IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

PECOS DIVISION

MARIA ESTELA LARA, Independent §

Administrator of the Estate of Luis §

Antonio Lara and MIGUEL H. LARA §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO.4:20-cv-00010-DC-DF

§

v. §

§

POWER OF GRACE TRUCKING, LLC §

And JOSE GUADALUPE PINA JACOBI, § JURY DEMANDED

Defendants §

Amended Motion for Sanctions under Rule 37 Federal Rules Civ. Proc.

Now comes Plaintiff, Maria Estela Lara, Individually and as Independent Administrator

of the Estate of Luis Antonio Lara and Miguel H. Lara, and make and file this Amended Motion

as a result of Defendant Jose Guadalupe Pina Jacobi’s disobeying the Order of the Court dated

September 13, 2021 related to the Amended Motion to Compel and for Further Relief, and the

Court’s Show Cause Order of October 7, 2021. (Doc. 80, Omnibus Order and Doc. 89, Show

Cause Order) Plaintiffs would respectfully show the Court the following:

Facts pertaining to this Motion

1. This Amended Motion is filed as a result of Defendant Jose Guadalupe Pina Jacobi’s

disobeying the Order of the Court dated September 13, 2021 (Doc. 80) pertaining to Plaintiffs

Maria Estela Lara and Miguel Lara’s (collectively, with Plaintiff in Intervention Stephanie

Coronado, “Plaintiffs”) Amended Motion to Compel (Doc. 42) and the Court’s Show Cause

Order of October 7, 2021. (Doc. 80, Omnibus Order and Doc. 89, Show Cause Order). 

_________________________________________________________________________

Amended Motion for Sanctions Page 1

Case 4:20-cv-00010-DC Document 105 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 8
2. The Order of the Court provided “Defendant Jacobi is ORDERED to appear at and

participate in Plaintiffs’ requested deposition, to be scheduled for Wednesday, September 29,

2021. Additionally, Defendant Jacobi is ORDERED to complete all admissions and

interrogatories by Wednesday, September 29, 2021.” (Doc. 80). 

3. Defendant has failed to comply with this order.

4. As shown by the pleadings, this is an oil field truck wreck case involving the death of

Luis Lara. Doc. 1, Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint. Power of Grace, LLC’s driver, defendant

Jose Guadalupe Pina Jacobi, (Jacobi) left the scene of the wreck. Jacobi asked both his

supervisor and the owner of Power of Grace to provide a different name to the investigating

officers. When Jacobi was brought back to the scene of the wreck, he provided a false

explanation of the wreck to the investigating officers. Jacobi was arrested and indicted for

criminally negligent homicide and failure to render aid. He bonded out of jail and has apparently

left the country. An Alias Capias has been issued with a Precept to Serve. 

5. Jacobi was noticed for deposition on September 18, 2020, October 28, 2020 and January

27, 2020 and failed to appear. (Doc. 42) 

6. Jacobi was also ordered to appear for deposition on September 29, 2021. (Doc. 80) A

notice for this deposition was sent. Jacobi failed to appear.

7. Interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions were sent to Jacobi in

June of 2021. (Doc. 45-1, Appendix to Defendant Jose Guadalupe Pina Jacobi’s First

Amended Motion for Protection) No substantive information was provided in response to any

discovery. 

_________________________________________________________________________

Amended Motion for Sanctions Page 2

Case 4:20-cv-00010-DC Document 105 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 8
8. The Court ordered Jacobi to provide responses to discovery by September 29, 2021. 

(Doc. 80) No responses have been provided. 

9. As a result of the failure to respond to requests for admissions, the negligence and gross

negligence of Jacobi causing the injury and death of Luis Lara have been admitted. The facts

deemed admitted by Jacobi's failure to respond in a timely manner “are conclusive as to the

matters admitted.” In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2001). Those facts “cannot be

overcome” at the summary-judgment stage by pointing to contradictory evidence. Batyukova v.

Doege, 994 F.3d 717, 724 (5th Cir. 2021)

10. Because of defendant Jacobi’s failure to appear for deposition or provide answers to

interrogatories, plaintiffs and intervenors have been unable to question the only surviving witness

involved in the wreck. 

11. The original Motion is being amended since Defendant, Jose Guadalupe Pina Jacobi

has ignored the Show Cause Order of October 7, 2021, Doc. 89. The Show Cause Order required

Pina to “show cause in writing as to why he has failed to participate in discovery pursuant to the

court’s Omnibus Order on or before November 11, 2021, or within fourteen (14) days of receipt

of this order, whichever is earlier.”

12. The Order noted that if no response was made “the court will then proceed to conduct a

further hearing to demonstrate whether this case should be resolved against him.”

13. Jacobi has ignored the Orders of the Court. The matter should be resolved against Jacobi

since no response has been made.

_________________________________________________________________________

Amended Motion for Sanctions Page 3

Case 4:20-cv-00010-DC Document 105 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 8
Legal Authority pertaining to this Motion

14. Sanctions for failure to respond to discovery are appropriate when there has been the

complete failure of participation in any discovery matters, as is the case here. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(d)(1)(B); Coane v. Ferrara Pan Candy Co., 898 F.2d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1990).

15. Litigation ending sanctions are premised on several of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and on the Court's inherent power. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) provides

that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, ... the court in which the

action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just,” including “an order

striking out pleadings or parts thereof ... or rendering a judgment by default against the

disobedient party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(c). See also, Fuqua v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare

Corp., 199 F.R.D. 200 (N.D. Tex. 2000)

16. The Court’s authority to issue sanctions also stems from its “inherent power ‘to manage

[its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Woodson v.

Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,

630, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734, 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962)).

17. Litigation-ending sanctions are, by their very nature, the last resort. See FDIC v. Conner,

20 F.3d 1376, 1380 (5th Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, they are justified

“not merely to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to

deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.” National

Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 643, 49 L. Ed. 2d 747, 96 S. Ct.

2778 (1976). In determining whether to assess litigation-ending sanctions, a court should

_________________________________________________________________________

Amended Motion for Sanctions Page 4

Case 4:20-cv-00010-DC Document 105 Filed 01/11/22 Page 4 of 8
consider (1) whether the misconduct resulted from willfulness or bad faith and is accompanied

by a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct; (2) whether the misconduct is attributable to

the client instead of the attorney; (3) whether the opposing party is substantially prejudiced by the

misconduct; and (4) whether a less drastic sanction would substantially achieve the desired

deterrent. FDIC v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1380-81 (5th Cir. 1994). See also, Smith v. Sanders,

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-4377-M, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44274 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2019). 

18. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides that if a party fails to obey

an order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue “further just orders,” including:

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as

established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or

defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party.

19. Courts have “broad discretion under Rule 37(b) to fashion remedies suited to the

misconduct,” Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 685 F.3d 486, 488 (5th Cir.

2012)(quoting Pressey v. Patterson, 898 F.2d 1018, 1021 (5th Cir.1990)).

20. Entry of a default judgment is an appropriate sanction when the disobedient party has

failed to comply with a court order because of willfulness, bad faith, or other fault on its part, as

opposed to its inability to comply with the court's order. See, Societe Internationale v. Rogers,

357 U.S. 197, 212, 78 S. Ct. 1087(1958); Batson v. Neal Spelce Associates, Inc., 765 F.2d 511,

514 (5thCir. 1985).

_________________________________________________________________________

Amended Motion for Sanctions Page 5

Case 4:20-cv-00010-DC Document 105 Filed 01/11/22 Page 5 of 8
21. Here, Jacobi has refused to participate in either the criminal or civil case involving the

wreck which caused the injuries and ultimate death of Luis Lara. Jacobi has refused to obey

Court orders. Further orders of the Court requiring payment of monetary sanctions or attorneys

fees would be fruitless. The failure to respond to Requests for Admissions results in admissions

of negligence and gross negligence. (Doc. 45-1, Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ First Requests for

Admissions to Jose Guadalupe Pina Jacobi) A Order striking the pleadings and entering

default judgment as to negligence and gross negligence as to Jacobi, based on the stricken

pleadings and unanswered Requests for Admissions, is warranted. This would leave the issue of

damages and exemplary damages to be determined by the jury.

Prayer

22. Under the circumstances which exist, sanctions are necessary for Jacobi’s complete

failure to participate in the discovery process. Plaintiffs pray that Jacobi’s pleadings be stricken

and default judgment be entered as to Jacobi, based on the unanswered Requests for Admissions

and stricken pleadings, leaving damages and exemplary damages to be determined by the jury. 

To the extent the Court deems a hearing is needed, Plaintiffs pray that a hearing be held to

determine whether Jacobi should have his pleadings stricken and default judgment entered

against him as to negligence and gross negligence, leaving damages and exemplary damages to

be determined by the jury. 

_________________________________________________________________________

Amended Motion for Sanctions Page 6

Case 4:20-cv-00010-DC Document 105 Filed 01/11/22 Page 6 of 8
Respectfully submitted, 

/s/Rickey J. Brantley

RICKEY J. BRANTLEY

Rickey@rickeybrantley.com

State Bar No. 02899730 

ALEX PELLEY

Alex@rickeybrantley.com

State Bar No. 24079121

BRANTLEYPELLEY, PLLC

855 Texas Street #100

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

Telephone: 817/882.8220 

Telecopier: 817/882.8209

Certificate of Conference

I hereby certify that on the 11th day of January 2022, I spoke with the attorney for

defendant Power of Grace, Eric Rich, regarding this Motion. He advised that he was unable to

agree to the Motion.

Counsel for Intervening Plaintiff, Stephanie Coronado, as Next Friend for A.L., a Minor, 

joins in this motion. 

Defendant Jacob is being sent a copy of this Motion by Certified mail and Federal 

Express since he is Pro Se.

/s Rickey J. Brantley

Rickey Brantley

_________________________________________________________________________

Amended Motion for Sanctions Page 7

Case 4:20-cv-00010-DC Document 105 Filed 01/11/22 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was

delivered, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to all counsel of record shown below

on this, the 11 th day of January, 2022.

Eric Rich

Shafer, Davis, O’Leary & Stoker, P.C.

700 North Grant Avenue, Suite 201

Odessa, Texas 79761

p (432) 250-6514

f (432) 332-0893

Michael S. Alfred

Hallett & Perrin, PC

1445 Ross Ave. #2400

Dallas, TX 75202 

214-922-4121 phone

214-922-4142 fax

malfred@hallettperrin.com

Jack Stick

VerisLaw, PLLC 

Suite E240/624

3801 N. Capital of Texas Hwy

Austin, TX 78746.

512-710-6000 phone

512-717-7230 fax

jstick@verislaw.net

Defendant Jacob is being sent by Certified mail and Federal Express a copy

of this motion, to the address on file with the Court:

Jose Guadalupe Pina Jacobi

Prolongacion Eje 6 Sur 560, Bodega #54

Area Federal Central De Abastos

Alcaldia Iztapalapa, Ciudad de Mexico C.P. 09040

/s Rickey J. Brantley

Rickey Brantley

_________________________________________________________________________

Amended Motion for Sanctions Page 8

Case 4:20-cv-00010-DC Document 105 Filed 01/11/22 Page 8 of 8