No. 05-14-01312-CV
In the COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS
Chan IL Pak

Appellant V. AD Villarai, LLC, The Ashley Nicole Williams Trust, and Villas on Raiford Carrollton Senior Housing, LLC. Appellees
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas.

APPELLEE'S STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION

Appellees and Cross-Appellants AD Villarai, L.L.C., The Ashley Nicole Williams Trust, and Villas on Raiford Carrollton Senior Housing, L.L.C. ("Villas"), following Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 49.2, hereby exercise their option not to file a full response, unless the Court so requests. This option is exercised because the Appellant's Motion for Rehearing, filed June 5, 2018, raises no new arguments. Specifically, Mr. Pak again repeats his

STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION Page 1 of4 G:\Q\AN23-4 Anderson -Chan Lawsuit\Appeal 14-01312\DRAFTS\Response 06-06-18.docx ACCEPTED 05-14-01312-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS 6/7/2018 12:16 PM LISA MATZ CLERKargument that no corporate action can ever be taken against him by Villas, unless he consents to that action, despite the unopposed findings that he has committed a prior material breach ofthe Villas Company Agreement1 and that violating members can be removed from Villas based upon the vote ofthe "remaining members" 2 meaning the members other than Mr. Pak. These arguments have already been raised and addressed by the parties and by the Court. For example, see Mr. Pak's argument I. in his Appellant's Brief: "This court cannot interpret the company agreements to exclude anyrequirements that ChanPak consentto his own expulsion." Chan Pak's AmendedAppellantBrief, December 1, 2017, atp. 66. A largeportion ofthe Motion for Rehearing again addresses that Article 5.11 of the Company Agreement and Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 101.359, allowing corporate entities to function by signed written consents, are somehow inapplicable here. (Motion for Rehearing pp. 16-24.) The same arguments were presented in the Amended Appellant's BriefofDecember 1, 2017 at pages 61-64. The Motion for Rehearing also fails to clearly identify any new or different argument or any specific aspect ofthe Court's Judgment and Opinion which is being challenged. It has failed to meet the standards that a motion for rehearing "must clearly state the points relied on for the rehearing." Tex. App. Proc. Rule 49.1.

1 Conclusion ofLaw 5 2 Pltfs' Tr. Exs. 2 and 8, each at Article 8.6(e), and Findings ofFact 12 and 63.
STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION Page 2 of4 G:\Q\AN23-4 Anderson -Chan Lawsuit\Appeal 14-01312\DRAFTS\Response 06-06-18.docxAppellees pray that the motion for rehearing be denied without requiring further response. Inthe alternative, Appellees praythatthis Court advise Appellees to file a full responseto the motion for rehearing, andfor such other andfurther relief to which Appellees showthemselvesjustly entitled.

Co-counsel: David M. Pruessner State BarNo. 16364500 Law Offices ofDavidM. Pruessner 4111 Joshua Lane Dallas, Texas 75287 (214) 543-6827 Fax: (972) 716-1899

STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION Page 3 of4Respectfully submitted, By: William F. LePage William F. LePage State BarNo. 12216800 Peter C. D'Apice State BarNo. 05377783 STUTZMAN, BROMBERG, ESSERMAN & PLIFKA, P.C. 2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-4900 Telecopy: (214) 969-4999 lepage@sbep-law.com COUNSEL FOR CROSS APPELLANTS AND APPELLEES AD VILLARAI, LLC, THE ASHLEY NICOLE WILLIAMS TRUST AND VILLAS ON RAIFORD CARROLLTON SENIOR HOUSING, LLC

G:\Q\AN23-4 Anderson -Chan Lawsuit\Appeal 14-01312\DRAFTS\Response 06-06-18.docxCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify atrue and correct copy ofthe above response has been served electronicallythroughthe State's electronic managerto ChanPakonthis the 7thday ofJune, 2018.

STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION Page 4 of4 Isl William F. LePage William F. LePage

G:\Q\AN23-4 Anderson -Chan Lawsuit\Appeal 14-01312\DRAFTS\Response 06-06-18.docx