Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT1, ET AL.,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

V.

§ CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094

§

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§

COMPANY,

§

§

Defendant.

§

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

Defendant George S. May Company (“May”), files its answer in response to Clive B.

Hilgert’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint. May currently has a Rule 12(b)(6) motion pending before the

Court, seeking dismissal of the majority of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, May’s Answer

addresses the remaining allegations and claims. Should the Court deny May’s Rule 12(b)(6)

motion, in whole or part, or give notice that it intends to postpone its ruling, May will file an

amended answer within 10 days after receiving notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(a)(4)(A).

Should the Court construe any of Plaintiff’s allegations as assertions of claims that are

not addressed in May’s Answer or Rule 12(b)(6) motion, May respectfully denies all of the

underlying allegations giving rise to those claims. Also, to the extent that any of Plaintiff’s affidavits2 are considered part of his Complaint, May denies the allegations set forth in those

affidavits.

1 The docket sheet incorrectly lists the Plaintiff’s name as “Hilbert.” 2 Plaintiff filed an affidavit with his Complaint on May 1, 2007 and another affidavit on July 13, 2007.
HO1 13088605.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 2 of 9
COUNTS 1 THROUGH 12 The statements made under the Headings “Count 1” through “Count 12” at the beginning of the Complaint are not allegations and thus do not require a specific admission or denial. To the extent that the statements are construed as allegations, May denies each allegation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 1. 2. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 2. 3. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 3. 4. May denies that plaintiff and all other unnamed persons have a valid claim against it, and May denies that more than one person is a plaintiff in this suit. Otherwise, May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 4.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 5. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5. 6. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 6. 7. May admits that Plaintiff is not a proper class representative. Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 7. 8. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8. 9. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 9. 10. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 10. 11. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 11. 12. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 12. 13. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 13. 14. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 14. 15. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 15.
2
HO1 13088605.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 3 of 9
16. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 16. THE PARTIES
17. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 17. 18. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 18. 19. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 19. 20. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 20. 21. May denies that any of its current or former clients have a cause of action against it, but admits that none of those clients are proper parties to this lawsuit. 22. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 22. 23. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 23. 24. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 24. 25. May admits that Plaintiff was once a special representative for the company. Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 25.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 26. May admits that the large majority of its employees are “at will.” Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 26. 27. May admits that the large majority of its special representatives receive a car allowance and are paid on a commissions only basis. Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 27. 28. May admits that the primary duty of special representatives is to sell survey services to potential client. Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 28. 29. May admits that special representatives receive a commission for selling the surveys. Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 29. 30. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 30.
3
HO1 13088605.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 4 of 9
31. May admits that the Employee Agreement defines, in part, the term “qualified sale.” Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 31. 32. May admits that it follows criteria for determining what constitutes a “qualified sale.” Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 32. 33. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 33. 34. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 34. 35. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 35. 36. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 36. 37. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 37. 38. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 38. 39. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 39. 40. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 40. 41. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 41. 42. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 42. 43. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 43. 44. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 44. 45. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 45. 46. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 46. 47. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 47. 48. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 48. 49. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 49. 50. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 50. 51. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 51.
4
HO1 13088605.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 5 of 9
52. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 52. 53. May denies that its business decisions are based on any legally protected status. 54. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 54. 55. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 55. 56. May admits that it only pays commissions for qualified sales. Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 56.
COUNT 6 BREACH OF CONTRACTS 124. May incorporates its responses to the allegations incorporated in paragraph 124. May denies the allegations incorporated in paragraph 124 to which it has not previously responded. 125. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 125. 126. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 126. 127. May admits that it may cancel an appointment. Otherwise, May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 127. 128. May admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 128. 129. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 129. 130. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 130. 131. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 131.
COUNT 11 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 179. May incorporates its responses to the allegations incorporated in paragraph 179. May denies the allegations incorporated in paragraph 179 to which it has not previously responded. 180. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 180. 181. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 181. 182. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 182.
5
HO1 13088605.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 6 of 9
183. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 183. 184. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 184. 185. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 185.
CLAIM AGAINST GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL COMPANY FOR MONEY DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIONS
186. May incorporates its responses to the allegations incorporated in paragraph 186. May denies the allegations incorporated in paragraph 186 to which it has not previously responded. 187. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 187. 188. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 188. 189. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 189. 190. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 190. 191. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 191. 192. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 192. 193. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 193.
RELIEF REQUESTED 194. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 194 and its subparts. 195. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 195 and its subparts. 196. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 196 and its subparts. 197. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 197. 198. May denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 198.
DEFENSES 1. May incorporates its grounds for dismissal as set forth in its Rule 12(b)6) motion, and reasserts the same as defenses to this lawsuit.
6
HO1 13088605.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 7 of 9
2. Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages under Title VII or the ADEA because (among other reasons) Defendant makes reasonable good faith efforts to comply with those laws. See Kolstad v. Amer. Dental Ass’n., 527 U.S. 526 (1999). 3. May invokes the applicable damages caps from Title VII and Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, as well as all other limitations (constitutional, statutory, and common law) on awards of compensatory and punitive damages. 4. May denies that any of its challenged decisions were motivated at all by any protected status. In the alternative, if the jury finds that May was motivated at all by a protected status, then May asserts that it would have taken the same actions that it did for wholly legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons. See, e.g., Garcia v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2000). 5. Plaintiff is not a proper representative of the putative class, because, among other reasons (a) as a former employee, he cannot represent the interest of current employees; and (b) his claims are based on his individualized circumstances which are separate and distinct from issues involving other employees. 6. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails for lack of consideration. 7. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails because the conditions precedent to May’s promise to pay a commission were not satisfied. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to produce qualified sales (e.g., the prospective client had less than seven employees or less than $500,000 in sales volume), the surveys in question were not conducted, and/or the survey fee was not collected from the prospective client. Each of these conditions precedent are listed in the Employment Agreement between May and Plaintiff.
7
HO1 13088605.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 8 of 9

PRAYER Defendant, George S. May International Company, prays that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, and that Defendant be awarded its costs, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the court may determine appropriate.
Respectfully submitted

Of Counsel:
Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2731 Telephone (713) 225-2300 Facsimile (713) 225-2340
Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone (312) 460-5000 Facsimile (312) 460-7000

_/s John L. Collins ____________________ John L. Collins Attorney-In-Charge for Defendant Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2731 Telephone (713) 225-2300 Facsimile (713) 225-2340

8
HO1 13088605.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 07/23/07 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the counsel of record listed below by the Southern District of Texas ECF method or by certified mail, return receipt requested on the 23rd day of July, 2007. Clive B. Hilgert 2500 N. 32nd Street Apt. 2 McAllen, TX 78501
_/s John L. Collins_____________________ John L. Collins
9
HO1 13088605.2

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 1 of 40

Michael N. MHby, Clerk:

s;o" V,. ;I:/Vt>J r> vA (..J /-

0 ~Q/h.) J.A. f3Y

r S)rvA7:£D. f1?£S'£Hr~D ?A-s

pr: £~7LL~

DL}=":A/~A./"-

. : fL.AI AJ77rr.$

&,£o/(C£ s. ~7 /~/W"'77~C.

C~""'/A7

P£,r£,A/PAA/,""

Ce'/:? P£~/AJ/-_..---'
/
Ct!!I (/rJAJ/7M- / //o~.J/L£ wo~~~ r4/VjIl oh!7£VT- / /7~E 11) 1
C/Y/L. KJt#'FS Ac!./ pr /1~Y, tfz #~ c . .::?&?oo(e)) //J(;';;1h?£,vP~.£-vT

Z # C&7t.//f/I; •
D2?,ff) VA/J~ (.,~ //?6J?~Il7y ~A/P ,!A/.L--41V~v L

~K/#~ t!J~ /;?~>£!t7 /d~~LA7/~ c;9/ ?E ~

.,j2I/7?1 A~£A/'O.ME4/;r e:?/ 77/£ Ct::>'V.>7/Tu77o..d

7/Y"£ cP/

~"'t"" r~r.:> 5/7J'T£.s C7/ A~Li?IC-4 AA.-ID

r pJ£. A /)? ~"L)JJc7f( 57/?,c/PAffV3 ~~~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 2 of 40

. /3rrfAc/:/ t9~ /;h?,/L/io . ~tPvE/J~r 6)/ 6t>oP ~,4 /7/;J' /fA/£:> ~A//( DEA2./A/6

C~VA/)y

/L . PJf(,i~r f}15,C1C)~J/tIA7?0A; 7b

-'I,y7/,FFrv

0'lR !J/Y5E~ oAl W£' .?~A'/~7//"E(s~ C";"?£A/->-477~

yZRH75.;7 CcYL/P//7~~

pl;LEt:ES c!7/

!JY t7I'Vy ~::7.ioy)-:?bv;;- As Ouj/5/,O'L 5.IJ~s

?£'7U /410££>

~C'J--.,;h;?/.S5~o-..J

S- Cc;J t./A/;'I
~E;:J'0/ S£Jtv/~£.5' c;/ ceJ~~/s~J~~
b-vy £';"'/7££S

C t:Jt./.",,(;- ~
BREAch" t:J;e- C~~AC:;-

C'& L/A/»' 7

//lA [?£SF;,?7JI/£ J)uS/..J£ss

epeES

~ t!JV~1 1
///VJ'b$r'Eh1?IC#n£4./)kR.. /?X:BJ#Ay
AlCJA/?~/h£A.,<r 0 / Ct:!'~J-:?15S/0..A/5 To j2/£LO 5£/1v)0; £.t;?~££s.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 3 of 40

7 ~~i/AJ7- /
PteL/f1l'A 70 ;St./[:>I.'P>7 E-ur
/
c..t?UA/~'--/ 0 .
/!/ZbL / 6 £ 4 / / /A/~L/~77o~ t!77
.£,h'/o77tt?vA'(. ,D; S7J7L ss

.
J:A/)£A/J7o~.vAL //L/;F.L)~77aAJ o~ \
£~~77~A/A(.~ DiS77?£SS

CtPU-,v-.;- /2

,

./-7OA/y CLA/";;" A~A/..A/S;;- &£~!l6E S h::?"V" /A/7L/lAl~1J~~

C~-f47 ,roJ7

P",';-"A ~Ef -A.-v,D

/AI uuc.7Jo~).

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 4 of 40

/, /7~..s ~4N/~»9~S' suBSEc.T/:PA;r£R 0J/lISDlc71r>.J

r /~ 77.//:s Ac77D~) /V/!!UA,f./j TO",: ~£P£~AL
4lui S77o~ 7Jv/f/ J;D / ~ nc::y ~,6" 4/.s .c, j

J;3 3/ -"lNP 1?67.J..J DJV&RSY JVl?)SI>!Cv;,u
Gz?'h/,S c J ):3 32 ~/ A.-vo 'M ?"'; "I/t:jPL~
19/ ,?~A/J A...v~/[ A.NC/LL~y ;:sJJl/.3t>I(P~

/!It ~~OvA/}- /AJ C~OLJ£,I(Yk £)rCL f.}S/V£

0//A/7T,f,F.$7A,A./£) CL?5./~..J £~c£.£1)S 7~0 0 0 .

f.~ -p,JE. L~t/~:r HAS.?££5aN,4L "JZ,;/1I.s1)IC77~

,01/£1< !~-4-'-VT/fr. C'LIV£ IS J-hL~?T/LA/»77~0

w»o /SA !?kS/PFA.-/T AJ 2~oc> ~ 3'""2.. S771££-;-

./

,A./T2 /'>7~AL.l£."J 7X

.

s. ~ G'pvA.T/-JA S ?~,R..50,uAL Ju;r/S)))c71~

tPl/z.fl D£H'-'/PAN'T &E~£~£ g, h-?7..:rNJEfE-

PA N-1170"':"4 L ("'0..../..A--'jY W)/o

> £.A:/J2)?En

/~TO ~t!J~"."c.rs ~/p A~R££~.£,dT~ /AJ

7/05 "JJYf/5Pl'c../JaM.

f. ~£Vv£."w 7/05 ~c-J7~ /')J1o;-:>£~y

~JZS /A.-l 7//£ ~,A//~:L> S77//ES f)/-,.771/cJ'

C I?t.//)~ 5o~':J?~ PI.>;I/?/~T t!// 7ZA-~ S/p?C;/LLEA.-l

[)JV)5),O;v fU/1.5t.JA~T 7D 2 ~ k'SC ) 59/
/.A/.5o/Afl ~ S @./ c~..,/J7(/) cTS/ .5£/t t//c~..s

,Aft/D AC"fEE~.4~ 3£TJv'£.£AJ c~/£V5.S A~P
s£ t:/>-7;oA''7££.s~!( ""~E~ C/z/JA.lC- f(,

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 5 of 40

7lJ?~A/-:v7/F$ I CA AI.Joois W$.~~ -!A/7Z:~~D

/fi'70/,A) ~£ St'Jv7PE~Al j)/5771/ e /&77

(J;;J 7E~5; A-vP/bR

77/£AtC).!S .&fi tC);h7/S5/~

c7--;7 I I ~fo,n.£ .5 }o/~y ;z::.v'TE/l/lJA770..jAL

PR~i#).?~NJ ~//l/~t 711.5£ ;ret:) ?L~/,u77fFS'

(L/..J/~s Tot'/: FL~~£ /~ 73/£ ;RIO &Jr./JAJD£

V,;fJuy p/ n.:r-4S,

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 6 of 40
· A CLA S S ,4 C/7D,A) L t..£~770NS

~7/Y'/s .,;{CJ7P,t) /$ Dfot/b~.T As A c.!~ s.sA07~
?f1U~A~T ~ /£~O R. ~/V,? 25(~:Ja )fV",rA-lO
0 ) /}tiVD fi'ul.£ /~£.£)/ p. c;,j, I ?3

..'.k/e>;a//"";FD/?m/J)}O;';..-1"t/O :B~~J£0 77/£

5/E£ ~~ 77/£ cLASS /S /~.£.:}'c£Ss;- eJ~
.5;ot:/o/""/P/V/p U.J~ L.JI;='.-1 ~TA..,v~ f!?~c;£AJ/-

,£~.?~££.s a C D£;CF.-I~~

7, ~..£ fi/~~'LD ?.L A/AJJ7~~ CL.,) v £ B

//;'!.U/l7; CL~/'~~ A/7£ 7;Y//C4~ ~/ T~£

CL--1/~'$ 0/ ;';V£ C'L~.sr:.' 1'L~/,A/p/~

/>lL~£A'J) fJ/..5',/£.lf4:T£ .-h7P77~ J,+'/L<-

f' (fjl f tpv£ 57 7;V-4:1A .Ie::>CA L

CJ ":;/CA "'-'7>£ •

V/U'-o/ 41,1= ~--9:JA /7l?)?~ ~E.A/Jo/..vT.ELJ
70. 1?£jZ/!5>F;vT pt/£ ~L/( /#'oJtJ).DU~L s

/~ 77/£ ~M $£
J'.ALL. L'~_S5' /:?:?~3£J?~ ~j/£ ~A/

/ jJ,;v71'CA L /;'I/'JZJ?~.s/-/;"; 5.£E)</A/'6 DAJ-.?.AG..Ff

~C?/l 7/7'£ #A.//,'9 uJ/uL /j<!.-7S ~/ pP~EA./K)~

!7:fSVL /7AY6 /~ /'/7'£ ~A''-' 70 WZj?J.A/-</7?U5

Ct:J7 A,.h'?LD-V1~//Vj.;t>:.toJ

£C£J/4/lCE~/{£~/~~. ~J5.U~<;TA 0dsf/1V'7/

nJ£
A,A/

/#O/;;OVAL 13A-s/5/ Jj-WOV~D J3z/../-t,~; r'A~7.J~L

Oil Ir;;S/.E·L£

~t-!'J/l

P,t ~) £/J,c#/l?#6/

~~ .~

TO 'E'f:JV6 y7y'is A c/}aV//VP/v/Pt.J"'~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 7 of 40

. ~ L(P~~t:7A.l 4'7vEST/D#$ 0/ ~,;(} W AA./£) foc~

•

I

?1?£,Dt!/~/A/~J""£. CJI/£/l /./'L1DJL/IPuA L t:PvF~'Y}/:)Al.sJ

A~D ;7;::U£~f"FL)jZIi ~ r'LA S S A c'7,JoAJ / S
5t;?~fl.JI!)'/t. T(;:J o~E/? dUAJL~B.€.

/?/~7?-/oPS /.~/? 72/£ r~/X~~D E,;C// ~/E/U7

A£XJVPJCATJo/J .t:P/ 7Ms .<:""'aAY./J?oJ/£K7.

/tJ~t7Vo ~e£?77aA/AL ,DJ/j=)~uL77r.s A.e F'
?Il h/ jK~Ly 70 J3l/ ~ Z,A/ C~LJA..J.Jz.~~P /N, 77Y£ D5'z C V}7o....0 c:/?~.s Ac77oA/ A:s 4 ~<AsJ'
A-~770~ .

//, ?LA/~)~#)//....9l/E S7/i1.,Jp/,vt;; 70 JjIlIA/,

77~JA<!77~ j;.7v£ 70 -P/L /"'~/ 7#A7 .e:;q£,A.JO~~T/9A g ~5'£-.f) .?/~~w./t./l. fo7~7/ve
A~/."e/;) $0777' fo-.~7L£S ~o eL/E-t.i7S-,
JlVj~d//As t:.:,R£ATED ~ ~.s;nL,E -4 A/D
ij/!/;P'l"PVCTJ v~ Wo£)c:' ,E-JVI}ombr//'

J /~,/J. A/:V77/~§ 7'O)ch'1 ,/-f .~~ 4~.s C7/
p-/i70"..s p#iF.-1/C£7,-; /D 5'~LL-!L
f3A.5£):::> t!?AJ/~~PVC77d/C A L.L/.G~
;y ~;T~S' .s/'b,u£.DdA/A6/7£E~;.....v:7
(jCV7/Z076r Tb//4v£ A 5 wrv Jfvv
15y P ~F~£;/yA/7:
/13. P.L/J-/#///c,P6)/!/?£ ,,1LSD PISC;) B£ 0
A\'l~:-~"<'"~'A/54''L>/J5(1.t7.F1.J,i'£vSrJ£>~l;s9..m7//cv:-.:F-~I.?.g1.,)vAP6J£:/, Jl7SfrIi"Dcr.lm?/"~pA,/At,E.!C,9
ALL £h->T~'}YEES OF.!A£.ff.-vo~.v;/yeB~J-?I"!.!/bN

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 8 of 40

e>~.A~/c.~::LAsS'

1-CTJt7~..5

~
!lPtpvJriE

ATJ.~A~.::r

77/#££ jL ~/A/:l/;/s A~o ~/?E A/l E

~A7 ;"-'0/1£ p~~ So7#~1?;~£..vFA-'t/LJ
. f1.sn~r!~ .!'//- P~~:E,JD~ AR€ _
!?£~o/ ,TD ;5c-:;J/,.J ,770..5 /J~7.?o~~ fSuTAR~

APf(~/D t>v£ To r£A/l ~/ f{/ZJ.;7JlA 770AJ

&/ ?£.FEAI'f,A..n-: ~£ e>.7/YER /..L.A'W~;?.s

,WJ.s/'/7D C?T-/,J./ ~fTE.I? J?/£ ~L./..v~
c:Jr77~'s ce?;:r,';?2A/~ S; A~~ LJ~ C'd~S l£:€fED

!fi/lT~/ ~ C.(--?S:~.

.

/.!>~ ~J (:CJv/J7/3 /fSX£.c> TO /SSuE

,

/!/c:l7>c.£ ~ /;lLt. /oTE.N77AL CL A~ s

~£~J3£,f~/ ]~ c~t//?T O£D£1l.
/~" -;J(£ C~v/l) O~£)EJl,/AS !?£~vEs7:E;;;::"

5'4v10 /~cCVP£ 7/70;" wN~r PA-TE ~/C

P/J'T£5 7J~7:hI 7//f P£, pEJT~L. A~o .9;A~(.v
~rt//ZJJCy l)£AD~JA/~S.1-?/..~ 70 , ;;'~E..J/E,v'r fof?F£ /TU}?£. c7F/o.3Slffl£

!?Jb,A//3 (9/ 7?/~ c:?~ AS 5'_

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 9 of 40

I? rl~/A/J7~C~ C4)//'£ 75 ///Ltt£/l).0A

jfP-S/oU/)~~ ~7 <=/1 Ll..~..J T£Y~c;: AiIV£) A~
,E~"~£ ~/ D£ F.e~O.AA7/ 5/~C't:. ~A/?C,)-J ~6t.)3

SITJvI.7?A./l EA;DA(.!/77/#~Rt'(j;J!i#/-VO"~"-A4;/torw£A.J.Js/~.7r.CrW.7veL':~£3.Y

~fr;;y£.£ S C7.F Pff£AlPAA...}); 5~1 p ?L~/.A.1'J/f-;rf
c;::J ~/ ~,£ ,AyO W ORX./ o!l- lA.JoR)(ED ,./;";A L. L~

mE F/'/'/7/ S7A71-:S ?'.F

£:/A//nD .57~ft'".r

o/- A~2//)C~ ,

/'l. ~".s c~7LA"/0- PtJ£S NOT/~Lv.Di'"

7 A-::( rOR~I~» £7.1 £ £!, t:!:J/ Dzr,€..vOA--U:(;
71?!A-r .ill/£.. ~J~O Wo,£J<: //1./ ~..JAD/J 0"-

/??tXICO ....

h?r ,<tJ. U~P""J/~~pj(~~ J70~ ,/JA/P.:> !JeLl£-/)

s: P£~£A50A-'LlT 6EoR~E

//a./T£fU.lA770J1J4L

('t'yA7/ h A C"~..!O£A~ eJ/lt.A.uIZrD

4"/VD£~ ~ .LAWS ~?= PEL.;l) wARE..,; 1vJ /r;!

so",;;:; /~/;C.-!/W~ / 73 ?!7/A/c/~':>At. $U.5/~E·5.s tP///c'~ AT

:JOT

fi/-;>.IlV/Jv£ST

'fA iC'K

/CJ06£/ J£.L/A/o/S ~ bOd,«'- }/25-'>

/?//o~L ;¢ ~~7- Y.2>- ~gCJb

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 10 of 40

.

.

~wp' 5'~£.,KA7$.. c4p.>r ~/ ,dcr:04s) Att'A/A/~7

P£/"FA/O-"'1A// .3u/ARE A/o//A/~Ll-/£)ED /,u

7/0S ~LA}gS' /4c//CJAJ 7?/AT /..$ .L/~/./EP

. /0 /_.-~>7 ~AVO/.Ilr5FA/:T"" ~~/L':Y.€£~

b}/ P£F/,-vPAA.-JT

£7.iy.££.s .2A. f7;S:/

p/" £>E/"£.vD-,)oAJ,/.AM£)

//lFSFA/r~fL;~.E£5 ,A/l£ 5G/$!Ec / / 0 7/(E.

..57.Ar(../T£G)..~~ L/~/4~77o~ -pjA;;- /5

f/;;:ffJ1£,MJ/» £'/l-c/~ 5/~/E.

,21. 70 %£ ~£S;;-t:J,T ,7AA/~7/"r,F /4L'GF}fT5~
)j'N00L£Ob£ ~~R£ A4£ /AS7AA/L/ ~/C
/:/7f5£A/'T £7?~.f~ t!JF D£/f~P1J1fJYpJ~:/
L/v£ /~ ALL h . / ; 7 5?4~J .c:>~7/5/£
~A//7Z0 55A:7Es d / A~LRlc~.

~'/.m£ Pl.-1)/~)/;';:S /AJcL.UO£.J fJUJAJOJ
L/~/·r£D ~ y'4-S~OIZ ?fl£5£U'T. 5/£C;,)JL
(5 R£..T!?£.5£A.fj"'ATJ V£5 f{)~..uO A 'S>/Sr../j~
PJ.5T/flcr/n4;vA~£Rs0 D~A.vt> ~ DI 1"7111
(pfn) ,/??A.vA6£J(5
2£!Y4/;,/J/j~ /~/~£/15/SA 5?£~/~L
R.J, f?i /,17 OE.urA 7J v! ~ f?r~.£7bV'O-1.AJp.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 11 of 40
F.AC-rUAL BAcJcGROUAJ.D

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 12 of 40

.A

~tA.LI //./L):J 5~L.L,A//A./O

7//£//c

.
PLc/51;AJ

.
/.5

.
H.#'A

#
.L/

U

/

\
/ ,r;

;!

!

'I

t?/t1?5'S'./. 7."lJ,~/~

tC7~A

)7i('~"JSJTE/l~,}7l/A..J p./Z ;FE J//'e'W1

35. --;;:Y£ 5;/A;.r/->77C'~c. P£?;I//J'J"P;Jr~

#~£5:1 75n~ &/ c:LA.sSJ~/CA77OA-/~
;r477~&:S AA/l.") P£5/tt#47/o,u5 77J
D£/,EIl/?//~£ lA/~r /5 tP,!Z /5 fi/o/ A

5'ALE. \ / ]

•

4

//

t:y"tlA' t///EO

3</, rLA/~,:=f3(j) /;2",1/£ AL.I.£D~E.D 71JAr

.P!/E"JP~A/~ /~) ~f.s C"MS'S A ~/7,o~

£/:;E zYL ~s"'~ ~/ jCA /J~c:'·~./PES'16AJ~77OAJS7

? a AA/£?~L~.s~/."e./c~77o~

c;/.A./~A ~fv~

,OI5Cf(/~/AiA'.7I A6A/~s;-C~/lTA/A.J

, CL;f)S5£5 t!P?-'}-c;£7L~ pL/% / 0 ~£/)r
Yfic~ .E?7./P /,c../ A/4~o~4c ~f? 1~/:.u~1 J<
U/#t~h' /?£SL--)LT5 /~ P/5CJeIj/Y)J/\I~ 77ttJAi

AC~,/:-Vs.??.J./}/-J77~;=(s,) ~ ~~~.;t/b W~

f~1/~77~~(J.J 7?;/~~re C~..h?_)·-?/ s S./o.-J5, ~

~&.1/.vS)~ ,cL/£"v75 /A/ PFr~~ 7?/E~

% 7?Jh#/7b ~v'.f A :5't//j/./p7UAJoJ
~/r f)v5/~4>5 ,4"(')P PA' ~7t?//r~AJ7?ty
7b?t/17C~~;:f //lc:....J P.ETf~",,,.vrS£/JV:C€S

7Y-4;//-:?:?/6/,~//7/10L/£ p/£ fft./5/~£~S

OrT~ c~/~t~r

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 13 of 40

Mr- 3S: J)£/~/~£}/9~)

A-/~ TJE/t.dA~yJ(Ac)JC£

&/A/t?F)Py/-'1.-/t;" TL~/stl77/;r(~//~./£

P£~£'/P/)~U9~//.A/D /}~//I~~~

/0 ALLE%£ ~7//~/;7/YL CL/£~Pv'A-S
fJF,L~tJ "h;;>/~J~___ 3.-Z3'#.c>~JC.P~))

~VE.,J u/d(£d ;t;~£ ~L/EA./J~6~/FS 70 tlL3Y
7/!i: h?~.-JA~"~5Ej('I/JcE.'J, ~3.J/!r;2;-'-'
f/£/,EA/O~-cZ;;/? ~VS~...(/O.5 O~ £:iJLL-4XS.

:st. P,£FfA/oA:,.-7r/:??'J5' A fA J 7L..~. ."v'~~.Q

?/l~cTlc£ 1tJ~,cJ.'#eJ?fCYI/CK/~C. w'A/AT

.CL~~ P2;C:E/f./P~ .-tfJS" W~ A,J7.:5 /ft/~/.7£ ~.ft

~ 7~ c;;- 7/f,?;/~ >t/.;fI/LY~v-;J;:7b/1; 2/177~

~L£A/f~ .5~71£~

~A7

I( / ' ~
WE /1C/f;/F

,
77//';r

'/}v7/Yof{ )zA77~1"J /5 A/O~.-uC£V9DL£ -

37.. -$£ l'w!.:~/l£F£JrS 7V /7/£ CL/ FA/;

/??7 ~/VO /b ~~ P~/£A/'£)A.v:;-C;;~CJ4~£ S

:r;'f./TZ'1;x.//J 77~A/.rt C . ('~; /.4~

to

70:. ~ ;PCf't:J77/~C: 0b.-."",/ss/o..v~ ~CJ

;3t!/.;??£ f7?L7~~;;q/A7 /9~2 c~--~/SS'/~~.-v%

[)F/£.,A/P/J~~~ ~A/;;ru>7J>: ,E.-{//?lch'S' 72/£

C"~""'y-9~ Avo ffis /9 AA4~f/1 A,-,pu.-</;I

7?J/:.{y ~5£ f7Lyfi£S ~//!fft;
I:,<;~ ;>c;LEL/j:Y95£,t:? ,1?-d7?PE//lC'.hZ .t/F f)£ ~E~O~U;-;

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 14 of 40

30/. Pf~.-./;;!J7 ~ ~ff o.,c/J?£7'EA-/GJ
ffis A-?~/)ZR;J/fV0 ?fi?/1c7-/~~ ~~ /f/lJ;r-
S'/5bW/:VC~ TO ;?U~/f 5'vA~/oX
~/'/E ~L/£~7::s 73/-4/ftAt/f ~oT
./:A S5.££) 7?P£ ?rS;rfl.,()5£.o O-:J P-EFbJ'p~v7S'
~£ V// T#£ y7E~ ?J~ £AV:"uc:..-S/ A
D es:/t;A/A77~'.)~..s A/V'O c:'~A~S'///C~V£:?A/-.S AI

1/1:7. -p/£ ~5r.Eh-? P~ ,R-'l-J/"';~ DES/C.~/7o~s
A,.vo cL--9>J/~/(·A77~..vs ALLtt:)IA/S PP/pA./D-4~r

7Z:; "L:,/~LA~/VL~ C/5~ 7/5/£ y5"7E~ To

P/5c~//??/,A../A7$..
\

A~;t//.;C/.s;- ~E

C'~/ £A..J/S.

PI£,,l.cT~;< oj? /;VP/;rE~ lf~5'VL77;Yb /AJ

ov'V 77/£ 'o/R£cr f)ISCR)J.v)j~A7/~"J Aa,;'f/.Als~
E77EES ~6J-_'S5J"';'"

#.P£.FE.-vOA4ffi $ l?£.ruS~O /0 7/:....,~
ADl)f(ES'> A~D ALL c::;;~ 7»£ ALL£t:/<1))bA-JS.
AT/j5u€, /;..; ~:s c",..--,/L.A,/~

£/1', rLAJ~/p~AL~£[)&£ T/J-17 PIE ~£ffi'C'f)5

$7 ?/:5Ij)

J?£f£/tJIp~PT I ~ //?£~TJA/~ / ':'3

CDih ;t\..-v.o 71£2.0 5'E;?//}c';Z !;-.r/f£~ /S

/:/A/!.;455'~£~f:WArfft5t/L-7T /4 /1 ?/t!>$//L'£

,vvo/l,J( &JvJ/?l)~Vv) /o;r f LA/...v7J/FGJ..

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 15 of 40

~3 P£~£JPAA,lr/~.s A t;L7?5PoRA'IE ~<;Jt. 7Vl1£

. cP7 OISCR/;-'/NA77cvJAGA,/...v5. /C~/.EA/7.s ~
77/4//f' SD :r~~t/L7.5 /AJ P/SCKIJ'?'J/AJA 770AJ

a-vy 4~A/A/S/~~ ~/-';:>,EE.s ~;-:AI{~

c~.P?/ss/l::>-..)

tt:JU/.P/PLO 5J<!JLES:/E~iE.

?:JYfY P£;=£Jfl4-./~/ .s/"A.;LED 70 77....;.~. 7V /2'..-1. . ....01.///1$~ -;p/£/./l Cb>"-"h?IS.J'/DVS.

'" f"£P'£rbt!DA~r:?,5ES~ ys.n-..-. or

c;?/4A"YJ'Ck/...v~ WffiyCC/E-v'7S t?£.FEA/PA-U~

. W/Lc. p~( J"1//~~A/O Wh?f:JcL/E~
7/YA./ P£/,.E~(L>?~U/li..(. /f/o/ ~c. w/m.

rt

,
P(7£::P4..v:r.//1/

..46./~~

7/f./E

Cf I..4l£~y

f/CK/...u& L./1OC£SS. 04..-./.,.L)L.SO 4/5'.£ .:£?I.E

75:;L~ TO /t/~5~ E~~7E£S.,

'W.E ~77/£

,-4C;;/?£L.

~j- Av7//o:K/ZAJ7~

/ f /f/odcAA,./C,ELAi3L£ ~~)?~ b~

J-?J6-9ft/s 77y!~;-r/l/L/~L/l P/E cL/E-t-/~ D)(

1 Y P£/~"J.o.?9~7-/??

4//1/,/L•4-::TZ~ L/y

C~"JCEL W£ 5t.//?v;.x

/'

¥K p£/"E4)AA/./'/S /?E4/v/RED To p£A(

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 16 of 40

)0/. /A-> &e:J?op ,FA/;j;;yA-uo PE4c ;z:~

E77£;£s W//o/ 15077/

A-vo C'L/I--'T5

i<J ~r 7//£ 4/..5'£ ~~ CL~Jg~/~/;'~;v~../
!?~7J",,!G~ AI'f./£) ;D£S)t{,,A/47/cx/S /$
P/Sw:.u.t:O SLJL!]Y 7V //loPtYCL FRo,hi-
7 0 /1 PfF~~P'9AJ/ ..

~ 7?/A;r ~V£ ~A JOf1/ / j lVoTWE tt:'J.lj0
.5'ot//!cE ~? r/?p~/75 ;C~ft P£.FLA..fOAA/T
C"~£.£ ~/l O.1-?rr 7/;/~ -->4£.'£ L7/ PEFf~.o/}~ /' j77~;,;r/A6f.p?r--u/5.&?J//~E.r ~~).

2. 77/Ar/./: [).£~EA.lOAA./;JCA~;?EDvCE

/75 c» I

,

£-.1/-7->F~£S~ 5v

A .s A /;~/,vD.JA/6 1?£A..5z,N

/[/o/7D ~~/ C~~~/.ss/z;".J..£., DE..F£A/PA..u;-

ffis Pnb/(E ?Jh.J,hr-/!--vJ;:> C"A,.v',?~

7?/t:?5£3;-/t;Y££3 w~;rAI?£ ,PA"'D b"u

1/10/// tJJA/y//??t:?Jl£ fo~Y.

Q !1~/A/;;;/?/4J AvE .4/0 C&:'....u7/!p L

&//£/l jJ/£ e,f;~Ass///CA7/~ :K477~C:.5/

t!Jf{ Pi. <;/t,AJA :Vt7,u..$ to/ cL/£~_/ wh0c#

?J7: /3 /"771L l;/ t.~/v~L)L'E£)

WE SVIlt/V

DEj?/l4~JA.,)r/ A/ C///c~ -b CJ

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 17 of 40

S7. P7~~~£)~.A./;;-ro/l wh?,r.£VEIl REA,So,v'@.JJ
ffi ~ ~#l<> S.£/£/ A/eP//o/-:',,1/1'0.£ / /3
5£;rv)CE.s 7b _50~£ CL/£Al'lS W~/ARE ~y--1"v/~/ AJ<A[5 A;v7~R ---15/A~

#7( ?,iA~.v;7//,/(V ~l/£ A?#t;?fny
Y/G~/-/A/ ~~;,.f' e::CC,,/477J!)N tC'f
[3f/», C"~~.n,?,1SS)DA.J ~.;Vy tPu/5/D£
5~LE5 7f~~~.

~ Pz/'E"vO,AA/0 ~t/.E~A/7E/l A~2£D6/A/C

J;</A;T A cL/~;~J/~ j5FLZ:ltU ~/'-v,v'-~

(jjmV.; 5.?A..vD~tf/PS

57}2. L SELLS f)E.FE~-t7JS

V- ~ /??./}..,./fibE#7bt// -siE.fl0c E s:

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 18 of 40
/h:,s7/L:£' Woj(JC £NV/,Ro'J.??'£~T
T//-:L£ 1212 C/U>L 1CJb/Jrs /J~Tof
/ '&Y./ ~ 2 ~~:.S c: 2 bO CJ €=:)/ h~sIA)rr~PP/£.d}
Y 52 1~.M&'f(/J7))5: I 7/#(0 v~hI:Sl. .:7/ P/£
C.o7LA/ -v"r/)/7£ MRE~/,A/C'D£1" c::JJ?A72D f?£r£.f(£;Vc£ flA/O ,.££-4 L~F~~D A.s v;u,UG,..-l/
rVLLy S£Tfo/{"P/- W)77;/pv7;?A'.E iYuPJC£ 7ZJ~~
,??7//Z/7 AV£Jl;~~A.Jr oil ~VA/r 5£T/o.lff7-/A,il1f.lAj
VI; j C tCJt../A/T /.5 ~L LD ~.5 ---1~/A/~~P~~r­ A ,Aft//:) L r;2/l,/t/A J7i//i C't!!1v A-/T ;r,;i/E/?2 ;JO"
5J, p£~~A/£?;9~//A$ C/?LA7TDA /~S77·Lk.
Wt:?~ ,£AJV//?(f;J~~A/T/,i) ~ /7.E~D g'£J(V/~:£S
L 7 ):/£/A/(;h?Pu;~t;vM;;d /$ A L. t. 7/~.5E
£a>/A'yL:-E.5. 7?fo1TwtPJeJ('..$"o C!'A/
C~h-t~/.ss/ o~~.s.A,A/P :4:1l~ l/V/-!t:/!s Oc.cv?4rJoN
/ j ~ri?/' i?v/3/;D£ 5'AL..£7£';?1.£,
59- D£r£4>.A)~% ACTlo~~ /?/lE SEV£K£
AA/O ?,£j(l/j~~/'J/t pvL 7"ZJ 7/Y£ 7 A c:) 7;?/4T /7/~ ~A/~' 7//£ SVITV£Y [)~/Jr.,n.,~A..):;-L?-:=
f)k/";~£:>4A/;'S 7:/9~:;r-~ f)L~ PETE£ J?? /"u.€ g
/ ? ~A/.:vT//~~~ W/2L ~ W),tt-'L .vaTBE

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 19 of 40

. ,
!AJD 7/YE-Ij? /~~~M/S) )OA./S(

. btJ, fJi.rf#DA,dTS 4 ~ T70A/~ ,AnE VOn~A.A/.J~~..J
A!3//s/y~ /?£?X'J£/J£,dS/ JJ2.£< 1#/~/C',6)
@/ Ct:/V/?5£ ~f?.EA7L~ A ~~j'Ly
.,VvV/j('o~b/T e>.,..Jn~/A/7#~6;J

t,J.?LA/~J;~~C:VW~j£~AJ')t;/:V6 45 TV

vuRy $ y ~/~T A/CJ/p~ /0 ):3/£;i"t

C~/'?/.h)O~./.s --14£ ifOs./' :;72;L-D 'WAF

/7 /5

U-V.>.J?~.L• /

/.1
/'9

,

J

O

t .,

•

/~

7Z7 6LTOLl£f7 / /

t.t..j:J.. ~/;'/7Jj,-e(5).-1/lz A/E.t;ER C;;/':WA7

J,V111/"JEAJ d/C t!7/(/<}C A/o77~/~::;7oA/ A~ 7V

~eTz. w/:JA;r-:P;/£ ALL£P6LP 1?£ASo.-u(~
/}4£ ;CO/? A/O/)?Ec£/W.:vC, WL//c Z."J;:rJ'

Ft./4pJ/A/6 7/Y£ a/~Lt./~6 ,£/,F"EC-//:A'A/P

rz $

f

i

?

t.7

T

7

.
o.A:/A

. c..

"
,0/5

'}

£. ~ S

oA.J

CO~~

'-
J S

,

~
) t:J JC.1

&/1/ / ' ?i-1 _",,0/77;::/(s)

t!f)£ffi'A/t:7-4A~T,?~y,1L L ~;:,/;:5 ~u/l /y~
WHI<~~A:/O.h7o;vWo/ ';71~£S A-VD
fiLe. p~ 7//£ h7~~~ft7E~.L:EU:EL F~~EES
/~f//.A"/'rl~L£?£---:-~~/p~rJ£3~~$ZwDAp/,dJs~)?t5!o)/u//j?-l.!sL; FOu~.r •
/,f/(~;I£. /J' ~,A/7 C't::J~~/55ID~S, 11):;'r 7~"'/;c,I7/~./s

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 20 of 40

U/~ A~£ f?1_~f(/h/~A7EP /A; /Lf(~s.,)
C'CJ.;VP/r7~s ~.vp//7/1// L£~ 0 /
£-/L.;Yh/£V;/,

j,t/, P£f&A.lPAA/7:S C/?,£A-'jE A ro>/~

WtJ/lX PV'V/iro~£Qr)co/l ,Pi. ,J)/vJ/;FS Ey
o:e /f;Py/;U~ ~ t~A/~Aw7vL ~$/£;--'

JC CL.AgS 1//~>i/oA.J~ A 77.v~.J1 ~ND

D£>/~~A7Jt:.")A/.s / 0 cL/,e.;t./7:5 ~~ j)jt.F~[)AA./? ~r ~ A~l.aWs/'f)E~£NPAA/) ;ro

ALL£P6H:l 7?/AY- ~O C~~n.-;IS"\ !:.,;;A.7

7/9£ IS"' t7W£'D

"

" ~

B/,OUSE

C L / E . . u r '/=A/~L,D
.....

ry-D

/?tSS ALI..

CLA <;!V//CAT/o.-vS/

!?A 7lA,lt.J ,/7."'1/0 PES) ~.A/A 7/6;,v~ "

V.PfrE#[).~N}~ ~~~;C/~L c~,vPL/cre:?F

I?!~l/.s/.;v~ 'To)'-7:/'/'hNV~~tVc:::r? EI/¥.,v

P/5C//SS. w/7;?;! /LA/A/77/fr':) W~ T1/£
pL/Y/A.I77~/(s~S,h/:,v2V St/;r~EJt ~o./C'

77/£ r~/l/p7?!-'rls)~ ~ LEJ:J6Eo4/A./L".<JwTv L

/l1 Y)7 A e.7!&'~s
/#!/ 7?/£ .

,

&/
tt:!1S

D,I/E.A/£)/f~ J

3 0/

o PUC-

(fiS
77

U

L
~

')/~~
05"

p~ /J/J77//(s)#

,u, P£7£.v,o~A./!> / ,z}C'?3 /1/7£ f?'£;:£TI77 V£ ~A/v C~/'f/S 7/'7't,?;£ 7//£ Ct!/~A/U/£I6

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 21 of 40

A

I

/A/iFr/7 ~/ .6<A~A5Sp??£"vT 72J ALL

C~~·J-7/5SJD.J ~-"l/y .<:7u;ry~P:E -?.4~£$f,t:~2.£J

w/lIC/;/ ~AS ;f:;lSUL7;£D ~,/ps.7/ ru77OA./.4~

f)J5C/()~/""/A}/O~ o d 7:hI£ /APlT,£77

[)'£r~~!?,q~ 7'2JiUA I?P.s jP,L A/AJ77rJ?cY/ ,

~z F~A//J7?/F I/'LCE-R) l?fA£DAM/!Jf;Y' Bf?,/E5;
;qt(Jr'l/5!£ C~."'/oJ-/c;-~rP£/£~p~A/r /-.3
~.A5~~r ~A/O ~F47€S A ~//Le
WCJ/rK £/Vt/;'f{C)~:~ 7/y'v.s ~P~/~6
f//£ /)jl~pvc.r/j//'Z Cl/ AL(, 77/o.s"c , _
f.t:1//V'/7/'.,cs W-4/~/J,Ej/-///::> C6)"-''»?I'YJ/o-</
tfJ/VLy
~p/£ ~!3()t/£ j)£7?/:t£D~Lc.£~/??7~~
13;/ ?~/I/~7/;C;'f(5) 5~tJ P/5C%/~/;1./A-rCJr /A/;z~ ?,,J /7/9£ jP~/l:J t:P.;r !/?,/.£AJ;::::HJA/--?/,-.

b/..?LA/A/7/~/" M!~E/(rlC$A>~$Ly

af]t)./vE. J

77Y!A~rV/£
,.

cc::>~vcT c::::t',F mFA. I~AJ)

/A/'7l~ IJ)A7?~6 AvO o~"c£~/j/£

70 /54-~.5.£~~.,P ~/VJ? ALL It!? 7?/£/f f.J.:/j/,A/J7';~S_

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 22 of 40

P£/!11v'~ T/o'v t!P// /?~£,R'7~..uD
?/~.lA v/t/L. .-P,K/A/6 ~FL/?~?fR/
/ /IJ 0 t;JL ~ 77OAJ 6?/Z;7/3/£ / //"/."y
/Jr.nFA/D~LNr :TD ./;?/£ ct?JA,.)~iu7J~
&/ 7/34 ~h//r,LJ 5~'7'£S. CJ/A~E,eJG4.
ANI? 71/£ ;;~/K ~A BoJ7 5/AA../D~RDS ~c-r
7t?, rA/lAt;/r~;..r /-.;?//!/Jv6// 69,,/ 7h'E ~~7.14.JA/7Af?E
)d.ll£o/ /A/t'~-;' tJ.I?A1EJ:) ~ )?EJ:;£./1buc£ ~A../D
fCfALtEt£).JA.5' P)ov~/rI/L7: SL/-.FoRV/. tW.Ji:I7-
t!Ji/r//IF,;-u~t:~' /b A~ ~/(.ALLI?~rA./~ o/(
(~t/A./:/ ...stC/ F~'/?7!)/Ji/?£/A.J,; 7//<$ t'*~I./--vr/3
f:L£);J A 5 A..,J .~P£,?.L.A/CJ.F4/I A ~£> ~Ln/lA/A3/tJE
~t!Jv.,u/ M4£To.

774: 7~

7> F:& /f-fr7£vDh:?,ZA// ~~ 7//~ ~~/rE.D

\

S7/I,L. ~ c"'P-"'> :?r-/70 7/L);J /?;?.A KeS c:?~".£..-1 w~0 <.

77/£ P£7/?/ ~.-9-7/?JA.J c1!?/-/#7£0/ k//7/-~~:r

Pt/E //7PC£SS" c:J~ ~---9J.t.}_

~~LL ~..JC/~.J.D S£/lv,/;E E?!:>:fES. c7/ )!;)£/-.£,A/.oE~.,.4//E ~".o $)/ Ct!J~~/ss/o.,.,J
tP/l/jY'J £q-c~r,cp~ A- ~~~c. C4--( -1LI.t1JW.kl:'E.

lJ7 7...E

~ 4(:Sf ~~ J¥'l£77'vE Wo/l'.C>/-Vc

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 23 of 40

/~ 7#.£ ~~/~~~k."..,r-~t;;'rrEE.h?E~J

PLH~P--?~Y~~ R'~f£>A ~!7:EH-> -~

cL~~s// JC.AJ/~A..l...s j?A77A./CS AA/D

)

,

../

P[5/C~A.J7.L7AJ.s 7/~A 7 #,c/~~w/'t/~

P~7s $PJ~£·CJo/ CL/.£~ A 5'~/l'L/~
JJ/iS'£.D te7~ 7-?£' [-'L/!A..J~ £-7X//V/c-../ ~c£..

~O /VA j/OA../4-<!.. p/?~t?/A./Sr-

?~ PJ, 4/.N~r~(J£J/!AV£ A /:/le>ff£K"J;Y
/A/reJ1F~;r-/;~ 77/£//C LAf5of?~ ( war6);;
J3v/A/l!1 DfA-J/£D c-P'--~/s£/~~.s ;»ve TO
p~ ,/fc77~~'S &1/ Pf~.fov,£>~A/7J J?F.st/L-;f)~b •
~#o c'CfJ.--,/ss/0-0 ff~/-.:v~ £4/)::> &A/iD
.7/5!£ 4"/V,AAW;Pt/l nX./A/~ etP/ ?~A/A/J7;:-/V
r/l~47

75. o/"A/O£( 77/£ rA/lC ~-1.Bo/7 S//1,JPA.JrDS

ACT; c~~ -'~5Y";':.v ~~ £ 7L7.E£5> A.fl~

cLAS5///EP /4:5 £k£~f:;- AM).;) Po
M V£ h?A AJ/J (i,,€1l ).4 L. of( L ~£ c 77 Vi: , '" rf ,/"P..-t.JS/.!J .h!//YL5-

./V~r

P/£ 7t

h"p/j( LA 130/( 57A.;J.oAR£>5 ,.1<=-;-

!JS5v/:V7£5 ~ ~~?/£fC [)£CRE£ ~.,;: /.-4/)(.

P.E/}~/A7~ A'.A/tO 6 ~OD FA/~ JJE7;JE~~

o-Uj7 .. '£~7£rr /1Ah:? CCfJ-.-......."./s J/~

f7~£S,.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 24 of 40

/?, P~f"bfP40/~.s PL. A ct.7/¥.'/~ 13A.D ~/7;;/
w/7?9 ;PLA/,J'//~/OJ /~ }/; oL.A77~;V t::!:'~ 7/:/£
p~/.I(' LABon 57A-"uP--4/(DS / ' f e /

. ? 7 '/1 f)..£.r.E#j?A~T.Y '/I//v5.-9(" 70

~~fr.>JgS/~.j

72:. /:LA./"u,J///-{.s/ WAS W/L//vL A~o , /A/7Z/f/,,;/~~c~ ,1/Vt:/ //As f(2..sL/.2:r~.D /A.J

[:>A r->A C;~ s T?-:J ?L./.j./ ;e/)7/:/{s)"

1&. J)zfP)t>9·.v:T /,(~Ept/0/2 5~vL.D ;¥~vf
y.NoW~ -pA;-r7/YL ?/1A-~Tjc£J A-A/D
f,,4/TP!.vS PLS'C;f'/BED /~ ~5 .4~7/O:U
A?1£ t!/A/2A),~vL.

W. £vw Wh~....J P.krE~PA~TALL£p~,E.s
iE ~7A c!L/~rA/Y /5 !3£~oJ /?//~"'v~ 5'//!."vP--!/lP5 M~ f)£;=-~A/~c~7/.uP£5 jl:J -1~E-)7 70 5:£Lc. /TS /:PA..v./;~Eh?~
5 P/?//'/CC5 ~;).

A 7 p. Di,H.A/PA~WAl/2S

AA./C> hLL

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 25 of 40

,
ALLf.D~£D P£/,rc7S/"uA ~~/~7S
ALL.£Pb EP .s7-A~DA)7DS/ 1"A/,hIL~/;;
l./J c ;;.;1//£ ~L;£A./:;-AC/l££~ 7V !Ia;;:
;::t?/£ ~..#..v-4&E:~E-v/ "5E/lU)CE,.g~V
t!J; p£,F/~./1.,u'7:

~d~~/l 77/£ PL?,bJp~~r,ALLEPr;E5

P4~fi CL/,FA/;//5 fJ./ns;/' gur7?/£

~L/~y- Pt//?C»A~£S fo;?~~-4IbZ/-.r7~r

5b7v/c£5J ~ 5); 77/£ f)P~dJ?1-uY­

7'7!1€- /?:?v ..s~J>-4/

cCJ~fo:?/S' 5/0.vs /)uE.

70 r~~///(sj·

?1. ~ ?;:FvSA L 7D J>~/ Tl? ~/AJV~~6~
/7~~L7 V/£.)/z C~~/J?J S.5Jcx.J.s: ffis (Avs~D
F/~~J///6) £~tt!J77c;,U.4c. j)J5n'£5S A#D
P#AA/c/4L 5TRESS

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 26 of 40
Ce:; v NT...z';t3
J]1lJA)<:;) t?/ /~1/·£r:::., ~V-LNAA./r
h t:tl/' 6t:Pc:>.C> /:;:7;1 ~A,/O M /;e PEAl;:u/:.

lit. rJ)O~"g!)/$ /7:¥e>t/;M/~f~ u7LANV./~E.

f:Y --*i'~ /~C~;tCJ/lA7E£)

retP£RE.v~E ~D J?t'A lH6£

As ~~"#TvLy sETfotn#. 1V/T;y/Jv?Il.£;:rtlf»)~£ .

/97 7b

?J~/r ALlEll~£A/T o£ C't!!JUA..l/-->£::th4J7P

/-JvrE/~ ",~:.s /'ov~/J /LEP~~M/~'iIV~·

,AA/O ,/)LTZJ1A,,)~771/E ("~:::Jt./A--If 7/!/£/lL 70.

0/7. ~~NY'::;>/ ~ :SO S?;::IrES /~ ;;;;YE
. L"/'4///--ji£)/S?;;?rE.s 67/ .-1~ERlc~ #..;t)v'f .L~tl./J;.
~Ar/~ A cot/Z"»~A/7 t!?/.~CJ~.D
;::A/7/';/ /9A./O r~//f DEAG/.A.J6 /N 4.Lt..
~A/77?~e~ f.$f71f/EEA.l .?A477f's fi'A./TEff£D /~ / N fiAC.A/ s;r;:;prE.
"IirU/~//(5)/;.; ;r.:¥,e H£~LJ sr,eViCEs.
p/v/..5.)O~S &,.,:: P..£FfdPA"v;;; /f'~ A~E,A./7S. AND J[h.?,,(7IES .:?/ .P~rEA./D"'~;-; A7
AL.L 77~£s Ac:/£P /;1/ ~oCJ£)/4/?ij
A.A/',o ~/,R l>£4L./."u~ ?;buJA/t'OS A~ G
~~t:Jy::>fc7:S A~C> C~/f~7S..;
.
t7yo0-VAj:A '/t/l;:~/l.A C.</£~/ 5'/iA/£,D 7/f/'E
~P/i"__ 68;4(j£1I

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 27 of 40

S 1/~l/y ~t/r~~R/2A. 7?DAJ7tOR~ W/~e'#
y vV~s 7Y!£"'/S"~A...(T /CJ .t>.L,FF~T.)4..v:r,8y
/'AX A.-vo ~5: h?4/L ANO ~b~r/ff4D ~A.J£

9~ ~17~ ~;~ CLR/lftLY 5'7::?7ES. o,v/n

wE M.CE P/A/

.4~U$ 7/~'..s ~v,?;;L.Jt?j?/';'~.z;b~
/,/

/~ .A/C7,.,J~/V<:-:'£L AEL£ .

-o/1Y e. ~ ,C.t../VJ7S

/lAV£. A A7P/ 1-'!J:.vj

.lfCA/.A/5;-j)E~j:,JP;<)~ W/J/c·.J:j /5 /Uor
F~"7J.t?F A,A/YALL?CATJt:iV~ /;; )0.3l/S

('o~/~*

· 92.m- /£/~1Y£y Q'/.-1/J,Ik/;£A//~?- £)E/R.tJ..D;q~r
//5/5 .4- 5y.>:ff~ o/CL/j.SS/F/c~77e>tLJ~/
fA-7/."vC?! ~A/£) pEs/ C/C/Ay?O~~ ~L.c ~.u.k'..vd.&1
· 7V cL/f~ WAr/5 PEY/6--:1O~ -/0,
e'€PF'/£/?h/..:v~ //- CL'/,E.-.//3 /"v ~{ .fA~£ £A.c~ ~77I/vJc t!7/1 AJA-7J;AJ/j,~
(!)I(J~/~>~ BL/5/A/£ 55 7 7 / £ ~L L c?/f WILL
~t9r f3 uy ?~V/7WE/76'//1U)c.ES F/lt:J~
Pf,rf/V//A'/"~/~Ax.A /95 /?//pA//j6,EA?f~r-
·5'f/l VicEs ~5).

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 28 of 40

. 93613'/ £j/5/~~ ~ 5y>7E~ ?;J~/7'£
. 5~r;5T1C·-41... P£?~/Jh?b/7.c7~ PfF/dPAv!7
7#£ P~~£"uftf0-c~,v OP.A"CELS 13)/ Ju.s:r-
./VoT5~t.,..//A.Y6 ~ 77J J?vA,/m~ 5'u5? U03
A..vo A/OT/~ ~ C::p.-,~/5S/o-<t./ ~~-
ftL£yEc;?~ ,~;;-,yf/f-/-r]74/L/K ;?7~~
~A/L::> h,?//~£y /"u tOiJ7A/"J/~6 ~ cL/.EAJ~
.70,1( P£/,PP~A/'),

5'~ P£/.£,.,v.c>~dr;g-;7.EAC// ~ /~~/.i:D

~j/,£ AJA~r.e9,,,;e d, D d!/I!:) /---',/~A h "A/P -/fi-

PfAL/-b6

1Y :z?IL

~f

~/

, ,
:;;:;::JL£//r-;?;::7h->

"
/

.A..vo 7///~ i).V5~ft/t?/5folA.//~~ U? 70

ffu~ m~ YVJ(VjY.

A/;T '1£~ 41';0/-:~) /1/?;E ~7"'A ~£D §;Y

!1: !lic~)v/A../C 'TYifJR C~~~/SS/t7A./~ /1A./o'/-v/lTJ/E..f(

P~A CE.P

,73/£ U.J'T7L£: Wo-CK £,JVJ/lCJJ->£.~/T

1)Y ~/ i.> C/f.£AT!£)

-p/£ /I/~7P7£ ,,,/7

(jJ/" ct:JI~~/5 91 O.,A../S r

Jt. P£FU/[)A~:r #~5 /~ J3~PrA/:f#
AA/'C) ,A/&) P£AI../A/b ,F-1~/'RL7 W/~,,£/7?/E.Jf
?J. ~~.A/77/'".;C(s) ,~J? c.L..J EA/rS r:,uf!)tJ/A/t.jYJ
Vv'/LL/'L/~/ /.~.fT,bu71t:)A/~ ~ A,uo ?lA/2~ W/VL~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 29 of 40

r C4v.s£,o L /9/A,/f)//(5) 7V SU//E/? E;-, o77o~L

? 7 [?IS/"/(£SS 1.1/ ??£/V5/A..l~ 7p

/V ?-I,4/-UZl.Ff(:V

7},;nL~ ~E/,q cc?~~JsS')ot.LS./ EvzA-i

L--V///d"4- CL/;.-fJ'/A6'/?EES /0 f?Ul?c~~se

~V54A../I:?S t!t7.~ po~/A/1~ C7r D2~£NoA....t.JTS-­
hA.,JAC£..P?.F...v75E.{'0~E"s ~y.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 30 of 40

,

. ~

.

'])Jf(£c..T l)J..s~?CJ yY\ /A/#J770AJ Ie:;

f1. ~/:V77 )=/6..) r:-4SEO o/fJ 7?/E :?1.~J~7/fF(i)

CL:J7.E )(/~7:7 O~ T£.f( yY1 S.J C'~A.J PJ ;;-,1 o...A.l~ O~

-1::: c: ?KIII 1L.£6£$ d $A/1.e;Y.P7..£-r/:J

v 7'SIPE..

?£ Y ·.5~f£s

~./.£ f"A.l1>J!'O

u.......~'ss'o,J ~

97. Af.J}6,RAj"fls I WRot/C 9~/ 7#£ Uo7i"~~.r

¥ /.. A/?.i ~£

y v C'aR/~/lA::np 15 ,K£TEl 7IA.JcE A A/.D

f?fi.A-Ji.!bLD ~I$ ~v~///l/d'Ly 5£T7t!)/?TA'c

'W/7?)tf)VT7/l£J"vDI(!r 7bA~~/l Aurl?~E...ur

all C"t9uA//5£;'rO/lT 1j ~~ C'CJU~r/5/L£J'~~.5

AN //C/PL/.£A..{O£A/T/fA/£) ~L7E/7A1~77J/£

ct!?i/A/T 7:¥£AP£;2J,

<J~ 'P£~£A/;.9~~ !lAvE D£VELD?EP A

.R ;;:STE.Yh tC?/ ~"LAS S,J//c -"'17;Jo....:u~.J A T?v~ S J

WP9r AA/D f)£S/~/lr/A77~;V.s

DEJ!":E.d£>/}~

ALL £0&£ A'L!,tJWS /;?/£~ A/ar- S,)JC7W-t/?

·7Z'J /?//A/ 7??1£ 5v,J(J/£y ?J/ ~ eL/E...v7:S
· /11/5/'...v£.s s ~?~ 77/£SC/:/f £Jt/..J1LE.D 77 ~ £,

· ,A /VL/ OA 7:=£.

. itt PE/,.£..uOA.vr!5 AC7/tJ4S AYi£ Pi?,vE
/~ /JAP /-Al7:::0/ A v p f~1l k~ Atv'.FvL
!f£ASo,vS ll&y.h.-,r wQk;-J JI-"/.s p~£ P}/lEcT

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 31 of 40

1?£sLlLr eJ/' ~~-AA/G./NC ~£ C~;n..,?€/f./SA77D~ /£Rp,S/ L'~~£).17/~~ .AA.-I£) ?.R} L/JL L~E~
JjY !?,/ f~;pL~.p?~!A/~ w/T:;;s? Df/~:DA;A..)~
[>2 ~/AJ;7//{5r~ ~/.;o A/?£ ~uJ3/P.€. .
5A.LES/£'Y'LE;J/-9.1.0 ~ L?J.I--?.,....,,/ s~-'O~
·6}A/Y

(?J ?J /Od, A/,v'7/// ~/l£ 7f£4'V/ffED TLJ 5£LL

A 7 7?/£ S£/l.V)C~~ C7~ };)~F£A.l.£Y)A/)/ZJ

4A10

dLt. CL/E:U~) 7/51~r //AV£ A ~/NU/kl:
rt!? 5'£V£~ ~7L7L£ s: --1-<-'0,;p n..£'" gr

~5P~o //V//~4-)Y SALES,

/t'/. t!A/:.u»~,tC/{:v. f)z:;; /[/o/D)SCtf/h7J~~rE
A~P1/,vsrA~cL'/~.vJ(V J)43£D O~ 7JJE
e~/ENTS ~;7/J#It::.) ~"'C£.) oJ( NAJ)oA.J.4c
t!JI('J6/~S;J 0/1 ~AjY CJ7?"/E;e KE-1S o A.JS •

/tJ2. P£J?/Yl7AAJr /~.;:9- ~E1/EL A75vtJE 7J>!ArT

O~ Ph~~77.F}~I s,.,J /{ r/ ~1/£ ?£YELo.!~£:> /J
·f!...~ ~A/~~vO ?IlA~TJ~£ ~/! /~P//?Fco/

[/15c,R/~/A/./9 ;1/A/6 AJt.:/1 )'A..?51' C LR~/;V

r · ('.L/ A/';T5 j)l~£ ~ T!/;£/)? !L77/p<~ YAC~
t:J/( ;VA /)t:?A/Al. ofl)&/A/~ J" 'W/yJ/~'hI /NrU~~ ~.up

7j..Y' /'9..5 .A

I?fYv 1 J

O~

PE~~.,u,£>4."v/.5 , ,

~ c

170A.JS/

· PI/lfC

D)5C/?Ip?/.M~nS A 64;JAJ.sr

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 32 of 40

J fJ./}/,u77/,FCs A--vEJ !?EJ'UL~ /~ /V"':;.E£!N(.

,By -/;/9/'0 rOP? 7?lEY£J(V1C,£.s f(FA..iDER£D

,?i 4/;U?7~~ 0~) AA/o C~4»6E5 ~ fr/lM~

,?" Ct!1/V'P 7 /70UJ;. /tj;A./ D

)'\JJl £ 6~...!;. c::;F

. ~/L7~£A/r o/- ;PL .-11 .....-JJ7/~(sJ...

,
/~f.. f'J.,4/;,vp/"~ ~/~E"1~ p/l~-1<-

P £r /1/LA/(".£ l~/ 77:;;/ PE/-,A./04...vr pVC):;--

~"""'/~6 ~ ~Y-~Lc. fo-t" /'/P~ s;c.&'£~U.D

. ~?/A/~E.,vr7z:> IfvAi 7/Y'f 5'U/Jo/ /5

/f-5 ~C'~~CJu.)s.J

J 7 A £. C 77?Aou.lf,) lJJ5-1

f),c>LVJ1C.

#~:?~&?

f> e~~L/£Z ~u/o/?/-4;-£.D !X5/C~
# J£2 //Y-~:S

C H~L. ~/]4;T£/?J£A//-# S37'~.c7r

p. :h~£/j~.uv5Y ~f£)/c-4 t. 77I/)..cIS-

,?O/1/ /(&V ,E, T - 5/0/?71>/USS -# 5:3pJ~J'2 T

h 5~1f FI7$/;:'ij';/ --# 55 Y77c::/7-

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 33 of 40

J()S:[)£ff~~A/T~.s P£//£Lo/LD A-
J>::ff.E......... ~;//5 A ?A7'lZ/.,J~A/D//l~07C£
A O~ N~/7fl/A/A,jA76 5't//fl/y' ,//' ~£
~L/£~rM/~_~ 7Z'/ASS ) w~c;YA~
~ .D/~c:.T P/5'~/~/~~/7oAJ~~ .£/:,EcYZJ~~£/9/A/7;l/-,F{5~ L~7L~7J~ 7£f?~.s ?J,fl £~/~~L~ (eJ"/P/;7~~.s ~/;vt. ~,­
/?//A.-/Y-AII(/O;?)1/V/L'/&£l t::7~~".. ~~
pY.Erat;. ~5 ,t?v'/5/~ r~'--' ~r S s/o--J

A s JtJt~

A

\.
.!)/!?7c ;-P£5vL T

~~ ;7;!1-£

/"'A J/#./,-1W(l/~ 7/.£K~A.vO

('7)c..O

~~/A<5/ ~/£ ~//..--J/::s ~/ PE~f~p~~
1& ;::¥/£,,/PA'A//~S ALSo ,-1A/pAS A

P//(fc;-/lF5~)L.;;- pF~£ Pf#A-J)?~~

•

..

t

~c:. /)o~..5 £)/SC//r,/A../AnD ",46..r1.-/....v.5;;-

~A/47f:(j~;/;V)fE?V'ss/~ TO):;/7

C6>~/ :> S/O.-1J"-s'"

77/£ /tJ7.

TA/l( ~Abo!l. 57;JA/DA.RDS /9c7

C~4~>/j)£.s c.t)~~/~~JD~ ~AYr E;-tn/L7E£s
As #£7::;' pVr/A/~..eR: A Md-4IE;e

@ j ()£~/l$£ 111/ r~/X DE-AL/~~ /lA/£) GC!/~D
T~17// B£TW£f...v ,£/>7f~7.£ /l 2FF.-.JI>9....

ANO ALL ?1.4/N7///6:),

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 34 of 40

//)~. P~,FF~DA~/T L/)OLA rE. .5 7?/£ ~A/R:

.

5;7,/9AJD~RDs /-"CT. tJ#.£..d PEr,E...J'P~~ /~

?A CJ; DZ~L_~ / # f3~DFA/j:;;$l W/7::¥

fL~/~/7//(s_)J

/~9- PE;:£~~,...u7S ?J?Ef',!5-4t /"D?Y rO
p) A/;J77ff(S) C~.;-, ~/S.s/~:.vS WAS bv'/L~.rvL
A~o /M~.,A/~77::,..,JA-G AA../o ?LA/A.)7/f,F"{V
,A-/?£ /4/r/:rL~(o ~ P/9/7?~CES_

//tJ, P£,Fr;,)ol/l-u:JK..v£0 O/( 5)/~uL'£) ffiv£
)<,uow£,AJ m,~:r7//.E/)C ?A7?EKd A.,u.o
f!Ac"?C.£ ~r ~C>~?7hVC PL A/~77.rrG~
~/J? u~>-~/.$S/o..v.s lA/.YE~7?'/£ P£/£A.lPA~
oV~.s£ A/o/;7ZJ ..5ijo~-U? TO Ru~ 7?/£
50.Ro/ A,vPftff w//f..J 77/£ C,,£/E.AJ:;--
rUJrc:J)4';CO ~OU5-f.u05 o~ ']PLLAffS ,o.f2 ~..JAC;Eh?.€.-J./.s£-<i/la.s(J?7V L-JA.s A.uo
/5 L//t/L..-1wJuc.. L/,A.-J~£-,? f3~~~.LPE/IA C.
AM!? 57:1 ,/2(5/ )~W5.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 35 of 40

77//£/:'/ t:f?~ 5£/llJJcEs C7/

I!!?..-vy CCP~h:?/;!.>.I0~

/ L £~ ;:,Y£ES

II/. f4~A~J1A/~' / ;t;#/?I)v~~';y(),~/ P/£ /'dJ.~.~/:lL4/.vrA11l //6{Lo/ /~ceJ'3I'~~TZP P/ J?&.F£;(F~c-E ,/}..v.o f?£-1Ll rt.B>
I) S ~vw/ hL;/ fEr~/ k./~d'l--p:r;;vf)~
7ZJ A~ CJ7;?/:£'l Av£/{~E.uJT 0/1 /"t::Jl/A:-.Ir.:5Z":;-
Ft?-'/77;:/ ~4~h0 /?//j c~v~T/~ /L~:r:> ~3 AA./
/A/£)~£A/.£>£-'f./5- ~.,A/O ~ L :r£/J:q/A9t-1-E' c4VA..JF
~£TO.

!jz. P£;:~PAA/~ ,q'f£$ A JY5Tb-> 0/=

.

!? <:::?~45'~/~/c ~ T)Oft/s/ A 7.7'A/~.s ~A/O f)ES}(,.»A1JoAl.s.

-;;5L/fT ~."v~ANFv2L;/ j)£~S //f./P/.f?Ec~ 7//£

c:L/£A.//.s p/P£,F,#.A.J,oNVT A .5L.l/lvy. z:>/f? % ~L/j.A-/;FS / t>VJ/~LS.s • 7/Y'£" CL./EAJ7~

£T/:!A/)~/ f(~ (£ AA...IO A/A770A.JA~ c/?/·~/':'.s

,A/1£ /r".5£O ,As ,A ~.,;p JOn ~A ~TLJJ? /"u

7?/L SY5rL.J--. 0/'7 ~~4SS~F/CA7?~.M'.s../ JCAJ1.Al~

~A/P P£.s/~W.A77l)AJS /A.J 1/JOLA77C~ C7~
73077/ .577).T~ ~A/'P JL£D£Jf-1 t.. JAWS.,

1/3, f!~A/Ar7//F(j) ~S./l/O ~~~L) l
{!}/f //n/I/T~ ~> 72:J ~~ ~/ 77/£
CL,pS.5//'IC,47,7ov~f(A-TfoG~ 0/2. DfSJb.,.JA77~,,:1·

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 36 of 40

~..uz 77/£ ~?"k?~A-l.-9-~£~S AND 7/3/ou
~/ /;/4 5v~£(Ey Df?~/I~£AJr ~~
P£/~,JfJ/9A_/}>:Y~.!/E f/l:;~ L CLJA,J7";Ro L~

,'4 //1 J)jl.p;rV/tJA~ AvE A ?~,t.'I:::y~

?!1/JC/J(£../

TT££~ /J p£) 0 c~.E,Ct.Jf1£

/'0 P£A!Y T~ cZ'~/fA//A S'!/lz/£Y pu,£

·70 p/£ ~//£/I/;-:~ .£TAJ~ Ie ) ;ffA cE.J

· t!7/1 A//f770A./~L &'J?/~/~.sj W/.0C// b ~Al~.,t.)wFbL.j

~ J)t:J;v/ 57?9;Z(y/9-AlO /EJ>£)2/1 G l/9ws.

II>;'?,J ~/pY7//6).J c~/"»?~/.ss/~.,j ~~
~t/TfdJ.£ .3-"JL.f ~~7:/~ .h4vE C"~-/2!JZD.. P3l~.i? ;;;;1>3 0$:J,m ~/A ~/6',JE~

~KA /,CJ/?P?bY ~A/C> /~J(' /9 A./O mJ).,JL£D
p D£F7~~~r7?/£fi~Pl,

1//" PE;:-~,A/b~~'Tff5E.s 1JAJR£A$~/jLE./

L/,J/?E/.JL.)S77~ vA/A~wrvL ~A/O

?A /ZJ P

/

S

f
C

R

J

/
?

7

)

1
t

V

A

.

T}o~ , , ) . .

)Ja. /At I:OF~4)/~' ~

77/Ptz/Z · J?.£/"V$/A/6.. 7ZJ

7//£ ~aJ-?_.JSSJoM

.. TZJ n../}~f/CV).71£5Vjl/..vtt /#;r?/:£

~£~;l ~/?? 5fA'v)ctE5 ?J~ ?J.~/.,v7//fG..J

/AJ V/oLA;T:'t7d(!;J/ .so7/-/ .5.J~;rF6)?)A./D

;C.co,£R~ L L ~ Vf/S.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 37 of 40
//7.. ?J.A)~;74/CeR;-/?7~l?f 7YL
rO~U?t-0-V6 .5AL£S WM17E -:z7/£ Yv--rv;>: , PE,P"/j".J)...d~/ j)£TE.A.fD~-utJ /OM,:?:: /"Aldf)
72J 5~tA.J ~ fo ;fvd -p/L sv'nll~
A. E. e~ 71(;JJ.O/""/6 b:BA ~ DoLLA-!,
5 7o/1t'S'/t t1JWA/££) ~,E PunvA/p c#v/V' JJE~/£vEt:>
70 !3L r!fe>~ /~6'I(,£A,
15. C//'AV£Z AV'JOfo??A'/E¥) p£:-5"/~/
~ M~~~/~ /t-/A~~.o ,A fi,JiL e/'7'..4- VEz <__/_/_-r--:
~# 1{,1.. ABAJE/?/L.u7; C)vv'~LP ~
J(tJ ))b1:;o VALApA/1£.5 JR/ A /~s;?4~/~
p. ~~£~~E.A/7 ~£P/~A-'L /7PAzJ7oA'T
J?6~ ~WA/£D ~ /-}- ~-04..v/~ #<:.jj;(J..--JP../9v.e:;:J
IA/lf£ .
5Y j£ -r~5/~1f'j-f).-?//f<;;'.> CJ ~A/EP
r £pPJ£ 5A...JPt)VAt. / A' //74--0/<-
V 5~/(rjf;Gh'r~"A/C d~,v£D
JC;5£ c. &All~ CO)fPvvA A..v.Dj?~'77.A/£./C~ [507// /~:?~;t/)~S ..
//3. p£'r£--:P/Ji/(/ //-1'5A )/4., '; 'J!A'.,JA...-c>
IR/7C.Tlc£ ~~ o/£?~r/IC)('"/~6 ;;-tJ.s~
W/I~/'CL/~"1/T5 wJi...L" C/( IA//LL /I/o?
f?£C~/u£ ~ 5'.U~V~
J/~ TtI)/l)t1?7;Z/£ P€c/~/o;V ~A~~O~
$A;J/5 q/5~:?? TZJ ~AK£ 77/£ PE£'/.5/0AJ

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 38 of 40

F£ /5

1f'AcE/ .£/~.A4~ -4...vp pV~5/~L,

.o/?/6'/..AJ tiP/' 7/f,¥ cL'/;AJ7S .

/~tJ. P~~.£A-?A4q);-f~EtJt!7Jr sffiUL.D
/;/AvE /~~oLV~J ~r7?/e ?/s£ c!7~A.~
/Ac)t:?JTS ~r/"v~LvPE~ p/£ C£/£~7s

;fA ('£) ?P/A/)' ~ A..yp /LIA77t1)~A ~ OR / 6(~ . ,

/F.tV . &;L ~L/.£A/T5. I /S ~~~4~rvL P/..sCR/A/))AlA!lJ~

/~.. f! A:~77

t?~ ~~r

r 1/.'7 OISC/?/~/~/J:;-;-£ //17 .5/GA//~C 7?/£ 4t./6t/IS o /1 A 5'v'~ /22. W//b./ 734: ~~~ f)£j=puPA--r./J"S
~ z,£ -"? ;P-:- 7'iEJ7..,J MO/,//4 ~ 77::.£ LP~

»?.?lS77 DJSCR/~/A/.:" VA/($ 4~4/..u.srcL/E~/S
:P/f 2/(.7"E.A/.;.;:JAAJ7S 57/L c ~ L L 7/f/£/(? £;?~E.s W.l//C', .

WAG£~ /;'(./1,.t.~J?//[/6 ~ cO~.h?/s.s/t.?~

/?y TO !Z~;~;'//~5..
/~3_ pyft~~/vb TO

~ ?LA/,J}7~~~)

77~£~ ~)K ~;-'~/5'.S'/b~~ f)£//~PAA/;;­

,Fv7 ~~!<'~/I/~J;Ub/ W)LtFuLL)" AA/o ~,uA'A W ~ 5TOLLJ7M SdVlCE..soF
t:!A-/~7/FAV/AJ 0 ~L4 77~,o/ So/77'
:57A1~)A~O FftD£/c~L LA WS~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 39 of 40

/2.;1 ?.4.RA6LA;?/.;/ / Wnt7 v6/:l125P;:;Z 7?7'E Cl:>~l~)~r
AIr£,/;!B?EJ!:/-v~o7°/?rEP $ /j2Eft17£A/dAA/D !?£/9 LL£ bE.D A.s WIPV&///0.l.y SETfiRP/"
b-!/$~t,ir?/ll ;;;-l/D/~ 7 0 / 1 7 OP/Eff/f~R~£A./J/ tJ/1 ~t/,A;'.I-5£.I-fo/?7?/.A4.£/AJ~ ~J r'~t.J;v/ /s
/!£D ~s A"J ,,/A/P~fA/DPvT ~-A/£;) /yL7£J?A)A711J£
CtPt/pV/-~-p::>.

/25.?.!/I/.u////"ts).£A/T£f(£O /"uJD 777£
'£77A:?£....v;'--~~/?E~~"f.Jr /A/ C~~D
fi/7:?L

/2t. P/£?E /~ Ad J~/hEJ:) C~-u77?.KJc7;

d//t/~ 7/;/~ (~L/EAJ7> S/"bAJ/46' 7??1~

_

~1/J7)o/7 J2..A77;» ~o/1 5'VflVt;Y ~J1;'" 6t )

.ANO t=XA.?Af77/"/'t.P --1"vD P/,FF~A</~

(JJ,/ 6,&J~D ,FAl ;I;T::7l A",Il/0 ~,,:1 J /? PE/J L,JA./tS .

/27., P£!~AJOA~T //A)S A sy5J;E~ tC:7;:
ch' .4SS/~/CA77ZJN/ TA 77P6~~,lUD
f)£5/~/t/A77~S. 7??4 / ' P£/-f./l/P/I-£,?/-S
~LL EP6A£ /~.,L L ow 7?/L PE/"E.A/~~A/7SJ

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/01/07 Page 40 of 40
fi/-~/l 77/£ e-:L./.E~r//4 S S/~AJE}:J !?IE
/Jt/mt:W/~ 'T.Jb;VFCJ/l5U)?1I'9". ~1?fr1 b~/ /t::J t::/A//-L4;'$~y CAN~.E.L~ 7/7£
5L7/vpu~ L )~D A//~o/~/??VJr.

);2% 7/£. Au TJY-oJ'( J 2A TloAJ ~.o/( JU.Illl£>j
rA .CL£A/?-;y,tJ~/7-s c£~.51:::!- t ',WE -
~G/?£E ~.s ~u )7/t!7/?) z.-1 ?70AJ /.5
II
ft/C)A./~~c~L.~1)L£ l'
I?J- p?,L£ A/t!:J,vq.-tkE t/}f]£~.-4ff.2/£s .TLJ goP,! ~/£ cL/;A../J~AVO To //YE
D£FEA./O~.AJ;,J:

;50/ p£rfA/t)/)P) ;<~l/vJ/,vtt~ W)LLFv~

AA/o ~~44)A.-!EVZ.LL 8KE/}(!.JJ£D 7//£

60 C ~;v'7;:J(A ~T~/A1 X
5'///7//y /CJ/lfr>

A

V

77/0/2)

7../1

'
7Jo,J

/oJC

/3/.

P£/,£A/J:>A~;/S

A-c77I:J·.;t./.s.

•
/tU

JJJlEAcJI/.i/~

~~&;t./77?AcT)A ~ /7-A//L)F~ J5~r)v'EE..lj
f i ,1/~ 77// (1) ,,1A/LJ P£,t:'fA./1)AA.J:J) P'A~

.C1t/.5£P ?1.);~/~7)//(v. ~t!/SS ~.r C'~~"..,)~.s)oKl..s

..eA/},1/£D ~,A./,O £~~7/C),uA {. 'oJ..s7/?L ~ s ~o,JC

po/f3E/.i/~ ?Al/D ~£ C'~~~/.sS'/~D
/

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 34 Filed in TXSD on 06/27/2008 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

V.

§

CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094

§

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§

COMPANY,

§

§

Defendant.

§

DEFENDANT’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant George S. May International Company (“May”) files this second supplemental

reply to plaintiff’s second supplem ental response to May’s motion for summ ary judgment and

May’s response to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

Because Hilgert’s latest filings merely reiterate the same unmeritorious points that he has

made in his previous filings, May expressly in corporates the following motions along with all

previously filed evidence into this motion:

1. May’s 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss;

2. May’s Response To Hilgert’s Motion For Reconsideration And Motion To Stay;

3. May’s Motion For Summary Judgment;

4. May’s Reply To Hilgert’s Response To May’s Motion For Summary Judgment; and

5. May’s Response To Hilgert’s Supplem ental Response T o May’s Motion For Summary Judgment.

HO1 13098131.1

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 34 Filed in TXSD on 06/27/2008 Page 2 of 6

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES The terms of Hilgert’s employm ent (and the cond itions that must be satisf ied in order to qualify for a commission) are explicitly set forth in an employment agreement that he signed on March 4, 2004 and a supe rceding agreement that he signed on January 15, 2006. 1 Hilge rt’s claim is premised on the fact that h e disagrees with the bargain that he m ade when he entered into the employm ent agreement. His breach of contract claim fails because th e undisputed evidence establishes that the clie nts for whom he claim s he is owed a sales comm ission were either (1) below the minimum standards necessary to qualify for a commission or (2) expressed a desire to cancel (and did not pay for) the surve y. Hilgert’s Employment Agreement explicitly states that both of these conditions m ust be satisfied before he may qualify for a sales commission.2 Nevertheless, Hilgert argues—desp ite the language of his Em ployment Agreement—that he should have been able to sell surveys to any businesses that he chose , regardless of whether they m et the m inimum standards, and that May should have paid him a commission anytime one of the businesses deci ded to purchase m anagement services. As explained in May’s multiple motions on file with the Court, no language in the contract supports Hilgert’s theory. Hilgert’s Employment Agreement explicitly states that a comm ission is payable “ only when the survey has been conducted and the survey fee collected from the client … .” 3 Yet Hilgert repeatedly claims that he should be entitled to a commission on his “sale” because the

1

See May’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Ex. A, Hilgert Dep., at 110-11; Ex B-3; B-4.

2

See id., Ex. B-3, ¶ 4; Ex. B-4, ¶ 4.

3

See id., Ex. B-3, ¶ 5; Ex. B-4, ¶ 5 (emphasis added).

2
HO1 13098131.1

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 34 Filed in TXSD on 06/27/2008 Page 3 of 6

survey analysts “did not show up” to perform the surveys. As explained in May’s m otion for summary judgment, Hilgert is incorrect to claim that the survey analysts simply did not show up to perform a survey ; the undisputed facts are that the clients he cite s canceled or failed to respond to requests to confir m the survey appointm ents.4 May h as fully addressed (with evidence) why the clients that Hilgert complains about did not receive a survey.5 In those cases, it is true that the survey an alyst did not show up, but for good reason—the client had expressed an unwillingness to have the survey perform ed.6 Under the plain lan guage of the contract, Hilgert is not entitled to a commission if the client does not receive and pay for a survey.7
Hilgert also repeatedly, yet incorrectly, asserts that he should be entitled to a commission on any sale—regardless of whether the client meets the minimum standards—anytime May ends up performing management services. As explained in May’s motion for summary judgment, the employment agreement clearly states that sales representatives are not entitled to a commission if the client f ails to m eet the m inimum standards.8 The m inimum standards are ob jective and undisputed.9 To meet them, the client must have (1) an average of at least seven employees over the past 52 weeks, and (2) at least $500,000 in annual sales over the prior 12 m onths.10 The Company discourages its special represen tatives from selling surv eys to businesses that are below the minimum standards, because those busin esses are not likely to purchase management

4

See id., p. 18-23.

5

See id.

6

See id.

7

See id., Ex. B-3, ¶ 5; Ex. B-4, ¶ 5.

8

See id., p. 6-10, 13-22.

9

See id., Ex. A, Hilgert Dep., at 82-83, 172.Ex. A, Hilgert Dep., at 82-83, 172; Ex. B-5.

10

See id., Ex. A, Hilgert Dep., at 82-83, 172; Ex. B-5.

3
HO1 13098131.1

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 34 Filed in TXSD on 06/27/2008 Page 4 of 6
services.11 If Hilgert’s contention is correct, then he would be able to se ll a survey to an y client—thereby causing May to expend considerable resources associated with sending a survey analyst to client (i.e. airfare, hotel, compensation, etc), all so Hilgert could gamble that the client may ultimately end up purchasing m anagement services. That scheme does not c omport with May’s business model because clients below the minimum standards are not likely to purchase management services.
In his motion for reconsideration, Hilgert repeat s the same arguments that he asserted in his response to May’s motion for summary judg ment. As May explained in its m otion for summary judgment, Hilgert’s intentional infliction of em otional distress (“IIED”) claim fails because he makes the fatal adm ission that his IIED claim is based on the sam e set of facts that gives rise to his breach of contract claim and his charge of discrim ination.12 See Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson, 157 S.W.3d 814, 816 (Tex. 2005) (Plaintiff’ s IIED claim failed as a m atter of law because it was based on the sam e set facts that gave rise to her sexual harassm ent and retaliation claims). His claim also fails because the condu ct that he com plains of—i.e., that someone allegedly yelled at him and called him “lazy”13—is not extreme and outrageous conduct under Texas law. See Twyman v. Twyman , 855 S.W .2d 619, 621 (Tex. 1993) (E xtreme and outrageous conduct is conduct “so outrageous in char acter, and so extrem e in degr ee, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”).

11

See id., Ex. B-3, ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. B-4, ¶¶ 3-4.

12

See id., Ex. A, Hilgert Dep., at 333.

13

See id., Ex. A, Hilgert Dep., at 326-27.

4
HO1 13098131.1

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 34 Filed in TXSD on 06/27/2008 Page 5 of 6

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant George S. May International Company respectfully prays that the Court grant its m otion for summary judgment, order that Plaintiff Clive B. Hilgert take nothing by way of this suit, and for all other relief to which it is justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,

OF COUNSEL: Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile
Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 460-5000 – Telephone (312) 460-7000 – Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

By: /s/ with permission Dennis A. Clifford John L. Collins Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile
ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT

5
HO1 13098131.1

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 34 Filed in TXSD on 06/27/2008 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fore going document was served upon the counsel of record listed below by the Southe rn District of Texas ECF m ethod or by certified mail, return receipt requested on the 27th day of June, 2008.
Clive B. Hilgert Plaintiff Pro Se 2500 N. 32nd Street, Apt. 2 McAllen, TX 78501
s/ Dennis A. Clifford Dennis A. Clifford
6
HO1 13098131.1

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

Clive B. Hilgert1, et al ,
Plaintiffs, v. George S. May International Company,
Defendant.

§ § § § § § Case No. 7:07-cv-00094 § § § §

DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S TITLE VII, ADEA, FLSA, CONSTITUTIONAL, GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING, AND
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS

George S. May Com pany (“May” or “the Company”) f iles this motion to dismiss all of

Plaintiff Clive B. Hilgert’s (“Hilgert”) claim s under Federal Rule of Ci vil Procedure 12(b)(6),

with the exception of his common law claim for failure to pay commissions to which he contends

he is entitle d and his claim for intentional infliction of e motional distress. May anticipates

moving for summary judgment on the latter claims at an appropriate time.

I. INTRODUCTION

Hilgert takes a shotgun approach to plead ing, alleging num erous unfounded causes of

action against his form er employer, May. The m ajority of Hilgert’s claims are ba rred or not

recognized by Texas or federal law. Undoubte dly, Hilgert’s m isunderstanding of the law is

attributable to his pro se status, but his status as a pro se plaintiff does not permit him to proceed

with plainly invalid claim s. See, e.g., Newsome v. EEOC , 301 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2002)

(affirming District Cou rt’s Rule 1 2(b)(6) dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s claims agains t the

EEOC). For the following reasons, the Court should dismiss the majority of Hilgert’s claims:

1 The docket sheet incorrectly lists the Plaintiff’s name as “Hilbert.”

HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 13
Hilgert’s Title VII and ADEA claim s fail because he did not exhaust his adm inistrative remedies before filing suit. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5. Hilgert’s FLSA claim is invalid because (1) he does not assert a claim for minimum wage or unpaid overtim e and (2) he concedes that he was an exempt employee. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.500. Hilgert’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims are not action able because, as Hilgert correctly pleads in his Complaint, May is a corporation—not a state actor. See Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co ., 419 U.S. 345 (1974). Hilgert’s claim for breach of an im plied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is m isplaced because Texas does not recognize this duty in basic contractual relationships between an employer and e mployee. See City of Midland v. Bryant, 18 S.W .3d 209, 215 (Tex. 2000). Finally, Hilgert’s negligent infliction of e motional distress claim fails because (1) Texas does not rec ognize this cause of acti on, and (2) even if it did, Hilgert’s negligence claim is barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers Compensation Act. See Texas Labor Code § 408.001(a); Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tex. 1993). The Court should, therefore, grant May’s motion to dismiss all of these claims. II. BACKGROUND FACTS
May provides business consulting services throughout the United States. It em ploys commissioned outside sale s representatives (whose job titles are “Special Represen tative”) to find suitable clients to purchase a “business surv ey” to be performed by May. After perform ing the business survey, May hopes to be engaged by the clients for other consulting services.
Hilgert is a for mer employee of May. He worked as a sales representative and was therefore a party to a written em ployment agreement with May called the “Special Representative Employment Agreement” (“the Employment Agreement”) (Exhibit 1). Among other things, the Employment Agreement specifies Hilgert’s pay arrangement with the Company.
2
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 3 of 13
The Employment Agreement provides, in essence, that commissions are only paid f or “qualified sales.” Qu alified sales are determined f rom survey au thorizations obtained from prospective clients that meet certain minimum standards established by May, involving the business size of the client measured by various m etrics. The sales employees receive commissions for qualified sales accepted by the Survey Department, and receive reimbursement for certain expenses, as set out in the E mployment Agreement. The sales em ployees are “outside sales” employees as that term is used in FLSA § 13, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a )(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 541.500, as they custom arily and regularly are engag ed in sales activ ities away from May’s place of business. As such, they are exempt from the FLSA m inimum wage and overtime provisions. Ind eed, Hilgert correctly pleads that he was an exempt employee (See Complaint ¶¶ 28, 29, 43, 107).
Apparently displeased with the Em ployment Agreement, Hilgert filed a 67 page, handwritten pro se complaint (“the Complaint”) and two affidavits (one as an attach ment to the complaint (doc. 1)2 and the other on June 13, 2007 after his employment was terminated (doc. 7)). Collectively thes e documents appear to allege the following legal claims: Title VI I race discrimination and retaliation; age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”); violation of the Fair Labo r Standards Act (“FLSA”), breach of con tract, breach of an im plied covenant of good fa ith and fair dealing, failure to pay wages, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the First an d Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Addition ally, the pro se Complaint is styled as a class action in which Hilgert seeks to assert uns pecified claims on behalf of current and form er outside commissioned sales representatives in the United States.
2 The “doc” references are to the court’s docket sheet as reflected on PACER.
3
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 4 of 13
In essence, Hilgert’s complaint is that (1) he found prospective clients willing to purchase business survey services, but Ma y rejected them , and/or (2) that May cheated him out of commissions for som e clients to whom May, i n fact, provided survey services. He asserts a novel “derivative discrimination claim” that May rejected prospective clients he found because the prospective clients are Hispanic, and thus by discriminating against them by declining to sell them services, May was also discrim inating against him, though he is Caucasian. ( See Complaint ¶¶ 102, 141, 172). In his second affidavit, Hilgert says that he was fired in retaliation for filing his lawsuit, and because of his age and the fact that as a Caucasian, he is in the minority in the Rio Grande Valley. (See do c. 7 ¶¶ 19, 31, 34). Cutting through the m ass of repetitiv e contentions in Hilgert’s pleadings, it is plain that regardless of the legal labels he attaches, the substance of his complaints is that May (1) did not accept certain prospective clients he located, and (2) May cheated him out of commissions for clients that it, in fact, performed services for. III. MOTION TO DISMISS
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted if it clearly appears on the face of th e complaint that the p laintiff’s claims are b arred or otherwise cannot succeed accord ing to well es tablished legal principles. See Bush v. United States , 823 F.2d 909, 910 (5th Cir. 1987). W hen considering a m otion to dismiss, the court accepts as true the well-pled factual allegations in the complaint, and construes them in the light most favorable to the plain tiff. McConathy v. Dr.Pepper/Seven Up Corp. , 131 F.3d 558, 561 (5th Cir. 1998). However, “conclusory allegations or legal conclu sions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a m otion to dism iss.” S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Supreme Court of State of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5 th Cir. 2001). “[W]hen the a llegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a cl aim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should ... be
4
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 5 of 13
exposed at the point of m inimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1966 (2007) (quotations and citations omitted).
A. HILGERT’S DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER TITLE VII AND T HE ADEA MUST B E DISMISSED BECAUSE HE NEITHER INITIATED NOR EXHAUS TED THE ADMINIST RATIVE REMEDIES THAT ARE PREREQUISITES FOR SUING UNDER THOSE STATUTES.
Hilgert cannot bring discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and the ADEA because he failed to initiate (and thus failed to exhaust) his administrative remedies by first filing a charge of discrim ination with the United St ates Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The law is clear th at an employee must file an administrative charge with the EEOC prior to filing suit under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5; Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 379 (5th Cir. 2002) (The filing of an EEO C charge “is a precondition to filing suit in district court.”) (quoting Dao v. Auchan Hypermarket , 96 F.3d 787, 789 (5th Cir. 1996)). The same rule applies to lawsuits filed under the ADEA. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); Clark v. Resistoflex Co., 854 F.2d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 1988) (“A charge of discrimination must be timely filed with the EEOC prior to the in itiation of a civil action under the ADEA.”). Exhaustion occurs when the plaintiff files a timely charge with the EEOC and receives a statutory notice of right to sue. See Dao, 96 F.3d at 788-89. Only then may a plaintiff file a lawsuit alleging violation of Title VII or the ADEA. See id.
In this case, Hilgert failed to file a charge with the EEOC. Not surprisingly then, he fails to plead (nor can he in good faith plead) that he sa tisfied this prerequisite to bringing suit. Thus, according to well established law, the Court should dismiss all of his Title VII and ADEA claims. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5; Dao, 96 F.3d at 788-89; Resistoflex, 854 F.2d at 765.
5
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 6 of 13
B. HILGERT’S FLSA CLAIM MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE HE DOES NOT SEEK MINIMUM WAGE OR OVERTIME PAY AND BECAUSE HE IS ADMITTEDLY AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE. 1. Hilgert’s FLSA Claim Fails Beca use He Is Not Seekin g To Recover Minimum Wage Or Overtime Pay.
Hilgert wrongfully attempts to assert a claim under the FLSA to recover commission pay, allegedly due under the Em ployment Agreement with May. The Court s hould dismiss Hilgert’s FLSA claim because such a claim is not cognizable under the FLSA. The FLSA provides for an employee’s right to (1) a minimum wage and (2) overtime pay at a premium rate. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 ( minimum wage), 207 (overtim e premium). “All that the FLSA requires is that an employee be paid at least the m inimum wage for all hours worked, and if no exe mption applies, overtime pay for each hour in excess of the statu tory minimum.” Bolick v. Brevard County Sheriff’s Dept., 937 F. Supp. 1560, 1568 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207; Walling v. A.H. Belo Corp ., 316 U.S. 624 (1942)). T he FLSA does not create a cau se of action for regular, unpaid wages (unless it is an integral part of a claim for unpaid overtime). See Arnold v. Arkansas, 910 F. Supp. 1385, 1393 (E.D. Ark. 1995). Thus , a plaintiff’s claim under the FLSA fails as a matter of law if there is no dispute regarding overtime pay or minimum wage. Id.
In Arnold, the plaintiffs brought a claim for unpa id straight tim e under the FLSA and conceded that they were not seeking overtime pay as part of the claim. The Court noted th at, ordinarily, it has the power to ad judicate a claim for unpaid straight time as part of a claim for unpaid overtime—if the plaintiff asserts a claim for unpaid overtime:
[A] Court, in dealing with an ove rtime claim (clearly co vered by th e FLSA) would need the authority to assure itself that the nonovertim e work for the sam e pay period was fully compensated. But here, there is no claim for overtime. Id. Becau se the plaintiffs did not assert a claim for overtim e pay, the Court con cluded that it “has no jurisdiction over the ge neral claims here for straight time compensation for the hours
6
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 7 of 13
worked.” Id. The Court also concluded th at “the plaintiffs’ claim for straight time pay for work periods when no overtim e was worked [] is not a violation of secti on 207 of the FLSA.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court dism issed the plaintiffs’ claims for regular pay under the FLSA.
This Court should dismiss Hilgert’s FLSA cl aim for the sam e reason. Hilgert does not plead (nor can he in good faith plead ) a cause of action for unpaid overtim e.3 Even when affording him the benefit of his pro se status, the Court cannot ex trapolate a claim for unpaid overtime from Hilgert’s 67 page Com plaint because he does not mention “ov ertime,” “hours worked,” or any other sim ilar wording that is indicative of a claim for unpaid overtim e. The logical conclusion, then, is that Hilgert wrongfully asserts a state law claim for breach of contract under the FLSA. However, a breach of contr act claim is not cognizable under the FLSA. See Bolick, 937 F. Supp. at 1569 (“The FLSA was designed to assure the paym ent of a minimum wage plus overtim e, nothing m ore.”); see also Atlan ta Professional Firefighters Union v. Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1991) (city could have violated its co ntract, but not the FLSA). Because Hilgert does not seek to recover minimum wage or unpaid overtime, his regular commissions claim is not a viable cause of action under the FLSA. See Arnold, 910 F. Supp. at 1393. Thus, the Court should therefore dismiss this claim.
2. Hilgert Admits That He Was Ex empt From The FLSA’s M inimum Wage And Overtime Pay Requirements.
Even if Hilgert brings a claim for minimum wage or unpaid overtime, Hilgert’s pleading demonstrates that he is exem pt from the FL SA’s coverage. Sections 206 ( minimum wage requirement) and 207 (overtime premium) do not apply to “outside salesmen,” as defined by the 3 Indeed, pleads an exemption from the overtim e requirements of the FLSA, and therefore is prevented from asserting a claim for minimum wage or overtime premium pay. (See Complaint ¶¶ 28, 29, 43, 107).
7
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 8 of 13
Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) interpretive regulations. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.500. Under the DOL’s regulations, an employee meets the outside sales exemption if (1) his primary duty is making sales (or securing contracts for services) and (2) he regularly works away from (i.e. “outside”) the em ployer’s place of business. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.500(a)(1)-(2). A n outside sales employee may be compensated on a commissions only basis. Id. § 541.5000(c).
Hilgert’s pleading establishes th at he meets the outside sales exem ption. He adm its that “the FLSA classifies commission only [outsi de sales] employees as exempt,” ( See Complaint ¶ 117) and concedes that he performed work as a “commission only outside sales employee.” (See Complaint ¶ 43). Mo re specifically, he concedes that his job duty was to “s ell to any client the management services (MS) by and through the running of a survey,” ( See Complaint ¶ 28) and that he “received only a commission for selling the survey.” (See Complaint ¶ 29). Given his acknowledgments, Hilgert cannot (and indeed does not) seek minimum wage or unpaid overtime under the FLSA.
C. HILGERT’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS MUST BE DIS MISSED BECAUSE MAY IS NOT A S TATE ACTOR AND THERE WAS NO STATE ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH HIS EMPLOYMENT.
Hilgert asserts two claim s against May under the United States Constitution. He alleges that May violated his Constitutional rights afforded under th e First Amendment (See Complaint, Count 1, p. 18) and Fifth Am endment (See Complaint, Count 2, p. 22). Hilgert does not specify which clause he is attempting to proceed under for his First Am endment claim. For his Fifth Amendment claim, it appears that Hilgert is alleging a cause of action under the “takings” clause. See U.S. Const. am end. V. (“[N]or shall private pr operty be taken for public use, without just compensation.”).
Hilgert’s Constitutional claims are nonstarters. The thresho ld inquiry when a plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights is whether the defendant can rightfully be said to be
8
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 9 of 13
an actor of the state. See, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002-03 (1982). “[I]t is well settled that private action is not subject to th e restrictions of the United Sta tes and Texas Constitutions.” Stevenson v. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co ., 680 F. Supp. 859, 860 (S.D. Tex. 1987) (citing Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co ., 419 U.S. 345 (1974); Gerena v. Puerto Rico Legal Serv. Inc ., 697 F .2d 447 (1st Cir.1983)); see also Loce v. T ime Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 191 F.3d 256, 266 (2d Cir. 1999) (“The First Am endment only applies to state actors.”). Hilgert does not plead (and cannot in good faith plead) that any of May’s actions towards him were state actions. Nor does Hilgert pl ead facts sufficient to show a nexus between May and a government official or entity. T he undisputed fact is that May is a privately held company, with no re levant ties to the government. ( See Complaint ¶ 20: “Upon information and belief, George S. May International Company is a corporation… .”) (emphasis added). Therefore, under well-established law, the Court should dismiss Hilgert’s Constitutional claims. See, e.g., Loce, 191 F.3d at 266.
D. HILGERT’S CLAIM FOR BRE ACH OF AN IMPLI ED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING IS NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER TEXAS LAW.
Hilgert also wrongly asserts a cause of acti on for breach of an im plied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. ( See Complaint, p. 26). Hilgert’s claim is based on May’s alleged refusal “to pay to P laintiff(s) timely their commissions… .” ( See id. ¶ 96). Thus, Hilgert is essentially alleging that May breached an im plied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to pay him commissions that he alle gedly earned, pursuant to the Employment Agreement. ( See id.) Even if May breached the agreement by not paying Hilgert commissions that he earned, Hilgert’s good faith and fair dealing claim is not actionable.
Texas does not recognize an im plied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in ordinary contractual relationships. See, e.g., Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Coleman, 795 S.W.2d 706, 709
9
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 10 of 13
(Tex. 1990) (no duty between secu red creditor and guarantor); Nautical Landings Marina v. First Nat., 791 S.W.2d 293, 299 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet denied) (no duty between lender and borrower); Adolph Coors Co. v. Rodriguez , 780 S.W .2d 477, 481 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1989, pet. denied) (no duty between supplier and distributor). Indeed, the Texas Supreme Court has “specifically re jected the implication of a general duty of good fa ith and fair dealing in all contracts.” Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 823 S.W.2d 591, 595 n. 5 (Tex. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002) (citing English v. Fischer, 660 S.W.2d 521, 522 (Tex.1983)). A duty of good faith and fair dealing does not exist, absent some special relationship, such as the one between an insure r and its insured. See Arnold v. National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co ., 725 S.W.2d 165, 167 (Tex. 1987).
Hilgert’s former relationship with May does no t give rise to an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. He pleads no facts to establish a special relationship with May. The relationship between Hilgert and May is nothi ng more than a garden-variety e mployment relationship, where one party has agreed to p ay the o ther commissions for m aking qualified sales. Moreover, there does not appear to be any authority un der Texas law to support Hilgert’s theory that his relationship with May creates an im plied covenant or duty of good faith and fai r dealing. In fact, the T exas Supreme Court has stated that “the elem ents which m ake the relationship between a n insurer a nd an insur ed a specia l one are a bsent in th e relationship between an employer and its em ployees.” See City of Midland v. Bryant , 18 S.W.3d 209, 215 (Tex. 2000) (declining to find an im plied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment relationship “in light of the variety of statutes th at the Legislature has alre ady enacted to regulate em ployment relationships.”) accord Guzman v. El Paso Natural Gas Co .,
10
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 11 of 13
756 F. Supp. 994, 1001 (W .D. Tex. 1990). Therefore, the Court should dism iss Hilgert’s claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
E. HILGERT’S NEGLIGENT INF LICTION OF EMOTIONAL DIS TRESS CLAIM MUST B E DISMISSED BECAUSE TEXAS DOES NOT RECOGNIZE SUCH A CAUSE OF ACTION AND BECAUSE THE TEXAS WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT PROVIDES THE E XCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR AN EMPLOYEE HARMED BY AN EMPLOYER’S NEGLIGENCE.
Hilgert also attempts to bring a ca use of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court should dismiss this claim for two reasons: First, Texas does not recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of e motional distress. See Twyman v. Twyman , 855 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Tex. 1993) (“[W ]e have refused to adopt the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.”) (citing Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 594 (Tex. 1993)). Second, even if Texas recognized a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, Hilgert’s claim fails as a matter of law because May is a s ubscriber under Workers’ Compensation Act and thus, th e exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act bars all of Hilgert’s work-related negligence claims See TEX. LAB. CODE § 408.001(a); Garcia v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 473, 475 (T ex. 2005). Accordingly, the Court shou ld dismiss Hilgert’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. IV. CONCLUSION
With the dismissal of claims discussed above, Hilgert’s lawsuit should proceed as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and a claim for breach of contract, based on May’s alleged failure to pay him comm issions. Ma y anticipates m oving for summary judgm ent on these remaining claims after discovery has been taken. If the Court should allow Hilgert to replead, May respectfully requests that the Cour t admonish him to limit his Amended Complaint
11
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 12 of 13

to “a short and plain statem ent of t he claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

Of Counsel:
Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2731 Telephone (713) 225-2300 Facsimile (713) 225-2340
Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone (312) 460-5000 Facsimile (312) 460-7000

Respectfully submitted
S/John L. Collins _______________________________ John L. Collins Attorney-In-Charge for Defendant Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2731 Telephone (713) 225-2300 Facsimile (713) 225-2340

12
HO1 13088194.4

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 10 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 13 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney certifies that he caused a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’S TITLE VII, ADEA, FLSA, CONSTITUTIONAL, GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING, AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS to be served upon Plaintiff Clive B. Hilgert by causing the same to be placed in the United States Mail, proper first class postage prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows on July 23, 2007:
Clive B. Hilgert 2500 N. 32nd Street Apt. 2 McAllen, TX 78501 s/John L. Collins
13
HO1 13088194.4

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

V.

§

CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094

§ consolidated with 7:09-cv-00154

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§

COMPANY,

§

§

Defendant.

§

DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

John L. Collins Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2797 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile

OF COUNSEL: Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2731 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT

Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 460-5000 – Telephone (312) 460-7000 – Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 2 of 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................4
A. Standard For Dismissal For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted........................................................................................................4
B. Summary Judgment Standard ..................................................................................5 III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES..................................................................................5
A. Hilgert Has Not Adequately Pled An Age Discrimination Claim ...........................5 B. Hilgert Has No Evidence Of Pretext; Nor Can He Show He W ould Have
Remained Employed “But For” His Age.................................................................7 C. Hilgert’s Title VII Retaliation Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law..........................10
1. An Employee Must Engage In A Protected Activity In O rder To Establish A Retaliation Claim Under Title VII..........................................10
2. Hilgert Opposed Alleged Discrim ination Against Custom ers, Not Employees—Thus He Did Not Enga ge In A Protec ted Activity Under Title VII ..........................................................................................11
D. Hilgert’s Public Policy Claim Fails As A Mater Of Law ......................................14 IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................15
i
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 3 of 21

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Ado v. Auchan Hypermarket, slip op., 1995 WL 902483 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 1995) ..........................................................3, 15

Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass’n. Inc., 161 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................13

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).............................................................................................2, 4, 5, 6, 15

Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................12

Bauer v. Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d 962 (5th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................2, 10

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007).................................................................................................2, 4, 5, 6, 15

Bourdeaux v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................................5

Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41 (1957).....................................................................................................................4

Denham v. Saks Inc. slip op., 2008 WL 2952308 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2008)..............................................................12

Evans v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 65 F.3d 98 (8th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................................13

Frith v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 9 F. Supp. 2d 734 (S.D. Tex. 1998) ...........................................................................................4

Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., 129 S.Ct. 2343 (2009)............................................................................................................2, 9

Harvey v. Chevron, 961 F. Supp. 1017 (S.D. Tex. 1997) ........................................................................................13

Harvill v. Westwood Comm., L.L.C., 433 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................11

ii
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 4 of 21
Hernandez v. Pep Boys, slip op., 1997 WL 118411 (N.D. Tex., March 7, 1997) ......................................................3, 15
Johnson v. Deep E. Tex. Reg’l Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................5
Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................10
Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................6
Richard v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 233 Fed. Appx. 334 (5th Cir. 2007)...........................................................................................3
Rossell v. County Bank, 270 Fed. Appx. 217 (3rd Cir. 2008).....................................................................................3, 12
Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985)..........................................................................................3, 14, 15
Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................9
Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601 (5th Cir.2005) ....................................................................................................14
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)...................................................................................................................9
Strong v. University HealthCare System, L.L.C., 482 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................10
Turner v. Baylor Richardson Medical Center, 476 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................11
White v. FCI USA, Inc., 319 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................................3, 14
Wilson v. Delta State University, 143 Fed. Appx. 611 (5th Cir. 2005).........................................................................................13
Wimmer v. Suffolk County Police Dep’t., 176 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................13
Young v. Exxonmobil Corp., 155 Fed. Appx. 798 (5th Cir. 2005)...........................................................................................5
iii
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 5 of 21 STATUTES AND RULES 42 U.S.C. §2000e .................................................................................1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e2(a)(1)..............................................................................................................11 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) ..................................................................................................................11 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .....................................................................................................1, 4, 6, 15 FED. R. CIV. P. 56 .......................................................................................................................1, 15 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................5
iv
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 6 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT, ET AL.,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

V.

§

CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094

§ consolidated with 7:09-cv-00154

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§

COMPANY,

§

§

Defendant.

§

DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant George S. May International Co mpany (“May”) files this motion to dism iss

Plaintiff Clive B. Hilgert’s di scrimination and retaliation claim s under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) and motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,

showing in support as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

May terminated Hilgert from his sales position because he did not generate any s ales for over three months. 1 Despite this u ndisputed fact, Hilg ert recently filed a new lawsuit again st May (“the consolidated Co mplaint”) on June 4, 2009. 2 In th e consolidated Complaint, Hilgert

brings three causes of action: (1) a claim labeled as “age discrimination,” (2) a claim of unlawful

retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq.

(“Title VII”), and (3) a purported common la w based “public policy” claim for wrongful

termination. All three claims fail as a matter of law, as summarized below.

1 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 289-90; Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4.
2 See Ex. A., Hilgert’s New Complaint. The Court consolidated Hilgert’s new lawsuit with this case on August 6, 2009. See August 6, 2009 Minute Entry.

HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 7 of 21

Hilgert’s age discrimination claim fails for two reasons. First, his pleading is

substantively deficient because he has not pled any of the elem ents necessary to establish a

prima facie case of age discrim ination; nor has he provided any fact ual support to establish any

of those elements. Instead, Hilgert’s plead ing provides nothing more than a naked assertion of

“age discrimination”—and thus it does not satisfy the pleading requirements recently set forth by

the United States Supreme Court. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (Neither a

“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” nor “naked assertions [of fact] devoid

of further factual enhancement” is sufficient to withstand dismissal) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).

Second, Hilgert’s age d iscrimination claim fails because Hilgert cannot dem onstrate that

May’s reason for his termination is a pretext for age discrimination; nor can he meet the difficult

burden of showing that he would have rem ained employed “but for” his age. See Gross v. FBL

Financial Services Inc. , 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2352 (2009) (holding that to prove a vi olation of the

ADEA, the plaintiff must show that “but for” his age, th e adverse employment action would not

have occurred). Indeed, Hilgert himself admits that his age discrimination claim is not based on

competent evidence, but rather it is based purely on his subjective belief.

3 See Bauer v .

Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d 962, 967 (5th Cir. 1999) (“This court has cons istently held that an

employee’s subjective belief of discrim ination alone is not sufficient to warrant judicial relief.”)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Hilgert’s Title VII retaliation claim fails because Hilgert never engaged in any protected

activity under Title VII. He claim s that he engaged in protected activity by opposing May’s

alleged discrimination against customers. Hilgert overlooks the salient point that even if it were

3 See Ex. B, Hilgert Dep. at 318-19.

2
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 8 of 21
true that May discriminates against customers, and it is not, such a claim is not actionable under Title VII. See Rossell v. County Bank, 270 Fed. Appx. 217 (3rd Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (stating the obvious point th at Title VII d oes not cov er discrimination against customers). Hilgert therefore never engaged in a protected activi ty under T itle VII, and his retaliation clai m accordingly fails as a m atter of law. See, e.g., Richard v. Cingular Wireless LLC , 233 Fed. Appx. 334, 338 (5th Cir. 2007) (“complaining of unfair or undesirable treatm ent not addressed by Title VII will not suffice” to establish p rotected activity under T itle VII’s anti-retaliation provision).
Hilgert’s purported common law based “public policy” claim for wrongful term ination also fails. Under Texas comm on law, employment relationships are at-will by def ault, meaning that the employer may terminate the employment relationship for any reason, or no reason at all, unless the termination results from the employee’s refusal to commit an unlawful act that carries criminal penalties. See White v. FCI USA, Inc ., 319 F.3d 672, 676-77 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985)). Hilgert does not plead, and he has no evid ence to even suggest, that he was te rminated because of his refusal to comm it an unlawful act that carries criminal penalties. Accordingly, his comm on law based public policy claim for wrongful termination cannot succeed. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Pep Boys, slip op., 1997 WL 118411, at *2 (N.D. Tex., March 7, 1997) (dism issing pro se plaintiff’s purported co mmon law claim of wrongful term ination because plai ntiff’s allegations did not fit with in the Sabine Pilot exception to the e mployee at-will doctrine); Ado v. Auchan Hypermarket , slip op., 1995 WL 902483, at *2 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 1995) (same).
3
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 9 of 21
II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Standard For Dismissal For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), a purported cause of action m ay be
dismissed when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must meet two criteria:
1. It must assert a plausible claim; and 2. It must set forth sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. 554); see also Frith v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 9 F. Supp. 2d 734, 737-38 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (explaining that dismissal can be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of suffici ent facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory). In Twombly, the Suprem e Court squarely rejected the Rule 12(b)(6) standard set forth under Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41 , 45-46 (1957).4 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 560-61. Pleadings are no longer satisfied by “an un adorned the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed me a ccusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly 550 U.S. at 555). Now, ne ither a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of actio n” nor “nak ed assertions [of fact] d evoid of further factual enhancement” is sufficient to withstand dismissal. Id. To satisfy the new standard under Twombly and Iqbal, “a com plaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 57 0). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads enough factual content that allows the court to dr aw the reasonable inference that the defendant
4 The old standard under Conley was “that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id.
4
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 10 of 21
is liable under the alleged claim. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “A court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identify ing pleadings that, because they are no m ore than conclusions, are n ot entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 1950. T herefore, if allegations are merely “conclusory,” they are “not entitled to be assumed true.” Id. Even if a court decides that the factual allegations are entitled to an assumption of truth, however, the facts must also “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 1951.
B. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to j udgment as a m atter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The p arty moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, but need not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s case. Bourdeaux v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005). When the movi ng party has m et its Rule 56(c) burden, the nonmoving party cannot survive a m otion for su mmary judgment by resting on the m ere allegations of its pleadings. The non movant must identify specific evidence in the reco rd and articulate the m anner in which that ev idence supports that party’s claim. Johnson v. Deep E. Tex. Reg’l Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293, 305 (5th Cir. 2004). This burden is not satisfied by “som e metaphysical doubt as to th e material facts,” “conclusory allegations, ” “unsubstantiated assertions,” or “only a scintilla of evidence.” Young v. Exxonmobil Corp., 155 Fed. Appx. 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2005). III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Hilgert Has Not Adequately Pled An Age Discrimination Claim Hilgert’s age discrim ination complaint does not com e close to m eeting the pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal. As a threshold m atter, he has not pled any of the prima
5
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 11 of 21
facie elements of age discrimination.5 His claim fails for this reason alone. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (noting that a mere “form ulaic recitation of the elem ents of a c ause of action”—which Hilgert has failed to do—is not enough survive a motion to dismiss) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Hilgert also fails to clear the second hurdle under Twombly and Iqbal. That is, H ilgert does not provide any factual support for his conclu sory allegation that he was the victim of intentional age discrimination. Under Iqbal, mere conclusory statements are not en titled to an assumption of truth:
A court considering a m otion to dism iss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth . When there are well-pleaded factual alleg ations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (emphasis added). Therefore, if allegations are m erely “conclusory,” they are “not entitled to be assumed true.” Id. A close examination of Hilgert’s “age discrim ination” claim reveals that he has failed to even allege that that he was discriminated against because of his age, much less offer any factual support to “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 1951. Hilgert m erely uses the title “age discrimination” on his Co mplaint, and then under that heading, offers a fe w conclusory statements—none of which m ake any reference to his age, or provide any factual support to “plausibly suggest an entitlem ent to relief,” as required by Iqbal. Id. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss Hilgert’s age discrimination claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
5 See Ex. A., Hilgert’s New Complaint, at ¶¶ 20-30. To establish a prima facie case a plaintiff must demonstrate that he is: (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified for the position, (3) suffered an adverse employment action, and that (4) he was either (i) replaced by someone younger, (ii) treated less favorably than similarly situated younger workers, or (iii) otherwise discharged because of his age. Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569, 575-76 (5th Cir. 2003).
6
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 12 of 21
B. Hilgert Has No Evidence Of Pretext; Nor Can He Show He Would Have Remained Employed “But For” His Age
Assuming that Hilgert could establish a prima facie case of age discrim ination, May had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for term inating Hilgert’s employment. M ay has a rule that all special representatives must make at least two qualified sales in a four week time period.6 If any em ployee fails to satisfy this m inimum sales quota, the em ployee is subject to termination.7 This rule is plainly stated in the parties’ Employment Agreement:
Employee further understands that the perform ance expectation for the position is one qualified sale per week. If however, Employee fails to achieve a t least two qualified sales in any four (4) week period, Employee will b e subject to immediate termination. Em ployee agrees tha t the f oregoing notice co nstitutes adequate notice prior to termination of employment.8 Hilgert admits that h e was f ully aware of this rule because it is s tated in the Em ployment Agreement, and because Brian Vaill called him, and wrote him a letter to remind him of the rule when his sales came to a complete halt.9 The evidence is undisputed that Hilgert failed to make any qualified sales for nearly 13 weeks prior to his term ination on June 8, 2007. 10 He admits that he made his last qualified sale on March 8, 2007.11 On May 30, 2007—a full 12 weeks af ter Hilgert’s last qualified sale—
6 See Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4; Ex. D., Employment Agreement, at ¶ 6. 7 See Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4; Ex. D., Employment Agreement, at ¶ 6. 8 See Ex. D., Employment Agreement, at ¶ 6. 9 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 286; Ex. E, Vaill Letter To Hilgert. 10 Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4 ; Ex. F., Hilgert’s Performance Record. Hilgert agreed at his deposition
that this Exhibit lists the companies that he made sales to while employed by May. See Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 288. 11 Ex. F., Hilgert’s Performance Record. Hilgert agreed at his deposition that this Exhibit lists the companies that he made sales to while employed by May. See Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 288.
7
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 13 of 21
Vaill called Hilgert and inquired about his lack of any sales ov er the prior three m onth period.12 During the call, Vaill inf ormed Hilgert tha t he would grant an extension of the Employ ment Agreement for one additional week. 13 He also told Hilgert th at he needed to make at least one qualified sale during the next week.14 That same day, he sent Hilgert a letter to memorialize this understanding:
To confirm our telephone conversation today, I have granted an extension of your Working agreement until Friday, June 8, 2007, to complete a qualified sale. … As a reminder, Paragraph 6 of your Working Agreement includes the f ollowing statement, ‘If however, Employee fails to ach ieve at least two qualif ied sales in any four (4) week perio d, Employee will be subject to im mediate termination.’ Please take this matter seriously and take corrective action.15 Hilgert admits that, despite receiving this warning, he still failed to make any sales, much less a qualified sale: Q. Okay. So you agree that in the four-week period l eading up to your
termination, you did not have two qualified sales, correct? A. Correct. Q. In fact, you didn’t have any sales, correct? A. No, I did not.16 Accordingly, on June 8, 2007, May term inated Hilgert’s employment for failing to m ake any qualified sales.17
12 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 285-86; Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4. 13 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 285-86; Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4. 14 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 285-86; Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4. 15 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 285-86; Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4; Ex. E., Vaill Correspondence to Hilgert. 16 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 290-291; Ex. F., H ilgert’s Performance Record. Hilgert agreed at h is deposition that
this Exhibit lists the companies that he made sales to while employed by May. See Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 288. 17 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 289-90; Ex. C., Affidavit of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4.
8
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 14 of 21
Because May has a rticulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Hilgert’s employment, “the presumption of [age] discrimination created by the prima facie case disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden of proving discrimination.” Sandstad v. CB Richa rd Ellis, Inc ., 309 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing St. Mary’s Ho nor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511-12 (1993)). To survive su mmary judgment, Hilgert “must then offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of m aterial fact that the defendant’s reason is not true, but is instead a pretext for age discrim ination, and that “but for” his age, he would have remained employed. See Gross, 129 S.Ct. at 2352 (explaining that plaintiff must show that he would have remained employed “but for” his age). Hilgert, however, has no such evidence.
Hilgert cannot show that “but for” his age, he would have remained employed because he has no objective proof that May took his age into consideration when it decided to term inate his employment. Indeed, Hilgert concedes that hi s claim of age discrim ination is based purely on his subjective belief, and nothing else:
Q. Why do you think that the company terminated you because of your age? A. I don’t know. Q. You don’t know? A. I don’t know. It’s just the belief that I have from the action that they took. Q. Okay. So it’s based on your subjective belief, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. It’s not based on anything else, is it? A. Not that I can think of right now. Q. Okay. One thing that you’re saying here today on this d ate, is tha t that
claim that you were term inated, because of your age, is based purely on your subjective belief, correct, at this point?
9
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 15 of 21
A. At this point.18 Well settled legal p recedent from the Fif th Circuit establishes that Hilgert’s subjective belief is no proof of d iscrimination at all. S ee Bauer, 169 F.3d at 967 (“This court has consistently held that an em ployee’s subjective belief of discrimination alone is not sufficient to warrant judicial relief.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, he cannot establish that “but for” his age, he would have remained employed. Thus, Hilgert’s age discrimination claim fails as a matter of law. Id. C. Hilgert’s Title VII Retaliation Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law
1. An Employee Must Engage In A Protected Activity In Order To Establish A Retaliation Claim Under Title VII
Hilgert alleges a retaliation cause of action und er Title VII of the Civ il Rights Act of 1964. The retaliation that he alleges is that Ma y allegedly created a “hostile work environment” by requiring him to drive to “bogus” appointm ents and then terminating his employment.19 The Fifth Circuit has held that “th e burden-shifting structure applicable to Title VII dispa rate treatment cases, as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , ... is also applicable to Title VII unlawful retaliation cases.” Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 30 0, 304 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case at the outset of the case. The prima facie elements of a Title VII reta liation claim ar e: (1) the pla intiff engaged in “protec ted activity”; (2) an adverse em ployment action oc curred; and (3) there was a causal connection between the plaintiff’s protected activity and the adverse em ployment action. Strong v.
18 Ex. B., Hilgert Dep. at 318-19. 19 See Ex. A, Hilgert’s New Complaint, at ¶¶ 46-55. H ilgert labels “hostile work environment” as a sep arate
cause of action in the Consolidated Complaint, but a review of his allegations in the Consolidated Complaint shows that he is alleging that the creation of a hostile work environment was one of the means by which May allegedly retaliated against him. See id. Thus, his so-called hostile work environment claim is really a clai m of unlawful retaliation under Title VII.
10
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 16 of 21
University HealthCare System, L.L.C., 482 F.3d 802, 805 (5th Cir. 2007). If the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation, then his case f ails as a matte r of law. Harvill v. Westwood Comm., L.L.C. , 433 F.3 d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2005). Here, Hilgert cannot satisfy his initial prima facie burden because he did not engage in a protected activity under Title VII.
“Under Title VII, an employee has engaged in protected activity if [he] has ‘opposed any practice made an unlawful e mployment practice under [Title VII]’” Turner v. Baylor Richardson Medical Center , 476 F. 3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 2007); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). To establish that he engag ed in a p rotected activity, the em ployee must show that he held an objectively reasonable belief that the complained of conduct violated Title VII. See Turner, 476 F.3d at 348. If the belief is not objectively re asonable, then the em ployee has not engaged in protected activity, and his retaliation claim fails as a matter of law. See id. (holding that plaintiff did not have an objectively reasonable belief th at her sup ervisors’ use of the ph rase “ghetto children” was unlawful under Title VII). As ex plained below, Hilgert’s supposed belief that he was opposing an unlawful practice under Title VII is not objectively reasonable. Thus, he did not engage in protected activity under Title VII and his Title VII retaliation claim fails as a matter of law.
2. Hilgert Opposed Alleged Discrimination Against Customers, Not Employees—Thus He Did Not Engage In A Protected Activity Under Title VII
Hilgert alleges that he engaged in prot ected activity because he opposed May’s alleged practice of discrim inating against its customers. Title VI I is very c lear, however, that it only prohibits unlawful discrim ination against employees on the basis of the employee’s race, race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e2(a)(1) (“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an e mployer … to discri minate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of em ployment, because of such individual’s
11
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 17 of 21
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin .”) (emphasis added). B ecause Hilgert opposed
alleged discrimination against customers, it was not objectively reasonable for Hilgert to believe
that he was opposing a practice made unlawful under Title VII.
Denham v. Saks Inc . slip op., 2008 WL 295230 8 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2008) is directly on
point. There, the p laintiff opposed his em ployer’s alleged practice of r acially profiling b lack
customers and providing them with bad service. The Court held that such opposition was not a
protected activity under Title VII because Title VII is an employment statute that is concerned
only with discrimination against employees, not customers:
It is clear that Title VII focuses on how an employer treats his employees, not on how an employer treats his customers. Thus … it was not objectively reasonable for Denham to believe his complaints concerned activity protected under Title VII because his complaints focused on Saks’s sales associates’ unequal treatment of Saks’s African-American customers, not on Saks’s unequal treatm ent of its employees.
Denham, 2008 W L 2952308, at *7 (em phasis added). The Third Circuit recently reached a
similar result where a p laintiff alleged that her “protected activity” was her complaint that her
employer mistreated black customers:
A retaliatory discharge cl aim must be based on reta liation for an employee’s opposition to a Title VII violatio n. Therefore, the actions underlying the employee’s conduct must be activity that Title VII was intended to protect. Rossell’s claim is based upon alleged discrimination against the bank’s customers, not its employees. She claims that she was fired because she opposed the bank’s treatment of certain Black customers. Whether or not there is a grain of truth in h er allegation, it is clear that Congress never in tended Title VII to be stretched to cover it. The district court recognized th at and correctly granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss. We will affirm that order.
Rossell v. County Bank, 270 Fed. Appx. 217 (3rd Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (emphasis added).
Several other Courts have reached the same conclusion under similar circumstances. See,
e.g., Bakhtiari v. Lutz , 507 F.3d 1132, 1137 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that the plaintiff’s
retaliation claim fails because the plaintiff’s complaint abo ut his treatment as a student was not
12
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 18 of 21
protected activity under Title VII); Evans v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist. , 65 F.3d 98, 101 (8th Cir. 2001) (teacher’s co mplaint about school’s de segregation of students was not a protected activity because it was not objec tively reasonable for him to think that his com plaint concerned an unlawful employment practice under Title VII); Wimmer v. Suffolk County Police Dep’t., 176 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff’ s retaliation claim fails because the plaintiff’s reports of h is fellow police officers’ discriminatory treatment of m inority citizens was not a protected activity under Title VII. ); Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass’n. Inc ., 161 F.3d 1178, 1183-84 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that the plaintiff’s retaliation claim fails because the plaintiff’s internal complaints to school officials about the treatment of students is not a protected activity within the scope of Title VII).
Hilgert’s retaliation claim fails as a matter of law for this very reason. As he states in the Consolidated Complaint, his re taliation claim is based on his alleged protected activity o f opposing “discrimination against selected clients, due to the clients’ ethnic [sic], race, an d national origins.”20 Assuming that Hilgert honestly believes that he was opposing discrimination made unlawful by Title VII, such a belief is no t objectively reasonable given the f act that his allegations are so far outside of the scope of Title VII. Wilson v. Delta State University, 143 Fed. Appx. 611, 613-14 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam ) (unpublished opinion) (holding that employee’s belief about employment practice is not objectively reasonable if it is settled law that the practice is not unlawful under Title VII); Harvey v. Chevron, 961 F. Supp. 1017, 1033 (S.D. Tex. 1997)
20 Ex. A., Hilgert’s New Complaint, at ¶ 16 (emphasis added).
13
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 19 of 21
(same). Thus, Hilgert did not engage in a pr otected activity under Titl e VII and his Title VII retaliation claim fails as a matter of law.21
D. Hilgert’s Public Policy Claim Fails As A Mater Of Law At one point in the Consolidated Complaint, Hilgert alleges that May “wron gfully discharged [him] in violation of public policy, a co mmon law claim.”22 Hilgert’s public policy claim cannot succeed b ecause Texas is an em ployment-at-will state, and Hilgert has not pled sufficient facts to fit within th e only recognize d exception to the em ployment-at-will doctrine. See White, 319 F.3d at 676-77 (citing Sabine Pilot, 687 S.W.2d 733). Under Texas common law, em ployment for an indefinite term may be terminated at-will and without cause, unless the term ination falls within one narrow exception to the employ mentat-will doctrine. Id. (citing Sabine Pilot, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985)). This exception, referred to as the Sabine Pilot exception, prohibits the termination of an employee if the termination is based solely on the em ployee’s refusal to perform an illegal act. Id. “In order to establish a prima facie case of wrongful term ination under Sabine Pilot, the plaintiff m ust prove that: (1) [he] was re quired to commit an ille gal act which carries criminal penalties; (2) [he] refused to engage in the illegality; (3) [he] was discharged; and (4) the sole reason for [his] discharge was [his] refusal to commit [the] unlawful act.” Id. (citing Sabine Pilot, 687 S.W.2d at 735). Here, Hilgert’s purported common law based public policy claim for wrongful termination fails becau se he has no t alleged, a nd he has n o evidence to satisfy th e elements
21 Additionally, because May has established a legitim ate reason for Hilgert’s te rmination (see Section B), Hilgert would be required to sh ow “but for” h is opposition to alleged unlawful activity under Title V II, he would not have been terminated. See Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601, 608 (5th Cir.2005) (“ The proper standard of proof ... [for] a Title VII retaliation cl aim is that the adverse employment action ... would not have occurred ‘ but for’ [the] protected conduct.”). Hilgert has no such evidence, nor does he have any evidence to show that May’s reason for terminating him is a pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate for this reason as well. See id.
22 Ex. A., Hilgert’s New Complaint, at ¶ 28.
14
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 20 of 21
necessary to establish a Sabine Pilot claim. That is, he has not pled, and he has no evidence to establish that he was req uired to commit an illegal act which carries criminal penalties; that he refused to e ngage in an y illegal act, or that his refusal to do so was the sole re ason for his discharge. Accordingly, the Court should di smiss Hilgert’s public policy claim for wrongful termination. See Hernandez, 1997 WL 118411 , at *2 (dism issing pro se plaintiff’s purported common law claim of wrongful term ination because plaintiff’s allegations did not fit within the Sabine Pilot exception to the employee at-will doctrine); Ado, 1995 WL 902483, at *2 (same). IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Hilgert’s claim s are funda mentally defective and m eritless. His age discrimination is not adequately pled to satisfy the standards under Iqbal or Twombly, and even it was, he cannot surviv e summary judgment because he has no evidence to show pretext and no evidence to show that “but for” h is age he would have rem ained employed. His Title VII retaliation claim should be dism issed because he did not engage in protected activ ity when he opposed alleged customer discrimination. And his comm on law based public policy claim for wrongful termination should be dismissed because it does not fit within the contours of the only recognized common law claim for wrongful termination under Texas law.
Defendant George S. May International Co mpany respectfully prays that the Court grant its motion for dism issal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and its motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, order that P laintiff Clive B. Hilgert take nothing by wa y of these claim s, and grant Defendant all other relief to which it is justly entitled.
15
HO1 13123246.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 56 Filed in TXSD on 09/02/09 Page 21 of 21

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ with permission Dennis A. Clifford John L. Collins Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile

OF COUNSEL: Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT

Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 460-5000 – Telephone (312) 460-7000 – Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fore going document was served upon the counsel of record listed below by the Southe rn District of Texas ECF m ethod or by certified mail, return receipt requested on the 2nd day of September, 2009.

Clive B. Hilgert Plaintiff Pro Se 2500 N. 32nd Street, Apt. 2 McAllen, TX 78501

s/ Dennis A. Clifford Dennis A. Clifford

16
HO1 13123246.2

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

V.

§

CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094

§ consolidated with 7:09-cv-00154

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§

COMPANY,

§

§

Defendant.

§

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPENING MOTION

OF COUNSEL: Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2731 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile
Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 460-5000 – Telephone (312) 460-7000 – Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

John L. Collins Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2797 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile
ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT

HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 2 of 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND......................................................................................1 II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES..................................................................................2
A. Hilgert’s Age Discrim ination Claim Fails As A Matter O f Law Because He Has Insufficient Evidence To Establish That May’s Reason For Terminating Him Is False, And He Ca nnot Show That “But For” His Age, He Would Have Remained Employed.....................................................................2
B. Hilgert’s Retaliation Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law Because He Did Not Engage In A Protected Activity Under Title VII W hen He Opposed Customer Discrimination .........................................................................................6
C. Hilgert’s Public Policy Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law .......................................8 D. Hilgert’s Hostile Work Environment Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law.................8
1. Hilgert Has Not Adequately Pled A Hostile Work Environm ent Claim............................................................................................................9
2. Hilgert’s “Hostile Work Environment” Claim Cannot Succeed On The Merits..................................................................................................10
III. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................13
i
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 3 of 20

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass’n. Inc., 161 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................7

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)...................................................................................................9, 10, 13

Auguster v. Vermilion Parish School Bd., 249 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................................3

Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................6

Bauer v. Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d 962 (5th Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................................3

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007).......................................................................................................9, 10, 13

Bell v. Raytheon, 2009 WL 2365454 (N.D. Tex., July 31, 2009) ..........................................................................5

Bolden v. PRC, Inc., 43 F.3d 545 (10th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................13

Bookman v. Schubzda, 945 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Tex. 1996) ...........................................................................................8

Chaney v. New Orleans Public Facility Mgt., Inc., 179 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................................3

Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999)...................................................................................................................4

Copeland v. Wasserstein, 278 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................4

Delon v. McLaurin Parking Co., 367 F. Supp. 2d 893 (M.D.N.C. 2005) ....................................................................................10

Denham v. Saks Inc., 2008 WL 2952308 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2008)..............................................................................6

Elliott v. Group Medical & Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1983) .....................................................................................................4

Evans v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 65 F.3d 98 (8th Cir. 2001) .........................................................................................................7

ii
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 4 of 20
Fortenberry v. Texas, 75 Fed. Appx. 924 (5th Cir. 2003)...........................................................................................12
Frank v. Xerox Corp., 347 F.3d 130 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................9
Grant v. UOP, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 1042 (W.D. La. 1996), aff’d, 122 F.3d 1066 (5th Cir. 1997).............................12
Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009)...........................................................................................................3, 4
Guerrero v. Preston, 2009 WL 2581568 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2009) ..........................................................................5
Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp., 128 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 1997) .....................................................................................................4
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993)...................................................................................................................12
Harvill v. Westwood Comm., L.L.C., 433 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................................6
Hurst v. Transcont. Gas Corp., 62 Fed. Appx. 557 (5th Cir. 2003)...........................................................................................13
Jones v. City of Overland Park, 1994 WL 583153 (D. Kan., Aug. 15, 1994) ............................................................................11
Kortan v. State of Cal., 5 F. Supp. 2d 843 (C.D. Cal. 1998) .........................................................................................10
McCray v. DPC Indus., Inc., 942 F. Supp. 288 (E.D. Tex. 1996)..........................................................................................13
Moore v. Total Sleep Diagnostics of Kansas, Inc., 2001 WL 789231 (D. Kan., June 29, 2001).............................................................................11
Mosley v. Marion County, Miss., 111 Fed. Appx. 726 (5th Cir. 2004).........................................................................................12
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs. Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)...................................................................................................................11
Ragas v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 1998) .....................................................................................................5
Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................................9, 12
iii
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 5 of 20
Rossell v. County Bank, 270 Fed. Appx. 217 (3rd Cir. 2008)...........................................................................................6
Running v. Guaranty Federal Bank FSB, 2009 WL 2835763 (N.D. Tex., Sept. 2, 2009)...........................................................................2
Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................2
Smith v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Serv., Inc., 978 F. Supp. 1116 (N.D. Ga. 1997) .........................................................................................13
Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 351 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 2003), aff'd 544 U.S. 228, 125 S. Ct. 1536, 161 L.Ed.2d 410 (2005) ..................................................................................2
Solo Serve Corp. v. Westowne Assocs., 929 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1991) .....................................................................................................8
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)...................................................................................................................2
Strong v. University HealthCare System, L.L.C., 482 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................6
Vaughn v. Pool Offshore Co., 683 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1982) ...................................................................................................12
Waggoner v. City of Garland, Tex., 987 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................3
Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615 (5th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................12
West v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 330 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................2
Wimmer v. Suffolk County Police Dep’t., 176 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999).......................................................................................................7
STATUTES AND RULES
42 U.S.C. § 2000-e2(a)(1)............................................................................................................7, 8
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).........................................................................................................10, 14
FED. R. CIV. P. 56...........................................................................................................................14
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e) ........................................................................................................................8
iv
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 6 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT, ET AL.,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

V.

§

CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094

§ consolidated with 7:09-cv-00154

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§

COMPANY,

§

§

Defendant.

§

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPENING MOTION

Defendant George S. May International Company (“May”) files this response to Hilgert’s cross motion for summary judgm ent, and reply to Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s opening motion, showing in support as follows: I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 2, 2009, May filed its m otion to dismiss / motion for summary judgm ent (“May’s opening m otion”), and requested that the Court dism iss the new claim s set forth in Hilgert’s consolidated co mplaint. In response to May’s opening m otion, Hilgert filed a cross motion for summary judgm ent / opposition to May’ s motion. May now files this response to Hilgert’s motion, which also serves as a reply to Hilgert’s response to May’s opening motion.
May’s opening motion conclusively demonstrates that, as a matter of law, Hilgert’s age discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environ ment,1 and public policy claim s cannot succeed.

1 As explained below, May’s position is that Hilgert’s so called hostile work environment claim is really a claim of alleged unlawful retaliation under Title VII.

HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 7 of 20
May hereby incorporates its opening m otion, together with all exhibits, and relies primarily on the arguments, legal authority, an d evidence set forth therein, to rebut Hilgert’s m otion / response.2 Rather than re iterate those points in whole, May sets forth the salient points from its opening motion, and a few rebuttal points below. II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. Hilgert’s Age Discrimination Claim Fa ils As A Matter Of Law Because He Has Insufficient Evidence To Establish That May’s Reason For Ter minating Him Is False, And He Cannot Sho w That “But For” His Age, He Would Have Remained Employed.
As explained thoroughly in its opening m otion, May term inated Hilgert fro m his s ales position, pursuant to May’s sales quota rule, beca use he did not generate any sales for over three months.3 Because May has articu lated a leg itimate, non-discriminatory reason for term inating Hilgert’s employment, “the presumption of [age] discrimination created by the prima facie case disappears, and the plaintiff is left with the ultimate burden of proving discrimination.” Sandstad v. CB Richa rd Ellis, Inc ., 309 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing St. Mary’s Ho nor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 5 11-12 (1993)). To survive summ ary judgment, Hilgert m ust then offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that May’s reason is not true, but is instead a pretext for age discrim ination, and that “but for” his age, he would have rem ained employed. Running v. Guaranty Federal Bank FSB , slip op., 2009 WL 2835763, at *10 (N.D. Tex., Sept. 2, 2009) 4 (citing Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 351 F.3d 183, 196 (5th Cir. 2003), aff'd 544 U.S. 228, 125 S. Ct. 1536, 161 L.Ed.2d 410 (2005); West v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc.,
2 See Ex. 1, May’s opening motion and evidence. 3 See Ex. 1, May’s opening motion and evidence pp. 7-10; Ex. 1-B., Hilgert Dep. at 289-90; Ex. 1-C., Affidavit
of Brian Vaill at ¶ 4. 4 See Ex. 3.
2
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 8 of 20
330 F.3d 379, 385 (5th Cir. 2003)); Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc. , 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2352 (2009) (holding that to pr ove a violation of the ADEA, the plaint iff must show that “but for” his age, the adverse em ployment action would not ha ve occurred). To m eet this burden at the summary judgment stage, “the plaintiff must produce substantial evidence of pretext.” Auguster v. Vermilion Parish School Bd. , 249 F.3d 400, 402-03 (5th Cir. 2001). Hilgert does not have substantial evidence to show that May’s stated reason for terminating him is false.
As a starting point, Hilgert does not dispute that he failed to make any sales for the three month period leading up to his term ination.5 This adm ission makes Hilgert’s burden very difficult to meet. See Chaney v. New Orleans Public Facility Mgt., Inc., 179 F.3d 164, 168 (5th Cir. 1999) (“In a case in which the em ployer has articulated a rational justification for terminating an em ployee, and the facts supporting that justification are not seriously disputed, the task of proving pretext becomes quite difficult.”).
Moreover, Hilgert admitted at deposition that his ag e discrimination claim was b ased purely on his subjective belief, and nothing else. 6 W ell settled legal p recedent from the Fif th Circuit establishes that Hilgert’s subjective belief is no proof of discrim ination at all. See Bauer v. Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d 962, 967 (5th Cir. 1999) (“This court has consistently held that an employee’s subjective belief of discrim ination alone is not sufficient to warrant judicial relief.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Waggoner v. City of Garland, Tex ., 987 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th Cir. 1993) (“W e have held th at a plaintiff' s subjective belief that his
5 See Ex. 1, May’ s opening motion and evidence, p 8 ; Ex. 1-B., Hilgert Dep. at 290-291; Ex. 1-F., Hilgert’s Performance Record. Hilgert agreed at his deposition that this exhibit lists the companies that he made sales to while employed by May. See Ex. 1-B., Hilgert Dep. at 288.
6 See Ex. 1, May’s opening motion and evidence, pp. 9-10; Ex. 1-B., Hilgert Dep. at 318-19.
3
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 9 of 20
discharge was based on age is sim ply insufficient to establish an ADEA claim.”) citing Elliott v. Group Medical & Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556, 567 (5th Cir. 1983)).
In response, Hilgert submits a sham affidavit, in which he claims the following: Due to the f act, as the tim e of the deposition, [sic] I gave on Oct. 11, 2007 I had not had the opportunity to res earch the legal facts in eith er the retaliation or age claims and in the deposition I m isspoke and therefore resine [sic] m y statements [sic] that my belief was only subjective.7 The law does not permit a party to avoid summary judgment by submitting an affidavit in which he changes his testim ony. Cleveland v. Policy Man agement Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806-07 (1999) (observing that circuit courts “have held with virtual unanimity that a party cannot create a genuine issue of fact sufficient to survive summary judgment simply by contradicting his or her own previous sworn statem ent”); Copeland v. Wasserstein , 278 F.3d 472, 482 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding summary judgm ent where plaintiff’s evidence purporting to create a genuine issue of material fact was an affidavit that conflicted with the affiant’s prior testimony); Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp. , 128 F.3d 19 1, 198 (4th Cir. 1997) (“A ge nuine issue of m aterial fact is not created where the o nly issue of fact is to determine which of the two conflicting versions of the plaintiff’s testimony is correct.”). That point aside, Hilgert still has not offere d any evidence to show that May’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating him is false, nor has he offered any evidence to show that “but for” his age, h e would have remained employed. See Gross, 129 S. Ct. at 2352. A t best, Hilgert has made a conclusory statement in his motion that an employee who is “20+” years younger than him was hired as his replacem ent.8 Hilg ert’s statement in his m otion is no t
7 See Doc. Entry 57, Hilgert’s motion / response, at Ex. D. 8 See Doc. Entry 57, Hilgert’s motion / response, p. 28.
4
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 10 of 20
competent evidence and thus it cannot be used to avoid summ ary judgment. See Ragas v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co ., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998) (explaining that unsubstantiated assertions are not competent sum mary judgment evidence sufficient to defeat a properly supported motion).
But even if Hilgert had presented competent evidence that a younger individual was hired as his replacement, such evidence would only h elp Hilgert establish his prima facie case of ag e discrimination. Guerrero v. Preston , slip op., 2009 W L 2581568, at * 4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18 , 2009) (noting that such proof is necessary to establish an initial prima facie case).9 Assuming that Hilgert could establish a prima facie case of intentional age d iscrimination, Hilgert still retains the burden to produce substantial evidence that May intentionally discriminated against him because of his age. See, e.g., Bell v. Raytheon , slip op., 2009 W L 2365454, at *7-8 (N.D. Tex., July 31, 2009) (granting sum mary judgment because plaintiff did not set forth sufficien t evidence to establish th at age was the but-for cause of the adverse em ployment action, even though—unlike Hilgert—plaintiff offered evid ence of age-related rem arks made by supervisors).10 Hilgert has not m et this bu rden because h e has s imply failed to offer an y evidence (much less the required substantial evidence) that May’s reaso n for terminating him is false, and he has presented no evidence (m uch less the required substantial evidence) that he would have remained employed but for his age. See, e.g., Guerrero, 2009 WL 2581568, at * 4-5 (granting summary judgment because plain tiff failed to sh ow that his em ployer’s reason for termination was false, and failed to show that he would have remained employed but for his age,
9 See Ex. 4 10 See Ex. 5.
5
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 11 of 20
even though plaintiff presented eviden ce that he was the oldest em ployee).11 Therefore, his age discrimination claim cannot survive summary judgment.
B. Hilgert’s Retaliation Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law Because He Did Not Engage In A Protected Activity U nder Title VII When He Opposed Customer Discrimination
The prima facie elements of a Title VII retaliation cl aim are: (1) the plaintiff engaged in “protected activity”; (2) an adv erse employment action occurred; and (3) there was a causal connection between the plaintiff’s protected activity and the adverse employment action. Strong v. University HealthCa re System, L.L.C. , 482 F.3d 802, 805 (5th Cir. 2007). If the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation, then his case fails as a matter of law. Harvill v. Westwood Comm., L.L.C. , 433 F.3 d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2005). Here, Hilgert cannot satisfy his initial prima facie burden because he did not engage in a protected activity under Title VII.
As explained thoroughly in May’s m otion for summary judgment, Title VII does not prohibit customer discrimination, and thus an employee does not engage in a protected activity under Title VII when he opposes such alleged discrim ination.12 Denham v. Saks Inc . slip op., 2008 WL 2952308, at *6 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2008) (employee did not engage in protected activity under Title VII when he com plained about cu stomer discrimination because Title VII onl y prohibits employee discrimination based on the employee’s race);13 Rossell v. County Bank, 270 Fed. Appx. 217 (3rd Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (sam e).14 The law is well settled that Title VII only applies to discrimination against employees or prospective employees. See, e.g., Bakhtiari
11 See Ex. 4. 12 See Ex. 1, May’s opening motion and evidence, pp. 10 – 14. 13 See Ex. 6. 14 See Ex. 7.
6
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 12 of 20
v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132, 1137 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that the plaintiff’s retaliation claim fails because complaint about student discrimination is not a protected ac tivity under Title VII); Evans v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist. , 65 F.3d 98, 101 (8th Cir. 2001) (sam e); Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass’n. Inc ., 161 F.3d 1178, 1183-84 (8th Cir. 1998) (sam e); Wimmer v. Suffolk County Police Dep’t., 176 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff’s retaliation claim fails because a com plaint about discriminatory treatment of minority citizens is not a protected activity under Title VII.). For this reason, Hilgert’s retaliation claim cannot succeed.
Despite this well settled princi ple of law, Hilgert argues in his m otion / response that he engaged in a protected activity because Congress meant to create a cause of action under Title VII for commission only em ployees who are ad versely affected by alleged custom er discrimination.15 Hilgert cites no case law to support his novel theory. Rather, he argues that the plain language of Title VII supports his theory. Hilgert is incorrect.
Title VII pr events discrimination against an in dividual based on that individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin:
It shall be an unlawful em ployment practice for an e mployer … to discrim inate against any individual with resp ect to his compensation, term s, conditions, o r privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e2(a)(1) (em phasis added). Hilg ert argues that Congre ss’s use of the word “individual” supports his argument. In fact, the opposite is true. If Congress wanted to create a cause of action under T itle VII for any em ployee who is adversely affected by custom er discrimination (as Hilgert claim s he was), then it would have substituted the phrase “such individual” with “any individua l.” The use of the phrase “such individual” unambiguously
15 See Hilgert’s Motion / Response at p. 3.
7
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 13 of 20
expresses an intent to create a cause of action only for those individuals who are discrim inated against because of their own race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . Id. All of the abovecited cases support this conclusion.
C. Hilgert’s Public Policy Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law As explained thoroughly in May’s opening motion, Hilgert’s purported comm on law based public policy claim for wrongful termination fails because Texas does not recognize such a cause of action. 16 The only comm on law based public policy claim for wrongful term ination recognized in Texas is a Sabine Pilot claim—and Hilgert has no t alleged or s ubmitted any evidence to satisfy the elem ents necessary to establish a Sabine Pilot claim. For this reason alone, his public policy claim fails. Moreov er, Hilgert has not even responded to May’s argument regarding his public policy claim , and thus the Court should grant May’s m otion to dismiss the claim for this reason as well. F ED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Bookman v. Schubzda, 945 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (“A summary judgm ent nonmovant who does not respond to [a claim in] the motion is relegated to [his] unsworn pleadings, which do not constitute summary judgment evidence.”) (brackets in original) (citing Solo Serve Corp. v. Westowne A ssocs., 929 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1991)). D. Hilgert’s Hostile Work Environment Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law As May established in its opening brief, Hilg ert labels “hostile work environment” as a separate cause of action in the con solidated complaint, but a review of his alleg ations in th e consolidated complaint shows that he is alleging that the creation of a hostile work environm ent was one of the m eans by which May allegedly retaliated against him. 17 Thus, his so-called
16 See Ex. 1, May’s opening motion and evidence, pp. 14-15. 17 See Ex. 1, May’s opening motion and evidence, p 10, n. 19; Hilgert’s New Complaint, at ¶¶ 46-55.
8
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 14 of 20
hostile work environment claim is really a clai m of unlawful retaliation under T itle VII. It follows that his “hostile work environment claim” fails for the reasons outlined above in section II B—namely that he did not engage in a protected activity under Title VII.
But even if the Court construes Hilgert’s so-called hostile work environment claim as a separate cause of action, his claim fails as a matter of law for the following reasons.
1. Hilgert Has Not Adequately Pled A Hostile Work Environment Claim A prima facie case of hostile work environment based on race, color, or national origin requires the plaintiff to satisfy five elements: (1) the employee belongs to the protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the em ployee’s protected characteristic ( e.g., race, national orig in, etc); (4) th e harassment complained of affected a term , condition, or privilege of employ ment; and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassm ent in question and failed to take prompt remedial action. See Frank v. Xerox Corp. , 347 F.3d 13 0, 138 (5th Cir. 2003); Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264, 270 (5th Cir. 2002). Although H ilgert uses the te rm “hostile work environment” as a heading to a section of his pleading, an examination of his pleading reveals that he has not pleaded any of the prima facie elements of a hostile work environm ent claim.18 So his claim fails for this reason alone. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (noting that a m ere “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of actio n”—which Hilgert has failed to do—is not enough survive a m otion to dismiss) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007)). It logically follows that Hilgert has also failed to plead any facts to support for his hostile work environment claim. For example, he does not identify what protected class he is referring
18 See Hilgert’s New Complaint, at ¶¶ 46-55.
9
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 15 of 20
to, how the alleged ha rassment relates to any protected charac teristic, or how the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive. At one p oint in his pleading he does use the conclusory phrase “severe and pervasive” but that assertion is not entitled to a presumption of truth because it is nothing more than “naked assertions [of fact] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly 550 U.S. at 555). Thus, Hilgert’s “hostile work environment” claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
2. Hilgert’s “Hostile Work Environment” Claim Cannot Succeed On The Merits
At his deposition, Hilgert claimed that May discriminated against some of its prospective customers because th ey were Hispanic , Asian, African American, and Arab. 19 Assum ing that Hilgert is bringing his hostile work environment claim based on this alleged discrimination, and assuming that he has properly asse rted such a claim, his claim would still f ail as a matter of law because he cannot satisfy the first, third, or fourth elements of a hostile work environment claim.
To satisfy the f irst element, Hilgert would ha ve to be a m ember of the sam e protected group that was allegedly harassed. See, e.g., Kortan v. State of Cal ., 5 F. Supp. 2d 843, 850 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (hostile work environment claim fails on the first element because plaintiff was Caucasian and her supervisor’s inappropriate remarks of “black goon” and “black ape” were directed at African Americans). Here, Hilgert’s claim fails b ecause he is Caucasian and the customers that he claim s May discrim inated against were Hispanic, Asian, African Am erican, and Arab.20 Thus, he cannot satisfy the first elem ent of a hostile work environment claim. See, e.g., Delon v. McLaurin Parking Co ., 367 F. Supp. 2d 893, 902 (M .D.N.C. 2005) (hostile work
19 Ex. 2., Hilgert Dep. at 210. 20 Ex. 2., Hilgert Dep. at 210.
10
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 16 of 20
environment claim fails on the first elem ent because “alth ough Plaintiff testifies to feeling embarrassed by what he perceived to be discriminatory treatment of customers, he does not show that this is evidence that he was being harassed based upon his race.”) (emphasis added); Moore v. Total Sleep Diagnostics of Kansas, Inc ., slip op., 2001 WL 789231, a t *2 (D. Ka n., June 29, 2001) (“plaintiff claim s that she was offended by her sup ervisor’s use of racial comments. However, plaintiff is not a m ember of the protected group. Accord ingly, plaintiff cannot state a claim for a racially hos tile work en vironment …”);21 Jones v. City of Overland Park , slip op., 1994 WL 583153, at *3 (D. Kan ., Aug. 15, 1994) (“Title VII prohibits em ployers from discriminating against employees because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”) (emphasis in original).22 Hilgert’s hostile work environment claim fails for this reason alone.
To satisfy the third element, Hilgert would also need to show that the alleged harassment was “because of” a protected ch aracteristic. Bu t Hilgert has no eviden ce that any clien t was actually discriminated against because of its race, national origin, ethnicity, or any o ther protected status. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs. Inc. , 523 U.S. 75, 80-81 (1998) (explaining the plaintiff must show both that harassm ent was “because of” a protected characteristic). As he admitted at his deposition, he cannot identify any similarly situated client from outside of the protected classes that were tr eated differently that the Hispanic, Asian, Arab, or African American clients.23 So his claim also fails for this reason.
Lastly, Hilgert cannot satisfy the f ourth element of a hostile work environment claim. “For harassment on the basis of [race] to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment, as
21 See Ex. 8. 22 See Ex. 9. 23 See Ex. 2., Hilgert Dep. at 281-83.
11
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 17 of 20
required to support a hostile work environm ent claim under Title VII, it m ust be ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alte r the co nditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’” Ramsey, 286 F.3d at 268 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). In determining whether a plaintiff’s hostile environment claim meets the “severe or pervasive” standard, courts m ust consider the following circumstances: “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasona bly interferes with an em ployee’s work performance.” Walker v. Thompson , 214 F.3d 615, 625 ( 5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23).
Nothing Hilgert has alleged – even if taken as 100% true for the sake of argu ment – would constitute harassment based on any protecte d characteristic, much less harassment that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Ramsey, 286 F.3d at 268 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 21). By way of example, in Vaughn v. Pool Offshore Co., 683 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1982), the Fifth Circuit did not find a hostile work environ ment where plaintiff—unlike Hilgert—was outrageously called racial epithets by coworkers. Similarly, in Grant v. UOP, Inc. , 972 F. Supp. 1042 (W .D. La. 1996), aff’d, 122 F.3d 1066 (5th Cir. 1997), the court held that five despicable utterances of the word “nigger” direc tly to the pla intiff (Hilgert alleges none) were insufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim. See also Mosley v. Marion County, Miss., 111 Fed. Appx. 726, 727-28 (5th Cir. 2004) (unpublished opinion) (per curiam) (holding that adm issible evidence of three incidents involving use of racial slurs insufficient to establish genuine issue of material fact for Title VII hostile work environment claim);24 Fortenberry v. Texas, 75 Fed. Appx. 924, 928
24 See Ex. 10.
12
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 18 of 20
(5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam ) (unpublished opinion) (harassing conduct, including two incidents where co-workers used racial slurs did not affect term, condition, or privilege of employ ment); Hurst v. Transcont. Gas Corp. , 62 Fed. Appx. 557 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam ) (unpublished opinion) (two alleged racial slurs did not suffice to create hostile work environment);25 Bolden v. PRC, Inc., 43 F.3d 54 5, 549-52 (10th Cir. 1994) (affirm ing summary judgment in a racial harassment case even though the plaintiff was subj ected to remarks about the Ku Klux Klan, as well as an arguably racist cartoon drawing, and a coworker reprehensibly used the word “nigger” around him); Smith v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Serv., Inc. , 978 F. Supp. 1116 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (holding that a several utterances of raci al epithets by a supervisor were insufficient to support hostile work environm ent claim); McCray v. DPC Indus., Inc. , 942 F. Supp . 288 (E.D. Tex. 1996) (holding that five uses of the term s “black Yankee” and “son,” two racial jokes, and the depraved and despicable use of the word “nigger” were insufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim). Hilgert’s m eek allegation that he was required to go on “bogus” appointments has nothing to do with anyone’s race, national origin, or ethnicity; nor does it rise to the lev el of “severe or pervasive” un der well-established Fifth Circuit preceden t. Accordingly, his hostile work environment claim should be dismissed. III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Hilgert’s claim s are funda mentally defective and m eritless. His age discrimination is not adequately pled to satisfy the standards under Iqbal or Twombly, and even if it was, he cannot survive summary judg ment because he has no evidence to show pretext and no evidence to show that “but for” h is age he would have rem ained employed. His Title VII retaliation claim should be dism issed because he did not engage in protected activ ity when he
25 See Ex. 11.
13
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 19 of 20
opposed alleged customer discrimination. His comm on law based public policy claim for wrongful termination should be dismissed because it does not fit within the contours of the only recognized common law claim for wrongful term ination under Texas law, and Hilgert has not even responded to this argument. And his hostile work environment claim fails because (a) he is not actually alleging a hostile work environment cl aim (but rathe r is claiming that it was the means by which he was being retaliated against), and (b) he cannot satisfy the first, third, or fourth elements of a hostile work environment claim.
Defendant George S. May International Co mpany respectfully prays that the Court grant its motion for dism issal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and its motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, order that P laintiff Clive B. Hilgert take nothing by wa y of these claim s, and grant Defendant all other relief to which it is justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By: /s/ with permission Dennis A. Clifford John L. Collins Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT
14
HO1 13124558.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 58 Filed in TXSD on 10/05/09 Page 20 of 20
OF COUNSEL: Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 460-5000 – Telephone (312) 460-7000 – Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fore going document was served upon the counsel of record listed below by the Southe rn District of Texas ECF m ethod or by certified mail, return receipt requested on the 5th day of October, 2009. Clive B. Hilgert Plaintiff Pro Se 2500 N. 32nd Street, Apt. 2 McAllen, TX 78501
s/ Dennis A. Clifford Dennis A. Clifford
15
HO1 13124558.2

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/09 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

V.

§

CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094

§ consolidated with 7:09-cv-00154

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§

COMPANY,

§

§

Defendant.

§

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF COUNSEL: Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2731 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile
Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 460-5000 – Telephone (312) 460-7000 – Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

John L. Collins Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2797 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile
ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT

HO1 13125280.1

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/09 Page 2 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT, ET AL.,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

V.

§

CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094

§ consolidated with 7:09-cv-00154

GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§

COMPANY,

§

§

Defendant.

§

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant George S. May International Company (“May”) files this response to Hilgert’s

Motion for reconsideration, showing in support as follows:

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2009, the Court granted summ ary judgment against Hilgert on his Title

VII retaliation claim , his hostile w ork environment claim, and his claim for “public po licy”

discrimination. On October 19, 2009, Hilgert fi led a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its rulings regarding the Title VII retaliation claim and the hostile work environment claim.1

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a “motion for reconsideration” by

that name. See Lavespere v. Niagra Mack & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir.1991).

However, the Fifth Circuit has held that a m otion for reconsideration should be treated as a

motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). Sheppard v. Int'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326,

1 See Docket Entry No. 60.

HO1 13125280.1

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/09 Page 3 of 4

327 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2004). A district court has co nsiderable discretion to grant or deny a m otion

under Rule 59(e). See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).

In order to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, the movant must show at least one of the

following: (1) an intervening change in cont rolling law; (2) new evidence not previously

available; (3) the n eed to correct a clear or m anifest error of l aw or fact ; or (4) a mani fest

injustice. In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002).

III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Hilgert’s motion fails for several reasons. First, there was not an inter vening change in

controlling law between October 9, 2009 (the date of the Court’s ruling) and October 19, 2009

(the date of Hilgert’s motion). Second, Hilger t does not present “new evidence not previously

available.” Id. Third, the Court did not m ake a “clear or manifest error of law or fact.” Ind eed,

Hilgert merely reiterates his m istaken belief that Congress m eant to create a cause of action

under Title VII for individuals who are adve

rsely affected by an em ployer’s alleged

discrimination against the em ployer’s customer or client. And Four th, Hilgert presents no

argument or evidence to suggest that disposal of his claims amounts to a manifest injustice. See,

e.g., Arnold v. City of San Antonio , slip op., 2009 WL 3247979, at *3 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 2, 2009)

(denying motion for reconsideration for all of these reasons), attached at Tab 1.

Accordingly, Defendant George S. May Inte rnational Company respec tfully prays that

the Court deny Clive Hilgert’s motion for reconsideration, and grant Defendant all other relief to

which it is justly entitled.

2
HO1 13125280.1

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 61 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/09 Page 4 of 4

OF COUNSEL: Dennis A. Clifford Southern District I.D. 611330 Texas State Bar No. 24050431 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile
Ronald L. Lipinski SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 460-5000 – Telephone (312) 460-7000 – Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Respectfully submitted,
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
By: /s/ with permission Dennis A. Clifford John L. Collins Southern District I.D. 20013 Texas State Bar No. 00796025 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 225-2300 – Telephone (713) 225-2340 – Facsimile
ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fore going document was served upon the counsel of record listed below by the Southe rn District of Texas ECF m ethod or by certified mail, return receipt requested on the 22nd day of October, 2009.
Clive B. Hilgert Plaintiff Pro Se 2500 N. 32nd Street, Apt. 2 McAllen, TX 78501
s/ Dennis A. Clifford Dennis A. Clifford
3
HO1 13125280.1

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 59 Filed in TXSD on 10/07/09 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT VS. GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
CLIVE B. HILGERT VS. GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL COMPANY

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER M-07-094
CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL ACTION NUMBER M-09-154

o R D E R
On the 6th day of August, 2009, came on to be heard Defendant George S. May International Company's Motion to Consolidate Civil Action Number M-09-154 with Civil Action Number M-07-094, and the Court after having considered same, was of the opinion that said motion should be granted for the reasons stated on the record. It is, therefore,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Civil Action Number M-09154 is hereby consolidated with Civil Action Number M-07-094. It is further ORDERED that all subsequent pleadings shall be filed in Civil Action Number M-07-094.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to counsel for the Parties.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 59 Filed in TXSD on 10/07/09 Page 2 of 2

DONE on this

day of October, 2009, at McAllen, Texas.

Ricardo H. Hinoj s UNITED STATES DISTRI

2

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 1 of 12

.:t:-A.,/ 7/?'.E #,,A///i£> 57/} T£~ ,l)ISFJ? 1 cT~oU/2F

/-0/1 I/'# St:>V r~f £ N

'.
P,/ 5 ;;r/?.I C .1- It) /

~U~nirted~St\ate~s D~im-oieftTCexoausrt

/?? C,.....:gL l O£.-/p;IV/ S~~:-J

NOV - 2 2009

Clerk

(L..,/I/£ E /~/C~/C..J

c: .s <7 A ~ /1/0. / : t? ? ~ c t/ -.tf)c.JC:;l <J

lL/a~~J)\ f-Jz

v- C~~fb GI p:"'no hl)::I~ 7/c:> 1 - c

V h?y ,/ ~,~//~£ 5

&0./.57"
-"'V 7F",."J--? A oc././J·L

CCJ7"'~
PE /~A./'P.".~:;/

, ?.l~~~J?/7j . /??:ZpoJ(AA. /Pvj'V? O/? ~-1 vJ

';:'...-v' J SI/P po)?} 0 / ?L/J /A/ J7~y J?'f4/tJE~/-rt!J l?

// .

,

l(

::l?EcC?-/$/ PE"fA- Do...,.) A K4 ALTFlt oR /9"h?~~D

.., .JVp?fr7£V74"-vt?£Jl /?1/L.1E S-~)

i/Jio CiDI/J?~~ JJ/9~/\C:/?oJA/D

:

J'A4.... -o/j-/,;~ 7/~7/':,~EOA ;rE~~sJ

yo/{ J? 1C'C7.,J~/JJ£d~T/O~ ~ XA ALT£11 C7/l 4;-." .L..u~
//
iJV.P6/?:J~.~L.f;J C/...v-Q~/l j?L/L. t ~'e)

.:~ £C::~ L 577/..(/0--1fl D

i
; ~

7 •
/4(/ &/1 J?rJe 70 11£ }//J./L: C7""'/ 4- /?uL:i 59~')

:~p-r/c~ 7/'/£ ,h?0VA>..-'} /:?:?p s : / 5/tfoJ A-;-

¥.e~<;/ ~/C!£- t?/- 7/?/L /L7LLO ~/~<C (;;:> A AJ

. ,! i
,, (
! i
Ii
(J)

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 2 of 12

/tff./7JIlVE~/.e>c:;. c:'l~,J~£ /~ CbA.//7?oLL/~Ca ~-4 Wj
(Z) .Nb•.J rV,/ »",A./C£ /Vo// /l'£ ~~osy
AV~/&JfJ1.£.J (5) 71/£ ~/fi.lj To C?J///?$cF

A cLEA/{ c;J4 ~~xJ//j-s;:r'E)(Ro£ CJ/ .L.-1lU
PI? /ftc-T' ?J/Z (Z/)/J ,h?~~/~$) ;-/~J-t/5..7/cE .

2.P'ely . /,A) /Ii iF/l/Y-/-)~/~ .h?~?l/l£ A..vJ>U 7 ~ JY
./ 3A &2(./ i 2~ (5-7&C//c

c('/A /'Vp~)3£/? S

..c.J;...{2}A BoVk Do A.Jo;--

4/fi'; ;73v7 (y ),4;>/0(0/) J)p --"/7-)Y ra
~5 -c~s£ .

? / / £ ./VtI~;S£fl(])

A,.<Ffp Te; C.t:'/?)/ecT

A C-LL/))t C'? ,h?.-9..J/~£sr -E/(;?e;!l d7~ ~Ak.)o/r

he;: 7/Y!~ C<!!'t/~:1 F~?/lo/?£O DvL TO

PJ/e.A--'D.,,f.#v) ~

L~t/....v.s~L ~./'"

c~ 377~~

~S

c~ s ~

As A .5>t)f3/~:E L,;?S£ .. 77~s C-4V'5ZD 'P/£

C'67,vA; 7 0 A./'7;:rYE w)?o.d<:: LAJJ To ~

lA//?p....,..;>~ /A.L is'. /

,

/Vt/~ J3Ll{~~) A /'?:?A,A./.J;~'>~/A/3V5T/~Jt..

AJLSo /~~ Clc~v/c£D DL/Ji TO Vl/--f / A c ' )

I pY4;-~.s ~""V:-'1'r~hf5. 'Yb5~;/ED _/ .
I O(sC":r/"-"/~A;-/~~ A~~/A/S;-C·L/~..vT~ /~
/:?;?7 1/7 /5 J)~.A/l /Cl~~;-: j)E7EM'J/)A//

1~;?//{ 0V.£Fl gz;7E~/l.s A s j)1!J/fL./:}ED ~

_.

I '/I.-1~ /Jc£ j0L./t::y A...vD/'/lOCZPVR£ 0 / P/..JcR,,,,,,-;J..,.)-

,/./

\

A7/~~ A ~A/...v5r 5z:;;~£ cL/~.AJ7S DuE TD

/

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 3 of 12

T4 [L/$.......7/s J{//ci'.J ("OL~~ ,A//9?/t::;~L oll;'J:tJ_

7'*':,$ [)//£;A/P~A/'F/??~y ,,1£L £/)&E.s 77/A...J

C-1~

23£ f/~A/~ Ov{ To WE A LcEDG'tt£O ;~c7

T7.//.IjwA(E~~» ~~/ly'~p /S ?4-/D s y
CC-'-"~?SSI o-J O.A.JjY' 7?/AT P.h-oFL;Y££ ,
M s A/D R 16/'//-.S ~.A../D~.e //7Li" .7/))~

5/~(i p//C~ /hs j3t.F,J ./Vo ~.L~/~6 I?>:;

P/Atj ryE fl ~t:!7t/~)

. W&/?P /A..-JP/VJDV-'tC

~s #5eO /.,j //7..LE' t//J > ~L.5o /.-/C~VP£~

. /30/71 A C vS:,p;"£4, /9..-vo/lC CL/ .i:..u;:

..

r,(~/A////-r /0~C:E/e;--ALL£Dc;£S. 7?/~;;--

.J/Ih- . As I'.

. _.;1,1

W&JI?.f) //VPJV/PV4C

l
ps;€'o /;t) 7/7L~£J7ZT

C'-4~ A;?I/o S#4!!'vLP /A/CLUD£ J30/~ CVS;-t::J~£",c.

AA/-r0/( CL./i...-r./~ J3~.sLD o-z/ ~E ~Ac7S 0';-

.. ,eAC// C/J5z,

7 ?(!:)S / ,. ., D.E/,F~;:4~//~ 5

S . //0--'; ./ .$ /h-/~€..)"

/ IZ/1:>/ J/ / P i//j L A.s v ~E P ' } ( c't!7,.,J&,/? e s ~ / -tJ T ,,'-:r.L :£ JZjJ:

o..-vy .,C/PA/

13L A~ F~ F~7/£.e A"'t../J:)/eoll A

r j ,,4/)~ /C./l"v F,p'£ -F./- /';Y/Y> :fA-c>:;;_ ,l..:; C LVP / ~ .:;;.

.A~A~DA-2L c::;7?:lEf7/&JSt;;~fJl~ F7ly~£.J)

.. CL"" r; 5ES .

.

.'

~ ;h?~~~ /~T.z.AJIe::'r 7/7L~·-DZ2 04-5.

. p//I~7zc/-$~/7£E5 ~R()~ ;i-~/~/.elc '~

.w4o WJ5/-/io To C:/VAv6£ p/E J'l!~££ 5

eJ.I-Q? .. C

77,1( E ..us/} T/It) /~

~ $.-> CC't~ f::> / ;;:;p~/' ~ A..J£)

,
1.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 4 of 12

. ,-
l~/V'L'/}&ES

0/

/-/7J->,d.-J'T' f!7

S"";.-,L

?://Y'~"g~t/L //?AC 77C::£S.

C'~t//?T5 ~vi /-A-c!D 7?/-.-r ;r?~EK£

~?/ 5 ;/3 t /jA./ ,e~/17,h:7$~r R I'L. ~ '/ It:)~S ~;i::>

7?/£ P'£)W£f~

£~/?L72/( A.-f./O 7//£

1/I "t/J// v / »V.J) C ,

:1 r?"

7fr'r~~. WA 3 A.v $/0"7,Z7~$~/

.

"~t ~L~T/d~S/;/,):j /Ji7t-Jep"",/ A 2L ~Af£/A./l.f/~S ~
1/.--.) ~·s C"'S~. PEF,£A/04J~/7?~ So 77"'~d.J
!jA~/?E~fA./r tv ITh/ JL 4/NV/-~ /~L6E/(Y ~LE4~'7

1J('If'tJ/~s ~j:'b'''-t'T TCJ/Re>t/{/C€ A CL/;~}

,I 7/34J /~~ f/t.,;(../~p A /O-,../)7?/lC-/ w///7

I
I P;jZ'~/VPA~r/??AY ~o/c

•
C ;-vs/£)£/l..-, -;-/.o~

To

I

/.

.

k?f£! J?v~,4 5v'./1J/7-- p~ CL/'AJ7~ /3u5/~F s~

/o4A bf:)' ,

.

I ~;FnJt ~s/G..J/~c) 0/ .WE cLn-v7J o/"

I~ SV4i/~ C~-J77i'4c. I /~ :~FJ PEF.E-vjJ~J}

l/no/ C'~ sF TO, p<s~/( /)?-?J..J/J'TE A 6---?./~S~
Ie.?I ~£/...r:CA-L/~/-f.v.£,>J,TlC~I:/.;."v,'-PgJ)Vl,(D/UfC.lJfG~) P(,U "~Li.o)K.0J A7./----fY::£n<>-J~t!.

lO/l/6/~

,'!/ I
j

~o e~ 5L ~ 1w $ / /~' o

Pf rE~p--?.u) ~

!Ct:t'?/.A/SEC. ;>0£5 7/-/i' ~/CD CL..JF-./:r A;r/EA-~.
TJ!J£ I Pi,.e.E~.o",..v7 5 C'e'JO~ Sr L c..JV$/ /1 DOkD
!i wol'Z!) (L'J. E~) / 0 ~ W.?JfC[J cU.$;-O~E.K

I~ ~/L /../~ -;;z;YJ? '7 ~ c~.v/C)- UfO u2. J)

I
I

("-D

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 5 of 12

/,,}/oT C /? / ~ / / 7/f/-e ~£' ~A t.. D// / ~/? fo.-vc E.

/A/~ /VAr/~..J~kA./oLJA/ cAs;;E

v' 5Ec/?£/5£IlI//Cif /}6L".//5

D£-V7 5 "W~

/~LT5 tP/ 7#£ C-?>E CL2-4"'7S//=0/;ktJ

SC:It AA..Jf~/L:;><£/r C4~ /:)/SC/?I,;-,/A/A:rE A~4/~~

C V 5,Tp.-E/?

S£a,P7 S'~j]v/~~ /l6£.u~ PUlE

s /0 7/V£ A &.-1' -..) T f( /J C ~) C?JLt??/1/ /-) /V P
r /'J//I )JcJA--'A-Co» J6/:,;:; /j,;IVD ~ -;;0J}£ ..5/)1.h-> E

,7;~£ P/5c/?/~/"':;4r-e. AG/1/~r/-7/;:/~

(FA;)£o/lv-: lA-',4;! :>T.AT/'

-:> ,Hl£SS

W/,Jo Ail e

;".7?A/;vZ"//9/D By T?-S_

,

I#~ 5Fc'!( ( ) sE;e V/t:-e A&£/V~~ J-r-\O~b

',)??~7~??/:F/rJj 5~r;7l£)~ ~~ljZ- C><JSF~

j{~.s7/~(.. D-£A/.A//.5 '/y'?/L~/~-"'t/S. c:?~J>DLt!~J1s..

:;//V,D-"9~.:-1~£.s./' EUJ7?'/Jf W~/FS7Af~

i,:fi/7/7,£'s t!P~ PFA/~~ 7A1/LrD Td.1?{L,/2-l.

.Me> ,.~.:c ~ T27D

13£:£.<./ (>ISc,R)-, /-...J-"lrzl)

iAb",,~~S..;l C/A/Df/? T/7LE.VIJ Du,L TD ~e
p"r 'PY-?/ 77/€/ic e-/:c:YfYl ((iF~""ys) .

;'C44""/~:£D 7/V-i' .e~/j";>~~.£ s. Ct??~/~-e/S4))~-J)

77/?;..n i:

! >..; ~-../.o-'''; /~-vS A ~o ;C J 1/7 L,LJ 6 £ 5 o.fl

!F/,-/y-;,>~.JJ] '!U E /0 .V/DR h-r27ER 's

i p/SC'/f/A-,/;v'A 7/o,J Ab,.::J'/A-JS;-P:/z CVS7};;7J--,eR.
Gk.R£7 .5fJ7VI<C £ ,4t::~A.JT)

I j,

,
i [ ; I

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 6 of 12

llAl~iFM£6.E/f) 4L?£D6~-5 7?/A7 piE

WA~~5;U/"~ i!P? O;.,A/y~ ~)~£ /~/~/J7;-

y / /.......5NJJ ?1/£/te: /)/).-./16£0

~,U-U£AW,FvL

Ae-/5 tIP/ /?;/.£//l ,Er-/t!~~s. ./7CA/~S-;­

:CV5/~~£/t~ A~y~.A? C.2/$/v'rs.

•. /~/.,Ie;Ytt!!-/l ~ /~ 774 f? P s7AU.JC/f...vT
':E :i/',.va>.vY~ .l/kf ~-VA/)" 's./ 7---9 ,~W'/>/-(r f:'"
r7 C/.AJ7 !K/V?Ju/~ --1 S ~ 7J~ C/? e.D; r A~tD ':/>17~-S~1/.I' AJ5£JvF O-UL#A?f tP~ 7-1/~

:~/X//;..,t./""';> ~fit;;E /N p/E A/1£~ 7-;;?/.4r7/;/£

~~;j?>:;A/;: h/&J!{ J(,S"

I

~S 7,5:>£.--. k'f V 4L;yWOX:J<>S- c?u7

IWlL<; 7hI"':'/~ A5 ./. o~C -4.:; /-VL ~-/L7D~

i I DoL 5 ./1/0-;- j),/.5 (JC / I--?I /""tJA 7£ ...46/1/4"$.r-/9~

!I,
j

Ct!/S/~L~ofPt. CvL£).~~

To

~.E

C'VS<o~E/t , y<"';'~ C~/•r.~j

lJ(flC.£., (OLP/Cj /!//rJ/o-.JA L OA::)6/~'.13U)

We ; 7 y;':-

L7..£.£ l / o f . s ~ 01 SC71I.J->?/-</J}-)-£

1/ p![/J 7//~ ~A ';-S/A~F /5 A ~5o

·;1 ' 11)~ISC'." R/~/•"JAr£~ /}c;A.-?..vs:;- DUe / 0 A

'jc~~/&! /,..j T¥t:ff2 ~'e1'~/~;.....J5.-:,l.7'h!/~..J 77/(~Sj

1(""'-../.0/;:;;;;""';.5 ..4,0/0 /Jl'V)LA6f'~ 0/ ,r-;/>~P";;:

II

/?) c,/?£. oi/e J?./ ~.A/.oL.R /-EO E..J?-"} t- j( u2.~ o~

l!c/;/~ ?/JOC/Pv~7~ ~oa~ A cCJv"l" fo0~/

i /A 7 / I 'J(,€ L 1.f'J/t ~

q

~ /?P--:7 CCJ v~1 r C;J.~:: De t~

(;) II/"o~l

/:??/S7~);t, /NAPV£i'J/---Vc''£"" s(J.-;J/I/:3E

110;( '£Yc: usA-SLi /Z/£ ~L~cTJ (z) Jl/fu/~

i i

II

(t,)

J]

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 7 of 12

f)jS(e>I/L/l£~ Ev/!J//'/C€) (::» /'){/-) uP;(~) 7?/i'

WPh~~~ /5 V~/b;(1-;) P/£ [)uJ)b/??E-tJr

/~J g~E~ 5 --1//5//1"2) Krt. £~'5LD o/l

f)/~c#""~Ci!)~../ ~./? /6;) A~ CJ7---P.L~? j(f/l ~~

~;;- J"vs////j.£) J? I'L./~~. rfD I( c) If

f' ?o!-b)/ V [J/J7T5

/?:)IA./-,PhV70/?

?PlKL/~-} C v. ~ t? ~:l/ :/ Y ~ 7/,;>
Ur~c//? 17~S~

A, pJ 5;-/?/~r C4fJ (/~ ;;- ~~ CoAJf I~F£HiUi!.

PJ5c..e£}/O~ TO G/!--?.....J';-P/l D p 7 A /?-)o/7o~
~A/~J/? !?vL i s-c;l!) I' 5, f /~~AJt6 #.

fJoh!</,.) Cc/. J/!3>A A./A.//~6 Co. ~ '/30/

')S-O-, J.[S (J;7-"0J7 /9:7Y. 7//:€ COt_M f-;,

/,r/? /-Y/t/ S7 57/2 J ';J~:;'£ ~

t::,',?£.Jl . f3A ~..J) .vC £

!3.r~ TlMf E~ ~£ A/£"£O ~z;;J( ~/~AL'/7 A ~D~

.. ,7/Y'z A/££O /ZJ J?/NP£/C Ns::;- OFc)s)o-V-S

:s C:?./r mE h/) ~ I

~/
C?~ -4 Lc.. 7::5'~ ~~~ ~7 s

£ / / Z r L~y,E£ /-?v>?"I5'e ;:~o;ri-LTED

r/?tP~,-Af.:J ;~c:;YEle -P~~L~V5E5 7:fL

~~rL7E£' A .Lo:5 o/Z~;...,_F~S/)'-:;-~o~ ,71?7~~ C't94/£>.i77o..-vs AvD ~/1/1~--ICe ~/

.'7/,4. et1A/;5; . ,Z.r--~7~E~T7.>Jn:ncv '£fY.h/~IF.../ T~~

.e / -.5 7--+;D

~ ttt:7

C C:::>"'-?,;--, I So J ,_ W'l.l

r /,tP~ /~ ~e;.5?Arr/ ;;,~ 7 -7~./'" ~7 /~~o7 D /vOd.L.,o 1f'£5 U c.[">V;rAt ~.-'-:>P~7EE
:~o/.£V~A..f J(-£cE/1//~c ~/~~/-1?U,tJf/ J,.VAJ~E.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 8 of 12

»~/~;F /d.L6F~;-/9LLl:~$s. p~ T & / v.;d ~ ~A ~/S /",j /T/PJ'~ C hJ sI

~A/P ~ ~Ac/~TC~.AJ6/T£~-.-S C~~

~t?T 7v ~/vt: 4- tJE~/~77o-.J Z!>7 ~

A S .

:"~
il;V'o~D ~)?-'V)DV,.?JC

";'

Co.dC-eEs"S ~S~D

i-/:J~£ NO'CD /~ ///L-f". VI,? 7;3!C/(z. tva vLJ::>

!j%/6J-r 15~ A ~-<./C£
•Ir""'.-(/~.A.A/£ u/ft;?7.1

/"J p/r A'4WS r )Jv
..-1 .
/CA7I o:V ;;7/ L-r/s»-ut

T
:

!~Awl5_
i /~ ~ ~LTfJlft/,AJT/l;£ /;C £~/~7?~
: ,4ws {)'P A/(;)7 c~vE/( ~ ;;r~c..7S AS
fir L.t;fpU£;> /L-1;'~7/~.J2 /~-;(6U5 A..u§)
~ ~/l7h .:;p/ 5EC7(CTS.Dlv/CE ~6E-U!S
V otfrZ~ WY.ERz. 7/0£ WA-/ T5P.F,F
,IPID..f'Vo./ ?VZ~ /).-"vot-<.J #h~Wy~~ D
!fl(;y/-S U.A/J?~/Z //TL.E:lIJl ~TWAS
£N7Jf(E~ /~rD~~~pr..v) He:;~_~
JfI2#~s tfJ~ 7//€ cVS2:;>..h-ILRS&CI?~-;-
5t'~v,cf 4C,~-Vf-:J

7/0'~ ~~s~ ~ L't!.E06zS 74c~

~/ 5~vLD DE 77/£!fz/) g~.A..J(~ ;F'CJ/e

c//AA/6,~ /~ £--t-/~//"';~ LAW.5?J,-1ls /0

;;4 cCJvM ~.lL ,-z:U:,s,£ 7Y"":)AJ/£

> P 0"/

C?J'-'~'$~".J
p/sc:.,K//77/...v4?Z

A&tY71~,AA/:As;/;?;J-7/7J~,;C5'v7>J7/id-~$ £~~ ~/CC -

fL/~A/;C

I

(3)

jl
1 j

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 9 of 12

It

I ~

Ce;u../b~~.s /",) #5/.AJ ~ ~ lA..Jo/LD /.PUJ> IV JPi/A.J<-

/ r /~ 7?T~EJZ22" /-/~vE- "££/'1

To 7PJ€ Ct:'~.-e'TS

/0 DE. 'T£f2~/~;; J $-4>£D t::J,.J~E r4C~ l/L)/..)o IS

Oil w.#Oh"J / ~ ./Vo/ A.J /";L;>/V/P VAL ..
j.L~/~j5/~/b~/(J-~LL£/.:Jb;£S ~A ;-/~

1S3~oL-eWt:JC4S'b5t£vl5'<-(tP: .-/1£,:;t~!.?A./.v7S,£}vj£i/O-obJ.rE-'~~..S.)s

~4r c~t/~r"..,~CJ . ///$

r,; r 'Ss /J.5l:J/VA-iSl E 70 A U~£ 7/5/4 .s L'O.;r.-JC;/{,"E s

.I""

t

I..".f

"

~S£P P # Wt:)/ZV /A/P/l/)DU~L 7D /A./C'-Vpe

I /307?-/ CVS;-O/??$KY A",v,", t:L/~Afi~A 0/'9/;"; j3ASLJ.;>

~,J TALE /fic7~ 0 / .F/.)c,h/ C4SI!.

~ h/A/;-SJA.?T..--17 PF4/Yi/ ij~~/);- £

l - r t I}.l4/..v?7.J'~ 4Z6£h;; f) /p /{/o~ J( ~Ad ).i.E 7/:/~7 Too ~ D A C.,LA/":'-' 4/..-vp£R TlTj £.
I / Pl/~ rO,T~ /'.-;C') /?/-4J7"/iV'/R ,,£,//:i"'7,L.1C.~
J /~ I> P/sc:./C);..., ),;,/.4 7.£0 A 6A/".c/s~A C:v STt::J;-..£..e

An/r/2 C~/~~0 77:/4 :;-R.l5l/~r£D /~ 7/-,.I~ .

&50 p..,/7£~ (P1",,:,7'~"'/..9

c 4 ~~/..:.o c; /N£//l...

. o-V; 77 C~--?J? 0..-977

C /?P-I ~

A s: CJA-/b", 'J/e!)"V

~D

jY711//L4 ~~ ?J~ £P-/~Ly~P'.J;'-:-

,.

Pft-S c~t:/-'1;- S/l5ED t7~ PL:I~~t>-4A/75

,

/

I CG!7t./.....vSFL C4~7/~6 e~?'hIE C/f/~E AS<.>u~ZJ:)

1I //1./ £.Ilflo!l

.-r-7J
/ / 74

7?/VE

CASE

VV",5

UV5/..A

15.A.8/:.v£'~.A/O 7/Y-'lT PLA/..v77/~ A/L6.ff~T

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 10 of 12

fop Jv}7'/~/LLO To j/(DVi 77/A.} //.F W..Al~
/~ /~c;- ~ //l~fic7#J~ ~£4~~c7....vJ?EJe

TJ7LL_V/J /--I/nfl_ATT$/"::>T}AJ~ 76

>£) f~£ 7?/z ~A-t-T$ /A/r.e./l/U~L~ w///L,J PF",F~PA";7

/'h:/"} 13 u T 7C£5t./~ '/£0 /,.v //L.;.:.v& fi C"'7 LA/../J

,//1/ p~-~ ctCJ~";-?J,,.J ,.-.,~ I ~2t:J°7

'I

r~A/,uI;r///=- /h'"L't:En;--~LL iJ'::>~ES T///}Y

'I~'$ ct:7V/l/ #~OE/l J?V.?E(j-1 e ) 6)(7)

(> /l/E~~s Tt:/ Ce:;J/l/2~c./- ~ C~£.Aff.. oJl r-n./lA///~S~-

I £4./1/)/1 CJ.Ji- L /Jw b1Z. /-A c7 /{/V'D(5/} A /77A.N/.F;r/-

i A/;:S-v57?Ci ALSo ~j &CC.V;(e D • DU£ TD-

: 7* I

·
w~/ /3~//",A T

DE/L/~S ,£J •r»,E:e

IPI/? t?Jo/- K .A/oJ oJ? c:/"A/,D£/15/A-c/D /~~ /(/'~75

I
) 6.RA"f./7"ED /,to ~~~2';Y'£S ~.....uor/? //7LE VJ.L;,

13uT?~~/..:vJ7;Cp /'?c!b~/C/ DiD:;' j(t$vL7/~~

f/,0 /M"-.S /"J~/Y~ /"o.JC Uvsn~.£.

A 7 A .l?/:C~)P?"~A7/~."J A t:::4/A/S~

~~

77>/y . 'LL /",vP/I//PI//JL.-S ./V'o /??--? :r7£Je h/#-I T

, /lE CALLEO - £~")7FE~ A)'ll:::-+--<--,7J)

. !LV5 7P;-,£4S O/C cL/£.-vT5 / 13)" ,E...../. 7~;e.s
Ih-> V 5/ '/3$ 572:>F.rcD vv~""; /:3/£ PJSC/11,...q~b-v
IJ(£ 5 VA 7:S / A/ /I .c;;4 "-,,,6£ /A/ 7A/.£ ~ E>-~/,,"!/~.F .s

~~.;;.?E~--97J~......J

/

/

T2- R ~ 5 ~

C"&' .c..I .D / :;) a..v.s
/

'/}/nL.;;!u;r &7 £.h-/7.h?$.v~

A.-.r-?0

j

~s Ctt:7U.il / ./t<£-~os 7"CJ A:DDJlESS

I
IIII IIIi
, J

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 11 of 12

I}, A/#/;f~ /~L~-t!.!{T~ ..ALLEc;./f r)O~ o~

y ~~"//~","sr /~vdS;/'cE

Sa"""f £7~-l".s

/Ot-VAICO 7?ft/~ E~/~/E h//4~~:/E

£YZ4£S /?/? ~ 7A-/0 ~ O;->-?~I SS:o-..J o~r

~s:JrfLt:ff'lrWA-S

.

/

JJA5/s A.5 W£R€

t!J/(~""/A /

77/£

.
WAJ.f3

7p C
/ 7A7"r

.RL~ P;,
A.!

DfAJ/ljYS,

1f-7~5~/U/~:P/£J1./4/0 C~~'-'/SS'/~~~7

eJ/( ~ 7?,?C,£,£VI-, /5 7/lKI,J~LL ~vE A , J/&/I//; /CA..v/ £C~...v'~.;-o7 c- 5/;4KL ~~ ~/E'

t:/'(/T~c;;-?E u<"'v/.J£/l~/,e./6 7?A .L//7t:---1T/o~

~.Jl- 7/05 C/95£. W~ch vv~uL-~ l?LSVLT
/A<• C/tEJf77.AJ6 A S 1•C;A.J/"'£/C-A..c.J7}Y//l~7FC-TA~tt

. / ....v'/Tit.£5/T;·

/1f5/£c/J'u~y S"...Jt5,v..-, -TT,i-a

~g~ ,

e CL/i./Z

/
/~hLG ~"rr

. I

2~G?o /2../32 c:;.r A-/12-

r..f ,P?~,;-fL~£>J

7~Sa/

95'6- ~bb--~5r~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 11/02/09 Page 12 of 12

Z M--IfEo/ Cln)'17 ~:rA 7~J:€ AN/J

c::tY ;;;:n ['C'J4# f c;-

.t!J./

/-t:J~t. ~./.-/6 P 0 cv~ ~ .,J/

Y c: Yl/",t) -.5 S £!7 t/[../~ U"fr.,J &/Y/'V"Sf I.. tP',P.J? f Co~.a
j/,>~£> t3.f'L.,J //f1j~/'D /.n-1IL 0""/

7/YJJ' .:<' P -;/ t?~ A./CJ t./ 2 c;o i.

'j)~A//S~ eL/F-/'aRO
~fY/~/l)~:I j/~AtJ ~L 7~
/~O L~V/5/A.A/.A 5~ S,v/7~ ~?O<::J
/~t/ $~o-0 /~ 7 ?o02

i

. I

I

(J<.)

i 1

I·
! !

; J

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 71 Filed in TXSD on 04/20/10 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CLIVE B. HILGERT versus GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL

§ § § CNIL ACTION NO. M-07-094 § §

ORDERSTRllUNGDOCUMENT

The Clerk has noted the filing of your Motion for Default Judgment (D.E. #69 ); however,

it is deficient as checked. (L.R. refers to the Local Rule of this District).

1.

o

Document is not signed by attorney-in-charge (L.R. 11.3).

2.

o Document does not comply with L.R.ll.3.A.

3.

o Caption of the document is incomplete (L.R.1 0.1).

4.

o No certificate of service or explanation why service is not required (L.R. 5.3).

5.

o Motion does not comply with L.R. 7.

a.

o No statement of opposition or non-opposition (L.R.7.1.D(2)).

b.

o No statement of conference between counsel (L.R. 7.1.D(1)).

c.

o No separate proposed order attached (L.R. 7.1.C).

6.

o Motion to consolidate does not comply with L.R.7.6.

7.

x

Other: Request for entry ofdefault was not filed. and the Certificate of Service does

not indicate that the parties were served by certified mail. return receipt

requested (L.R. 5.6).

The document is struck from the record.
Date:~7d~~~I ~'/)_

RICARDO H.HINOJOS CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 1 of 38

,

~

.IAI -rJJL ,?"v/7£.o 51A71'S P15 /f() C .J7 ~t//lT

r 7»£ o/,(

5t?(./7h'£~ tJ/.5'7),.I~,;- t!?7 ~~tlflh, r11fnDrlcllttrolfctTCeoxu.rt

-""u j 0 c

£",../ P/ V/ S /0'-<,)

S FILED .

EP !! 2009

. CL/V'£ B J-}ll~E£)

;. .,;
~';;"L";"" ~ ",~ ',;'>,}

I

il TLA/A.l77j/!

CASL No 7/o7--Ct/'o:::o'1

I
11,

v I

'.

~

~t6P

.
1.1 J>1.'7ZP

w/rp/

?'~1-ev-

t J::1?y Et!?/I6~ 5

/A/J1/t/!l~ 7Jc.d/j <-

t9 C?g-y

·~7~~

[}:/rF.,A./P1,J)

, !

i i i

'J1 • ~',.. I /}/"J);r/ 5

C/l&SS

m -. e>7)D"u fpJ?

sUn-,-"'>A-:)y

IJvP-'fi'7£..JJAA:/O C7?7~s/nd-.J70 f)Ef~/}-V/'s

I,P->&//p,J JP~ 5't//?7"h7~,~ ;)UP~/:>?zA..J/ /j,A/:j)

I Plff"JYA4}~ 7711££ J2.U;;fj,)/??t!i)70~'

;

,

I

,?J..A/;L)J);rr CLIVi. is !)l~,ill.) 7l£)lZ~7Tvuy .

r4~S.5-)?J~i/£S ,7o/( 5U/9?~~ JVPbP'?J.£A..)}/A.J

r 17/~J A c 77t?~ AA./O 0 ?J"S£.s 1)£ E"Jj)./JA/~

iJ??o // r ..::v t::'~ /"o/? 5 V;-,h:../j

j)~~£~ ~;J

c: 15t.J/?)~7~~~ ~J lI~sr"'P7o~~ /fA/D

? ... , 7/"'I!7S/77"-'0ILA/~/".F JU1.rzS

fP)E

. A Cc'07A4:'~ .h?£WoRAA../Pt/J--// ~o'£A.J

P£cLA~A7J~/ 37A7ZmfAJ} &,F q'A-J,oJ.y>vT£D

frf;Y. 7 i~.-:!J~J~·L r-1c.T5:/ A~ r<

0 p£rE.-JP...t)"..//fs

:lrno PP5Zt; 5)7)7ZMfA.-/T t:J~ C/~/)/YJ'VTz!P

ir/??A/TflJA L "FA ~-p"

I I

(J)

I

\

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 2 of 38

'/70-:l~

/, !2 A/;"7///~ cReJt;S.J--7~

,:"0 It .5 cJ ;-, ~ ~y

/

e:// .. ~JD~L:.-'V/A"....;.o

4'S /// p.-.) 70 PZ.FFJpA <./ T J'

s 7, .. .h7~//t?.:J /-0/1 ~/>"?~

;:;-1./ pC;~C~;-./J- A./O PL//"vP..:.fr-u:T§

.J 'fi <.(b)(t . i tJl. £ /

~ J-? e / " / tP

l/l ~v€e

~.J£,

7I .:t:"N77?~Pvc /7 ~~
SU.J-,MAZ JV~P7z-uT 5P1,vfM/tpS

? 2.
l' 'I

,?y ~£~t.. ..5iA.-JD-1 n /) ..s

A? b

/9-. rA/L~)l£ 7c:J -S~Jr /-1 C.t...1 J r-l

fa

8 sr.J/-7~/I~y.svP~)Y?~).57A,vPAr?£) ~

r c... L£~~t.. 57JA/pAn T)S' rt!J /( .-1-Cc.~ j))SC'fl)I-1/~C:U ~

D, S~;uPA/{1» (r"f-TA I.. I/'J. T-J 0:"'; CL~ /,..:.

PJ 2..

.E. S/A~pA/fPS /~ST/L£ wo/(/, E,/Vt//RD')#?L~jJ!/;

.

,

721"7 t~A/~r/'s A/-/"I,l'fl//J'7JJ/£ c,1S~

,Po/( 5 U.J->-> A-7 A ' /

, /f/

.
jLA/A/77r/ 5- 5M5L.h?E~)c/.'.,h-?47I/?J--1 <-

r/J-c-7$ As TO WlY/c.» 'z;1/E~€ J ~ pD c:.;fA..Ju/~

P/5ft-Y7Z

-

J'2f

j

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 3 of 38

r j>LA/,Jj/./r·

I
s

57:A J.I"h;J £A./;-t!'

~
/2?"""'7 fE /(/ /).. <...

rAU-s A s To W/'/t'cJ:/ 7?/:E/(':;£ /3 A CEfi/t-JI,d,t

[JISj>vT£

720

4
)(2..)

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 4 of 38

rJ)i
)f"J'IP~0/ (/)= CL/vl g J.);Ze.!l/-.7//-9/
I WAS F!L£D W/7-:;¥ 7//£ C~7L-1/~,t./TC/~
j m-1l1c,;-/ )1- 2c;b1.
I
!
l
~ 15lDp/ ~;e.L.Lr/ JLf( To 1 J?t-SJ D£ A-l'-- C7~
~~.46..f" 5 .h? ~ .I 2:SJ(z4 c.. K vS,-L'/;r//::c.
i p~ 7£0 ? -2o --c?C
i

1
[)

A,FF)

P~'Ul

•
)C'/

c<'/v£

E d2~Ef( ')

j -I;2)AT;5 T5£/A/C:.. ;r',Lc£0 W / 7;¥ F!-1/p/F/C ~

e l l II
1

•
oS5-h-?&;//t!?-J /,c:JA

Sc.J~/??A:fY tY-UOC~E,A...JT

I
i

I
, l
1

.. 0
/)

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 5 of 38

I.rJLf.. /2.. (b~/

3~~) ~ l/b.~ I

~.IE/{lt~s"."J V ?Af?Vvs ..s:s-I ¥S~ _/2?.J SeT

2-

!i 2/9"0 2700./1/. 1 t! ~p Zd'oy,(j",o:V

;>jl-;'IL£ JZ22'"

3~f~ 26 2'{ 2&) 23) z~ ~ JJ~J1j~ ~ IC/5

;/]1£,0 fL CIV ? Si(e)

.36 ~ ttl

I.
-'1!15t>tJJlPiAu.x

V 5t<.);J~) 7-:/).v<;/~

~- ::I~c-

(s- I! l,/"p z. .F~/ Db/, ~';/O T c de 2~S)

7-> '-I

~Jl Jof/~ V DECp ( TL:>( J(1i~ L A/A/ic.oTJC-'''.5
1jjPl~F)Z./c~"/~c 7;;f~)< ?-o'" ~{ )3 7~ J -sd .2&J ~ J~ ..,-

I 5")';;1lc/,R ~~y)

7J 6'

Ie. ?V-:e>h~ V £;}-..t~po~ C""'R/>/55-/,£.0 A)'f>k

!"7 '1.t; 'ire-o (F'7 f/17 z'",,5J

S-

~!JW~/7'? J3J,-/ ~s-ogS /!--;-S-5~

~

~1;v'£1 T zJ</L V. W/LL/4~3) t)::J~ //, S J/~ ~7 (''79 r) ?

/01 Y b:e.-f-1S LA f)e:JI( C 4Jot 5rc7Jo~ 2). OS-I 'J»$cn;"." )'.v~J7;'.J

IJri~ 1 C?~S~ V rJ3L f-/#4JVt::.. /~<" 5£/7VJC i.s

g--

! !

/4!hJcP~""/.:VLL~P()(/~L1S r~/fJ~ Y C/?:EL.u

)3

/1; mA~ 1 '" f)o/( t'~p€ S~(!JJt::/~ 2 J. ~S-S- Il£TAL/~7/o~ - It(

I"ft,:)#JiI'lis V ~', 7tJ/lJ(t / ~J'~ S .z;v<e //</.5 cr3;(?(J,9J) 1t,;:5

J--W ~~fc APDLJ€2{q)G)

.20

I~ 73L.4CK$ ,LAW PI'C T1"..)-?.-;7 r7")J£o

21

i
i

....
J//

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 6 of 38

\

. I

'

rL,A)A/;P~7.s /"7£ ;v,o.x.A~Pvyv, tJ,F J~/.vrs

....

....

"'

~ )

q A¥J-> AvrJ./OIl17);fS /A/5?rJer tt'~ ?L/1/,A.I//f/J
(!fC:;S5-/noJ?~:£7,,( 5t/~/n~Ry t./):/&~£A,/:

MD ~//P3/7/C)"lj ;1/ P£f£A/j)AA]JS/?7I!)7/~

;::0/2 SU~-4r (TUJ)GfiI£A.J-;-:-

+~oJ)UCJ/~

'.'.

u
A

fjZv

.5£

CO~7L1,.:uT/ /Jo u./£1/ER (~/l77i/2y

)?L.£Ac>/j??V~ /3t:.//:£LD To 1.£55 S7/1}"(/~£A./r

,~;JO.A.lfD~ 7??1~ ~P/Ou~t.. yJ.I-A,D/~·~j p;rA /JZ'D

V :/?y'/.A~L.t?S -,.- c /?}a;50"']

J>ftKDt/S S..£'/

,QI#5. _ _ 127 S. cT 2)9/; :z2DO .J/~? L £..£)
;&/ et!;Jt;) 7 )

n ; ,hPA/Jf/V7??~~7LD A/',up;'~ ~ 5.-#L£S

f'2S/'j7a,O J3Fc~t/.>£ Ale ;X-/L£..Q 74?s C~5t£

:! 7. tJ 7'-ctl-e:;:::;o~/ 4P,A/' P?A;/ /- 2~T

,;

/~A/j[)/.r 7/LE~ 4- ~£uJ LAw.5'ulr

/'CM .,f4~/...,...s:;-./'h..-9

n Ce>-vS'e> L. / Q4' Q

t""""~FL ~ ~'.J)'~

: J?';/J:/-P~~ CC>V"f/ fl(C£/L/~ t!)~ ~~~t!.1:/ )/,.~~~c:r

I A.vp;:>L£p ftt:J,J ;)Zt,-/L ~ '24X!'/, ~ ~L

,lcCJ;J<§&)~ 1.P4'T'C.D cc_?~/~ /LA/,.,JY/;~

!5 j Jlt:)vc;..47 ' 7?#l2L .M£vu C4v5 £..) L7~ /'f- C-J/ <!:),.j

! ~/ M//#A/£O AF-nrt. /:?l.Y IJ 2,=?

il (J)~ CL~/M re:J'l AfC£P/.sC/7/~/..v~'7?o-J;L~

! i
:V1

~-1/~

~F

...

J

f7£T.-4L/~77o,u

AIf.../;O

C.:::fJ

A

c:::'L~/~

, II

!, \i

: i

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 7 of 38

/tJ/'C hb5T/L.;z, WtP/tK £A.JI/"//!oME,(JT: 77/:£

Ct9d/}} sus s;/t:J~ Dfrb.,?£:O /b/£ /~J7/ L£

Wo/f}( eNV/£O"'~-<.JrA."vo AV[)LP h ct:>~..,,-?o,J

?c:J , h / J n . / ~S£.D

'"
PU?>L)

•
c..,

~/...y 3 ".CL-'1/~ ,-/C)~

lw/leJA/~rvL TEKMrA-i417o~ 77/-4//L A/A.J7:/~r

\M.o L/J'Tz...D #A/.ljJFn fi~~ [)J...sC/e/~/A/A-:;-/~

r: lAS /VV..h?LJ£.f7 ~

~\

,

:j

Yl~fJ()4LLz.J>~L-)~ ~.4r/:/E WA~ d,u~""GL:/:J

~~/4",72'c-7£,O --1~T/V;7 A $ -/.c #-o.D 15L.e-U

IP./l G£:L' j o//(.)5/~~ AC )/cif

~7.?.c/L/P

4I'A../~AwJ.Pt/L
£"l ;7/7L t::

11£217~• £A.!/'LAr.,.A./77)_?~

J.

"(f-,Fr/~Jo/-47/ v£ C4S-:- /P,-r Sv...... ~~7 ;;-uPGP,'£#f./T
jgA/~ ::-A/771o!JUC7/o~ 7D ?~ ~/A.J;?j.r~ .h/C"," <-
I ~rpy !?U/l-77..vt: /,0 .7??f VII)

! I

? ~Z£:tC/7; ~ .,Lf ~ t e; S / 77 0 ~ /:S 7//..... J £s.s t""tC).A./ C/l

7»E wono ~I 5£O
:

/1.

• '"

./'

7 0 .. A /;(/DJt.//DU./J.( 5 0 S

Ir C~VEr{~L(.

..t?/

7?~:£

'

,

/A/L)JI//.Dv--'JLS

/YA.TW£~.c

1lo~-",,£) /:VCL.",p~ /,.J E--/L.e;7'/,,?r../ I Jf'EU:T/O'..J-

pM?S; 7::3I-'1-7j /l/t:'LUlJ-:S CL/F-,</~VSTV~T/l.S

lW~~ AA/ :£~/L7Ee /3 / " Jp -tJ Ct!!'~~./ SS'/~
i&...v0 AS 4Z~/(TtVA-s.

;/

-;/./z/?£FC'//£ Du£ 7b 'l"PE /~cT ;P'~AY-

l~A/~ J/Tfl /0 Lc:;;£17; tt/AS c?~hPA'7" /- ?c:J<:.j?
lI /~'v~.t.v£~/A.JI ?JJaTEeT£t::> A c 7?/ t/~\ 7&;e

1&/,?P.5/A/G. ~£ C/..-c/":At<./rUc. ~/7~.;!!-c./.r­

j)'YJ.-1'c77C£.> 0/ OL/fNP//A.lT/??~ r//..£

I
1

c~

I

!

I

I

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 8 of 38

. 7?/~EE AflP/T/~~Ac.. C//4/l&~.r W£:'RE

/iL£0A-Pr£1L

,
7)/ney7iLIPG.

Ju/J7j7/5l~

£.Eoc-

5V/,!?.-h?A7 ~PtY'I-JEA.-J)S/ALlO--" RP.S

Su...... A?"'y-' ~UP/-~L"v.r /s'l/,IlCJ7/?/A7'£

,.///1/, 0 tG£,JL//A./;€

15su ;t..s

c:!7/E:h':?-1 fZ1(J~('/..;1cT
,

,FAIS/:$ AJVD ;1.7/'£ /??e:)t//4/~ /4~'7J"IJ /~7/7LC£)

. To W.P~.)tI?LA.// A~ ~ ~4T:7Lrr R~ LAw. .s££
./'£ r.? R. C I V'? S-~ LC), W /#'7'!;Y~ &'J//~ )Zo£
S t/~r7"""Y ()v£)~ fr?-E.A-.I.T J-??1/~-;;-P/~ p ~5 r:;e-...,. 'FE.
,;-;J/C A{3:5~~£ cP/ /'J c::.,.""/t/;..-vE /S>'vE CJ~

.,M~7I'()~:LrA-c.?; fJ uT /f/fL-o/Vo:T ~E6/1:rL

.. v A £L£/??~~ ~/ ~ A--.?~h:?t:.J I/A~'S

V . CA5£. Eou?Cp£-9UX

SlV/?j-T/?A~7- co,

..I.vc. ~.o2 .F3../ S3~ 55"0 C!'7-¥C//? 2'",o~

.. W~..-vJ ~ /??01//~C ?--1"'5/#/;s ~L//.T.s

,f(vLC ~~Cc) 75l//7IJF~ ~ A/oA./~0W.V6

g>: ,-?A~;::>' C""~A/G'/ 5u1{v/tJ£ A h?e:;J57~-J /0/1

,.5't://-1h?~.'t/ tJU.f)6~£~T

J?~'57/~C o~77~C

:/??£/1£ ALt;L~A J7~/l./S c!JfJ / /~ .J'JL£4?/4/~..s" :.~ /VtP~p-JCJl/A..uT/?:?~~7 );D~/l/7/7
, SftE c.~ F /::. .£ V//~F""'C~ /A/ 7.A1z 11£/ oA'fJ AA/D
.A"TI~vL~T£ 7/fl~ h:?~~AJ£J'( /.;0 U/~/~./;;l
.. 7/J~:J £1//PLA/C£ ::0..?/b"::u 7?A-/4-'77/.i:~ ~,e4m Sb//A/£o,J V Dr£:p E TE* ~EC:: ~~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 9 of 38

:»~/I'C' ~;7;c'5 ;r-/l4-~!/CK/NC 7AJ~ /O/J("£~ J'/~

:;'$)-29':) 3"o~~G/h/C//7 2P~Y/ ~.5 }3U/l[)£~

:.
:/3

JJ/ A/~r

./
5-

4

//

:;

/'

/

c

.

.

..
z:>

1

1
.5CJ-..e.

-
m£3A/7..5/C./J L

,t;,C; v /.J r ,A-.s 7 0 /7Y£,I?::? 4.;r£J.J/ ~Z,:4 t! rs /

'. C t:)A.fcLus d/ly' A LL£c;A 'T/c~s./ ~"""SufJS.7AA/77AT£P

,

/ //

t(

;A S5E/l77t!J~-; ..J c:;/l oA..lA7 A 5C./~7/LU9 e;~

j£ v/P-F..-vc£ .. /t!tJV.,A:./6 l / £...-r-~~/??(,ja/ L c'C).fC)~
1/55/£o~//-i" ?9~ ~o (J-r~/f12QOS)

I
I

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 10 of 38

~£~AL SM.JJ;14ffPS
A. 577J N pJl/KD .rOil 1)J~/Sj~L ';:p/? :FAJiU~E
P. 5'7/?J:£ ~ cLAJM ~:/e;..U w~c;hlEl'£Je'r C'A..,J
:R£ ~A~'r£O

t?: //./VSf£f2 FrP~.J'(. 1? vL£ R~ C/V/L ?11b C £DtJR£
.(~(b}(tJ; A /vo/0;2~C'~V>~ A~17~~ j??-)7 f.S~
l)JJ'h?lsS"ti) tu;.,/£..v ~ ~l.A.,I.J)/;,I /L-~ JCJ 574'JE

"fl eM./~,. V~t!'~ vu#'t:..;L).JC££//~.cA....JSf 6;e/}.vrr;:::>~

;70 vi r.5 J V f(UJ

".4 k?? /) 77~.,J TiC) D I s,J-?? )

C /A / ' p £ ) (

.: fjr/Li 1.2 Lb)/~ 7h'£ r~__/_/.A.,I.dj-r>'/i/S7..h>~£/-

,:jIA/O C!Z/'TZ/l)A :
J, .;r:;-.mv5T ~~.sLfZT/I- ;;LAU5.) fftE cLAJ~~;~.ujJ

2. I;J-)/>7vs,.,,- ..5£TFt£)/1P/~vrJ/CJE.~~/)7A c.JuAL.

/JLL£~~77~:V.5 TO Sv)/oCJ/?)- 7?k cLAJfrl"

;

}WOJ7'1g7. [)o~s A/~~R£tpJ/i~ A t'~uJt)\

'/J. T~£ J-7{}TJlbA.J -Te>- l)JS~1 Ss S17Jr;£ To cO,uSJPeR

.!w)J£T/';~J? T?/~ 4-cTU~~ ALt'£~~77~~ AR£ I

_'9?fltJ/3AfJ7!/?//£' WE J?7AXL //CL£AIl/ c;"v)A/£

,:Cc;~r£1~ 7:JJ~T.A COU.R;-~v57lAX£ WE

:iALL£~7JtP.u~ As TJ1t/£..J.l-/o j??A /TEe J-kuJ

By .jK£r1/c.4t. 711£ t~U/l;-.h?7!5£, 5# ,Wop.

«s, U :.350

~.rS5~ C"'vhI1"7v;.;r;P/J~c.t[£4 lZ)AJ

cJ; " 7Jj£ A'5Sl/7J7~~ .m4JA.?t V/.i /J£.'£b-:)7~
y'/lI' ~ tlP-'7>/b,/.v:;- -1,t17£ Tll UE I/[A,/ / r
,POl/3IFvi. / d fo!.<-;) Jl A/'SS6 (f:-4J w£LL

, !

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 11 of 38

/r- 1~,4i> ("~/L*-'~TP7"!)1l1)o(.UJ) EVE» /~

57JUkE)
if" J7>'£ /

.

A
4

SA'V';7
,:..73: A ZLE

OJ~'2cL;>p

u /5

~T A
/;h-/, '!

c..)JA~ l
bM JJL E

llo
');

d

'

(l9f<J) rz»)t] C~UL~ tfe Ai50

V A/EITZK£

W/LZJAPlj

990 //. S

J/'7 / >27

f)D£.5 4/0;-

C t7vAl7b/A/f/c:.£. .# ..... p)sp?~.a~LS $.J:Jf>W adA

OUP~fj. f)J5ErbEr If?r A c.?~)~j/l/tV7~ /'Ae.TUAL

IALL.£~TlttJ~S "~

>9% JU 13, 5'1/p-,,m

r PC,.mE-u 5:7./J .N !.>~ fl P .

7 /IZ 5vP>r11 Vul?t.,I-»E'NlJS /I/./~'7rr.JArE.

o C-E,n/V/"vl, /SSv{ ~.,c ;"'4 TlR/+L FACT E.:}JS7s
t-1 7 Aplp ~/t" ~p0.oC n /$ LA/rJ 7Lf.v TD

();/P.t.h7F,v) A $ ..-4 ./?/..,. YFEJ? ~./ ~~ LA./. S ~£ F£I>
I;?.CJ v.' .P 56 rc). Pk;;'''''7/' h7/)VJ,.)~ ~.o/2

5't/,r.:?~~o/ ':;-V);?b,h?/i.vT /??U 57' PE:SJ-?'J~.s:;-7(~ rE

"v 7?/i ~8j£/J::.-£ t!?~ ~ W-'t/v/~£ /5'~U£ ~~
h:;?A T-//l//1 L /'A.- e-7; J ;Ve.!P /V'~ /-/tI~ ~ 7£
I --p/£ E'?~1.A/~ ?J,;e TJ/£ fo"b,u~oZ/A,vX: C,AJ $L.

J3oU)(Dt~tJ:>r V 5w/.fF ~A/1.Iy C.o~c
~OZ /'--:;d 53~ ->70 (f'T~Oj? Z":""'-V ._

V1pr Pk fl/odh:?t:J

/??~57 J j)4v7?~ ~£q' r)c::.-

£t/Jj)f~C£, /,V 7/J£ :£tCaJ£D A..uD A/J)/c.uLA'J1

7/1£ ..h?ftAlA/EIl )AJ wM~?/ 731£ ~V/P~A/C£

?t;!/&/l/S 77/Ar !A~r7~ ~h/J)~~ .:S~#..u~J
V j)f~p E -r~ fC{~ L »AJlCCo7)CS 71)A/Yjc-k;.u'
/.1sl< 7 Me£) 'J7'7 )Ex) 21-'1 'J~5~"'~R?"''''~

(-V

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 12 of 38

C. h£CAL 5/A,JpAKDS foK A b,£

,,..,

,

l)/'.s etc)ht7 /,J/f / / oA1 C L ~ I J?1S ,

.
~AS L-1BoJr Ce;p£ SFC~70"...jAJ. t:)S/ 7JISC-fl;-»I:VA77~ 'Ff7r-'/~7E,e )CUP,> A S

.;" LLou;S :

7' ·

2/.0<:"-/ D/sC/r,;""':UAJ7,;v E71~~

r ·Ad z-""'/L 12 ~h.J/7.5 AdvA-kA ~FuL

~J'r~j'1I-A Ulc'£ :~ J3E.CAv5£ ."./< .£'1c .e,

cC)Ld.£;, J))SAD)L ~ JeiL Jt,)o~J 5.£.k A/AJ77o ..v4.. J
.. O~J'b/)J/ OJ( A~£ J;2J£ ~;-r.7~R:

. (J»J~A/~S t?~f1£~vS£5 70 ~/?£ :4~

'Ore#..f / /C/O) V I P v~ L.J DI ",.

/f

~£...s ,

A"J /'VpJ L//

DJ.A L .-J

A7' · t:J/l J)J5CjfJ;vJ/~~ ~s / ~

~7#£1? .)?;74.AJ'...L/e:>R

· A64/~/ AttI()/PPJt/) DU.,f<" /A/ c~»£~r/o..d

., w;771 c.e?.h/? £A/5~ 770 A.i. C;1l ~ TZICJ"?-S/

o.F ., CItJ A;'P/7/£).-d5; O/( /f(/v/t-.ZCE.S

~?7~L~

·

Cf(~ss V. ;:b~~/,JANCJ/fL S£J1t/IL-t~

· 7-A,/C. /IUD.: A- ft.J/;;P)'j !3!?/.,v~~A/6 ~Al

,AOlA [)JS1A.rr~n -PL.-1Jh?i ~ CL~/~

7! 5fj? /77,v

/l f) t/£. )

15)1',.!l

J~~L/,c>AI :,iJ r;1~ -y=E;:/'

£

£///O"RA/Cl / ~} /16L. W/f3 77/.( 15v,;-/'cvc

.,C/9v5i t:?r 7?k- C~LL. c~&'2.£) Apv,.£)csz

f7~~"v': A-c7J",;';, TM ]ivAP£.v b~

j.:>b15UA-YII>-J j?Of..s /l/p,/ 5/0~ 7D ~

(<t}

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 13 of 38

E.M/Loy..g/? ? 5~.v -:;0/;;r.;//7""' wouLD J-J-:II/£

t£ P-KL.,J ~A c7Jo,.J

<:::--1 /l D t.£5J' .e?/A'G:K. ..J

fi/vli w)/£..J 4- :?)..4.1 :.c.;T7~/ /~5 [JJ.JO t>VCCJ)

: 5o~~ ,5v/ P~...vc.e ~rAc£ h/A s eP""l/~

r>'?t?/J VA'TJ,v6 r;,~70/l /~ 'J/5I~r J)fC)5/~l7j/-/2

J?L~/~jft /?7v ,::>//11 OV[ p/~ .7PLIt:)t.-V~..x ~

/. />?b--J53v1 o/,/f //7o/-RcTJD c.c'4.s.s

f 7r 2. 4JU4~///LD /O'7~ ?~/h~'.J
5"_5///-/"£J?L£J /7",) /)0 !/L/?Q

'M-

;<i-e1/C'~\

Lj. W4S £/~A;/] /f~--1CE~ o/5~~o...)£

/ocnvb£A c:J/7 ~7;?/-f,rc vv'/5:£ [)1..JC/./-"I.p6f~
1J£c~vS£ ~/ ~·s A~L.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 14 of 38

l'J./lWl/;P~4t &-/1 J.,lUUL.D S:::2.'L ~t o/~[
A I P,E;:-~/LP--1~/?;?2 ~ ur-J/oll piE /DLLOuAA.J6

£/,.JO/:,?(/TEO .,F/J-.cTs-. :

.

/r7#AJlj./}/.v'/7f/= //''/61£><;- ;D£CA-;-v,£ A

/?7£r--'Si£/1 tP/ A- .//le>rLc.-!£D CL~s5 ~A/tP~/~

TI 7d-)Z7l wJR.rt/ //£ ~/"'5e:D TJ/c /

A c.7it?~s ~/~ Pf/£/V.o~~Ah7/~~y s

,0 YI5C/(//?? 1A,)/'9-77~ ~~q/~sr/VP/VIOl.//Ic..

c~/£A%S pv£

~ c-L/~;U;;-~ /fAcE

J .

...

.OlC /f./A- T/c;vv/~c C9/?/ b/".L) ,

<. ~T/Y~/~7/'jF 4LhV// /4/4 5 of(-2:kJ2~

¥ n To bCJ7o~f.0--~~S 7$~/k/£121i
·?/! -5£~ 7?:J£ L"hl<rP9~.4.JI~~T

.&rPL~~~OA~r:; A"-Jo C//V'A/?/(Jv}A..J~ AI r#£

2':' ·./J;?/~::;r~£ -t../73' U/AS To L J? JJ7 77/-t
· OA/..-V'E/(5 ;MI~:;:I J:?Y ,/J"'!.D ...{;0;;h- ?-"J P£

- A-c/A/ f~/ A/~LA-/;;-hJ/~ P.E:FL ~J»A.-/Y-
.. / » ¥ ~~O h/~I(e /Y7??s7}Y: Vk£.)-? ~.5£;­
_ Tft[Av£ /0L&~/(7 ZV£~di.~Pb~ W~y
•h0 W/f5- /1r-;/-/-e ~ t7W.;Ul..JL )'?bt L£ o/'-
-. pv5/~£SS AL.~£Pb/~6 7/'JAT/-4 /YAP
TtY//' Hs A- !J-L/-./~!tC:JA/~C:/0:r?c~:?~/~//Ycj-£tt./A7-J3tS,~?.f/1fS<fF

A1/tP/~/::'?;I!A../~ W£JJ£ CG'-£A.JCY

7>12 - 506 v> A.v/.J fi

£- TE~Y-:-

(lev

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 15 of 38

M-Y'--?<t//;'" 7 .hi£D ;? PEf£A/j)A,J/-/7?A'/'

A~p 77rA/~~

A

/7/4 6 ;J7/~F uMS ZO

A /l§

Y!'?-,A/bE/? 7?/--1J~,;!6f/l/~ 7;;?/AJI-V'A 5

TO 57;;J/};-WoI7J<' ~/l:€ /~ ~CA LL-E~

ii C~ ~/L/! D-;?CJ:J?; p/£ ~;£:; 7£Jt ;C£OYl-?

vA / 1i /??t1C.

£-L WA S ~L> $:.u6 /?-? oF! £ z;1/~ AJ

7/1. 1

__

_

I"

,,/

j A

E ).€.--f") To .Cyfi ) J)v£ TZJ p E

I /~c'T ;7/4'/f1- /-)/d! j F )/""-LJ ;;r2J{EA'}Y

1 ;Jti/V J?£?--4c-E.D,

: j

Y IIi

7f/£p,t:J~A..t./41A- C n C£ AA/,f7!<!'.>C:~RE

!fa.( :-0 P~/~..vPAA/F/?;?y W~y

5~/l./D mL? ;To

ItAS'S/S:)A~ C.t:',r-,~/JS.l~ LJ~£~/2~~
M IIW&,J 77/A..r£A..../t~.£ WACS WNC A 5ALEs

If>'LU..h?,/' J)u/l/dtC;0V£ /Z W£"lKJ 77:J-1Y
!i P£P7'.A/PA-c/J/nY ALL, £ P~E~ 7?-/-j-y~c!cZ.l(:/

11 7~/i£.£J /D /?;:?AA'L ~ s~ c.-;E , PLFE.J)~~T
,Ii I~Y /"'?P~'S£D fi:>5".t'.-.u/ ~/hLJ7 !JuT,

£iE£> 1/

70 f/(!) ..50.. ~...5 k/A.s P/f ~/J?s ; -

jAA/~ t!J.;v.y 77~£ /~ ~E 2T;;/£A'IS- 7?:/A~

l~~b~/l';- M / L.£ CJ To /;1;)..;9 X£ t;Ju.o 7A .

I

1

j S./~ /; ~~7/}-P /-4k~R) 1/)/~5 tv£~L

14?V,4.L/r I

•

_

J £l:;J rtC)IC TJ)L. Sof)AMO/~~A-c-r~A3

I /l~v'/,A/6 ///.5 [5£S:r5~£E%'£4R J J3r-J)

I
IN!'&?

/D J:>2£

/U_/>?y ;;z-=? c/ "'L.b/~r

I mt TZJ Y!?oTEc7

L,uPIl/J'pU-'1 (. d IE-uJS'.

I

(;J)

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 16 of 38

I

•

J) 1. £C-A(' 57A-.A-iDAfl'f)5/"oR 1Z£[4LJ/1TJoU

C!.AA/~
J:jA f([.)~LJ;'T);~ c-~~J~./ /l.d;.J.v-/L~r

2.L€C:Es 77/~ J."I}.,.) £;-rOY£J( 7/TL"fiTZP

7e; P/t: £;.-,/L~£ Aj)V£!?5~y SEC-1~ ~~ .

r-/L

!:/l,:J/ZS7EP. A~GE6.i!'O PJSC!?/".,/MA))().,J.

J. / 1

/7.r1. ./.~£~1

/1
J;

€

O

1?llAt.,/~7}ptiJ C.LA/~S
//'S'./,;;c)b .4 Ct:t:';-.~o~

AI7£. -
JUP/C/"t:)

(..

lr1l~:E~":K t?///.b/,jAo/ P£VlL.'lzo ~O.£
IOJ5C'A'//?1/JIIY~~)ttJ.,J cLAJ~g

I ~ ~OCU S t:J~ A 7/TLiJ)J! hE }Aj)~T);~

I

•

ICLA'.n?//;l~J,J~J/LKj ).5 ~.,./ E;-fL'7/n';~}A-e/)~/

Vv;:-IY'A 5 rl/7/A.J(!;) 'o£~o77~/ l),e ,?£-o,vc,//o,J

77£ ~ P~/J 7h/4} ALL ;'b£P~ C)cci/A<; (~ (CE7.~A:./y

;zf :tU' ,;~

A L -;. ';(/77- J) /s;c f{ I ;'-"/.-.//J Y / a...J

I A~T/V/Z·

.' /

I

TO 5't.Jc..~z£) /AJ~ /J/L€J}JJK>£/AL./~77dKJ

CL'A/~/ A )~/)~~T/ / )?-;?-t/S;- / Jl~t/£ 7:?/RfL rL£}?JrA.JT5

J., 7JJt."i,1/:V77;Cr E-db/6£D /~A . .

V/7 ~
,A

CT7A/ n:(OJeJf.~.7(e/>l~tPh)

Lr~cLT)E,OAcTAJdV.rI:~;-:

~:~C/l/~/JII£I~})O~
:/

rL ..7. J;lH .lL-I/".]7~~ 5 ;.- /:,"CJ( .Tp::>K

jf?J///E£i7?SI.E-'rI"/-'L;"~'/~,j/~,,C/n'£A..Jv>JAV-.tJcl75fL~A;C47&/.~,.~1/-"0)5:;-

.?.. ,A C.A USA L L ~~zc7/0~ £lY / 5'uX;J

[3£ jl? J;t/gU 7J/Lf!..-1/-Jf/7~ i-

l> Th'TED AC/)V7

I

(/?)

I

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 17 of 38
4tLl/) 7;J'£ E~/1.oy£/l J ~PJ/LXS~ ~ c 770J .
LCAtJ54l COA/,:;;VE<:"7/~~ p)
r£'/~!/;'TJ~A.7 CL.-!/~ fllbcUD /",) o~
I!?/' /Wo W~J PL?LA.//)/AY6 o",J7Y£ ..:V~'t/Tli
.~~ rfE' .£ V/P.b./ct! AU--4/LAfSLf.
rJA~,t/TJ~p rf2~E'IT T5££)V£...s ;;1/A J
/A- As D,/!2'"Ec-;- £1/1 PEA/C~J13V)w/sA/~..s
.. 70;/,d ~/t:./JJ T£/l.A/A7/,i/£.) ~s£ 7/-/£
.c/RCv/r75~N77A·L £J//l?$~c.C ~L-Lold£D
.12: V /:hC:J)P/v~ELt. ptJuc;~ C~tf7 c:?R£E~1
. J7!~T?.flL)V)'D,£.s .rp/? A BtJJ(.J)id S~.-J!:;-
/ft/Y~Lv'/~6 r:v!li~ ST£/s/
.. _ A.~;/L~/.JT)jr hp S~Mjk£ ~ sdW/~~ f ,??.J- A 17J.n??) /). t:/.l: ~ S £ o/"j( .£ JA 'I~ ':j/c::,,)•
.I;= ~£.f~4/~7/~7 5 S;Vc...J.l46./S SV///cIE.ur
I -p/£ fJiJf(.P£~ :5/~/7S 70 7...z/£ DE Fr~P4~
To A/lT~Ci/"A'AT£ /J ~f'G;; /~AT~/ ~olj;riJ)J l. ~ATf).JCY 7?£AS~ ~O? T#£ A D~J{S~
.Ac77tW ~ALtJAU/Al5;1~ lL"/.JT7F/~ J~ P/L: pr/"~4-14/T 4~7l~t./.2ATE5 St..K'» A
;1CtAS.o~/ 7Jlt:- $v!l))f~ 5~~/.s BACk 'ib 7/7':£
,f!l.,J...,..J77):f TD fJrdVE J;l:)A)~ 57AY£D
i~Cl~>pN /-P/l J?/£ ADJI'L'..R;;t: A~//~~ /~ ACTJ~~ .hl/lz74T /'~e I?~fA LJ--1--:r)~. ~/VP~j? ;:::t/~ :fJi)/Z pvJ 5~~0 T~~Jl£~oR£'/ 7~D V/,v~ /~ L J"r-kr
(n)
J;
II I'

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 18 of 38

p47/57/is 7/YErLA/~"i~~ ijL7/~~-?"l

~

/.:11 '/3tJfllJE-J &>~ ""Dr //1.1 A Rt:7;1}l/~ T/wJ c"L.;'J/fl"l_

I

,

,I n/-1S~~fJofl ceJP£..- 5£c//o~,<).. C?S:-S

J(£7JLJ~T/W. J?£~flS AS ;.tJLLo~;

;l! !

oS~ ?£!AL/~TJoA.J4e AdZ~/L'3YER Go· Co"

I t'A ~~ 4/~ C t!J.,h-,/'?7/7-$

HJ/"t/L

£,;-,/L7~:i.A/:r

ltJ)/lcTlC;( /~ ~L I~/!':JYL/l ..... 0 - c

.

, J(f~LI/f.-}£S &fl j))5e/U~/:V~T£...s At:.$./,u~7'

.A fglfSo~ wHc> (/.vpL/l p,?.:s, c~/nx;

tJ) ~flf:75£s /1 DJ5CJ(.}~/d~rLJ';71IlJl, LJ7cL..,'

(z) ,h?~X£.s LJ/7 //LES ft C/Y4J70E·

(J) ;r-/L'; s A C~--/"L~/:V;J

//
(/~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 19 of 38

$,,,J,£h'AL 5/:;;J~PAPP5 FuP ?VDl/~
PDLI)y"C44/h--\sJAKA ~>Tlj.,? h/o%IC ~I//Ro"h?r.A/~ A 9 P£~/.,A/£.D/.AJ ?LA/plJ7~JC S
L!6'~-QL.A/";,vJA5 ~~O~_/j"-#S

, -P£~J7~L -£ lVaRA .E,A../V/RCJ/'J?r~~

)~A/~j/ /0L6LA;/U/A-S 'Kf .F£fl/~~ /0

,/~ ~ C~~LA?~ 7?!-'lY-VAS fCEC£IULO

.. ~ )4'e c o V/(/ 6/"v/h44c,f/1'7. 2.00 i WAS

fr;-Z}2c> ~$ocJT;t;Y'~ 7lm£ 5/,,-r.d ~j('p-.

o7

(;;;~ 7/0:":~ t:J:?P;'f~f<37r""7LA/..u~ j//J?t/

t ,f.i~/~//- //4:!bE/175 ./-1sr£~/.ME~
,PAY e?,? 250AE 2007,. " / 7?/£ /~~7/L £ j"Uo/? K E.,-Ij//P",pry£'AJ:r-

/--V'cL.vOfS ALoe: &7~ T?/L ~c:>.-n/L-?/....ffs

f/,}44&/1~Jh ;/7Ph7 / ~/f'V~S:

, :vv ~/J-r/s J/~/1/<:J/.,tJ-y~~s~

J/YS CT~ 7 &7.7;;/.-9 q-/f.//f,A//-.ov.'j 5~.b-.c

.,Ct!?v~/!5I(t:?/}~ ~//..-'£P //~~~t./L ~u,.,~
./I,4-f~'-".....c-/,J ~ --17 tvO')I;J>4cE A-:::

j~t?~vc/ C/lf4.u~ A W't::J-?/f ~WfGJ~~y-'

,, :~}' -~.\ /lEAsO'c4~,f~/}!/D~ , tvc:;/ v~.D -. :/A/~

.. ~S7/L£ b/l .#l.!>uS'/v:£ • .IAIPP/7:7b"</~

f f i i:6bL//f./- G?1v£

~4J~J( cp~? /f'..v£) dU.llJV

,,5t/65/;#~"""c ~£Zle./A7 /N PE:/£Jt)-?N/.-b< w~ r

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 20 of 38

u,-.j~t/C/J-/U/.5 ~3 PL~//J/$d,J/m/?EfoK~

c~~/v//#c. ~4~ ~~~;-: ~ /l1':>u<t:../
c;Z$/.7""I..~ /5 ~y~L'yL£S ..h7;;::::~

?A5/7 ftEAc~ ~ ~ ~....v~ uL ~r;~
y/lEl#/L /-v A/USS~:r-c.J;T. CA<;;ZS /v./7-:!/pu/

?7<)·/ !".r;V/,.;~

o id./CAL J~;Jc-;Z. ~n..

•

4b'~13)L7 7 0 £/~£c/ JI/.cy) 'Z/?/o/{~ ~>/~

JDS

777z£<""~ /!lo~6/7:s J))scn'~/~/f77~

/;1(/77ft!. wd!k.,?L;'c£ ]J4seJ> ~~ /C/Jc£/ 5~/

Cc:>L~/?~ ;eEV6/p'-,) ~pe/O..NA 'J7o~{.. OrJ1Ic.,/~"

· Two 1;>?LS a/~/?AS$h?~.r-4-'1£ 4/A../L.;9W~UL

J-!o · ~"c//?~ 77TL,£ JIll (i;J {PUli:>

c(Jv.CJ

· /:#t/l/}-~5~F~T A'~ lZJ ~S7/TL..£ £A..Jl!I/lOJ-r£~

· 5l:A'UAL f!:;:,rr.-1- ~S/J:J~.A....l;-#/~ w,Al/d/7 7?/-l ~J<.J~~

~

7?'Jl.1..· ·fo</;:/;??.!)~.£~/5

SS/l/£ 7D ~~FAG..es

.t:P/- ~ )?/l~T£cJt:...D cL,;f<;'s 13£6.li/5-E .. ~/ 7~£

.Ac7/oA/J" e?~W04)1IV1jJ 5v)?~.J(VJSoX5 o~

·.Ct/5>'/cJ/?:?iE/I S ,

7!'A · 'WE S£&>,uo C//lCl//j-fr~"'/A/E.b

J J .J

/~/JI)I.5J 'PIE .5~r?f.;.?£ ctt:!1t://J7;-' JIJ.D£ A L.I ~;;-~~

/.A~"''''''''';=~~ A -v""'Y:Z/,./tt /kSJ7L£ fouVJ.f'~-£ur

7 C ~ J~ //V~LvP/~c. ;;r//LfJ t/£A/7 /'9.,v'::) 5£t/En/ ~

l)~;Pfl /l1.~£C£D ~/sctt?.-Jf.)uq tV,&;;?'£/? /Y W~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 21 of 38
YJfJ'/<•:~L1r ;t#J'~J/.vc 017h1"".kl/L/..,~..u6~ A~ IAYA7:#£J? / /~.AJf~ASO~JJ';Y/~7ZJ2f~1l-£D 1/1///7/ z:;;;;jJ l£/IrCJfI~~
. PZfWJYJ,J//r>AY/>./VOvJ'hV~?'W/1b13~~
.W/fLFt/~/y /'IA/D 4!..;J.L./9.,J/~ 5£",,:r-
j i.• ~L~&./ 0...,/ Tl(.£ -5 Lj /4.?Fo.nJ7hf-~
i pJA r- 7M .A//~/~7,h.,$;U7:S 0;£/2£ A./t9r-
7J i PI?L-5L Ev ;-/~/---1c-:J A ~ / s Jof y!3L/S/~R~S -piA r wC/(£.. A/'e;rCA~ C~-D
!/fiJ/'9PVAA.JC.€ ..
\

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 22 of 38

j),A/~//~ A~F)~MA7/V~ C~S£
rR-'Z 5't//>?/>?A7 r7t/P:;:.»>~

~opve~. r0l' LA/,u'/7JF/.. rsLE~"L

0 7 ,17/£r. !1FLA-77~C /b 7/72£ 'Z21 ', . MLt:'£1( ~ JA:'t!JRK£tJ As ~ C"6~~/ SJ JO.J

.!:5~L£S -Z-»t?1 VJPUA <:. yo/{ P£~£.A1~.-.I}~ ~

j/"cvr t::J1/£/l Z<Z-1V~FA4..s/ PU/l~..:u<: W~c/'.? 77.h.E

,W:?'tb£JlJ J/15('C!JV.E/l£LJ 7A4" //,,;/k'AJol0.;:d Sec.Ri:...1

.p~ P£F£.vM.-u1 's ~~~ J3U5/~S$ /-70P~0

.~J 13UA/b ~:F77/Al~d~/-/ y?/£ #5£ o~

'h/~~~-UTAC4fL~.?~ ~ 7C;~'Y7::Y/~

4/U.4- Jl97VAC/~/£"'~/ svc/-;/ A s .A

c/7/ED

:J5AL~ 7M j)£/~,Jp~..,AJr/??fi/ caUL,.£:).

:!O/5C/?/~J~A-7Z A~/~s:;-5?J~£ <:::L./5'A/'T..f

.j}J~S£O ~;t;54 <?L~~,u:T 's. ;t~c~ A.v ~OK

.j}t/A)70N1L O)'?/Y,u.
70~ 5C#£.h-?E c/ PJS:C/u~/~~77~

;irn- 1,£,,pVLD /Vb;/£ASZ ~£ rx/£~/i:D Dv£,/o f/).c/ 7/A/ UfEA/p~-</./ /:;?~ DJD
vV~/ A~p Dofs FV£ ;;::;Vo;/}5E l. J ~7 W~ ipL;/~.A-J£ /3 A WI!>LA;;-/b~ CJ~ r!7-~:1212-

ivs?2?£~L 'Y' pu£ 72J LA 5,£.s S/~-'D " ~/ WC;ULP 7Z"vp TD ALL/P.£>&l!" 77/../J;;-
A c~/£:v/-A.us/l'~~/C~ /f/o/?/2"/~~T
,0/J.yd pJA/C":A//>?· ~/~A/?£

Ii

(!~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 23 of 38

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 24 of 38

n D7I ~~.{7ESS ((!!:)UL..D /-Ml/£ h./t!)/C[:>£P

TLE

LTZ ~.s.C 2.~e2rN{J}.MA"YW7S Bu.T

C ~~&'/lz sS' ~~.5£ 70 ~5f 7//£ UJoll P

-"f ~

~,

",'

./A/V/V/f)V4L- /VV/C£/ .J/AJD ,;;Vo::l7&'L WaRDS

'. E~pL7f£/ ~~ A-/;:JIU,.JT) £JL;; f!:,uT7//£

·:~KP / /VP/i/J DvA t. " t-~

;.

77/£ F//X/9S£ JT5#AU,e£ A,v

.C/.-vL-9W;'vL £~~L.h?~//(A~~d To£ A-J

fi;-./?'.7.E"!l ~# '"; •• 7l> DIScVY'r ?AlA"FE A bVvS/-

A7 'l;LC:- ! /"v.t'IV/PII..# l.. WJ7J-.J 9!1

D M:S

J: · cP,:?,.£d5AJ7~ J7/l~~../ C'd.,Jp?7j,,~ b.£ [>j(, if(L~6ES .t1/ L'-~/':...h7£-UT-,,' VL~

.. 5'T/J~/(;#7 /C:;tf7JdAJt..Dj $uT w/J£-A.J / T ~eJ~~s

· TlJ 77/£ 4/.L4'J~s£ t!/~ T?/£ we:::;te.D /A./PII/}P,)A~

('r,/ As ~5:~ /~ ~ /~_H£ 'l5ECAVSZ t1/.!.

.,5t.Jdj/NPJ1// /J/J~L ~s T(!l

L&~-0 J?£~/C./D~

.,5~/ ~!{ A/A--//~.A-L O/( '&/~'" a~~-3

<

A/7£
" t

//VOl 5u cLE~J2

-' I

/1/

A

S

TO 0#o~ JS 'T?/E

p: ,. -/Nj)IV/PtJAL--

,

~LL t7Jl Wi: CI'fSLS S/7EJ.J

PLfP..vp--1.vT

:/??AY 1([1-£)2 'TV $.J-pLoYE,c ~ J1Lc..~6/1J7o..ug

&0. / , fI
:/'9f30i//

/t
5E-I2V1C£./

Lf/ -
.YAJIC:PU,fL

77lk~~E.vr

, tt/JZ AFrr)c..-9.",)--1~f/l fC~JA.J LVsrC)~~4~ .J

~(

1 tf

.....

:' .Y7U£>J-.t/j) J /';/~t?4)7 c/ 'JIZ£A-JS ~ ~t:?A/i: o~

,.77/£ AL(/~7J~~ /...JA'~Itv.z £F/£~TE.D

E 7 , M E

L7£L ~ c~--J'~~-1-77~/727?~s/

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 25 of 38

CP~~;5?;',vs/ £)12/IC~ V)2. £bLS .?J"£ f;-/'~,t-<.J[j
J3U/~ ~A-c-T /JU ~.J' CA~-€ 4/l~ -p.J£

'l?OS .~.£:2A.--e Jr--

/Te' ..

_ .7.7 IS CLE",<Jf'l.LY Ob~ecT/VZo/ '

REA ~/J$Lp. ./ 'j3At;EO p J pte /~ eTS /A/ ~--.S

i C45£ PJAf,7#£ ij;'5£ t!/~ p/£?/(/lA'>Z. ~ 1

!~L!!JA./6/fLS~ f3£CAuS-l. p~ .$VC)/ //uf-Vl//DuAL..s

~

-

1 [lAc E./.. ~/,;o;e:J %~ t/~/O~

5'£..Jrj c/l A(A-T)~I\ JL

I O~/b/.AJ ~ 5#tOt./L.;::> Zl'/J~t!)~fJ'E /;v~L..Upe )?f~

j VaJ?.t>.5 ; cL//~;; ~L/STo~E!lJ 6'v£.s~ ~7<::-

,

77 TL''E P -VI} /,u /r~ J)E//AJA T/ONS o~

!/Vc;/(p.s })t?£~ N~T£~~AI,rz:: A 7J:E ~?T TO

J?/f Bu;- [:¥.,£/ ~-£

t,.-vt::'/{.D / Vt1)/ v/ DtI""/L '

ftL-1c.k 's L~ td Dj(=-77~ A5,< g:-4,1,/EO

j)[f/~.p-£s T7/~ w~ll1J ~PJ0 DUA L ~~ A~-A...J

n~p~ / £4'/sn~~ AS Au /ND.)V)~A'§'L£

I F#17\/.2 t?.c OR J(£L--4TJ&t.Jt /L/ A SJ;t.J&L"~

/

//

': 1£/1.)0"'; t;?/( ~~t6 ~ A~ t!:J/j0 5£P 'Tl)l(A 6J7our'P

i

f i ~L/£#f_/;-- /$ D£f/"u£D A f"' ~~f-fl.st::Jd

7.J?1) 10/c? £,N/7 7//A.:JR~./.~~S ~

/ES~/o~~

~t:Yl fipYJc'~ C/I(, lk~ /11/ ~..#T

iJ-JJlP~.£ 55 /a-uA t...,So L),v£ l7~, Wa!C X." . .

j

7?/E PJ/rEJZE~c£ /A./ c.!'.h?~/s 5/D1J

'i 1&A/~ Ao/D A- 5ALA/}/.ED £~/'!7L£ /S T}/A)

)r#c OC~LAT/~./So/ )3L'/W£L~ ALL 77J£r-

, I
I?1-/l'/,l-!'j £-/).7££/ l7!Y£€ A-vp c.DE.u;-

I

!

(}J)

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 26 of 38

f o,J1 [3£co~€ )/£7 £/7.s

L ~s/~cr 7%-f ~

$ 717£1'2. ~4~ .P/S(2~/;.?.J,A..J/J-/£ A bA/~.jr

V;/~ ~~L/~..vJ A~D ~E L-7~J€€ /.5

.

/v~JS-:'£D.73Yft./o/f2~ct)~I~b A ~~~,n,/J.s/~J

A

V/ t>L~

c Y 'T)

p ~

77n~

Vi J

~ ,;V£> T£;k/J-.S

/ A-]5oK 57Aru7£S .

.511~// 4 fff.;'}p/»6 ~~ 77TLE J/ll DoE!;.
p:Vo?;0~, p e&v&E P i ~L£-4J1. c?jf,jEc..'J7L€
· £!:7.r- rO L U$/,i!6 ttP""'/ ~WA,JE~:J)c:YL 1L
,17lr/J)S /A~ F~/l.r£~s.·
I T ) 5 c:;~7. SETTLED l.J1}.vr..I~r //~

.j?ILA7£S 70 .£~/.i7££S TJ/A'/-A/'fe . 1/A/~fr.£cTEiJ ~/r:;y Jl-L 7~cT 70 ::~J

L~~fF~54 J7~~/ TZ/?;-"S..J Cc>JP/ /J~ 6~

'f'1l/V/L£US CF£~rlr:.EN0 Bt.Jjr'»~

· ;--1(13 /~ ~j: LAtE /,//2£ jo7/1LY

pi / /~ R~,lj;-A;Jf/.D ~~£ /Y--.L E.P..

.

r,;- /S /,h?/tt7-'1/~~T!D A/O/L 7b!A:;-

A U'A/<fN??/( ~~:;~L:J'I T/17)CVtJ CC;vLD A/o7Jr£

.. ~ /",v///l4-?{/AL ) S/.v'c,{ A/£/;nl£R //A~

CJr- -PIL rrftP/.//;eE~£~r

tj2AC~.J (OLO~

7?fLlc;,/o~ ->('-1'/ O/( /VA--7/~~ L CJ/l/c/AJr

?r5/;V6, wo,ej) 1l€ rL/f t!.£~ E.J) B-1 SEP C:;.J

j;)IE ,.PA-l.-T5 /.,J 7J.J;s L~S£ T/7LE,./J//-

f? !/tJoULO

€ 40 A-S FoLL 005 :

• I

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 27 of 38

t\
:L-T5~LL !3z ~"J#"dL//tJ"cuL E~/l7M£.Jr

j/l/J-t7JCf, FO/1A.,J£/>7/L~1C "--0 TD
p;'5CR)~./AJ4n /)6"A./"U5:r A7E.~7"1'7£~

Y..d Wi77'J ?£5ILc r .70

Ce:>_/L;o.J.5.+7.10 ,,;}--1

. Tl/("~S/ ['c:;J~J'TJO~ J OJ( /,71 J J//l~6E!' o~

I £;-,?1~hE..v7 4*' _41 CrC/lUS£ t!7~ 5t-1c#
, ~L/F¥P57~~~.5I/ fA CLJ. (C>~,?RJ JCfLit;,,;';..;

) £:1) 0/1 VA]/~""/~ 'c OR/ 6/.:u"

7/31£ Alloi/£ 7?f~j)JA.YG WCJvLp ;!?o7£CJ

/ _ ~ Y£,l/';%]..,/Jt./-V7 ~/ £~/0:E£r:; m~

e::;.-u0 /}/lr f/}/D ~ C~.....,~/s S.l~

/~c-Lb~

?J./r/NJ)F/ ffi~E/r~.~tL¥/ P}5COJ~/J~~

Y -I
,f;-O/!7.,E/lS

~)k• £

J)-ETF.~~~"h?

~j(OYl-J

--.!!: '3Y !K.v"''''-'.I';'~ .ILL]uLL)0 / A/F1" ...JV~ A AJ,£)

~1 ~ 5 r~A/A./~//~ ALLED6£~ k"JL.~1AJ/t/~

1!~/1~--?? L:~F~C)/.oC 7::f/-t;, c~';-"/.L~J'~,T7o-J/ 7:£.RI'??!J

II Lo,;.A::>~ /.1 ~/~ /?./~.1VdJtGcc :b~£7l:Y'-L~

15'./' ii

j)/ S c/C/,., /"";/1 77d/~ A c,'-"".ij5 / C Z./I ..../"/:5,

I Pv:f ::rz:)':;5/t: c:":::"~.-JT..:s Jr-1 c ~ .q.~/l

jJ/V-4/)CVV'~G CV(/b /~;A So rLA/A...JD~.",c~L.6,c)L.r

:I)-;!/E :i}IJ1LLEC.lfS j)Lf:.F~O~~J.rY,/JAJ ~.E. FoR f?'''!;y/"A-'7~ />? ~ #.-fS lJE T".J /A.J gus/.-/<!: '!.J"

:1

yJ,/£ A 53ov'E J(£~/C;~.AfJL~ 52.EAD".:ub t!P/~

.)77TL£ :VJl. WC'u0 Mt/t.~A-D£ )~A/ :V)//-p

:1 ~LtCvt;-A 'j/loT~"-~FJ5 f:E'1'>w .,w//£A./4

il>L£O 0 7//£ CC>7 4 /-vTCP;J/?;?7 ':2<!:>C>/.

I

(23)

\

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 28 of 38

?L

.!

. . .
/~/;=

/
s

...
~M7ZhJ£.,u T ttCJ,r ~AJE 'f-JA~

JJJir J) C7 5 .-J.5 jZJ z...I.b/' :;# WLf,l;5» C?. C;;.2/IJU.l".Jt: 7i£

/, P£F£MP.-f"u:/~ 5£<.///~~/ ON /-Jro;--J

j - 3 ~c-fo>KI ,,?!~t:)/AJJj...,E-V/.5 !/UK/vC, 7JLt:

/777 7?~£ S/.Pr--vP tPr £/My.P?~y .?=1 -pjx-u

JATf

2£)07,

/

.:?-W.f,Jj)I1;J'TkPAY ffi S A-?dL.'7:'~D ?/lo<:..E.PUil

,. TO 5zd.JD 5'~a.u£ 72:> ~5P 5/fL£'s

,j .:E:JI?IVjDUAU p/A-rA1Ct. !JA t//'d~ A S/(L£S

.5!Uh->/',;,' ffuJ p/o ~O/5~0::1~t:!>,J£ /'0

r ffl ;/:4;;-:: ;?:4£ A B7T IZNo-, /hID

It:.. 2-=7

.. 7?JJ1t/ 0/7::r 0 ,2 ~C> 7.

:r• 1

D,£ f-E.,Jp~ A;Y ffi/c£;::J ,A J

•
//rJ?A

-<JJ

~

.mJL£ 20:!-y£Ah~~~/f 7$,j~'!CZJ2J

,,15£/0/1£ DG/£d;?~A,)/5Eft.// ;?/£. L.LT/z/(

';:,,lAp/t/JJvLP£o)/-j,J/?l):v?;i/j~7/;J;/>£~~-2~ ~?' G1'z7.r/t//AJnc-/L/L4~ECP~~Ly

:1/0 /?:?~k£ A- ep~~ L-/.,.e/Et::> SAi ~ .

l' %£ ~ !

,

j7J'/"/Pptta/")""".."".Z W,4.:>;t;?P?7/c£.b ~/'?

!; eC:>~//1/A// 77/47/:r!:L~2/1~/ /L £'D C'.A/'

P?y i

~ ~Oc>?ADc: v : )n~y?, ~~? .

j, ALL£D~/A/6 D/5C/lp-1/,u""77~/JC,--1/A-Is/ cL/£AJn

,A,h-dJA/c; CJ7/Yu7 C:~A&£~.

Oy)

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 29 of 38

.-.5.' WAYALCV,n ~//~/c~7;&Jd /o/l
~7rA../::rw//AI t>E/:I"..Jp/)A./;r~/5'.hbWaJ
/ :hI~6,!"/(;I 13tCA.h-1f' ~~A45 ~L..o CJ,J
~/(/'L /-/::z. 00 7 r
::t., ·/?" /L7J/t/If'~:JAFL~~£E~//{v',rufPfiv/~4.JV2OA:-::t;;~t~io 7tt!:J~ 7?J£

/, ~r/hL~EJ(:/ WAS /;JAU/~t:. 7d'£ J3Ls.r154L£..3YEA)7(!~O::)P/4T~,64D Y./A/~i:. 1~/A/6 77:/£ C-07~J7 /A/' 7oeJ~

I

, 1I V.?.4A/~Fr /~:!GZA/--J.-v-45' 4?UAUP~P

jFc?/? r I

.T7~:E ?C:>~

/

'

7

•
7

O

~
-

V

A;c/?

"
'/,u/4 c

1) J 0

!~ JalJ AS 'R'Et:ptJ/fl£D ~oe 6L/E'/l sYeAR~

I
, !
;l/1/Jr.TPf7rA.JPA.,u)/7:?Y.J To p//s P/JTe~
:!:£ . M s: 1/£J( ~oL.p --1:8y o~ ;r:;f/£' cL/ ~/Z./75
: ~A/ ?L4/A-J)1 f.f //~.I(/ C'~/L-'1 __~-E/D
JJ cP? ~3 13€/;VG e:>G;u:s,

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 30 of 38
FL c?r A/..JJ7././J- SJA ~L,A,// ' ~ A /,Ell) A G
/ACTS As TO tv)/,cY ;;r.#£/lC /5 A
Y.JCl/~ PI,>/vT£,
j, 7/34r/J.A/.J7;;/'F/-ht£E.I7/WA~ A-
~/lvnc7L-/7So~ #~P£/t 'TJ/L£:V'71A;:1X-:e
/77// -- frL ~eJ ;:-/L£.D ~ ce>.-./~..-".jT,o.;....J 2 00/.
2. 7?/ftT j)£fE>J)~~urh?A/. o/"StCn
. fJocvS A-//P/,A/,/.r?EA.//S A.5 A /.Ilct'T'£f'J
~rc ;;jt/5~.o ?1 A.JA-l77;::;C TLJ ~or
." yJ:!lvtJI/C£ 7/V£ CL/~N7..s /}s )'[E t;lt.p:r£O ~ Efr?/7,h7~~r..4C--fEE.r;1?EAJr,
.7 /F t>£/":E.-JD~.;u,/ :,I::?~ ~ ij.sE e>/'
1 . ZJt!:7bV~ ~/?J/A.J)k-S'A/7S C;f£A.r~£)
fo5.77L £ W Cl.ll'l/..IICF /tP/? f'L A/-u7/~~
. y Pip 77/£A C770N-..S C7/- [)£FE...J.o--7-d/.fr7~
A~7£~? h ? y 1'2~~? ;C:L5VL./-/~ LJ£/L~oA~r
.. ?/.f/A./C' Illl/} ~ JA 7) O"J A0 A/A/S/-?LA/-v77FF

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 31 of 38

7. /):: ?L. /l/.,uTJj'~ ///L~£/f7 u./4 s 7/.11 ££)

; Du£ To /0'.J AC.£ 0/e tvA$. / / - pU£ ;0

!Y' : b77ff.te Fl?£TD(75 U.5Cp

J)E/'F~A«/r/'7 ~.

~;:a?l;-fo~EA''/h'A3;/2>EO Dv£ 7D~j,

Ii Ac£

! I
i (
i!
111I; ~r Pt.,P:if;VP.-?vTh?y X~LP,..J/-v~Y'/

Pt!t/LfY c 11 Wltl.

A.,vD ~,JL~ ~r'uL5Y' /I E4,/,E..o

I /9 /!"".5~,,( t; W~;( K :f~{/) ffD:-~ -UJ ~OJ("
: /0LbE/i?/ Ot/J7/~~ ~ 77~,e. AfTE/l

i 4LCz/lP/,/LED ~ (o.-;?l.A./;"rA?t/~7'­

i 2 0C'/:

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 32 of 38

I
5tJ.M~p: 0). ,AR,{,V./>1vu7/N &f"?os/7-;~"J 7ZJ 5J/7?M47 ~lJb,l1-?ENr
hR Pl!FE/UJ:>4A./T..-o/7

,
1'.1 A ./,u77F,F /~L6£/(J13£L/E'V/AJ6 7//-'1;-

; //JV/IS O!3u£CT;[/~ JCffiS&:JdAflLE 7o~
7P? TO ~AV% t;JI~/-# J C07LA/A./;;-

Co~CL/{A/£P A~#.,J..//jw/'uL E~/j7.P':)EVr

1:"9 iPJ?A<:.)7C£ 4",v£JE1? T/72.£ ~/t;' VuE To Tl/{

I;:-~ cT TJ/.#)/hiE WAS

10 f3ycc>~/,sll!:>,J

IC,.c/1Y ~AlD ,??A-~~~C;;:;E~nA-D ~5:EP

727£ £,Uo/cf) IA/DJ VI DUAL /;e..) .5£!/Ef~jA c,£s

/~ /77L £ V)} Aft/O ~5-€ ..A!CJ/- TV

i!6'/V£ A J)/7/)v/J-J;t:/~ cy:. 7/;/£ U/et:JR£J

I /~P/·j.//.P:-'AL':; 7/Vu-.S C. /vPUtt 77''-:£ Wo~j)

WE / 0 J,[/JD£S~£~ :A-J.//V6

sSJ )JL£. ..

I . ! 0 i ' 0 / 7~ ,,-7"SP.-e 7"?//J C-?5P AFl e Tt?7:A
y D/7FPKE~7JfA.AJ 7?-JE CASES 5/no

j)FrF~P4~Th7o/ !/I/L;o 77/£ TAcT ~/f'/

?LA/~~7 />f~~£/7/WA.s P~/D 15)/

CdJ~/?::?/S5/~ t:J"J~ ~»D /A..JAdL o,lZ Wi:.

C/J5E5 .5/~D R PR /~~~h ~y /tic)

w£ ~~G;£

yA,J WAG~S WCSJuLD ;)J~ ~

/-~/}J'z.,JLD 'To

£#1[>7££5 £V€/I/

/;5 'nk. £~!.?'~~ }//'PJ /~/AC~

P!SC/1/;-v1.J.,v~ /£ A~/A/sy-cu.s.r4'~£R.9.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 33 of 38

P!lf~,JpA)..u.'Th:?~~ t:://t/"WL ~~~n/!"AJf::J
/S //~~ 7?/ATf?~~ ~OU~r W/L L
ft?/>J(OV£ -:~ A?'/."(s /Jv5~..J£SS r-?<=>.Di-E

.P'y/l b;& PI 5C.tr.l~ /.A.ir/A../~ ~ CA/A../5:r- CL/F.,J7.:S

PU£' 7?J e L. ./L:A/~ Jl4 c.z .A

~ 7)t:>-..;;'.G

eJ/1/Cv~
fj A/~£r ~Z <bEl? rJ-JA S 7lE..J"lJiCED ~ A.d./I/sr ..v/C. /?7/} L£ T/>"Jl.TVAS '20:Z/£~~O Y-::V.A/";;E/7 /7;/-4:/ ;L/J/J/fP

J3~~o/? L TJ/E L /f sFC/>'~ A/cl! .L £ TTEX bV/1 ~

5£AJrTD ML~C/?7t!7-"t.../ /:??y.J""tJ -zCXJ~

_~.vc:-.S 87'/~....J£.o 5o/.P'Is7 .

JS£/wE&J 7/Y£ .".t:>v..vC,. c:?.7 7?/L c07dA~VT

Z.?o/2 67~/.>?2'1 2CJ07 7».Jldk

7 0 0

7?/A/ /7 /3 ffi~D /0 nL~ h/McJ!

C~/??£

~
7/./15r"";77/£

r'

I

C#'/cKEA:.lt!!'/l

r~~

r E&&.,.1' J) i'"F,£A/l>!;t.//.h;?

ep 3Y 1./I'c.)~ 5T7} n)Tn

-- jD J?£J;4LAJt --4&4/-<-'SJ/4'/~£Ar'Y.
. P~AAJ£)/4t6 ~~1//Z 66 7"2/ £AcJ/---1'A./D
. £}/£/(/, ~V.o/4. fI{//~~A./JA/Jo £~cc.sSl' vELy

Arf-£~J/..i/6 70 /7?A-dAc£ ,£VEY/.J;;UfC

.?Jr # &£/7//5 lSv5;.J£SS P~'ffi~£/-U6

.~T /~ T~y C~ULD Co,0777oL
. EV~-"'-'6.J #itC£n;-WoUL.D l5Usr-

(zv

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 34 of 38

q?v'/'r/~/L uSrR/lTJ;A/AuD~o/
15£ Abt-£ jv /?? .,q)<£ A ~,'v J~t: / PUL TV
77/£ ~77?A ~/L~5rs 7/H-r-!)Z/!-£AJPAu:r-

)??~ WA5 C4U5-:~~.
-Z-~ ~~ /'~A/.uT/';F ~LCE/lF"/-;LAS' .
A LLL~ ~LI:JJ 77.J'-~;I / / TL.€ 7Zzz- poL S /.,J
F~cT /,..JCLUP€ ~7?,Ik TEJlY>-1 CL/E~

cVS7~E/l /A.J T//-£ LL/f.5Y tt!7.7-

(,

I~

/A/PIt/JP~A(5) n-J£J PEr£A.J/)A..v~/??y

C/9A.-17/(o.//,£, No .5,£7?J/ 7Ac7.5 /.A-JS~?of?r-
c.97/7/L//L h?tt> 77 IJ'AJ rc::;J/c 5 tJfr7M~tKy ,JI/P~~fAJ7) 5/#cE lL~/,J;-/j=/~L&£/1;-

.WAS' //1.//Ae-,7 /J-7f?~J£c7£DZ£/lS~.J".

7 /;;>: :£A)c,/!&ztJ /~ A JloTE c..7"Zn ~C7/.V

.jk.,,(/a/f 77 7L£-:JZ22d~rD ?iA/A/7//~ /~LG£/~/

!

t

.ICL.--1/~ pGJE3 A/b/ ~/L AS A .h? ~ /,/£)7 t7~

jL-1~

\
. i
I J
! }

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 35 of 38

D£;C1-..JlP1A./'7}??7 /f?o~/SS',rO To ;:>/lot/E

rYA-T ~)?£ WASA/b 5£/- t?-' /Ae~ 77..J./}-r

}J./Y/4J/? /:hL~i~lT (~t/L.J~ //lCJ.DVC£; JJt./F

7//£7/..J-AVE cLEAnLY ~A/L£D .

?.J.A/.u}J;~ //ltJV£P WA.'T T/TL.£ Vll

fJO /~ /AC J RfASo~AfJL..£ /VCL.V~£, A

C..L/£47/~V.$TO;-,£Jt A.s A,t..J /A/P~VJ DvA<-.

'5: 17;n£.-vrv I/V/ r£~ 7//£ £.#0

/?:€LA 7J~s/"I0

L-~.,v771~~L£jJ

71..£ t 2l::. £y£~/)J~.

J/!//~£A.i /r7/L)i~ TO CL:;~,h?/Sg/o,vO,A./fv'

£77£~s'

,

fL A-/.A,)7?FF ,/lOVl)::> 'PIA;/:J£ h/A s r-//?£):J

.f/v £. Tb M5 A6£/.5/~c£ PIA ~~~')SAn.f

. ~r /} f?.l/L~C£J--t:F."v5 !»4rWAS ~o ~/.£4t;'.s

.~~t?I'AY6£ /7 /?I.PJ A..J fL /) .J..J7// ~ lU-4 g /..)./2 C £:)
.. D,..:F&Vt'~ ~..£ /?;>~o P47ED ..h?7JO, 2.007.

!,

rL.A/,A.lVr.fi= ?J?oV:Ei:::' p ! / t }ft£ h./.,A ~ A

',ltflO:nC7T~ /fnso-J pv£ ~ 71/£ /..., c:;t-;l/~TJ:!£

.,M:o ;:/L~o ....4 c!t!P~/L~~-ur,4~/.A/s:;-

...0'7 PiF F~j)AJ/h?~/ t7,v

/-2pe:;>~ ALL:EpC;/~C;

" 7#fiJ J)£ 7£;JDA~r/?/~ /~VV.oW/4/6~.

i WJ!LFvJ.LY/ AcUQ t!/,A./LA Jt/.f!V£LX f))5C/l/"""'/Jf/An:!) • A~/A-I.5/r"5~~E ;!!9/' / 7' /-..S C.tL/'A//~~~tC~/5rO.J4.)L/(~

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 36 of 38

[)UE TD ~ 17.JJCE AN~~PA';7)~C. t::7flJb/~

Lv'~e~ /:SA V!O"A'T/~,J t!?~ //'TL.£ VI? .,

P£~~--Jp~AJT,h:?7 »~$ A //E.h1pTED ;0
L~.A/'V/.E..:r/c£ ~..:s c~~T P/A77?/OS£ £~~L7E£.s 17:1~/ A--'l£.?A/.b C&7~~ "s c;;o·~

O.-vL/ ,..,,~£ T2:JT~l5Y Fkc LuDL'P ij'.-v.t:A£n

777.L£ fZJJ/ £vF~W/YE,.J/)-/3 ..7//E.Pt./?;y

. ,(::I~ 7/TLrlZ/1 /ZJ//?"'~<!-~ /A/PJ/,/JPd--9{S

;: )=J7o;-, V,A..)~Au/rJ. /}e-71z;'-") c;;£ .EYr££~·

.1

PI~F"/P4".JJh?A-7 C'~..J A/0'l/10~vc-£

j~~ 5£-rp/~.-4crs Tf/4::r-WtJvLlJ /Je

..

j J?rA S~Af3L£ / £) c ~<:: £ UP£' ~~::Tc~J-~.J.jSloll.J
rA./~ £~/~y£Ef:tr?~ ~ t:::J.,uy c;tPov?

j e:;;r'£~/LjY£~ s /AJ PtE ~A//';Ea 5~:rE s

I 0 / A...y ~T ~J?t: . J'z:;rA

t-t//r./Y'-c;ur

iF r 17t?T.E:!/o,,:} ,t/'--u-r::,c/7 //72-£ -U.1.l.: //!~

I eJ/l/ / / -' FA c£ /5 :P//;L;y //A..-JIJE L/E. v...., 1lLE-

IA··1/';..? V~/? £." l../:5 77e. ,

I f'L.1/~T/r/ /,i/LU/(/}{tV>lcTJ'u.~o/

Ip 7J!? Jr~5 7//...,;;-

C6'u/l.J- C;;fiA~TNis

r cJ't~S~-,h7~J/~~ AA./O P£A/y PE /-f-t..J~A....I;--S

I/?JP/7~~ t::/~.D£J( r-tLJ J? c/~v ? /Z(b)i)AgUD

I

/

.

1.D£7.F.A/.t?~~ ~ ~~/7o.u/o/? YV.h-r/?/.t,l.7

1CT-{/O~~E..u;-U'~PZ~ rEf) :R L/ V' / 5~ A~o j 6/lA',.,;TrL",,/~rt.> h70!/o~~~D£~ ;retE» If
il c21l/? sc,j ORP,l'R ??IATD?~f..J.PAA./r/:?;77

!i

P))

\ j ! j
I!

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 37 of 38

)57 ~K1 .NC/~~6

~A;YtP,L 77/fS£ ('LA/~..s./

A..vo b/?/)~TJ'~A~AJ;V~/ /0L~E;yrALL

ct'7//EA l?Jl l/E~ /D vV~/C';;L~ #£ /,S.

iTV.571Y£ --t/7"/' TLC-D~

JfP~/£C.T;:t/.2.y 5vJ3.m/TrE~
c. L J v£ E /~L.~ ~/()-
~~~~~

2~bo M .2. 5/-7:»<'
"b? C.4 LL~"J z;r 71'S-oj

9~6- S-~~ - )/~yo

I
i'

/L. ~/~J;l;-J:

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 09/22/09 Page 38 of 38

:z Alt/r£f!,Y t'~/!7;I-7 r...!l..AF A 7/luE /?..,v.o

c7Y.dJI/- C .?/.7A.LC.r

~t: /tt:J?';-&~/~(; poc~~;'A./..r

tv~..J' 5,"1 1/£/.7 r ~e?~C~,-vSL.~ -. ttP,.,e- P Cc;Y).,c>

L/S7r;P :Z~L,;PU/ .!J7C£~7/~/£O~AJ/<../ /l'EfU».u

.2£/1 j)7 fli ~/~-/l£tPl/IS.7Lp ..P~ ;r:;0J __2~

oft

2~9'-

~,A/.LI).5 ~ C~///oW
5£y/~PJ7?:/ 5~h/ LLJ?
?~'Jo L~u/~AJ..y,5::;'-- Sz/7;l 'J 7t!!X:J
., /7b.tYJ.,?o,J /~ ? ,?~~2

ir!:
, ,
, i
i i
i,
i'

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 1 of 47

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT, Plaintiff,
V. GEORGE S. MAY COMPANY,
Defendant.

§ § § § § § INTERNATIONAL§ § § §

CASE NO. 7:07-cv-00094 consolidated with 7:09-cv-OOlS4

JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

Defendant George S. May's Preface:

The Plaintiff in this case, Mr. Clive B. Hilgert, is pro se. Mr. Hilgert does not have

access to word processing software or to an electronic mail account. The parties have thus been

unable to exchange electronic versions of their proposed pretrial submissions. Instead, Mr.

Hilgert has made handwritten revisions to Defendant George S. May's ("May") proposed pretrial

order, voir dire questions, jury instructions, and jury interrogatories. Mr. Hilgert has also

submitted his own (handwritten) original portions of the pretrial order, voir dire questions, jury

instructions, and jury interrogatories. The documents and suggested revisions Mr. Hilgert

returned to Mayas a result of this exchange are disorganized and difficult to decipher. Despite

these logistical problems, May has attempted to combine the parties' proposed pretrial

submissions into a comprehensive document for the Court's convenience by inserting into this

electronic document "JPEG" images and/or "PDF" portions of Mr. Hilgert's proposed language

and revisions. The resulting document is somewhat unorthodox, yet accurately represents the

parties' joint submission.

12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 2 of 47
But the logistical problems arising from the parties' attempt to confer regarding their
Joint Pretrial Order is not May's principal concern. Instead, May objects to Mr. Hilgert's use of
these pretrial submissions to interject into this case new legal claims and contentions and/or to
revive legal claims that the Court has previously dismissed. The only remaining claims are Mr.
Hilgert's breach of contract claim predicated on five discrete transactions and his age
discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). It is
improper for Mr. Hilgert to attempt to add new claims and/or revive old claims at this late stage.
Yet this is precisely what Mr. Hilgert has done in his proposed pretrial submissions.
For example, Mr. Hilgert has inserted factual and legal contentions regarding the
following new legal claims, surrounding allegations that:
• May discriminated against its own clients;1 • May violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"/ by purportedly failing to pay
Mr. Hilgert the minimum wage;3 • May fraudulently induced Mr. Hilgert into signing his employment agreement and/or
made intentional misrepresentations regarding his employment contract;4
I See, e.g., Hilgert's Admission of Fact No. 34 ("Hilgert, in good faith, filed a complaint on May 1,2007 against GSM attempting to get GSM from discriminating against their clients that resulted in Hilgert not getting paid his commissions."); id. at No. 53 ("That the clients of GSM never realized that they were being discriminated against due to the clients' ethnic (sic), race, or national origin."); see also Hilgert's Contested Issues of Fact No. 1(F) ("Hilgert had no way of knowing that GSM had a policy, practice and procedure of discriminating against clients, due to the clients ethnic (sic), race, or national origin:'); id. at No. 1(Q) ("... GSM had developed a scheme to discriminate against some clients, due to the clients ethnic, race, or national origin."). 2 During his employment with May, Mr. Hilgert worked as an outside salesperson and was therefore exempt from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(I); 29 C.F.R. § 541.500 (defining an "outside sales employee" under the FLSA). Consequently, Mr. Hilgert's allegations regarding violations of the FLSA and/or Texas law adopting the requirements under the FLSA are without merit. 3 See, e.g., Hilgert's Contested Issues of Fact No. I(P) (" ... But Federal and Texas minimum wage laws applied to Hilgert when commissions were not greater than minimum wage."); id. at No. I(U) ("That the Federal and Texas minimum wage, from March through June 2007 was $5.15 per hour and not paid to Hilgert."). 4 See, e.g., Hilgert's Contested Issues of Fact No.1 ("That Hilgert was fraudulently induced to sign the employment agreement."); id. at No. 1(0) ("GSM knew that the pre-contact representations made during
2 12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 3 of 47
• May vI.O'lated the Texas Payday Act;5 • May violated Title VII;6 and • May violated various unidentified "Texas Labor Statutes.,,7
Not only has Mr. Hilgert inserted these new legal and factual claims in the pretrial order, he has
also submitted jury instructions and jury questions corresponding to these improper and untimely new claims.8 Mr. Hilgert's attempt to add new claims into this lawsuit at this late stage and to
present the jury with contentions and legal propositions regarding these new claims is improper
and would severely prejudice May. May therefore objects to Mr. Hilgert's proposed pretrial
submissions on this basis and asks that these new claims be stricken from the Joint Pretrial Order
and not be presented to the jury.
Mr. Hilgert's pretrial submissions are also objectionable because they are largely
nonsensical and because his proposed "uncontested" or "agreed" facts, propositions of law, and
jury instructions, are-despite Mr. Hilgert's labels-highly argumentative and also contested by
May. For instance, many of Mr. Hilgert's proposed uncontested "admissions of fact" are
contested allegations. See, e.g., Hilgert's Admissions of Fact No. 10 (wherein Hilgert inserted
the contested phrase "which Hilgert alleges to be ambiguous and fraudulently induced"); id. at
training were false, misleading, but made to induce Hilgert to sign the contract."); see also Hilgert's Contested Propositions of Law (wherein Hilgert recites his fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation claims and purports to recite the black-letter law in support of those claims). 5 See, e.g., Hilgert's Contested Issues of Fact No.1 (CC) ("The GSM violated Section 61.019 of the Texas Labor Code in at least the 12 weeks that GSM did not pay Hilgert any commissions ...."); 6 See, e.g., Hilgert's Admissions of Fact No. 64 ("GSM changed Hilgert's conditions of employment, wage, terms conditions and privileges in violation of Title VII when GSM knowingly, willfully and unlawfully failed to pay Hilgert any wages ...."). 7 See, e.g., Hilgert's Contested Issues of Fact No. I(S) ("GSM committed an independent tort of violating the Texas Labor Statutes."). 8 See, e.g., Hilgert's proposed Jury Definition and Instructions, attached hereto as Exhibit G, wherein Hilgert includes jury instructions and definitions regarding; among other new claims, his claim that May violated "Section 61.019 of the Texas Labor code" and his allegations regarding "violation of the minimum wage"; see also Hilgert's proposed Special Interrogatories, attached hereto as Exhibit G, wherein Hilgert includes jury interrogatories corresponding to his new claims.
3
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 4 of 47
No. 20 (wherein Hilgert inserted the disputed phrase "But went on every appointment that was
made ... and found them appointments 'bogus,,,).9 Moreover, some of Mr. Hilgert's proposed
"admissions of fact" are not factual allegations at all, but rather contested legal propositions.
See, e.g., Hilgert's id. at No. 31 ("GSM is subject to all the Texas and Federal Labor laws and
statutes, including minimum wage.,,).IO Likewise, many of Mr. Hilgert's proposed "agreed
propositions of law" are actually highly disputed legal contentions.. See, e.g., Hilgert's Agreed
Propositions of Law No. 2 (wherein Mr. Hilgert inserted the disputed allegation that his
employment "contract (is) ambiguous"); id. at No. 6 (wherein Mr. Hilgert interjected the
disputed allegation that "Hilgert alleges that GSM's decision to terminate was in fact 'willful"').
Finally, some of Mr. Hilgert's proposed revisions are simply vague and unintelligible. II In sum,
Mr. Hilgert's proposed facts and legal contentions are argumentative and contested by May-
despite the fact that Mr. Hilgert has labeled many of those allegations as "uncontested."
Consequently, Mr. Hilgert's allegations should not go to the jury as agreed statements of fact or
law.
9 See also Hilgert's Admissions of Fact No. 44 ("GSM has allegedly found a 'legal' way to both discriminate against clients and not pay commissions."); id. at No. 58 ("That Hilgert fully qualified for the employee profit sharing trust plan."). 10 See also Hilgert's Admissions of Fact No. 35 ("Texas does not have a whistleblower law that might have assisted Hilgert in his attempt to stop GSM from discriminating against some clients due to their race, ethic (sic), and national origin."); id. at No. 36 ("Hilgert learned that Title VII did not cover him as a protected person, since the present state of the law alleges that a client is treated the same as a customer."); id. at No. 37 ("Case law holds that a customer cannot effect an employees wages, terms and conditions of employment."); id. at No. 39 ("GSM is subject to all Texas and Federal labor laws and statutes."); id. at No. 52 ("That courts cannot hold a pro se to the same legal standards of pleading as a court can hold a licensed attorney and officer of the court."). 11 See, e.g., Hilgert's Admissions of Fact No. 55 ("GSM acknowledges that the allegations made by Mr. Hilgert are probative of other facts that GSM had motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, modus operandi, and absence of mistake or accident, with all of GSM's dealings with employees and clients of GSM.").
4
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 5 of 47
1. APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL List the parties, its counsel, and counsel's address and telephone number in separate
paragraphs:
Clive B. Hilgert 2500 N. 32 Street, Apt. 2 McAllen, Texas 78501 (956) 566-4540 - Telephone
PRO SE PLAINTIFF
John L. Collins SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 225-2300 - Telephone (713) 225-2340 - Facsimile jcollins@seyfarth.com -
Esteban Shardonofsky SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 225-2300 - Telephone (713) 225-2340 - Facsimile sshardonofsky@seyfarth.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
2. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant's Statement of the Case:
Plaintiff Clive Hilgert is a former employee of the defendant, George S. May
International Company (GSM). GSM is a management consulting firm that provides business
and management consulting services to clients in various industries. It employs coinrnissioned
outside sales representatives (whose job titles are "special representative") to find suitable clients
to purchase a "business survey" to be performed by GSM. GSM employed Mr. Hilgert as a
5
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 6 of 47

special representative from February 22, 2005 to June 8, 2007, when he was terminated for failing to generate sales.
Mr. Hilgert contends that he is owed commissions for sales work that he performed for GSM with regard to five transactions. GSM denies that Hilgert qualified for the commissions that he seeks in this case. Mr. Hilgert also contends that he Was terminated because of his protected status (i.e., his age) in violation of the ADEA.
Plaintiff's Statement of the Case:

Plaintiff Clive Hilgert is a fonner employee of the defendant, George S. May

International Company (GSM). GSM is a management consulting finn that provides business

.~

and management consulting services to clients in various indus·tries. It employs commissioned outside sales representatives (whose job titles are '~specia1 representative") to find suitable clients

to purchase a "business survey" to be pertbnned by GSM. GSM employed NIT. Hilgert as a

special representative from February 22,2005 to June 8, 2007, when he was terminated for

failing to generate sales.

Pvc

ALI.J."()'£~·
To".,..f! of3VS"".A//()/</~;.v7.s ~AJ)C

. .
Y6s;h"J4.v'D

/'In pJ'C£1I7/s .A ~;i.

Mr. Hilgert contends that he is owed commissions for sales work that he performed for

GSM with regard to five transactions. GSM denies that Hilgert qualified for the commissions

that he seeks in this case. Mr. Hilgert also contends that he was terminated because of his

protected status (i.e., his age) in violation of the Age in Employment Discriminatiop Act

,..:..v_ l.Jt~,t"rAl~6 A/.UP~"5 C>,r. V/&4.417P J PJ~ 1vP J!tocn.4<' h-o...........

UA~£

("ADEN'). ~-rA1"v715. 4w't:1' 1¥fTJI.,t."~rw",,s Fn~v"'ul.'i.A/J/QaJ-,,~~J:::). /;,n" A ~'6>Ie.£11.rL 417"

("-. f~""d<'V7 /fC"tI4'-l"..v'f.,AwP 6.~~ '81)(".0.1&" "PI~ e:;~?"11... <;;-;

3. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is not disputed. The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.c. § 1331 in that Mr. Hilgert brings this action under the ADEA. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Hilgert's breach of contract claim. See 29 U.S.C § 1367.

6
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 7 of 47
The Court also has diversity jurisdiction because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 4. MOTIONS
Mr. Hilgert filed a motion to compel discovery on April 6, 2010 (Docket No. 68). On July 20, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part Mr. Hilgert's motion to compel. (See July 26, 2010 Minute Entry.) The Court denied Mr. Hilgert's motion to compel, but ordered GSM to produce for in camera inspection the documents GSM withheld from discovery based on the work-product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege. GSM produced those documents to the Court for in camera inspection on August 4,2010. (Docket No. 88.)
GSM filed a motion in limine on May 6, 2010. (Docket No. 78.) That motion is still pending. 5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Defendant's Contentions: Mr. Hilgert worked as special representative for GSM. His job required him to sell a service, known as a business survey, to prospective clients.. Mr. Hilgert did not perform the business survey. Mr. Hilgert only sold the business surveys. A different employee, known as an Analyst, performed the business survey. After performing the business survey, the Analyst would then attempt to sell a service known as "Management Services." GSM would sometimes make a profit when the Analyst was able to sell the Management Services to a client. GSM does not make a profit from selling business surveys. Mr. Hilgert contends that he should have been paid a commISSIOn anytime a client purchased Management Services from one of GSM's Analysts. GSM disagrees, and contends that under the terms of Mr. Hilgert's Employment Agreement with GSM, Mr. Hilgert was to receive a commission for each business survey that he sold, only if certain minimum standards
7
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 8 of 47
necessary to qualify for the commission were satisfied. Mr. Hilgert contends that he is owed sales commissions on five separate transactions involving the following companies: (1) Hargill Growers; (2) Rebecca Thibodeaux d/b/a Valley Pecan; (3) Mr. Rooter Plumbing; (4) Norma's Air Conditioning; and (5) Valley Armature. GSM intends to show that Mr. Hilgert is not entitled to a commission on these five transactions because these companies were either (1) below the minimum standards necessary to qualify for a commission; or (2) expressed a desire to cancel (and did not pay for) the survey. Mr. Hilgert's Employment Agreement explicitly states that both of these conditions must be satisfied before he may qualify for a sales commission.
Mr. Hilgert also contends that he was terminated because of his age in violation of the ADEA. GSM denies that it terminated Mr. Hilgert because of his age. GSM has a rule that an special representatives (such as Mr. Hilgert) must make at least two qualified sales in a four week time period. If any employee fails to satisfy this minimum quota, the employee is subject to termination. This rule is stated in Mr. Hilgert's Employment Agreement. GSM claims that it terminated Mr. Hilgert because he did not generate any qualified sales for over a three month period prior to his termination. GSM alleges that it terminated Mr. Hilgert without regard to his age.
8
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 9 of 47
Plaintiff's Contentions: Mr. Hilgert worked as special representative for GSM. His job required him to sell a service, knO\vn as a business survey, to prospective clients. Mr. Hilgert did not perform the business survey. Mr. Hilgert only sold the business surveys. A different employee, known as an

Growers; (2) Rebecca TIlibodeaux d/b/a ~ecan; (3) Mr. Rooter Plumbing; (4) Norma's

Air Conditioning; and (5) Valley Armature. GSM intends to show that Mr. Hilgert is not entitled

tor i,.rt6s,.,. I tl(ollJ.n~a)l,m,vc:.Uon'md~J~I/mln~IsJoicts3ta-s,npiJ.od.a4.n.ayrJr.Lodlsn~ntthe!tec-hseSees:"s;sfva)ui5r;vry"vte'e'tt'Yt-o;rjaL\q/n'.u.s~M-aa1cr)t.li/oHtnilcisOltgf rb,e!ewriy ctrC'asrOu~JEsIJIelm";IItJlphlSleSoAsIyeO~mncI{.oJe. ,mnot,r.pAa(~2rg)nT~.''eee.esxjmpwrernteen~:srweezs:xJe.(epal;1i1lt"'iahi'c1-e7i.'r4Tet~S(~1l1dly]f)"e!(fs";b1Jtt·eS ao3lvlt..oeEmc~ s)wa£./n'rt;tc.hth.e!7tae#;l?.ttJ.J't/:fAr-l'S~A.'JrJ")l/"j"'"7eJL

I

11

4

~
)7

both ofthese conditions must be satisfied before he may qualify for a sales commission.

I

;

I

j

vr Mr. Hilgert also contends that he was terminated because of his a~e7iyn:.LvIhAio",lcbat)oi.o;A:nJ..)o,UPfft...,,-h;,1i~:eAt.·ITAE/n£,P.,/~"A"JIfJ/iI. 4JC.

ADEA. GSM denies that it terminated Mr. Hilgert because of his ag~ Mr. Hilgert further J/"'~£Lh'

claims that GSM hired a younger employee (Mr. Raul Rodriguez) to replace him. GSM has a

rule that all special representatives (such as Mr. Hilgert) must m~e at)yast two qualified sales in

I

f]vi-Tf\Ilfl. ihl.t:.thr /ILl-£. pl'.l S~-7 #£ WAS 53 ....'0".,) B 17'-05 ~.j,.":;;:-

:Y a four week time perio,!: If any employee falls to satisfY this minimum quota, the employee is ~~n

77/.. 7' LV .4.s $,,L£ Lj' W.l1"7']-. .tn. .

subject to termination. This rule is stated in Mr. Hilgert's Employment Agreemen~ GSM claims 'EN!!y tS-$'/?

that it tenninated Mr. Hilgert because he did not generate any qualified sales for over a three

;

UvT' wl.-vr-rr::> A).,L eJF t:W- .Af)'D/....vT~r.vJ~ ~Jt P£ 1>y &s)I')?

9
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 10 of 47
month period prior to his termination" GSM alleges that it terminated Mr. Hilgert without regard
to his age;JJvJ K,::vDw/~e;Ly.l vv/l-Lf uL.t..yfJtR£ D.AS .A J?f/,-""C.ZJ-n £v/ p,/l ~A (,It-:
tr ~P!f1(, (.) l7.. 2lI 7flA ;- £V.4-1 :3 7~HJ ,W
6. ADMISSIONS OF FACT 1. GSM provides business consulting services throughout the United States. 2. GSM has three basic groups of employees, (1) special representatives, (2) analysts, and (3) consultants. 3. Consultants work in the management services department and are chiefly responsible for performing management services. 4. Special representatives generate new business through a combination of telemarketing appointments scheduled by GSM's Telemarketing Department and self-initiated business development, including "cold calls" and customer referrals. 5. After the Telemarketing Department schedules an initial appointment with a prospective client, the District Manager and/or Divisional Manager assigns the appointments to a specific special representatives based on, among other things, geographic proximity and the special representative's level of experience. 6. Mr. Hilgert's gross earnings at GSM in 2005 were $14,200.00. 7. Mr. Hilgert's gross earnings at GSM in 2006 were $25,715.85. 8. Mr. Hilgert's gross earnings at GSM in 2007 were $6,431.50
7. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT The parties dispute whether, under the terms of the Employment Agreement, Plaintiff
qualified for a commission for selling a survey to the following five businesses: (1) Mr. Rooter Plumbing (2) Norman's Air Conditioning (3) Hargill Growers (4) Rebecca Thibodeaux d/b/a Valley Pecan (5) Valley Armature
The parties dispute whether Mr. Hilgert was terminated because of his age.
10
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 11 of 47

The parties dispute whether GSM sent Mr. Hilgert on 18 alleged "bogus" appointments in 2007 in order to create a pretext to terminate Mr. Hilgert's employment.
The parties dispute whether Mr. Raul Rodriguez was hired to be Mr. Hilgert's replacement.

7. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT The parties dispute whether, under the terms of the Employment Agreeme~ Plai?tiff

qualified for a commission for selling a survey to the following five businesses:

(1), Mr. Rooter Plumbing

(2) Norman's Air Conditioning

(3) Hargill Growers ~f£~.J
(4) Rebecca Thibodeaux d l b / a e y

(5) Valley Annature

.ll2 T~e/Parties dispute whether Mr..Hilgert was temiinated. because of his age.j'8vr;Vt1 'T 7//"''- P,1l ' 1'7"'/ &i.l)/ hi ,..J.! 11-,; fL.M. U "ily A ::s ") Y.i.E -'1'7 Q£J) AlA-In ft flv~ !lDfJk It ()~n..

The parties dispute whether GSM sent Mr. Hilgert 01Jl1itfcg~"bogus" appointments in

. •

lte erea~e~retext !"2"i;;' ~/~I/::;f:;:;;[ Ifn-r"" . . 'J 13~\J...,1..'/.1..f.rn),fn~.A210fJ,0..~7,7~/'irn1sLoArdrU .e-rprU,tavor;St¢lWe"s$!/lSI•isp$u0-te:.J-h'w!_f?htI7eoJft'Jhte-ettr,·rm..u.:iK1n1'1a-.:"t_.eI?'''MR;«wa1rur.A-lvHl:jriRlt]go:Sed!r-rPti'g/sNuIe4e~mfz;'I>ypw].-aorsly>mhi.I.erbendWLWitfo'

"
be Mr.

. 0
Hilgert's

replacemeI1t.j'vTWA 5 ;1/:1"(£)/ 7/?~,1:"'t:P AA>O P...;'Wt' Jo!J tt>,J :;rvA.l[ '1,1 2 Cd 7....:
...h)piT£r.> m;;p.y'l -'lP$"'JVJJ'( #"JD

Despite the fact that Mr. Hilgert has labeled the following allegations as '"admissions of fact," May does n()t concede that these allegations are agreed or uncontested. May therefore contests Mr. Hilgert's allegations and revisions outlined below:

11
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 12 of 47

6. ADMISSIONS OF FACT

7 r ...

L

GSM provides business consulting services throughout the United States) (.ill ~~P.lj)~;!fJ~ 0

2. GSM has three basic groups of employees, (1) special representatives, (2) analysts, and (3) consultants.

3.

,.Dll"" S~ecial representati:ves w~rk in GSM's field ser~ees ~epartment and
Pnmary duty ofselling busmess surveys to p. rospecuve chents.8/" P$£

hpa~ve

the

-ECA<.
6C. .Y,7AjC. t4. 4"7..

4. A survey is a service in which GSM revlews the client's operating procedures and

identifies key areas of concern that may be affecting operating efficiency and

profitability. The special representatives do not perform the surveys, they merely

sell

the

survey

services

to

prospective

clients.,/AIV..vo/hA'l£..

7' ,t.)of'!
Ri-"L

£A>r"~'I T)~T/.i&..(I.~)5A;.-.t....1

C A/ r
£'[:.':.

5. Analysts work in the survey department and are responsible for performing the
Slln'eys. The analyst will work with the client to identify those areas of the

-,5

JlO~~ )LP" 'n Ss that need improvement. After perfor~ing the surve'y' the analysts will

t;1.,Nt ",;5. also. empt to sell GSM's m.anageme~t ser~lCes to the chent. . Management

f) Sf1,1,..

. . Ices are th~ actual con~ltmg ,,":ork m·which GS~.offe~s adVIce on hoW to

l'

1mprove the clIent's operating effiCiency and profitablhty. Inc analysts rlo not

perfontI management services, they only ipentify the key areas of concern by
perfonning the survez;$'vT'&.>#i } ? .. lJ~X ~~ 10 SEU,.4#A.-VP -I- L. C.
~~/I.A/TS 1»-17(',;1"") fAY q. s~ !s /.F~ ~ tpiU!./}JLtf o/l..'()oTi

6. Consultants work in the management services department and are chiefly

responsible

for

performing management services.
A./f>/I ;t>Il1)J£

f),IptK

.
",

-rLI
In'£.

"I .,..... J I
/'j..tJ.".

>'S,,~,

7. GSM does not make a profit from selling surveys", The client typically pays $35~ j1iJtlS r p/T.t'tV
to GSM for the ~WJwt that amount does not offset the costs associated With J.t. S.J) -

sending an analys{(oihS prospective client's place of business to perfonn the

survey (e.g., airfare, hotel, rental carotca!> fare, etc.).

,.

8.

UnderG.SM.'s business purchases management

smerovdiecle.,sAt4wlr.l-lG~S{{M~_tUw,"il'l~/ost~cCiIa!tl!'!k\~ep' afe'D:r;oefJit1~ifv.ft1l~lerfdgjv~t.!6)eJ

V.....7J'"1;J;,/)I'?: fY

survey at a loss to the client so that the analyst \,111 have an OpportlUlity to Tl1eet .

:

r with the client and sell management services for a profit,A.vo j?1 Dill. -p1/_JoIr/,T 7JI£. SJI. :

.

pol 'j N~7 fIJI Vi 7b ~ £. A'b, :

9. GSM employed M~. Hilgert as a special representative from Febmary 22, f005 to
June 8, 2007.pv/CI.v, w/J~G/f TIh'J~ 1IJ.46~~'j~ pTt-p,;,crlo ,.,;iv.1- s

12
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 13 of 47

511 T;~rA c7"R» £~"r~ T p&J~)"'" T/I£.lA" -;-~4'v)LE. }?"hP-u-;:;V'&

10. :Mr. Hilgert and GSM entered into a binding employment agreement on January

15,2006 ("the Employment Agreement")' w!l,,:'/JI /(;L~;["'';-A !L£lhtrs To

13i A,IY} 'fj )t.. v Q v sA-tJ!? "'"'fvf v i?1I1. w:a.)"/V$> 0 c£..P..

.

11. l\1r. Hilgert was required 10 sell S"Un'cys and was compensated ~m a conunissionL

only basis <)u HA 'P TO 7A Kf ~ ---L.y .tiIvTtS>~ 5,. V,lA/6J .-1 c"'::JI/...v/

12.

UnWde/.~tlt;h!e;E"m""pJ"l#oLyA~Een-Wt A£g/lr,zeemNe~oX~HtS{.!nAlg£lIe.tr£t,IJ5S .>~nt"itt.llte.Jatl'o

"s·
fly ~ ~.
.rcOUUnISSlOn

fOT

sellr.l'lg

a busmcss survey If three conditions are satIsfied: (1) the. survey department

accepts the survey; (2) the client's blsin~s meets the~~inimum standards
necessary to qualify for a COmmiss~~. a1fd' (:tr1I}l~lfefu acfui:Uy receive~ and pays for the business suryey)' Bv'l// / ~ ~5.m s I ~T-!AfPAl'lO H4-c 7u~ To S£t.<- Tl? .4;7CL.lh",/ 7#-1.7 ~ IJ';"'!1"'/ /e>A. ITS 5;:~tl/cn•.

13, The minimum standards necessary to qualify for a commission .are: (1) the client

must have an average of at least seven emp10yees over the past 52 weeks; and (2)

thIetnccli.enPt"mAuJsVt

have $500,000 in
7Irc.t?71#A/..$

annual sales over the past 12 months./ 'Svr77ll.Jl i
;,At>L B)" 7»£ t""M£A~D O/,he.Etpf6S.m

,

14. Under the Employment Agreement, if an employee fails to achieve at least two

qualified sales in any four. (4) week period, $e employee IS subject to immediat~ ;'"l.6iA --'-

termination, ).(; 711£ A~JI,( E...h?e.,....;" W1J .I"T"TIA-l S () JL Ly11.Y. ~S~ ./TT'7' r J: I

I

AJ.l,EPi:d.:S 71:? 5£ .A.H111/~vov.sA!U9fll,Av"PV£.t:/V-rJ.7/P1?vG.;t.!>,

~

15. Before attempting to sell a survey, the special representative is r~quired to ask the

./ '

16.

prospectiveclienUf it meets the minimum standards.1 JJ J T.cL / €u73 1 I £. # 9 £..5/r) :-
,0 f'"t.I:'Y..l ill ,,"c7, (£. A",R)tllIK. tWf7C /.5 St LL A"}Y' cL..!£-vr-rIl",.)"LA.u ?~'

'fJl aWshteanti•stth•iecaalnraelpyosrttm, ebeatssedwiothn

the the

cclli. ieennttt'os pree. crorfdo~ntna~. sf.m·eow·s

ep"arna'"rc'2tl.~a·lt .af£ivl4lesr0ao<gu1et1V. t. I

13
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 14 of 47

/I.~r~s 411E

_ po"

cov_T~D./")(/O.Il

.-.1 s.ll7J.).;J"JAJ7£
IIV'

~P"i l'iJ)")~

number of employees)l0ver the prior 52 weeks and the actual ann~ ~es volume

'

o]vIe, -r ,tshJe-pVa'sSt ~1)2

mont SL A

h$s'~1JAv.

,.
L

-'-J :B

;ut~l£/1',l1vi.

Ant: ss.J

,.;)"J~ £..P.oytz71-lV-~cL.F~SpJ.

// •
L}'

.c.J
C

$"

f

vc}.J .A S ....u£ Lit)

17. GSM consults the statistical report to determine if the client's business meets the

18.

"minimum standards" for purposes of determining whether the sale of the survey

,rAY He: isS£a~"Qt.u5alifpie;,dHS.al~eJ.".$/.J&../...I..£Tl//~A//,,7/7~/(/;

0'3 cL

.Ai,,!/ A
J.I-uTc

~ ........,.t.
"""../

.

.

.6.I..z.D S" A~

5

T-¥.l. "eE"ES.

If the statistical report confirms that the client meets the minimum standards, then

6p.'-,, "~~~r, ~:","--'$.:v.~l

the sale is considered a "Qualified Sale" and the special representative is entitled

to a $900.00 commission for the "Qualified Sale." But if the statistical report

reveals that the client is in fact below the minimum standards, then the special

.

representative is not entitled to a commissio~ lJ "'IS!LL -r,;'/£/n. S£,. 14£[.3 .-q7 1 1Jv YJ

A..vD ~fTvs£..J 70 j'-4y ..A~/ ~D_ _ 'SPC""'S

19. If the special representative makes a "Qualified Sale" and GSM sells management

services to that client as a result of that sale, the special .representative is also

.

entitled to a commission equal to Two Percent (2%) of all cash collected by GSM

/s.r'" »0 that result\!d from that qualifiedSalC;;: 110T~ V.$/-c/~ 7/-/£ A L.l{t>t::;t:.O ,p,fAA//4/~I.£ $.J

tPv.-l~.I~/£(l4l'"z.., ',p"" ••U •.IF/Er.>.5.1/J.C /

Ce>,,-,~,SS/.. "';

"P.

20. Mr. Hilgert did not generate any qualified sales for over a three month period

:

prior to his /-??;9~£

tennination.
'3->;P!£

rl3.l,-[,~r/p.,N£K47/J.~"t">",'c"

£1.,I£}!y.A r P4/A/"J;i.,s ......rT-?".,J...,:r ~.-1- S C5fo,.......r..o~rbUA.lD"P/E A/'/.7f~:t;:~7.!.

21.

Mr. Bnan Vrull, the ExecutIve d.ecision and recommendation to

tA~lsJlsllisntaatnetMtor.

tHhielgPerretS'sIdemenptl\o?yfmGeSnMt. ,~Jmla,dc«.dth)e,JL

p

."-
iP,

.

j>£,,5.-J-1Jl.yl 'KAh IN/Q(; /?/A;-A R£1J. ... ~r-'rA.JT #-"1> "[1££;</ ,hInud.l7/1A-.-JW~

22. Special representatives generate new business through a combination of

telemarketing appointments scheduled by GSM's Telemarketing Department and

self-initiated business development, including "cold calls" and customer referrals.

7#£ /!1m 0 ......»(.

/J fl'/I.#J< /., "4&>'.I'r/I~.!.£ 5

23. GSM employs approximately 90 telemarketers"to schedule initial appointments

with prospective clients. The telemarketers use a computer database populated

w!th infonnation obtained from a third party that randomly ,!ssigns a prosvective

• _.

chent to them to call to try and set up an appointment:) wJhcl/77Y'£ .> J? , ~ nit Jl £ tpvJ1Tf. n

TV A 7"7X~f>.

• .

24. The telemarketers set up the appointment for a specific date and timeA.vv S 1l .A fl€ 1lC4>vJIUD To c.~ L. (.. I.A.I To c/'/u:A-':;o ~r,F"...N~ p v/o.u(, /J~P A/"T.tX. 7J;Ir A /j-",,,,,AlTf07£"'UT'S.

25. GSM employs auditors to verifY and screen the initial appointments scheduled by

..

the telemarketer~ flv7M (CEAFAL~~ D~L.s """7?-h;- ~f .A/ fl>/..c/;r~ F..u7 C ./ V£AJ

70 /'1,;-., 'Pvlli,v6 J?-'£ LASTS";??p-v;rP5 ,;I,F E~/"<)Y~F'UrIVLIlF Zo~us

26. After the Telemarketing Department schedules an initial appointment with a P£".I"""':11? 7U

prospective client, the District Manager and/or Divisional Manager assigns, the -:;,:;-;:.,..,." ......

appointments to a specific special representatives based on, among othcr things,

•

geographic proximity and the special representative's level of experience.

27. Mr'. Hilgert's gross earnings at GSM in 2005 were $14,200.00.

28. Mr. Hilgert's gross earnings at GSM in 2006 were $25,715.85.

14
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 15 of 47 May does not concede that the following allegations are agreed or uncontested, despite the fact that Mr. Hilgert has labeled these additional allegations as "admissions of fact."
Apm/55/(CJ~S C?/? T~ cz./- ~-../T/"""/U£J:))
15
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 16 of 47

11

11!i,

I!

jjpal's/~ ~AC:Tj!>//;£C)1YA/~c:;-_~

~~---+1+t!0,-~55LQ..v5'-- G?E g~J WlL~/tL &S.I/YI

_

_

_~ li_'l'~JES -70 li~.(H~12l!£

1>Jl7';:5Ct~ :/~-':CVLd/TEE~A.7CJA./,1l?jA~~-CrG-lt'TPt:H~zA?//tP2....

~___~-=£~~ri~l/~~t~o~d~/~&~b~~~_~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~____

.

?5.An,/·sSvJSJj"c)~AA.JpJ

ii -~---*!-i B.oUAC L'&'f5aR LAwS A-..uQ 5/&Tu7£S
-,i

-il~'!U6J(DLD :Wf'~r27~)AC.~h~'T

~____+.(!-=5-=o,--72laT 6-~LUA~ 12) Fe [Ufrl~

~~----+i:!r-~t~~)CL/~ AAJD)V07 ?'}'/>Kd£~d

:I;~~CLY/?7h?/ss/~r hX ~YA/C 7££

p k~~,~L.../EA£/"-'-:s
_ _ _ _; + + " ,

'TZJAC,/l:£fL ~ rvfiln'7bu&

--~-----4t!i~Vg'57 N ;z-;zA/J? 'f3L/5LAJ~S5.

'~~_~·w;Lc.-<.-_~~7g 7Y.£,££OC.~//(oVE /-J:jc:r.riZ,----"!s=---------_ __ ~---'---------~rr',11/(,/1) 7?? E!L£ A c LA;rn -& CA /....us-'-~==---=------.;h--J----=-_ __
______~~~_4f,-.,b/l A~[ DJ5CJl/~/,JAP.;~·ML&£Jl/hLE
t ~~--++':I '-----JW,,7/Ii"A ct:::v-p>L.,f JAJ.:;Y42.r./ ;;-U..1..l£ 2 ~ 9

04 ~_ _~--+!"tzdJ:!Z/l a..v~;/,/L/ PJli &- S'..h7 /A/A u/;U~ "Z2i:E-
or ____~___1_1I::>"i£!lJIJ1E ~ryP4/A§ &S'.h? ,~,,----,f)~_ _
,----,-~~~-._f---L/.~~·~/-r;r~jd-.-!LA 'J 7)/&4 t2 Lp 7ZJ lltjP1A-C£
-'"-'-----ttk -~~ /LI"",;n£ t:JT 9?A vI. ~'f1/t. DL2.. TZI::-

- - - - - ._-----------_.-

16
12649005_2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 17 of 47

I

11 7'.5'

/,.0

CS~

f
S" A4/st-UEI(

/VvP-,J]£/lS" S

~ 9.J'?-7

~~~~:-ttl-<-A~'P~..L/-:S.---L;- ///17.0::> AA.-I-!J TlCA,nJeD KAt) L,,-:---,,---:-

~tt-I[loJ;J!1li v£ 2 &> T3 E-E~/l_£· JtjA/E ~__~.za,=.=.=--7/.'-----'--~-

~~_~----'#_.- -

.q

.'

- .c--.~

_.-'-.-_<_" ~~~~~S 4Ll~i¥-4j(Jh;'!A../O A .L~6~C

-,--tf--,'1.v=-~~-12?_JJ. oV/ P./ 5c..lCJ ;+]/N4'll. A 6/1/~;-

_~__.___--++d/L~/S. A~"fQ NaT~)Y/c~~.'~__N S3.; o~S,

~_~~.w0,--,s b5';"";r-ALA...-J~~-L2/,2dtAJPKU:>j-

~U~· ~5,/S >. "K,_-Z~ 7D 13.oP/ 5JAJI .

__' _ ' _

A..J_-L£.~L4C. LA.J312/l~Aw~ r..¥~c/.:L~~-

__._ .~. _._~,__ k:!foAJ 1_2C t!').-...,e ) 77? L-t:::/;??~ / 5S/o.,J 6V~___

-#z:Jf..£:.<;: -' ______K~

Z2J~l/ Df2 /LI 0 / LAtf1dC~~~/';1S!.Q~.__.

.__',_"-_'-_- _IiJ4.J~£. L. A-/tCE E,JCJt./~/L 7D cp/.,csc/-~~_

.________,____.__ iKl:_QL!.£&12 h /;"";/~t/Z2~.-L 4ldS

_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , _..
----------+i<-=.~.s~_ c:?5LS~c.£7L;1;a ,- k 7:~_J

.___ ..s"--_ __ ~__~__H~&;"'-"-?~z."-"~~"£..vZLb~ A?~ 5/?,S AdJ2 wiLL /VoL ~_+tt=e }/i~_Co/l'/CZ cL ~c:Jt.AlA/ .hz ;s.:.;;-/J kE

-. - - .--.....- ...._-._..
12649005.2

--_._--_. - -
17

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 18 of 47
II
18
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 19 of 47
19
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 20 of 47

II

.

I
Wy C5/h DaZ s. NO/C'i::>-Ja.sF ;zzI.£ ~~cn z;&'A-l
/ :2 . O/?/~b"d/I/tVd S (!JvErt WI: Ac,t: 0 ~ Yo z(L --1..,.s ~LA ;7
;~ftJ 77J:£~:£ 0---' ~7P"f/?7/..u~T7~C~

/ # WA<: a;::YA Ll£LLQ E04 /ws ~ I ?;;~-:;J C=s) ~

IlL"'lr,l;!z J,J~~ 52LS..ChI~t1l-£Q.

i

1
-

~~--~1i---------------------------------~

20
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 21 of 47
21
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 22 of 47

-.---.--1+---

__."' 7?PJ:-rL';; L# hG.LD 5£/{v/ck MA,JU4<-:C=----_

I ii aE' -c-~./" C-

, /£

.
S'A

'. .
~D~1Zo:L.l..PiJ.fl£s.

~.&fD£J(

_ _~~---H--IiliE--CA.~LLL4 ;;2~-72/~S22LZ:E.J--> F~

: 0.

t ~d..,d:£.Lt..A.ILQ~..L.t:::L/A

S~L.£. .

..-'='t:P_....u-'-----=C=._ £ _ __

~~_--H--'I/~~s 8£~~ 1ZL..-:.'P.tt:Jd;l£P l'fA . [(n[l€

~CC.U/lgL..vc£""" . /

..~.~._._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

- - - -...- - - . - - -..•.~-+\----,~. -~-
--~H~~~n;h.L:L~ ,& £LD--.5'~L}?2A~~_.__

. . J2l..P .-~__---_ ~E -//" L./ c / k:..S-~/-f./I.)D

eLL) U.f) L s.: ~-u£);eL2

_

_________.kL'kV=Z.a ~/--3.9.JhFA'.)7;f L J2~,L A J7o<.J. S ~E.

_.

1~'A~IS />7-'Jo$ ~rLE&li!ZA//Z/~___

_ _. _ _

';1 ___£~kty££J t:?LQ/~~ _

,----l-i~~-/-22~~r/7 ,Gill X?.F..-'V/A,u={t2_ __

~--~~~~~~£)~~.-~----------------

- -~-.-' "---'--+t--

.-.~.-.-.~ ::.---""-

- -_._- .

] __ " ._.. _-_. __..."._--_.._-- .. _ .. .. --_._-----. .--:-"._----_..-

.. ·-·-..·-·----....-.·.i ------..--...-.-.-.--.---.---.---.------..

22
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 23 of 47
I 23
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 24 of 47

_ ---.-~.

.

------.-~----~-----.-----

.!:. --H::::..::::::..--.-----~-~---------.---,--

--~.~~-~-----~--------~-~---------~ ---.~_tlf__---~------:--~~~----------

12649005.2

. _ - - - - . - - -.... - - - . - - . - -
24

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 25 of 47
II
25
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 26 of 47

P}C~

W#£...u' AS}</,u6 72:1./ /A/577Cvc7l:~hflSoVL~.1

'c2.ILL/2 ~~J..tLkt2Ad£ W...m,1?D .tVor31hJ

~_ _ _--++_------,-~:.-",0~t!):.::..:"J~771~a=c.T~A_u..uM~~D:c..-~t

II.

___

/pL..D E/Y.- 1 ,M.A..¥S 1'2/41

_ _ _ _---++-_~~LJAJ..a...t/LI) 1?£ 72/f ,)oIT ~--LLL.oC.4<5LL....y~T--,,=.5~_ _ _ __

_ _ _~_+l--_F___"-'-'C'~LiPzAA./LJ LL2SLS" 7Z2 b£..L/5A-C..x- ~E~

____~'.I t+I_&~~~3_Ja~'D<~ .)Y"-Bf~P~~~~AA.T!£5

C7~0~7Gb7jpS~:7~.2!

/

}

,,/
.

I

'fr2 ~ /A/Y£Jut/£/5/ZZ 5}7ITEDdI~./lL'S)/c

£:rd:1,z ~---~--H-~--'- ~T;qU?DJl£Mfi'..JEo,

/;U

. ~/M:220&-j2/;'ZiMJ~/N T2'?

___~_--H-_ _ZLo-.-G£A~£ ~. ~ ~.£

5/?? WoUL 0 /1'/0.1£/1/:£ ou,T4AIY t!?z:;t;!A£

______-++-_4£2//.&1- t)J/U1l6J-LpiA J {/V,EJ{LM!J' Of
721£ AJd1At:,,t£ 5ALlfSJ;?t:RScvJ.

_ _ _ _~-~~r ilLL/£o aN,:zO&£ /A/PJ/C~~-=---__

_ _~_-+l_~b~---,,=~~'S~~~/AV6 ~. ~AdA/426 c{~D

-~-----+t------r.;.-~~-pz/£ ;av ~ L Ji~;;~Aij>-Jo<;,;/ .

~-~--+-i---..o. ,-i-/-L,Ag~-ULLZ7/ & Sk2,

'. ,

&SJ?7 Lz!~---;P~/L)12 Kfi./ot4£QM /~ .' ' .. '

MC'/1/ m..l~~~fiJ' ~S'/'?-6.4.SJ3E2"-<./,

26
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 27 of 47
27
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 28 of 47

-

-

-- -

-

- - - --

--~-

_____.-1't-I~-b~ C o..'-?~ r;7£Jl4.,J /~£)~DL~ _----,--~~

~_ _ _~-++~Ti.~K',/- d tLL~-17/~C; 7?/£ UYAS .L&-HQ!E_-_

~_~-+t--I S!1L!~71S

-~-._.~.~___._._.

___.____ __---_~ -...:r~~_~5 I/~ &2Lti W£L1F ~~L/5Lr!~;;~~:~__..

---~------W-Lt2EvkL/--dA/O ~/-~cLL___,-,,__~.

'--~----·H~. --.~-------.---.------~----
~~_~__--Hl'rL. _-a!.-~.I_72I£.Lk.f2E:.KAL&/!/~.s /??/~ V~L_.~_____.
.~~~_-+I-"'.~,--",,.£'/J_-,-,6~£71Ilpr"l fi1?"'/u:.--'L-...m.~ Uc.// TIUN£ .2CJCJ 7 ,._~_._,.__
_ ~~_~-'-4+-'W"'_""-----'.;1c>"'--'~S'_'_~ -......_. LLLJZU//ouX~MJ2JJm~) cD Jl:L~£..t:L:_._

------HI/'---'~~-r4S~/D All? r:;pY, 6!2L&.£JY ~ A,uD__
~_ _ _--1+,C~.L22/2.5 /0.-./ c:>/? h;1,v1 P'zt..IAL kv~E~_
------t+--;-z;!#' 7/.I-?~£._lJ;L~ ~ btl C:S~_ _
~---i £J1p.-> /&.1Mc-# mf(ot./c/I~.fVE ~ 20 0 :2-____
1x- i
________~ &,~z;V4 T ~~.$A& IJ INb AAdl2 WI ~t:.EI/L~____.___
_ ~____"'-i-fdi:..--L&- A/p£Lx.d/~£X'T~ 7E£.h$ C'o..uL) / / /'o-i!s ~t:V.D__.__ ~______I+.I-'J'?,,-,-,lI).<L...v~~/<.....:L=ML~J2L £~~Y"~~5 //lb;"'" foAX-=C.LLIzI'--_ _
__ ,..-____.__.._. __. .vdz.!2J!!!.~/.L £Iv~ rt;=2._C>O_-.L..2_ __

-_ _--_ .. ----.---_..• ..- --..-----------

28
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 29 of 47

_ . _ '-.--l_ .

tf

.

".

-, - /1

.. . '. -

.

. .

_.__._._. ~7J/A} ~J44LJFJi::!25-4Li ./s »o~.iJt;./-1 o/2£..~~

.~~--+!---.72P,JA--J2Ll~-::L~°4_8. ~6)T 70?-r:--..,.-----

~~--__tf_,d.d&abr./7?/Z I'~~.--;.>/~I~S . '.

-~

.

sOt;/?'} uI~~ ]2/ _____.,--..-+J.h------"-/-'--

/.J.AMO &/}/AJSr~._.__

________.__

C;;.:_:u.)~__C L//'v73( 12'l.2.L--J-0- ~j <J4'£ C;c..//.£'A-J-~s1._ _. _,'

-----tt----,,£.):L-hllL~--J?AGE"" 6) r( LL!~ !//0 ~ ( 012 '6;;";

.---.----tf--~.------~------
_:iJ~.&L~c:LJ E~7S 72.J_2Ll.VV~_.__,,___,
_~_.J!2LSCICLk?../..n//1rE£l A C,A-/..us-;;--!2o/O' ,77/£. __._-._
- ..-----IfJcL J_£~--:S~ 'I2z1A1ky 1L/J~ &l.L-VA~~::h.eV1-s__..-
_ _ _~..t21?7fo/.Ad A./EvEtl fZ.lA2/Z£~ DJSCL?/h~l~_
--~--++-,J2p-~t:b!£~ U ,bY...; r b.S'fi.? 7IUsz;EA.lc..W_._
_p:..t,J- -----~----"--+-t---+~1~-=7=1.2»-?'S~..L:k-.J--rJo j/ZLJ l,11V' u-Al4·Z65£~(·.£S --Uu~ ~lo_lC~_ -'!-'-')
-_--+tI-J7/-/Jr C/)..vC.~L~s..VJ?U»:

------~- - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- .__ .,,------_.- ... -_.._+------------
I
29
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 30 of 47
II II
30
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 31 of 47
8. AGREED PROPOSITIONS OF LAW 1. Under Texas law, the elements of an action for breach of contract are: (1) there is
a valid, enforceable contract; (2) the plaintiff performed its contractual obligation; (3) the defendant breathed the contract; and (4) the defendant's breach caused the plaintiffs damages. Aguiar v. Segal, 167 S.W.3d 443,450 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Under the parole evidence rule, extrinsic evidence may not be used to contradict, vary, or add to the terms of an unambiguous contract. In re H. E. Butt Grocery Co., 17 S.W.3d 360, 369 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, orig. proceeding). In order to establish a breach of contract, a plaintiff must plead and prove that all conditions precedent to the defendant's performance have been satisfied. Associated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 276, 283 (Tex. 1998); Hohenberg Bros. v. George E. Gibbons & Co., 537 S.W.2d 1,3 (Tex. 1976).
2. The ultimate question in every employment discrimination case is whether the plaintiff was the victim of intentional discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 153, (2000). Section 623(a)(1) of the ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer "to ... discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.c. § 632(a)(1).
3. To establish a discrimination case under the ADEA, Mr. Hilgert must prove: (1) t~at he was over 40 years old at the time of his termination; (2) that he was qualified for his position; (3) that he was discharged; and (4) that GSM terminated his employment "because of' his age." 29 U.S.c. § 623(a)(1); PalClsota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569, 575-76 (5th Cir. 2003).
4. To carry this burden under the ADEA, Mr. Hilgert must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that "but for" his age, he would not have been terminated but
31
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 32 of 47
would have remained employed. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., _ U.S. _, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2351-52 (2009) (explaining that plaintiff must show that he would have remained employed "but for" his age). "The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision." Id. at 2352.
5. Mr. Hilgert cannot recover liquidated damages under the ADEA unless he proves that GSM's decision to terminate his employment was "willful." 29 U.S.c. §§ 216(b), 626(b).
6. To establish a "willful" violation under the ADEA, Mr. Hilgert must prove that, when GSM terminated his employment, GSM either (a) knew that its conduct violated the ADEA, or (b) acted with reckless disregard for compliance with the ADEA. Thurston v. Transworld Airlines, inc., 469 U.S. 111, 125 (1985); West v. Nabors Drilling USA, inc., 330 F.3d 379, 391 (5th Cir. 2003).
7. Because front pay is an equitable remedy, a court rather than a jury should determine whether an award of front may is appropriate and if so, the amount of any award of front pay. Julian v. City of Houston, Tex., 314 F.3d 721,729 n.25 (5th Cir. 2002); Deloach v. Delchamps, Inc., 897 F.2d 815, 824 (5th Cir. 1990). 9. CONTESTED PROPOSlTIONS OF LAW
May does not concede that the following revisions and/or additions to its "agreed propositions of law"-which are proposed by Mr. Hilgert-are uncontested, despite the fact that Mr. Hilgert has labeled these revisions as "agreed propositions of law." Mr. Hilgert's proposed revisions are actually contested propositions oflaw:
32
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 33 of 47

8. AGlu.:Kn PROrOSlTlONS 01<- LAW'

,/oJA,-rTbJ 5.. 'fLY J!;7''';'s~

L The parties agree that the ElllpJoyment Agreemen~ dated January 15, 2006 ("the

Employment Agreement"), is a legallyblnding con.tract behveell CliveR Hilgert and George S.

r. M»~o:w-pI.nJt.e:r;niaJ:tiro6ru>dPC?om~. ~y-'

t)V}/h2
5-t'UA

'(L. £JA(:i:"t'-A~lJ'Ul>'~;(D'('/¥-.v~

J-tplY4Af'~.7'

»F "UI ...,)JL A t

lU;-.i.v;-/.
,·fL£ 1""J:.vT:

i

1,.J5J.tv~,,~.
.

2. Under Texas law, the elements of an action for breach of contract are: CI) there is

a valid, ertforce.able colltract.; (2) the piaintiiT performed .itscontrac-tual obHi$~~tion; (3) the

defendant breached the contract; and (4) the defendant's breach cause.d the plaintiffs damage::;. Aguiar v. Segal. 167 S.W3,u 443, 450 (Tex. App.-Houston {l4o, Dist.] 2005, nO pet.). Under

c-,.,;.i'H,A thepllrole evidenc.erule, extrinsic evidence may not be used to c(lntrnili~t "<;!y, or add to the

//'ltf..If~,/ U ~2J ~£,~ 7/¥.A/

CJ ,A-- fJI4(./C..,S .

te.tms of rut unambiguous contra, It. re If. E. Buu Grocery Co., 17 S.WJd 360, 369 (Tex,

App.~.J-I~UStoli [l41h Dist.] 2000, orig.proc(:cmng). In O1'der to establish a breach of contract, a

plrumiff mustplt>ad and prove that aU conditions precedent t{) the defendant's performance have

been satisfied, Assotiar"i/ Indem. Corp. '1-', CAT Contracting, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 276, 283 {Tex.

1998):; Hohenberg Bms. v. G(:.orge E. Gibbons & Ca., 537 S.W.2d 1,3 (Tex. 1976).

3. The ultimate .question in every employment discrimination caSe is w'helher the

plaintiff was the vict.im of intentional discrimination. Reeves v. &mdf?rson Plwttbing Prods,. me., 530 U.S. I33. 153. (2000). Section 623(a)(1) of the ADEA make;;; it unlaw1id for an

e.lnployer "to ... ~scriminate againgt any imji'viduaI "'10th respect to his compensation, terms,

conditions. or privileges of employment, he<:snsc of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. §

632(aXl). 4.

To establish a discrimination caSe \lTIdcr th-e AnnA. Mr. HHgert mu!>t prov.e: (1)

thal he was over 4() years old a.tthe time of his termination; (2) that he was qualili\.-d for his

position, (3) that he WaS dischru-ged; iUld (4) that G8M terminated l>Js employment ''hecau:;e of'

his age;' 29 US,C. § 623(a)(l)~ Palasota v, Haggar Clalhing Co., 342 F.3d 569, 575~76 (5th

C..I. f .

')001)
_ _.

6-5rr> PO£fN»/ Cg-'V/7-5T (J){z.)6) j J) r.>To.o.,l,~y(~)

33
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 34 of 47
5. To carry this burden under the ADEA. Mr. Hilgert must prove, by a prepondcrlitlce of the evidence. that "bm for" hls age, he"v(luld not have been terminated but would have rem.uned employed. G'rQ$$ v. FBL Financial SerVices, Inc., _ U.S. _, 129 8.0. 2343~ 2351-52 (2009) (expl~gthat plaintiff must show that he would have remained employed "but fbt" bisage). <"The burden of persua.')iQn does not shift 10 the emp)oy~ to show that it would haye taken the action regardless of age, even Whtn a plaintiff has proou(;ed some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision." ld" at 2352.
6. J\.fr. HUgert cannot rt'Cuver li\juidated um1.1ages under the ADEA. lID!ess be prove.') that GSM's decision to ter1l1inat~ his employment was "v.'ilifW.'" 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b}:
'J /....!,It-:E/f'A2t.LP.1;,£J 7J.fAJ G'S4 P'El'I'P.,'v 7'a r£!?y;,t.v4~ W A-l /N J4.c:.:, w/I.-L;. ut.;s
7. To est.<iliHsb II "willful'" violation under the ADEA, Mr. Hilgert must prove tbat, when GSM tenllinated Ws employment. GSM either (a) knew thaths conduct "jnlatoo the .!.\DBA, or (b) acted with reckless disregard for cOIiipliMce With the ADEA. Thurston v.
determine whether an award of front may 'is appropriate and if $0, the amount of any award of front pay. Julian v. City oJHoustoJ'l, Tal 314 F.3d 721, 729 n.15 (5th Cir. 2002); De/OllCh v. D$e"l.c4M. mGp$s,~Inc;.,5.8f9·7".F'l.2Jd·.J8I1~5).872b4A(J5t.hLei7r.£19~9A0)r. AA~,vD'tff~t/"-p~'JIlM,V4"('"L.W JltJAo6/l£t4~AWw$~,.A ... n 'ST..If) •.qLS,
9. Mr. Hilgert cannot recover punitive damages or exemplary damages on his breach of contract claim, even if the breach was malicious, intentional, or capricious. Lisanti v. Dixon, 147 S.W.3d 638, 645 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied); Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster, 144 S.W.3d 554, 567 (Tex. App.-Austin 2004, no pet.).
34
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 35 of 47

9.

CUNTJ£/sTEJJ l'Kuyosn1UN15 UY LA".AWbWi;';~.I;"n WI U/ ....uy..-f.,t.> t>

L

t.y Mr.

Hilgert

Contends

tbat G~N~legal1y
wlil'Trt.M

\~Vtw;v.eHd1:

the. conditions lhal Jl)U~ be WT7?/ooJT/t;,y;YI.lnj'uJ//lo""

~J. '_
"".;6:;C.Jt1

satisfied under the Employment Agreeme:nkin order to qualify fot a commhsion ,>titb respect to

the following four businesses: (1) Mr. Romer Phullbing, (2) No:rman's Air ConditioniIlg, (3) . VAi.l£Y1'L't:A..u
Hargill GrQw~rs.and (4) ~4Td!ky. Mr. Hilgert believes GSM JegaUy waive.d the

requirements in Mr. Hilgert's Employment Agreement with respect to these c1i:cntsbecAuse a

different

employee,

known

as

an

.'\:nalyst,

was

able

to

successfulflylUsel'l a......d.+isffeAre1n't>Islfecrvci"creft1o(S",lT

_:
Q?" .

.

II;1.. iloT"IT .5f,~ o;v~ 771.£ $rNf vf7 t"l1l~-;- ~

these same clients and was thus abk to generate a profit for GS~·~ GSM denies that it legally

.

waived the conditions set Iorth in Mr. Hilgert's contract because a waive.r requires a dear intent

!UP/£, to

give

tip 't

,aYrIigh6tS,,a,D"d,~noP"s"u"~'lh/.cl le;arr.oin/4tern/tT\7~7

cx:prc~-d
Mv..ry

'with
;uu,

sresppecAt~t.o/aU.n.yJol"f.toh<eVtTraPnJsa.uct-i(o.n,.s;

""-"

at issue; See Regent Int'l11otels v. Las Colin(JS Hotels. 704 S.W.2d 1m. 103.04 (Tex. App.-

£5.'.

OalhlS 1985, U.o \vrit).

IIICP~~p !1fD/OS/,7?,·~S ~r LA W,'
.; /A. £11/ 12 -£.A5~t2/ 0 Z?/£.-.ll.. fi&J:LL1 C.Zs......L2.____- __

I~

-

.+t)2ae?£I?.z~ AJ)/?/ /zz;tn LE .Ec:>v:Jl!?£QuFlt£Hz&IZS

'111/All£/,.. A7.7£-.;-.~ 7~~)',\ 72(£ £VII). >I£/U~K / 5 oU'E.Z-tJ)

'I! Ira/l >AZ-'L~-j2IL/1~o~~-.J?~£?.~£J2IZ-£~UrI2~,-

d'/eJra.74 (z;27?1£ .!:v'/PI>t/Ct., /5 , gilL£. V'A..v7 ~J??£

+,U..ei?! £ VIL? L(o/J6;) ~ LfLDlJA;IVI: VA~u£

l:.&~£dL.£V' P'£::y~L.L~'S/LhP7,.£r,d,$SM/t.J7/-1?CV

!!i;

C't/7 J/i;tJ6...t/n-'.2_¥/7:;s

/

-

e

Z

Z

/

v

7

l

A

"
L. Eo.!?

'/ ?/~AJi-_

-tj/lI;)k12!.££ .0VP£/1 hP.!f£l/ID*.J~ /-J..-JD· .
!.:[~. 72!L 1;>/ ;i7:K,'C}Lt2vd~.yad &?:a:uES-Z; __

_t~~_f-l_:s......__~-~JQ¥ .,2?;J_>c:.a~Y:_L;2LL_;z;!ft_~,~.

72&- 1, E VI);."¥.A/C:£ pA..JLY( ,£b -'1

P ~.//l p..:p $.;;r Eo j?

.; --","~.--.""''''''''''''''''-~--

35
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 36 of 47

i
1
I

j

Ii.jI
------til ----~l!:--. AAlL-tiID~t:,h?£-vT CL.-9/M ll£4:2f)lllt..~7~=c=--ii""~:.L.7--"-,-(-,,-;l)~A-.L-..P-AL5f-fl-£f211-E 5 ~.5.2P-~ PC MA aZJAL

----++-1ib e l (l}.....L::!zdJ:J1 w/tvJ Pd' DLLVr/P1~,K.:V£tJ

____~.jI1d!~,-'a.lLZ53~1U1;t2..h~?1";j<.A1/oJwAE,)

£)/-
l.ua

?ZL!L.ML2Lz:L;J~r;Ebt?J£.AJ-7 ~S-

____ ,1_/1///./('£ eLL/.-1ft/c£~~ ·t2I~)jd"A2.J/7/E LA)

-!I~-C.T ,

glL/LDW/ //p~

&~//'ElADLv;. ~

5LLL.oU

.

11 ~6C$Vi/:DL.!L i / ~.t4U£ 5:Za $". 3:"",-, Jc,~

_ _ _ _~·IH_'l!.....!~7.=A:...<..---'~c;A, JCj1c:»%fVIEt,V Dbu/iD. ~SP z,j;LI..

_ _ _~_~ELA / ?1L}. -

/

. -

-------4+!:--~~.Jc&..L2v__J!..llE_~ E C'C::>V/("Z,ot.,u EoJU:!:l.'"-"O$.....,ACL.-~_ _

_ _~_-+l!<-"lPL'~.-5J.7cs (""t::¥7-;PJ?dA/J~ ~s:4 l/. alSIP/o £NC~£"",,Jl~S,---_

___~.-HI~~LP~~cro£s· ttto S Wz./' 9-L fA 15'1;).1

1Y . ~_-_-_ -~_!-lII+,''AJ'-.l.L.~L~L:.I:d....WO::L<PVM=~,-=J.6-/.PI21.fJ1t.f£'cZ/Psf .£:o~'-..--uLcLPkc.::>vS?5Y!~luAL~fVSVILjR/.),u

. _~-----,j\T<b"pLJ ....vo./' BA-.IL.,E-flAJJ)uLWT //l/DLlCEmE"J7:S CLA.lr:,,s
---~-tlll :a~A.J L,fJw ))/}sL~C; ,~~DA D.v-3Y.£..TZ?-=----

I~ -_ _-__ --__-_-_~Hl-+i~rll.l .n=::.;.~~ -YL;C:.K.B.h~£=t/..A:AOe=s.-l=47-·,U~ ~.~.C5. /Le/-,>lv~N-.L--T~Z,/JTl-A~2O7/A~N~.7.TJ?.)p//'O(lA/oCCu.tl&S~!2-£/.f,A.7f_A'#~"lAo£/u1/2«U -7-:<37rE/A£/./{/~~ .APE7-v"b.r9I}Oq7£J.Y.A7V£J/1/$7Jn./eAVo.1.J1~o../lv)~

m _ _ _ _--tt'I_.Lj5 ~E« ~,/A.f],I5%L2 ~)

~~41t. Qt2~6C

_ _ _ __--w.]2£ilA(1)vL£4jY ?JOCv£LLLL~--vTMc/l.5_ _ _ __

..,..,.-----tt5L;P-M~-A-'12DJ~LJ..Lft.J;».A/T ~~ 7?/LJ2v'J?ES

_ _ _ _-t-<·lE5L4f2L151/f~--V-i~ (~--vn::/Jc'T /T5LL~'"'--~_ __

t1l£ _ _ _---tF=tLI-~W'-'t..~t:>N:...:.....~(/,o AJJA»O&N£f2

p b 5»/o.;J

7

- - - - - - _.. _ . _ - - - - - - _ . _ - - _ . _ - - - - _ .

36
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 37 of 47
~7A Ct!:'"./77?Ac7 /'?? v ST /3£ /1£LD S~c.j{ £0
:tJIF ~_ _~---t+tf1~L112L 2$.s &I-:z?/:! Ell!! uP CJ/ t:JA./~ C2C
37
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 38 of 47

l
I
I

_ _ _ _-rr_~~,71.dA_S LA~ ce:?,-../n,p.,J -L.gw ,T:o..lJt/D

~--~---H~~~.<...'-/-=-£~~ TJ~ Mt-V/€ SArt~ CdvS.F '
__~~~~~~~~~r(~~~-_J~f."~Z~~~7Y~ LO~C~S~"~L~"~P~',bL~/_______
A~A;J /)12 5 Lv_ )aI~2c;4Jr 2-..LX:Ly----

kJl.D To //'$

TJ7J~.t..vr /!>/J/ A..J -4kLII2~J) /??'/Sgy.o-£S..f"p...E~~.

_~_ _---iH~,--""-<.C...v",,,,--,£'-----"~.-I.G.-,;Cv~r=7A..z...-=-l-~a:L/?2£-u7 ,6),£ A EX/J (/ J) CLA Jn.
----H->"-~>15,t:.~'-",1/~'_.&c..z-=L;;..LA.4......L%? b ZS)N'.y 72!,; 79Y'

_ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~Z~~~~~~~£~DA~LL~DV~C~~~£~~~~----
~--~--_4:'H!,i='~A~/~,A,~' ~/E_/~ A ~~Ac7 ~~~6~'~------

.)1

/

_'

\

'~~~~1;jT->i6<-=-' -A"--"'LS>"s£...-1~wS~LA./...u'7>/E

,

:~ih'-?y, ("LA;.n:.. ,7-/{A v1D?u2 ~..1d.Ld!....£...}_ _. ~~_~

_ _ _ _ _--!r~!~£4J.r:. S£L.2t::J~ht!)Jd PL» ~Y/c.!> (o.£P

~_ _---+;I~k-2· 'S vt/.U4- r¥L

~~--~--_'l_]n----4+!',-llk-U-LL,-r.t ,I4~fJezJ7V2~lt~4'MJs,t',_f~/C/9Av5"~ &']]~(,)...j

":At:/?lthE~
,eL,£fr?-(";'(..)T?'",tr

_

_

_

_-+.'!,)lI"J-E-I-A"-'I,?cc.:L:..A".J!/J.,"nU~D;~~U~"-~£~~ ./ ~DVEC~ v;y.~!,-£.C£r9.;JA/ r/PJ/l~~t£/~'

M PH

.h/A.J

·11C1Zfi:.l>?Voff U C,-9v 5£ 4''' E.RA o'DtJLE-V:r

------,+----------'---------'--~-----,----------.---
38
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 39 of 47
39
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 40 of 47
2. l>h. Hilgert cannot recover punitive and/or compensatory damages under the
ADEA Smith v. Berry Company. 165 F.3d 390, 395 (5th Cir. 1999) (punitive. damages are not
recoverableunde.r the ADEA); Dean ~t. Am. Sec. ins, ~o., 559 F.2d 1036, 1038<3:9 (5th CiT,
20(5) (denYlngpro :replaintiff's reqm:st for attorneys' fees and paralegal fee.s); .ree also Dlimdei v. Certified Financial Planner Bd.of Standards, Inc., slipop., 1999 WL 7&7402, at ·8 (N.D. Tex. O~t, 1, 1999) ("Plain.tiff is .a pro Sf! litigant. not an attomey. As such, he canoot recover
40
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 41 of 47

Ii
'II PItJLALu;,AL r£J!s

___~-+1+-,13A~&&x.}/j-A?o /'/1,-J e:J/f; ct:A &J/ 71/£ 1""c;Jc...J~

III A

'1/D

~

Ct:7 vA J

C A/J LfLo~/•v£.

M~"-,b=e,,,-,,~/l"""'c-I,,,-S~''_ _ __

1'~W~"~jLJZa 050
,..----_-+.k,L/=z~y }2£1hr6£Ctt:J u.._v5£ (. gl f t?R.. TO
__--+·II-fILV!VA./!h..~-~7.It.OJ.A.£-;A~l,-O%l1TA/,I,l££3 ~ZYZl?cGi/1llfhC~JAL-7z;Yt!/~cYC~JV/l~

!il WJ!£.J A;JIlJAfh!t:.,J » 0 / ~VQL--i b$ZJ12/J-J'JJ~
~! II l/, 5c. ~3M)J20£ZVD/42'$1 7?/£ .

_____:.I!H~-l-T-"-Ow.I~ogl.~r'Lf!"lo'HS57/of/i/'A. GJfU/N)a, ~LL:t:;'L/n5p£.5"LJ~-ET--~O=,--_-_

_ _ _~~:'l+-I!l2LL/7U~ dU/A 51.P1;12;l-.1>A:>t:. Q ' ~Z;AJ'~~d,-,"iJ~L-=.f<-._ __

_ _ _ _.~ ~L..)f:~s A7VO~LJ}·.s e>.J+1JLi,6/0 v/{s. '

,-----#--li- $~£./lTA.iit Dk'> ;z:;JI.4"//-/% L-..2-,.,<A,--<''---__~_

,--------llH-!/-f-P-,-'I2-,,-,t?~0,~ 5/ ~AJ~., A,A./Q ,',~ o..v-jY-- ~/VE ~ z&'t'

--,-~.-~-+jl,I liCAt-1.</-t-.-"A"'l:.?...' .!.J.,l-"c ~ £.-.'f.JIs

/s ;VoZ-JCtJ.l'DvJll.D To
L-2D fL¥£f1r.....Lf5-' 1N72~~s£

ffA
L;:;

I

I

[

'

-~-~,"---'il+ll+--!'1 -----,t2!L £&?JAc...~,,&_CeL-~ ,7usJ/c£, AC-j

_

_

_

',Jj;t~fl~ .~~ "'L4I:-O'2.~~ _--:l+jl_~_p/_=-&?-,-<~-'!9 fill t/AiJi ,.~t>~Vt.J~ !d.d/A/S---.L ,A:"

Y£",--'_J_
'/ ,

_

',-!iAf~A~L~~,5:;-27l?~~n~II/I, r1£2{»t)Su/-L2:LJ{-;rLEJS~.--,-MEPLcb££k.4r.l/L~

I ----~~-+-11~.A~'=L(~£n~?~--~;-Z3lf >Ah?e-24h~~£~_____
------tt)fAWdffJ2£.£2 70 A ~_£1. L JK£_M~6£L;Z_-_____

_ _ _---lif - +-I _Lv..l.LLi.C?;2 5A..J~77t?...u5 L{2)_~_cLd.L~J'_.I_ _._

----'-_____-H=---"'--'£"""-"'-=s-=-£S~t1z.Z2ILlL£t:&.A L C'~N72=~'~=·.s..._ __ -----+i-I~...L~ ,M£ WAf?XAA/~p ;~J S72;,v6~.=..;&,--"vJ..:::._ , _~

11

41
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 42 of 47

Ii

IIIloR .B/A ~~A..I~!l.JVoLcJ/.JS~;;a::.u/nvu7 ,;co/} ~::.&J5/~

tJp£.LLt~/P...J:7-'.28-1LLl2lIlUL &f £6/5T/..u6
~~W ~/( T?/l £5'Z2?tJ~£A/;/.t?/-,/L/£IA/M~>-,--

_

_

_

_+'Iii ~/~~ c!££'(R}.u)/')S;--Z"J2.".oL~A DTonc/8~.LV6,hv7Tb£'CE£'U~2£ZcD

'

'
)

c14 _ _ _ _-+Lj'iI'?!L'---/JP'--'1~-J~DL~CLd,r.Yt>r?A~L/L5£'5£))t~:£)..~..J~ LAd.l O o/b%,II.RS-£. .A.D/T~JTCL£LD ~_

'JA~ lA

/?J/~ ~

7?? AA-l Au/A£J)

d'!E-

AAl

i NC liNT/vi HE AN AU/AR 0 72/AL So~£

I

7

~_ _ _-iH~I=G.:..:::t:)-=('/==-"'~'}~~-f)1-Z~O."J=.LA w Y££LL(2 ~

-----,'_ ------_+-1-~.\_1~:''-:i!--i=-t+:,J-j.::iN-m'/-3-/~;!r.':'!KlL£A_rL5"EL:je4(-Sl9~S/.IC~~LJ-~~.s_~>£~--~/-?1-~..hL-.CVP~Z?6£'!A!J[/7f/"70J-;U/fJ~£'£.s~1n,J~_-J_-

'.iIA...vo5&,~{ [It rg"k.COLL.'CPL£)~ L//I~,ur-.5. ~ _

,------1+1 !? t-=-?.:.....;:J(,-,,<i..=-VA/ l/"v t ~Ar/l Xl :;I

/l.) S'.. '

,-------+~t-I~'_.J->f(J..£...ULJ"u
~----'+l-r-I/,-~L2 cr 20

7~~O~ 5£,: C .9'£lIv
0

I

Cz[?/·Lco~t!17J/'c?T-&h/~LDlo~£~"--

I7A lJ )?IoC/.-tI?3" D-LLl£/l£p/( ~A./{jJ.L.£c~ M.do/C./C .dat

!I 11r-££~NO/ ~:>-F~/1
____-'-+il.,N.L""-'(::!TZ~·;£L~j2A-tlA.i£ 4t

tw2~T¥/£1iJ!<lD:iv/Z4.SAJ55Lu~y~fA5,.JY'P

'-------+iIF-'·rn~-""t9/1:~lCL;.;£~-pC 6J~~7"7P/l,A/~CJ/cK /;p~..J
__~_--+111f-·~/=O=--::27{/R/i:S:/-4~~';Y_5£>~-i/.-.:v;1rs7-a? ~~A-M~~'D~_

.
_

r _ _ _ _-jjI+JIP_L-_-'_'/C=~-=;)UTS . /J A "7 2 0 .;::J - ~ :M / S .5 O,Ll1LL_IL.L_ / __
_ ~_--++~I-><O'-"'kV~}(..:..L/,A/'5 U ~~.-,-z..2tL__0;n...)~ CD/..v6--L2!AL

----*W~+/Zl?03/0~ //f.! £'21/.5. c. fj.5~~~:O~/.u6'
------HIIf( 'i.eovf1>"~14 TTC;/l.A../~£ ~ / ~ c. I viJ L /1;.£..il'£""/s~_

. ------- --~---+:f-:----~------------------

II

42
12649005,2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 43 of 47
43
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 44 of 47
10. EXHIBITS
A. On a form similar to the one provided by the clerk, ·each party will attach two lists of all exhibits expected to be offered and will make the exhibits available for examination by opposing counsel. All documentary exhibits must be exchanged before trial, except for rebuttal exhibits or those whose use cannot be anticipated.
n. A party requiring authentication of an exhibit must notify the offering
counsel in writing within five (5) days after the exhibit is listed and made available; failure to object in advance of the trial in writing concedes authenticity.
C. Within reason, other objections to admissibility of exhibits must be made at lease three business days before trial; the Court will be notified in writing of disputes, with copies of the disputed exhibit and authority.
D. Parties must mark their exhibits to include the date and case number on each.
E. At the trial, the first step will be the offer and receipt in evidence of exhibits.
Two copies of Plaintiff's exhibit list are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12
Two copies of Defendant's exhibit list are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
12 May objects to Mr. Hilgert's Trial Exhibit List because it does not provide May with sufficient notice regarding the exhibits that Mr. Hilgert expects and/or intents to use at trial. Mr. Hilgert's Exhibit List identifies various collections of documents as purported single "exhibits" when they are in fact multiple separate and distinct documents that encompass hundreds of pages. Mr. Hilgelt's Exhibit No.2, for example, encompasses approximately 144 pages and is made up of multiple different documents, including (but not limited to) accounts receivables records, contracts, correspondence, and payment checks. Likewise, Mr. Hilgert's Exhibit No. 5 includes approximately 223 pages and encompasses a multitude of different documents. Mr. Hilgert's Exhibit List is also deficient in that it fails to identify his proposed exhibits by "Bates" number, despite the fact that all the documents produced in this case include these identifying markers. The parties have produced over two thousand pages of documents in this case, and many of those documents are similar or include versions with only slight variations. Consequently, Mr. Hilgelt's omission of the "Bates" numbers on his Exhibit List makes it nearly impossible for May to identify those exhibits that Mr. Hilgert will use at trial. In light of the foregoing, May requests that Mr. Hilgelt be ordered to revise his Trial Exhibit List as follows: (1) to identify the specific documents Mr. Hilgelt intends to use at trial, instead of selecting document ranges with hundreds of different documents; and (2) to include his proposed trial exhibits "Bates" number for the corresponding exhibits so that May can more easily identify his exhibits.
44
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 45 of 47
11. WITNESSES A. List the names and addresses of witnesses who may be called with a brief statement of the nature of their testimony. Include the qualifications of expert witnesses; these will be used to qualify the expert at trial. B. Include: If other witnesses to be called at the trial become known, their names addresses, and subject of their testimony will be reported to opposing counsel in writing as soon as they are known; this does not apply to rebuttal or impeachment witnesses. Two copies of Plaintiffs witness list are attached hereto as Exhibit C. Two copies of Defendant's witness list are attached hereto as Exhibit D ..
12. SETTLEMENT The parties attended a mediation conference before The Honorable Peter E. Ormsby,
United States Magistrate Judge, in January 2009. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes at that time. Since then, the parties have attempted to resolve their disputes through informal settlement discussions. No settlement has been reached. GSM believes that all settlement possibilities have been exhausted, that the case cannot be settled, and that the case will have to be tried. 13. TRIAL
A. The probable length of trial is three days. B. The parties do not anticipate any logistical problems with the presentation of
evidence. 14. ATTACHMENTS
A. For a jury trial: (1) l>roposed questions for the voir dire examination. Plaintiffs proposed voir dire questions are attached hereto as Exhibit E. Defendant's proposed voir dire questions are attached hereto as Exhibit F.
45
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 46 of 47
(2) Proposed charge, including instructions, definitions, and special interrogatories, with authority.
The parties have significant disagreements regarding the factual and legal issues in this case, as illustrated by the foregoing portions of the parties' Joint Pretrial Order. The majority of these disagreements (as .indicated in May's preface above) stem from the fact that Mr. Hilgert's proposed pretrial submissions include factual allegations and legal propositions concerning claims that are not at issue in this lawsuit. His jury instructions and jury questions are no exception-they are replete with argumentative and prejudicial allegations that have no relation to the remaining legal claims.
Moreover, Mr. Hilgert's proposed jury instructions and jury questions are technically deficient. His proposed instructions and questions are not derived from pattern jury charges and he provides no citations to legal authority (statutes, case law, or pattern jury instructions) that support the submission of the instructions and/or jury questions that Mr. Hilgert seeks. Mr. Hilgert's proposed jury questions are also improper and prejUdicial because he inserted his own biased and prejudicial answers after several special interrogatories-which are meant to be read the jury and which must be objective and accurate reflections of the law. 13
In sum, Mr. Hilgert's proposed jury instructions and questions are improper because they are argumentative and are not an accurate reflection of the law or the claims remaining at issue in this case. Consequently, Mr. Hilgert's proposed jury instructions and questions should not be presented to the jury. In addition, because the parties do not agree regarding the factual and/or legal issues remaining in this case, the parties are submitting their own· separate proposed jury instructions and interrogatories:
13 See, e.g, Hilgert's proposed Special Interrogatory regarding Age Discrimination, Exhibit G, wherein Mr. Hilgert inserted his own biased and prejudicial answer to this interrogatory and discusses at least five reasons supporting his allegation that his employment was terminated because of his age.
46
12649005.2

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 89 Filed in TXSD on 08/31/10 Page 47 of 47
Plaintiffs proposed jury charge and questions are attached hereto as Exhibit G. Defendant's proposed jury charge and questions are attached hereto as Exhibit H.

Date
APPROVED: August 31, 2010 Date
A[/~11 gUo
j).,h,L

ROBERT HINOJOSA' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
s/ John Collins John Collins, Attorney for Defendant

47
12649005.2

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 126 Filed in TXSD on 09/28/12 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
McALLEN DIVISION

CLIVE B. HILGERT
vs.
GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL COMPANY

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER M-07-094

JUDGMENT On this day came on to be considered Plaintiff's "Motion for Summary Judgment" in the above referenced case (Docket Entry No. 117), and the Court, noting that Defendant failed to respond to said motion or otherwise even make an appearance in this action in the last year, and having reviewed the motion and the pleadings on file, is of the opinion that it should be granted for the reasons previously stated on the record and to the extent stated below. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff Clive B. Hilgert does recover of and from Defendant George S. May International Company, the sum of $5,873.00 in damages related to Plaintiff's contract claims and$ 25,000 in damages related to Plaintiff's age discrimination claims asserted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA''), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., plus postjudgment interest at the legal rate of 0.18% per annum. It is further ORDERED this case is hereby DISMISSED.

Case 7:07-cv-00094 Document 126 Filed in TXSD on 09/28/12 Page 2 of 2

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Judgment to counsel for

the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Pft DONE on this

day of September, 2012, at McAllen, Texas.

Ricardo H. Hinojo a CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 1 of 14
CLOSED,LEAD,MAG
U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (McAllen) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:07−cv−00094

Hilgert v. May Assigned to: Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Related Cases: 7:09−mc−00011
7:09−cv−00154
7:12−cv−00207 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/01/2007 Date Terminated: 09/28/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Clive B. Hilgert an Individual, 1−5,000 Similary Situated Present and Past Employees of Defendant

represented by Clive B. Hilgert 2500 N. 32nd St. Apt 2 McAllen, TX 78501 956−566−4540 PRO SE

V. Defendant George S. May International Company

represented by John L Collins Seyfarth Shaw LLP 700 Milam St Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002−2797 713−225−2300 Fax: 713−225−2340 Email: jcollins@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 09/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Alexander Clifford Seyfarth Shaw 700 Milam Street Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 713−225−7473 Fax: 713−821−0658 Email: dclifford@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 09/29/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esteban Shardonofsky Seyfarth Shaw LLP 700 Milam Street Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 713−225−2300 Fax: 713−821−0657 Email: sshardonofsky@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 09/29/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Respondent Seyfarth Shaw LLP

represented by

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 2 of 14
John L Collins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/01/2007
05/03/2007
05/08/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 06/13/2007
06/13/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/23/2007
07/23/2007 07/23/2007
07/27/2007 08/03/2007
08/08/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against George S. May International Company (Filing fee $ 350) filed by Clive B Hilbert. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation # 2 Affidavit)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
2 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 8/8/2007 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
3 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Clive B Hilgert re: 2 Order for Initial Conference and Disclosure − FORMS, filed. (esmith, ). (Entered: 05/11/2007)
4 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Clive B Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/14/2007. (bgarces, ). (Entered: 05/29/2007)
5 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Clive B Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ). (Entered: 05/29/2007)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to George S. May International Company served on 5/25/2007, answer due 7/24/2007, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
7 AFFIDAVIT by Clive Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ). (Entered: 06/18/2007)
8 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by George S. May International Company, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
9 DESIGNATION of John L. Collins as attorney in charge of George S. May International Company, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII, ADEA, FLSA, Constitutional, Good Faith And Fair Dealing, And Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claims by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/13/2007. (Collins, John) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
11 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by George S. May International Company, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
12 PROPOSED ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims re: 10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII, ADEA, FLSA, Constitutional, Good Faith And Fair Dealing, And Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claims, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
13 JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by all parties, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
14 PLAINTIFFS REPLY to 10 Defendant's Motion to dismiss some claims, filed by Clive B Hilbert. (mzamarripa, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/7/2007 (mzamarripa, ). (Entered: 08/06/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Initial PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 8/8/2007. All parties present. Mr. Hilgert is proceeding pro se. The Court addresses the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant which the Court will also consider as a motion for summary judgment and makes the following rulings: As to the Title VII and ADEA claims the Court finds that these claims should be dismissed; the Plaintiff conceedes to the FLSA claim; the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss and/or for summary judgement as to the Fifth Amendedment claim as well as the good faith and fair dealing claims and the negligent infliction of emotion distress claim. This leave the breach of contract claim and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before the Court rules on these claims the Plaintiff is asked to try to contact some lawyers who may take his case. The Court will set a hearing date where the Plaintiff can advise the Court how he will proceed or if he

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 3 of 14

08/27/2007 08/27/2007 09/11/2007 09/12/2007
09/12/2007
10/15/2007 11/06/2007 11/07/2007 12/14/2007 12/19/2007
12/21/2007 01/04/2008 01/22/2008 02/07/2008
03/04/2008

hired an attorney. The Court sets the hearing for 9/12/2007 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: Clive B. Hilgert, pro se; John L Collins.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
15 Plaintiff's MOTION to Reconsider the Dismissal of Some of Plaintiff's Claims with Prejudice by Clive B Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/17/2007. (mzamarripa, ). (Entered: 08/28/2007)
16 Plaintiff's MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Exhausting of Administrative Remedies by Clive B Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/17/2007. (mzamarripa, ). (Entered: 08/28/2007)
17 RESPONSE in Opposition to 15 MOTION for Reconsideration, 16 MOTION to Stay, filed by George S. May International Company. (Collins, John) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Initial PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 9/12/2007 denying 16 MOTION to Stay, 15 MOTION for Reconsideration, 4 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel. All parties present. Mr. Hilgert is present and proceeding pro se. The Court addresses the Request for Appointment of Class Attorney and DENIES same. The Court DENIES the Motion to Reconsider and also DENIES the Motion to Stay Proceedings. The Court will issue a docket control order. (90 days) Appearances:Clive B. Hilgert. John L Collins.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
18 SCHEDULING ORDER: Joinder of Parties due by 12/21/2007 Discovery due by 12/11/2007 Dispositive Motion Filing due by 12/21/2007 Non−Dispositive Motion Filing due by 12/21/2007 Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/3/2008 Motions for Extension of Time due by 11/13/2007 Pretrial Conference set for 1/10/2008 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
19 NOTICE of Starting of the Discovery Process by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
20 Agreed PROPOSED ORDER for Protective Order, filed.(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
21 Agreed MOTION for Protective Order by all parties, filed.re # 20 Motion Docket Date 11/27/2007. (Clifford, Dennis) Modified on 11/7/2007 (jdav, ). (Entered: 11/07/2007)
22 Unopposed MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/3/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
24 ORDER granting 22 Unopposed MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order, Joint Pretrial Order due no later than 30 days from the date that the Court rules on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Pretrial Conference set for 2/7/2008 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
23 Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
25 REPLY to 23 Sealed Event, filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit D)(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
26 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 01/22/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. HEARING held on 2/7/2008. Dennis Clifford for Defendant is present. Mr. Clive Hilgert is not present. The Court sets a Show Cause hearing for Mr. Hilgert for 3/7/2008 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa at which time the Court will also take up the pending matters. Appearances:Dennis Clifford.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
27 Notice by Clive B. Hilgert: Correct address: 2500 N. 32nd St. Apt. 2, McAllen, TX 78501, filed.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 4 of 14

03/07/2008
03/07/2008 04/24/2008 05/09/2008 05/09/2008 05/15/2008
06/12/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/27/2008 06/30/2008 07/10/2008 07/16/2008

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 3/7/2008. Mr. Hilgert is also present proceeding pro se. *The Court addresses Mr. Hilgert and his failure to be present at the last hearing. Mr. Hilgert gives his explanation. AFter some discussion the Court will not impose a fine. The Court signs the Agreed Protective Order. Mr. Hilgert can supplement his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by 4/25/08; Defense can file their reply by 5/9/08 and the Court will continue with this hearing on 5/15/2008 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: Dennis Alexander Clifford; Mr. Clive Hilgert, pro se(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) Modified on 3/12/2008 (smartinez, ). (Entered: 03/12/2008)
28 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER ( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
29 Supplemental Reply to Defedant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
30 DOCUMENT INADVERTENTLY FILED/NOT FOR PUBLIC VIEWING: REPLY to Response to 23 Sealed Event, filed by George S. May International Company. (Clifford, Dennis) Modified on 5/9/2008 (bgarces, ). (Entered: 05/09/2008)
31 Corrected REPLY to Response to 23 Sealed Event, filed by George S. May International Company. (Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 5/15/2008. Mr. Hilbert is also present proceeding pro se. The Court addresses the Motion for Summary Judgment and the two remaining issues. The Court GRANTS the motion on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to the issue of breach of contract, the Court instructs Mr. Hilgert that he needs to file some sworn statement that would contradict the facts presented by the Defense. Mr. Hilgert to file said statement by 6/16/08 and the Court will continue with this hearing via Telephone Conference on 7/2/2008 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: Dennis Alexander Clifford.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) Modified on 6/12/2008 (smartinez, ).*hrg date corrected. (Parties notified) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
ORAL ORDER Telephone Conference set for 7/2/2008 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Parties notified.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
Document(s) Sent by certified mail to Clive B. Hilgert; Tracking Number 7004 2510 0004 3293 8361 re: Oral Order: Telephone Conference set for 7/2/2008 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
32 Supplemental Motion and REPLY to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation, # 2 Continuation)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
33 MOTION for Reconsideration by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2008. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
34 Second REPLY to Response to 33 MOTION for Reconsideration, 23 Sealed Event, filed by George S. May International Company. (Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
ORAL ORDER by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa: Telephone Conference reset for 7/17/2008 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. (previously set for 7/2/08) Parties notified. (Mr. Hilgert notified via voice message)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
35 Plaintiff's Third Supplemental REPLY to Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
ORAL ORDER by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa: ( Telephone Conference reset for 8/7/2008 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified. Mr. Hilgert notified telephonically.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 07/16/2008)

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 5 of 14

07/17/2008 07/22/2008 07/22/2008 08/07/2008
09/16/2008 09/16/2008 09/25/2008
10/08/2008 10/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/15/2008 10/29/2008 11/07/2008 11/26/2008 11/26/2008 11/26/2008

ORAL ORDER ( Telephone Conference set for 8/7/2008 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa), (CHANGE ON TIME ONLY). Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
36 Certified Mail Receipt Returned as to Clive B. Hilgert re: 07/02/2008 hrg. notification., filed. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
37 ***Delivery Confirmation; delivery date(s) 07/19/2008 re: Notice of Electronic Filing of 08/07/2008 hearing, Certified Mail Receipt Returned as to Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 8/7/2008. All parties present. (Mr. Clifford via telephonically). The Court DENIES the MOTION for Reconsideration. As to the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issue of the contract, the Court instructs the parties to get together and go over the 12 entities as to which ones they did business with and which ones they did not. The Court sets a Telephone Conference for 9/25/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa). Appearances: Clive B. Hilgert pro se; Dennis Alexander Clifford.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
38 Plaintiff's Fourth REPLY to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
39 NOTICE of Error by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 9/25/2008. Mr. Clifford is attending telephonically and Mr. Hilgert is present in the courtroom. Parties indicate that nothing has been resolved. The Court addresses the only remaining issue of Deft.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court makes its findings and will DENY the motion as to the 5 entities and will GRANT the motion as to all others. The Court sets this case for Final Pretrial Conference on 12/1/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa and Jury Selection set for 12/2/2008 at 09:30AM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: Dennis Alexander Clifford.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
40 MOTION Settlement Conference and Expedited Ruling by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/28/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/3/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
42 Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM of Law In Support re: 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
43 Plaintiff's REPLY to 40 MOTION Settlement Conference and Expedited Ruling, filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
44 RESPONSE in Opposition to 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, filed by George S. May International Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Proposed Order)(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
45 REPLY to Response to 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
46 Proposed Pretrial Order by George S. May International Company, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through D)(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
47 MOTION In Limine by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/16/2008. (Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
48 Proposed Joint Pretrial Order by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 6 of 14

11/26/2008 11/26/2008 12/01/2008
12/05/2008 12/12/2008
12/17/2008 12/18/2008
12/19/2008 12/24/2008 12/31/2008 01/09/2009
06/11/2009 07/21/2009 08/06/2009

49 Exhibit List by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
50 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/16/2008. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 12/1/2008. All parties present. The Court notes that several motions have been filed since the last hearing. The Court will set a hearing date on the motions before proceeding to jury selection. Motion Hearing set for 12/12/2008 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: Dennis Alexander Clifford, Clive Hilgert pro se(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
51 RESPONSE to 47 MOTION In Limine, filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 12/12/2008. All parties present. Mr. Hilgert is proceeding pro se. The Court addresses the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and DENIES same. (#41). As to the Motion in Limine, the Court will take up this motion at time of trial. The Court also DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. As to the Motion for Settlement Conference − Mr. Hilgert states he is unopposed. The Court will refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby. The parties will be notified of when this will be set up before Magistrate Judge Ormsby. Appearances: Clive Hilgert pro se, Dennis Alexander Clifford.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
NOTICE of Setting. Parties telephonically notified. Telephone Conference RE: Mediation scheduling set for 12/18/2008 at 04:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Peter E. Ormsby. Defense counsel to initiate call, filed. (ndavila, ) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peter E. Ormsby. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE (not recorded)re: Mediation scheduling held on *12/18/2008. Mediation set for 1/09/2009 at 10:00 A.M before Magistrate Judge Peter E. Ormsby. Appearances: Clive B. Hilgert, Plaintiff; Dennis Alexander Clifford f/Deft., filed.(caramirez, ) Modified on 1/12/2009 [*corrected hearing date] (ndavila, ). (Entered: 01/09/2009)
52 ORDER SETTING MEDIATION. Mediation will be held before the undersigned on 1/09/2008 at 10:00 a.m.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter E. Ormsby) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
Document(s) Sent by certified mail to Clive B. Hilgert; Tracking Number 7004 2510 0004 3293 9030 re: 52 Order, filed. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
53 Certified Mail Receipt Returned as to Clive B. Hilgert, executed on 12/27/2008 re: Document Entry #52 sent., filed. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peter E. Ormsby. MEDIATION held on 1/9/2009. At the request of the parties and with the approval of the District Court, Magistrate Judge Ormsby conducted a mediation with the parties. No settlement was reached at this time. Appearances: Clive B. Hilgert, Plaintiff, Pro Se; Dennis Alexander Clifford, Defendant., filed.(caramirez, ) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
54 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 8/6/2009 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
55 Unopposed MOTION to Consolidate Lead Case No. 7:07−cv−00094 and Member Case No. 7:09−cv−00154 by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/10/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 8/6/2009. All parties present. The Court notes that a new case was filed by Mr. Hilgert (M−09−154) and a Motion to Consolidate the instant case with the new case was filed which the Court will grant. The Court will also DENY the Motion in Limine without prejudice to refiling. Mr. Clifford states he will be filing an answer and a rule 12b6/motion for summary judgment. If the Deft. will be filing such motion a hearing will be set for 10/9/09 at 2:30 p.m.Appearances:Clive Hilgert. Dennis

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 7 of 14

08/06/2009 09/02/2009 09/22/2009
10/05/2009 10/07/2009 10/08/2009 10/09/2009
10/19/2009 10/22/2009 10/23/2009 11/02/2009 11/05/2009 11/05/2009 11/30/2009 12/10/2009

Alexander Clifford.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 08/09/2009)
ORAL ORDER Motion Hearing set for 10/9/2009 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.(by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 08/09/2009)
56 MOTION to Dismiss Per Rule 12(b)(6) and Motion for Summary Judgment by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/25/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through D, # 2 Proposed Order)(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
57 Plaintiff's Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion. by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/13/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhbit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order)(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
58 RESPONSE in Opposition to 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by George S. May International Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 through 11, # 3 Proposed Order)(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
59 ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES; granting 55 Unopposed MOTION to Consolidate Lead Case No. 7:07−cv−00094 and Member Case No. 7:09−cv−00154.(Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 59 Order to Consolidate Cases (bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 10/9/2009. All parties present. The Court addresses Deft.'s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment and makes the following rulings: the Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment as to the Title VII Retaliation claim; as to the Sabine Pilot claim, which Deft. states he addressed this as public policy claim, the Plaintiff states he did not allege this claim therefore the Court will GRANT the motion as to this claim as well as to the hostile work environment claim. As to the issue of age discrimination claim, the Court will allow discovery only on this issue and this is to be completed by 11/23/09. If anything further will be filed on the age discrimination issue, it is to be filed by 11/30/09 and the Court will continue with this hearing on 12/10/2009 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances:Clive Hilgert, Dennis Alexander Clifford.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
60 Plaintiff's MOTION to Reconsider the Court's Granting Summary Judgment by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/9/2009. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
61 RESPONSE in Opposition to 60 MOTION for Reconsideration, filed by George S. May International Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Clifford, Dennis) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
62 NOTICE OF STARTING OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS ON THE CLAIM OF AGE DISCRIMINATION by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
64 PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 60 MOTION for Reconsideration by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(szellers, ) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
63 TRANSCRIPT re: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment held on 10/9/09 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Court Reporter/Transcriber Exceptional Reporting. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/3/2010., filed. (thudson, ) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
65 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 63 Transcript,. Party notified, filed. (atijerina, ) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
66 NOTICE by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 12/10/2009. All parties present. The Court notes that Mr. Hilgert has filed his motion to reconsider. Mr. Hilgert announces that he also filed a notice

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 8 of 14

12/24/2009 02/05/2010
02/07/2010
02/08/2010 04/06/2010 04/16/2010 04/16/2010 04/20/2010 04/23/2010 04/23/2010
04/23/2010
04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010

with the Court on November 30 on the age discrimination issue and tenders his filed stamp copy to the Court. Arguments heard. Since the Court has not seen Mr. Hilgerts last filing, the Court needs time to review it more closely and will set this case up for a Telephone Conference for 2/5/2010 at 03:30 PM on the age discrimination issue and their motion for summary judgment. Mr. Hilgert will attend in person. Appearances:Clive B. Hilgert, pro se. Dennis Alexander Clifford.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: Telephonic Conference notice set for 2/5/2010 at 3:30 p.m. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 12/24/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 2/5/2010. Mr. Clifford is attending telephonically. Mr. Hilgert, proceeding pro se, is present in the courtroom. Pending before the Court is Deft.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on the age discrimination issue. The Court has reviewed the filings and DENIES the motion on the age discrimination claim. The Court will issue a docket control order for 60 days. Appearances:Clive Hilgert, pro se; Dennis Alexander Clifford f/deft(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
67 SCHEDULING ORDER. Joinder of Parties due by 4/16/2010 Discovery due by 4/6/2010; Motions for extension of time to complete discovery 3/7/2010; Dispositive Motion Filing due by 4/16/2010 Non−Dispositive Motion Filing due by 4/16/2010 Joint Pretrial Order due by 5/6/2010 Pretrial Conference set for 5/12/2010 at 02:30 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.(Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 67 Scheduling Order, (bgarces, ) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
68 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents or in the alternative for an In Camera Inspection( Motion Docket Date 4/27/2010.) by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
69 MOTION for Default Judgment against George S. May International Company by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/7/2010. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
70 AFFIDAVIT of Clive Hilgert in Support of Request for Entry of Default against George S. May International Company, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
71 ORDER striking 69 Motion for Default Judgment.(Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 71 Order on Motion for Default Judgment (bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
72 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Defendant's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Answer to Plaintiff's June 4, 2009 Complaint by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/14/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Collins, John) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
73 RESPONSE to 68 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents MOTION For an In Camera Inspection filed by George S. May International Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order)(Collins, John) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
74 MOTION for Entry of Default against George S. May International Company by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/21/2010. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
75 AFFIDAVIT in Support of 74 MOTION for Entry of Default against George S. May International Company, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
76 MEMORANDUM in support of 74 MOTION for Entry of Default against George S. May International Company by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/03/2010)

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 9 of 14

05/06/2010 05/06/2010 05/06/2010 05/10/2010 05/12/2010
05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 06/10/2010 07/07/2010 07/20/2010

77 Amended Proposed Pretrial Order by George S. May International Company, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Collins, John) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
78 MOTION In Limine Defendant's First Amended Motion in Limine by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/27/2010. (Collins, John) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
79 Proposed Pretrial Order by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
80 RESPONSE to 74 MOTION for Entry of Default against George S. May International Company Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment, filed by George S. May International Company. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Collins, John) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 5/12/2010. All parties present. Mr. Hilgert advises the Court that he has not received the Motion for Leave to File Answer, the Response to the Motion to Compel or the Response to the Motion for Entry of Default nor the Motion in Limine. The Court DENIES the 78 MOTION In Limine without prejudice to re−urging before the start of the trial. The Court instructs Defense counsel to make sure Mr. Hilgert is served with copies of these documents. Mr. Shardonofsky also advises the Court that since Mr. Hilgert has named his son as a possible witness he would like to take the deposition of Mr. Hilgert's son. The Court will allow this and this is to be done within the next thirty days. The Court sets a Telephone Conference for 6/11/2010 at 02:30 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Mr. Hilgert will attend personally in the courtroom. The Court will initiate the call. Appearances: Steve Shardonofsky, Clive Hilgert.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
81 AFFIDAVIT by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
82 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF WITNESS CLIVE B. HILGERT II by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
83 Plaintiff's RESPONSE to 72 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Defendant's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Answer to Plaintiff's June 4, 2009 Complaint filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
84 Plaintiff's RESPONSE to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
85 Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike Defendant's Amended Proposed Pretrial Order with Prejudice by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/18/2010. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
86 MOTION to Strike with Prejudice Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, or in the alternative Plaintiff's Reply to said Response by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/18/2010. (mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
ORAL ORDER by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa: Pretrial Conference reset for 7/20/2010 at 04:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.(previously set for 6/11/10) Parties notified. (Plaintiff telephonically notified)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
ORAL ORDER by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa: Pretrial Conference reset for 7/20/2010 at 02:30 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. (previously set for 4:00pm ) Parties notified (Plaintiff notified telephonically).(bgarces, ) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 7/20/2010. All parties present. Mr. Hilgert is proceeding pro se. The Court grants the Motion for Leave to Amend Answer. The Court denies the Motion to Enter Default #74. As to Pltf's Motion to Compel after some discussion the Court instructs Mr. Shardonofsky to provide the privileged e−mails under seal for the Court's review so that the Court can determine if any need to be turned over to Plaintiff. This is to be done within ten days from today. To this

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 10 of 14

07/21/2010 08/04/2010 08/31/2010 09/10/2010
11/03/2010 11/04/2010 11/22/2010 12/03/2010 12/03/2010 12/09/2010
12/16/2010 12/22/2010

extent the Motion to Compel is granted otherwise it is denied. The Court finds that docket no. 85 − Motion to Strike Deft.'s Amended proposed pretrial order is MOOT as the Court needs a joint pretrial order to be filed and this is to be filed by 8/31/10. The Court sets a Pretrial Conference for 9/10/2010 at 02:30 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: Clive Hilgert, Esteban Shardonofsky.(ERO:Tony Tijerina ((3:16−3:30), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
87 ANSWER to Complaint by George S. May International Company, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
88 NOTICE Regarding In Camera Inspection by George S. May International Company, filed. (Collins, John) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
89 Joint Proposed Pretrial Order by George S. May International Company, Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Collins, John) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 9/10/2010. Mr. Hilgert is present proceeding pro se. As to the Motion to Compel, the Court has reviewed the documents submitted for in−camera review and finds that the documents are attorney/client priviledge and DENIES the Motion to Compel as to that issue. No other pending motions. The Court sets Final Pretrial for 12/9/2010 at 02:30 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa and on that day will set a date for jury selection. Appearances: Clive Hilgert, pro se; Steven Shardonofsky.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
90 MOTION to Strike 49 Exhibit List Defendant's Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit List by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/24/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Collins, John) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
91 EXHIBITS re: 90 MOTION to Strike 49 Exhibit List Defendant's Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit List MOTION to Strike 49 Exhibit List Defendant's Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit List by George S. May International Company, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
92 RESPONSE to 90 MOTION to Strike 49 Exhibit List Defendant's Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit List MOTION to Strike 49 Exhibit List Defendant's Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit List filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
93 REPLY in Support of 90 MOTION to Strike 49 Exhibit List Defendant's Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit List MOTION to Strike 49 Exhibit List Defendant's Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit List, filed by George S. May International Company. (Collins, John) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
94 MOTION In Limine Defendant's Second Amended Motion in Limine by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/27/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Collins, John) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Final PRETRIAL CONNFERENCE held on 12/9/2010. All parties present. Arguments held regarding the trial exhibits. The Court announced if plaintiff's exhibits 33,36,39,41&47 are not provided to defense counsel within one week, the Court will not allow them to be admitted. 90 MOTION to Strike 49 Exhibit List−MOOT. Without any objections, the Court will grant defendant's oral request to add one additional exhibit to its trial list. Estimated time of trial is 2−3 days. ( Final Pretrial Conference reset for 3/7/2011 at 09:30 AM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa). Appearances:Clive Hilgert, pro se, Esteban Shardonofsky.(ERO:Richard Cortez [3;02−3:12]), filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
95 ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSCRIPT/RECORD by George S. May International Company, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
96 NOTICE to the Clerk by George S. May International Company, filed. (Collins, John) (Entered: 12/22/2010)

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 11 of 14

12/27/2010 12/28/2010
12/30/2010
12/30/2010 02/01/2011 02/22/2011 02/24/2011 02/25/2011 02/28/2011 03/03/2011
03/07/2011 03/07/2011 03/07/2011 03/07/2011 03/07/2011
03/10/2011
03/23/2011 04/25/2011

97 REPLY to 94 MOTION In Limine Defendant's Second Amended Motion in Limine, filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (rcoronado, ) (Entered: 12/27/2010)
AO 435 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Steven Shardonofsky. This is to order a transcript of PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on December 9, 2010 before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa (original). Deposit amount $125.00. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Exceptional Reporting, filed. (atijerina, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
98 TRANSCRIPT re: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 12/9/10 before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Court Reporter/Transcriber EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/30/2011., filed. (thudson, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
99 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 98 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (atijerina, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
100 Amended Exhibit List by George S. May International Company, filed.(Collins, John) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
101 COMPLAINT/MOTION for Sanctions by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/15/2011. (bgarces) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
102 ORDER Striking Document re: 101 COMPLAINT/MOTION for Sanctions.(Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 102 Order Striking Document (bgarces, ) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
103 Unopposed MOTION for John Collins and Esteban Shardonofsky to Withdraw as Attorney by George S. May International Company, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/21/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Collins, John) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
ORAL ORDER Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/7/2011 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Def counsel Esteban Shardonofsky to appear telephonically.(by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(klopez, ) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
104 First Amended MOTION for Sanctions by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
105 RESPONSE to 103 Unopposed MOTION for John Collins and Esteban Shardonofsky to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
106 ORDER striking 104 Amended Motion for Sanctions.(Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 106 Order on Motion for Sanctions (bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 3/7/2011. Case is called. All parties present. The Court addresses the Motion to Withdraw filed by Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins advises the Court of the circumstances. The Court instructs Mr. Collins to send written notice to his client advising the motion has been filed and the Court has set a date at which time it will rule on the pending motion. Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2011 at 04:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. (Mr. Collins to appear Telephonically) Appearances: Clive B. Hilgert f/p; John L Collins f/d, Esteban Shardonofsky f/d.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(klopez, ) (Entered: 03/26/2011)
107 NOTICE Notice of Defense Counsel's Notice to Defendant George S. May International Company Concerning Hearing on Counsel's Motion to Withdraw by George S. May International Company, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Collins, John) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
108 MOTION to Alter or Amend the Court's Order Striking Document by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/13/2011. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
ORAL ORDER by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa: Motion Hearing reset for 4/28/2011 at 04:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.(previously set for 4/26/11/Mr. Hilgert telephonically notified ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered:

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 12 of 14

04/28/2011
06/30/2011
07/07/2011
07/12/2011 08/10/2011 08/10/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 10/04/2011 01/03/2012

04/25/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 4/28/2011. Case is called on the docket. All parties present. Mr. Collins appearing telephonically. There is discussion regarding 103 Unopposed MOTION for John Collins and Esteban Shardonofsky to Withdraw as Attorney. Mr. Collins advises the Court attempts have been made to contact their client to no avail. Further, Mr. Collins also advises the Court George S. May International is out of business and that a Trustee is responsible for the assets. The Court instructs Mr. Collins to contact the Trustee and advise them of the situation as soon as possible. The Court sets this case for telephone conference on 7/7/2011 at 04:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: John L Collins f/d and Clive Hilgert (pro se).(ERO:Tony Tijerina (4:26−4:32), filed.(klopez, ) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
109 NOTICE Supplemental Notice to Court in Support of Defense Counsel's Motion to Withdraw re: 103 Unopposed MOTION for John Collins and Esteban Shardonofsky to Withdraw as Attorney by George S. May International Company, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Collins, John) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 7/7/2011. All parties present telephonically. The Court addresses the pending Motion to Withdraw. Discussion held regarding the situation with George S. May International Company and the fact that it is in receivership. Before the Court grants the Motion to Withdraw, the Court instructs the parties to file a notice by 7/15/11 indicating who needs to be served with any notices in this case, as well as any registered agent for this corporation. The Court also sets this case for Final Pretrial Conference for 10/3/2011 at 09:30 AM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: Clive B. Hilgert. John L Collins, Esteban Shardonofsky.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(smartinez, ) (Entered: 07/24/2011)
110 NOTICE Notice to Court Regarding Defendant's Last Known Address and Contact Information for Defendant's Agents by George S. May International Company, filed. (Collins, John) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
111 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Pretrial Conference set for 10/3/2011 at 09:30 AM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 111 Notice of Setting (bgarces, ) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
112 ORDER granting 103 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney John L Collins and Esteban Shardonofsky terminated.(Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
113 ORDER denying 94 MOTION In Limine Defendant's Second Amended Motion in Limine.(Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
114 MOTION for 90 Day Continuance by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/21/2011. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 112 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, 113 Order (bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
ORAL ORDER by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa: granting 114 MOTION for Continuance until further notice..(Signed ) Parties notified. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
***10/3/11 hearing terminated. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
115 ORDER re: Motion for 90 Day Continuance (Jury Selection reset for 1/4/2012 at 09:30 AM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa, Pretrial Conference reset for 1/3/2012 at 09:30 AM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa).(Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(szellers, ) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Case called on the docket for Pretrial Conference. Court notes that Clive B. Hilgert was not

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 13 of 14

01/04/2012
02/02/2012 02/09/2012
03/12/2012 03/19/2012 03/26/2012 03/26/2012 03/28/2012 03/28/2012 04/01/2012 04/02/2012 04/04/2012 04/20/2012
05/18/2012 05/29/2012

present in the courtroom. Defense counsel need not to be present. Court will order for Mr. Hilgert to appear for a Show Cause Hearing on 1/4/2012 at 09:30 AM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Appearances: None(ERO:Tony Tijerina (9:55−9:55), filed.(nvaldez, ) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Proceedings held on 1/4/2012. Case called on the docket for Mr. Hilgert's failure to appear on 1/3/2012 Pretrial Conference. Court informs Mr. Hilgert that the order was not sent so he was unaware of the hearing. Court will not impose fine. After some discussion, the Court instructs Mr. Hilgert to file the appropriate documents on how he plans to proceed and will set this case for a Status Conference on 2/9/2012 at 02:30 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances:Clive B. Hilgert.(ERO:Tony Tijerina (9:42−9:42), filed.(nvaldez, ) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
116 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/23/2012. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Case called on the docket for STATUS CONFERENCE on 2/9/2012. Court addressed pending Motion for Summary Judgment. After some discussion, the Court instructed Mr. Hilgert to address the two remaining issues in motion. Court will DENY− 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Mr. Hilgert to file new Motion for Summary Judgment by March 12, 2012. Court will set this case for Motion Hearing on 4/20/2012 at 04:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Appearances:Clive Hilgert.(ERO:Tony Tijerina (3:00−3:04), filed.(nvaldez, ) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
117 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/2/2012. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
118 RESPONSE on Behalf of All Attorneys from Seyfarth Shaw LLP to 117 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Seyfarth Shaw LLP. (bgarces, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/23/2012: # 1 Cover Letter) (bgarces, ). (Entered: 03/23/2012)
119 ORDER denying 108 Motion to Alter or Amend Order Striking Document. (Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 119 Order on Motion to Alter or Amend Order Striking, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
120 REPLY to Response to 108 MOTION to Alter Judgment, filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
121 AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Clive B. Hilgert. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation, # 2 Continuation)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
122 ORDER Striking Document re: 121 Amended Complaint.(Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 122 Order Striking Document (bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
123 Plaintiff Alledges That the Court Errored Twice by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Case called on the docket. Court notes Mr. Hilgert is present. Court addressed pending Motion for Summary Judgment and instructs Mr. Hilgert that the Court will further review the claims and set case for Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment on 5/30/2012 at 04:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances:Clive Hilgert.(ERO:Tony Tijerina (4:20−4:28), filed.(nvaldez, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
124 MOTION for the Court's Leave to Add Party Additinal Defendants by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/8/2012. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
ORAL ORDER by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa: Motion Hearing scheduled for 5/30/12 cancelled until further notice. Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/29/2012)

Case: 7:07-cv-94 As of: 10/24/2016 02:38 PM CDT 14 of 14

06/06/2012 07/03/2012 09/06/2012 09/26/2012
09/28/2012 09/28/2012 10/12/2012 10/29/2012 10/30/2012 10/31/2012

ORAL ORDER Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment set for 6/28/2012 at 04:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa(Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(nvaldez, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
125 NOTICE re: 7:12cv207 by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
ORAL ORDER Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment reset for 9/26/2012 at 04:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa( Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(nvaldez,jb ) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Case called on the docket for HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT on 9/26/2012. Clive B. Hilgert present. Court addressed pending motions and GRANTS as a default judgment 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment and DENIES 124 MOTION for the Court's Leave to Add Party Additinal Defendants. Appearances:Clive B. Hilgert (ERO:Tony Tijerina (4:24−4:24), filed.(nvaldez, ) (Entered: 10/08/2012)
126 JUDGMENT ; granting 117 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 126 Judgment, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
127 BILL OF COSTS by Clive B. Hilgert, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
128 MOTION for Court Review of Clerk's Action for Plaintiff's Demand for Costs and Paralegal Fees by Clive B. Hilgert, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/19/2012. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/30/2012)
129 ORDER striking 128 Motion for Court Review of Clerk's Action for Plaintiff's Demand for Costs and Paralegal Fees. (Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
Document(s) Sent by regular mail to Clive B. Hilgert re: 129 Order on Motion for Court Review, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)