. 11) is denied as moot.

Motion

to

Dismiss

(Document

for Contempt of Court and Sanctions (Document No. 30), Defendants
GAR Associates,
Cause,

for

LP' s

and Hoover Slovacek LLP' s

Contempt of Court and Sanctions

Motion to Show

(Document No.

37),

Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Proposed Joint Discovery/
Case Management Plan and Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to
Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Default Judgment and Defendant's
Motion for Sanctions (Document No. 23), Plaintiff's Second Motion
for Default Judgment

(Document No.

27),

and Plaintiff's Motion

for Court to Fund Reasonable Compensation for Expert witnesses
(Document No. 42).2

After considering the motions, responses, and

applicable law, the Court concludes as follows.
I.
Plaintiff
apartment

at

Benedict
Defendant

Background

Emesowum
Meadows

("Plaintiff")
Southwest

moved

Apartments

into

an

("Meadows

Southwest") with his girlfriend, Christmas Eve Morgan ("Morgan"),
in May 2012. 3
broke

up,

Approximately one month later, Plaintiff and Morgan

and

Plaintiff

alleges

that

Morgan

"vandalized

the

apartment extensively," stole his property, and continued to access
the apartment complex to harass Plaintiff.4

Plaintiff alleges that

2 Plaintiff's earlier-filed Motion for Court to Fund
Reasonable Compensation for Expert Witnesses (Document No. 39) is
denied as moot.
3

Document No. 26

4 Id.

~~

~~

6-11 (1st Am. Cmplt.).

12-16.
2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.........=

he informed the company managing the complex, Defendant Oak Leaf
Management

("Oak

Leaf"),

of

Morgan's

behavior,

and

repeatedly

requested that it deactivate Morgan's gate access card and move
Plaintiff to a different apartment. 5

Plaintiff alleges that these

requests were repeatedly denied,6 but that eventually,

Defendant

Terri Llagostera ("Llagostera"), manager of the Meadows Southwest
Apartments, told another employee to disable Morgan's gate access
card.?

Plaintiff asserts that Llagostera did not provide him any

confirmation of this action. 8

Plaintiff subsequently became aware

that Morgan was living in another apartment in the complex. 9
Plaintiff
Southwest,

Oak

now
Leaf,

brings
and

suit

against

Morgan. 10

defendants GAR Associates LP

("GAR"),

Llagostera,

Plaintiff

also

who "operated,

Meadows
names

as

managed or

owned the property in question,,,l1 and Hoover Slovacek LLP, the law
firm representing Llagostera, Meadows Southwest, Oak Leaf, and GAR.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against him on the

5

rd. ~~ 16-19.

6 rd. ~~ 20-21.
? rd.
~ 23.
8

rd.

9

rd. ~ 25.

10

See id. ~ 70.

11 rd.
~ 2.
Defendant GAR "does business as Meadows Southwest
Apartments." Document No. 15 at 2.

3

basis of his gender and national origin by refusing his requests to
deactivate Morgan's

gate card and transfer Plaintiff

to a

new

apartment, and by allowing Morgan to lease another apartment in the
complex. 12

Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U. S. C.

§

1985(3) as well as under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.

1983 and
§§

3604,

3617, and 3631, and under state law for gross negligence, breach of
duty, and breach of contract. 13
Plaintiff

moves

to

strike

several

documents

filed

by

Defendant, moves for default judgment, and moves for compensation
of his expert witnesses. 14

Defendants Llagostera, Oak Leaf, GAR,

and Hoover Slovacek move to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
and move to require Plaintiff to show cause, for contempt of court,
and for sanctions. 15

12
Document No. 26 ~~ 28-31.
At the February 14, 2014
Scheduling Conference, the Court granted GAR and Defendant Pitt
Southwest Investors, Inc.' s ("Pitt") Motion to Dismiss Suit for
Insufficient Service of Process, and dismissed Plaintiff's claims
against GAR and Pitt without prejudice. See Document No. 24. The
Court also granted Llagostera and Oak Leaf's Motion for More
Definite Statement and ordered Plaintiff to file a more definite
statement of his Fair Housing Act claims.
Id.
The Court denied
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment.
Id.
Plaintiff subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint against GAR, Oak Leaf,
Llagostera, Meadows Southwest, Hoover Slovacek, and Morgan, but
"request [ed] this court to drop" pitt as a defendant.
Id. ~ 70.

13

Document No. 26.

14

Document Nos. 23, 27, and 39.

15 Document Nos.
28, 33, and 35 (motions to dismiss); Document
Nos. 30 and 37 (motions for sanctions) .

4

II.

Plaintiff's

Motion

Plaintiff's Motions

to

Strike

Defendant's

Proposed

Joint

Discovery/Case Management Plan, Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's
Amended Motion for Default Judgment,
Sanctions 16 is denied.

and Defendants'

Motion for

The parties were ordered to prepare and file

not less than ten days before the scheduling conference a "joint
discovery / case management plan. 1117

Plaintiff did not participate, 18

and then filed his own plan after the scheduling conference .19
Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot now complain that the plan filed by
Defendants was
Plaintiff's

incomplete or misleading.

Amended

Motion

for

Default

The Court has denied
Judgment,20

and

thus

Plaintiff's request to strike Defendants' response to that motion
is moot.
below,

Finally,

because the Court,

for the reasons discussed

denies all three of Defendants' motions for sanctions as

procedurally deficient, it is not necessary to strike Defendants'
first motion for sanctions on that basis.

16

Document No. 23.

17

Document No. 2 (emphasis added) .

18

See Document No. 18.

19

Document No. 38.

20 See Document No. 24.
5

Plaintiff's

Second Motion for Default Judgment

is

denied.

This motion was filed the same day as Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint,21 and Defendants obviously were not in default when the
motion was filed.
GAR,

and

Hoover

Dismiss. 22

Furthermore, Defendants Llagostera, Oak Leaf,
Slovacek

have

subsequently

filed

Motions

to

The only defendant who has not moved or answered is

Morgan,

and there

is

no evidence of

record that

she was

ever

served.

Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Fund Reasonable Compensa-

tion for Expert Witnesses is also denied. 23

III. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
A.

Legal Standard
Rule 12(b) (6) provides for dismissal of an action for "failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
12(b)(6).

When a

district court reviews

the

FED. R. CIV. P.

sufficiency of

a

complaint before it receives any evidence either by affidavit or
admission,

its task is inevitably a limited one.

Rhodes, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1686 (1974).

The issue is not whether the

21

See Document Nos. 26 and 27.

22

See Document Nos. 28, 33, and 35.

23 Document No. 42.
6

See Scheuer v.

plaintiff ultimately will prevail,

but whether the plaintiff is

entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.

Id.

In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6),
district

court must

construe

the

allegations

in the

the

complaint

favorably to the pleader and must accept as true all well-pleaded
facts
117

in

the

complaint.

F.3d 242,

247

Lowrey v.

See

(5th Cir.

1997).

Tex.

To

A&M Uni v .

survive

Sys . ,

dismissal,

a

complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face."
1955,

1974

(2007).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.

"A claim has facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable

inference

misconduct alleged."
(2009) .

While

allegations . .

a

that

the

defendant

Ashcroft v.
complaint

is

liable

Iqbal,

129 S.

Ct.

"does

not

need

for

1937,

detailed

the
1949

factual

[the] allegations must be enough to raise a right

to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true
fact)."
B.

(even if doubtful in

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65.

Discussion
Plaintiff

motions

to

has

dismiss,

not

filed

and

pursuant to Local Rule 7.4.
and Hoover Slovacek move

they

responses
are

to

any

therefore

of

Defendants'

deemed

unopposed

Defendants Llagostera, Oak Leaf, GAR,
to dismiss all of

7

Plaintiff's

claims

against them.24

Hoover Slovacek also moves to dismiss Plaintiff's

claims against it for violations of §§ 3617 and 3631(a) of the Fair
Housing Act. 25
1.

Section 1983

Plaintiff alleges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violations of § 1985
and the Fair Housing Act.
must allege facts
state law."
F.3d 345, 352

To state a claim under

§

1983, Plaintiff

showing that defendant acted "under color of

Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chern. Grp.,
(5th Cir. 2003).

This element of

§

Inc.,

355

1983 "excludes

from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory
or wrongful."

Id.

(quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,

119 S. Ct. 977, 985 (1999)).

Plaintiff alleges no facts tending to

show that any of Defendants was acting under color of state law.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's

§

1983 claims are dismissed.

24 Document Nos. 28, 33, and 35.
At the Rule 16 conference,
Plaintiff represented that all of his claims were based on
violations of the FHA, and the Court granted Llagostera and Oak
Leaf's Motion for More Definite Statement and ordered Plaintiff to
file a more definite statement of his FHA claims in the form of a
First Amended Complaint.
See Document No. 24.
Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint did restate his FHA claims, but also pled
additional federal and state causes of action.
25 Document No. 35

~~

10-12.
8

2.

Fair Housing Act

Plaintiff

alleges

that

Defendants

Llagostera,

Southwest, Oak Leaf, and GAR violated 42 U.S.C.

§

Meadows

3604 (a) and (b),

and that Defendants Meadows Southwest, Oak Leaf, and GAR violated
§

3604(d).

§§

Plaintiff further alleges that Hoover Slovacek violated

3 61 7 and 3 63 1 (a) .
a.

Section 3604(a)

Section 3604(a) makes it unlawful "[t]o refuse to sell or rent
after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate
for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny,
a dwelling to any person because of race,
familial status, or national origin."

color,

42 U.S.C.

religion,

sex,

3604(a)

To

§§

state a claim for individual disparate treatment under
Plaintiff must allege facts

3604(a),

supporting a prima facie case that

(1) he is a member of a protected class,
apartment and was qualified to do so,
(4)

§

(2) he applied to rent an
(3)

he was rejected,

the apartment remained open after he was rej ected.

and

Cox v.

Phase III, Investments, Civ. A. No. H-12-3500, 2013 WL 3110218, at
*8

(S. D. Tex. June 14, 2013)

(Harmon, J.)

(citing Graoch Assocs.

#33, LP v. Louisville/Jefferson Co. Metro, 508 F.3d 366, 371 (6th
Cir.1996)).

9

Plaintiff
transfer

alleges

apartments

that

because

Defendants
of

his

sex

denied
and

his

request

national

to

origin.

Plaintiff alleges that he is a man,· and that Oak Leaf knew of his
"foreign origin,"
foreign origin. 26

although

he

does

not

identify

any

specific

Plaintiff further alleges that he requested to

transfer apartments multiple times, and that those requests were
rej ected. 27

Evidently copying the statutory language,

Plaintiff

also alleges that Defendants represented to him that an apartment
"was not available for inspection,

sale,

or rental to Plaintiff

(after Plaintiff requested transfer to a new apartment) when such
dwelling was in fact so available," 28 but does not allege that he
was qualified to rent any such available apartments, or that such
apartments remained available after his requests were rej ected.
While Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants offered Morgan a

lease

contract "weeks" after he notified Oak Leaf that Morgan vandalized
his apartment, 29 he does not allege that the specific apartment
offered to Morgan was available at the time Plaintiff requested to
move apartments,
particular

or that

apartment.

Plaintiff was qualified to rent that

Accordingly,

Plaintiff

has

not

alleged

sufficient facts to state a plausible claim that Defendants refused

26

Document No. 26 ~~ 33-34.

27

Id. ~~ 19-22.

28

Id. ~ 60.

29

Id. ~ 65.
10

his requests to transfer due to his gender or national origin in
violation of

§

b.

3604(a).
Section 3604(b)

Section 3604(b) makes it unlawful "[t]o discriminate against
any person in the

terms,

conditions,

or privileges of

sale or

rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities
in connection therewith,
familial

status,

or

because of race,

national

origin."

color,
42

religion,

U.S.C.

§

sex,

3604 (b) .

Plaintiff conclusorily alleges that Defendants denied his requests
to transfer apartments, as well as his requests that they disable
Morgan's gate-access card, due to his gender and national origin. 30
However,

Plaintiff

does

not

adequately

allege

that

Defendants

granted these same requests for any similarly situated individual.
See Cox, 2013 WL 3110218, at * 8 (to state a prima facie case under
§

3604(b), Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating, inter alia,

that defendant provided the services it denied to plaintiff to a
similarly situated individual within a period relatively near the
time plaintiff was denied the services)

Plaintiff alleges that

Morgan, who was listed as an "occupant" on Plaintiff's lease, was
allowed

to

rent

a

separate

Plaintiff's apartment. 31

30

See id.

31

Id.

~~

~

apartment

after

she

moved

out

of

Her situation was markedly different from

57.

10-11, 25.
11

--------------------

Plaintiff's--Plaintiff signed the lease as lessee on the apartment
he shared with Morgan and he remained living there after their
break up,

and,

apartments

unlike Morgan,

rather

than

to

Plaintiff

enter

into

a

requested

to

transfer

completely new

lease.

Furthermore, there is no allegation that Morgan, or anyone else,
requested

to

Accordingly,

disable

another

individual's

gate

access

card.

Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to

state a plausible claim that he was discriminated against because
of his race or national origin in violation of § 3604(b).
c.

Section 3604(d)

Section 3604 (d)

makes

it unlawful

person because of race, color, religion,

\\ [t]

represent

0

sex, handicap,

to any
familial

status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for
inspection,

sale,

or

available."

42 U.S.C.A.

conclusory assertions
transfer
origin.

to

a

rental
§

when such dwelling

3604(d).

that

Plaintiff

Defendants

different apartment due

is

in fact

so

offers no more than

refused his
to his

requests

to

sex or national

Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims under Section 3604(d) are

dismissed.
d.

Claims against Hoover Slovacek Under Sections
3631(a) and 3617

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hoover Slovacek intimidated
and interfered with Plaintiff's rights in violation of Sections
12

3631(a) and 3617.

section 3631(a) is a criminal statute for which

no private right of action exists.

McZeal v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., 252

F.3d 1355, at *2 (5th Cir. 2001).

Thus, Plaintiff has not stated

a claim upon which relief can be granted under this section.
Section 3617 provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful to coerce,
intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise
or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed,
or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in
the exercise or enjoyment of,
section 3603,
§

3617.

3604,

3605,

any right granted or protected by

or 3606

of

this

title./I

42

U.S.C.

Plaintiff conclusorily alleges that, "[g]iven Plaintiff's

complaint regarding the violation of his rights based on the Fair
Housing Act and upon his dealings with contractual issues with
another apartment complex (Plaza on Westheimer), HOOVERSLOVACEK LLP
acting under the color of law as a law firm,
Foteh,

via Rusty Rasheed

proceeded to intimidate and interfere with plaintiff in

violation of

42 USC 3631 (a)

and 3617. ,,32

Plaintiff alleges no

specific facts regarding when or where this alleged intimidation
and interference occurred, or what statements and actions were made
by Hoover Slovacek that would allegedly manifest intimidation or
wrongful interference.
sufficient

facts

to

plausible on its face.

32

Id.

~

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege
state

a

claim under Section 3617

See Twombly, 122 S. Ct. at 1974.

62.
13

that

is

3.

Section 1985(3)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Oak Leaf, Llagostera, and
Morgan conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his rights in violation of
42 U.S.C.

§

1985 (3)

.33

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a

cognizable claim for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, his
associated claim for conspiracy likewise fails.
Prucka, 484 F. App'x 939, 942-43
4.

See Petrello v.

(5th Cir. 2012).

Gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach
of contract

The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal
claims considered above, all of which are dismissed.
remaining claims arise under Texas law.
a relatively early stage,

Plaintiff's

Given that the case is at

the Court exercises its discretion to

decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state
law claims.
decline

See

28 U.S.C.

to exercise

§

1367(c)

supplemental

("The district courts may

jurisdiction

if

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction."); Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 204 (5th
Cir.

1989)

before

trial,

well.")

33

("Ordinarily,

when the federal

the pendent

state claims

claims are dismissed

should be dismissed as

Plaintiff's remaining state law claims are therefore

Id.

~~

45-49.
14

dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling those claims in
an appropriate state court.
IV.
Defendants'
responses

to

Defendants' Motions for Sanctions
motions

Plaintiff's

for sanctions are
motions

for

included with their

default

judgment, 34

and

Defendants' most recently filed motions for sanctions also include
motions to show cause and for contempt. 35

Rule 11 requires that

"[a] motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other
motion."

FED.

R.

CIV.

P.

11 (c) (2) .

Furthermore,

a

motion for

sanctions must "be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or
be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense,
contention,

or denial

is

withdrawn or appropriately corrected

wi thin 21 days after service or wi thin another time the court
sets. "

Id.

There is no showing that Defendants complied wi th this

requirement. 36
denied.

Accordingly, Defendants' motions for sanctions are

See Jones v. Lynden Air Freight, Inc., Civ. A. No. H-07-

34

Document Nos. 20, 30, and 37.

35

Document Nos. 30 and 37.

36
In fact, Defendants' first Motion for Sanctions was filed
only twenty days after the Amended Motion for Default Judgment to
which it is addressed.
See Document Nos. 17 (Plaintiff's Amended
Motion for Default Judgment, filed January 10, 2014) i Document
No. 20 (Defendants' Response and Motion for Sanctions, filed
January 30, 2014).
Defendant plainly did not follow the Rule 11
procedure with regard to this motion.

15

cv-4320, 2008 WL 8236515, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 24, 2008)
J.)

(Ellison,

(dismissing motion for sanctions for failure to comply with

Rule 11 where defendant "combined its request with its Response to
Plaintiff's
Judgment"

Memorandum

and

defendant

in

Opposition

"apparently

to

did

Motion
not

for

allow

Summary

Plaintiffs

twenty-one days to withdraw the offending paper or claim") .

v.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED

that

Defendants

Terri

Llagostera' s

and

Oak

Leaf

Management, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
and to Comply with the Court's Order for More Definite Statement
(Document No. 28), Defendant GAR Associates, LP's Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim and to Comply with the Court's Order
for More Definite Statement (Document No. 33), and Defendant Hoover
Slovacek LLP's Motion to Dismiss

for

Failure to State a

Claim

(Document No. 35) are GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's § 1983,
§

1985, and Fair Housing Act claims, and all of Plaintiff's federal

claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

The Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims,

and

those claims are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling
them in an appropriate state court.
16

It is further

ORDERED that Defendants GAR Associates, LP's, Pitt Southwest
Investors, Inc.'s, Oak Leaf Management Company's, and Terri Llagostera's Motion for Sanctions

(Document No.

20), Defendants Terri

Llagostera's and Oak Leaf Management, Inc.'s Motion to Show Cause,
for

Contempt

of

Court

and

Sanctions

(Document

No.

30),

and

Defendants GAR Associates, LP's and Hoover Slovacek LLP's Motion to
Show Cause, for Contempt of Court and Sanctions (Document No. 37)
are DENIED as procedurally defective.

It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Proposed
Joint

Discovery/Case

Defendant's Response

Management

Plan

and

Motion

to

Strike

to Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Default

Judgment and Defendant's Motion for Sanctions

(Document No.

23),

Plaintiff's Second Motion for Default Judgment (Document No. 27),
and Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Fund Reasonable Compensation
for Expert Witnesses (Document No. 42) are DENIED.
The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to
all counsel of record.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas, this

~'Rf..y of

July, 2014.

WERLEIN, JR.
TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17