PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

EL CAMPO VENTURES, LLC, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

vs. § Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-00560-RP

 §

STRATTON SECURITIES, INC., §

 §

Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 

Plaintiff El Campo Ventures, LLC (“El Campo”) hereby files this Second 

Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.

POST-JUDGMENT TIMELINE

On September 20, 2022, Defendant Stratton Securities, Inc. (“Stratton”) filed 

its notice of appeal in this case. (Dkt. 140). Shortly thereafter, El Campo retained 

Levinger PC as appellate counsel. 

Stratton did not post a supersedeas bond or other security for its appeal. The 

Abstract of Judgment (Dkt. 142) was issued to all parties via the Court’s electronic 

filing system on October 5, 2022. 

El Campo perfected its judgment lien against the property commonly known 

as The Studios at Carrizo Springs, located at 909 Munson Road, Carrizo Springs, 
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 2

Texas 78834 (“the Property”), by recording the Abstract of Judgment in the 

Dimmit County property records on October 14, 2022. (Dkt. 151, Ex. 2). 

On February 8, 2023, El Campo notified Stratton of its intent to seek a Writ 

of Execution for the sale of the Property, unless Stratton obtained a supersedeas 

bond or posted other adequate security with the Court. (Dkt. 151, Ex. 4, page 5).

On February 21, 2023, Stratton and Target Logistics Management, LLC 

(“Target”) executed a contract for the sale of the Property. (Dkt. 152, Ex. A-1). 

Neither this Court nor El Campo were informed of this agreement.

On February 28, 2023, El Campo filed its Application for a Writ of 

Execution. (Dkt. 147). Despite entering into a contract with Target for the sale of 

the Property a week earlier, Stratton did not oppose the Writ of Execution. (Id.).

Stratton filed its appellate brief on March 6, 2023. 

On March 10, 2023, the Court entered its Order for Writ of Execution and 

Sale of Property (Dkt. 149) for the sale of the Property. The Order provided that 

that Property would be sold by the United States Marshals Service and the 

resulting sales proceeds would be turned over to El Campo. (Dkt. 149, paragraphs 

i,k). Stratton did not oppose the Writ of Execution. (Dkt. 147). 

On March 31, 2023, Stratton fraudulently and in defiance of this Court’s 

order, sold the Property to Target. (Dkt. 151, Ex. 3). In furtherance of the 

fraudulent scheme, Stratton intentionally diverted $4.5 million of the sales 
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 3

proceeds to another entity, Stratton Oilfield Systems Texas, LLC, in an attempt to 

bypass the Court’s order and El Campo’s judgment lien. (Dkt. 152, Ex. A-8).

On April 18, 2023, Stratton sent a settlement proposal directly to El Campo. 

(Dkt. 151, Ex. 6). Stratton did not disclose over $4.8 million in proceeds it 

received from the sale of the Property to Target on March 31, 2023. Furthermore, 

Stratton did not disclose an additional $5,241,893.23 in lease proceeds received 

from the U.S. Government in its settlement calculations. (Dkt. 151, Ex. 7). 

Despite these windfalls, Stratton suggested to El Campo that an unsuccessful 

appeal would result in Stratton’s bankruptcy. (Dkt. 151, Ex. 6). Based on the facts 

now known to El Campo, Stratton’s statement regarding bankruptcy was false.

On May 9, 2023, El Campo’s real estate appraiser accompanied two deputies 

from the United States Marshals Service to the Property. It was discovered that 

Stratton fraudulently conveyed the property to Target, in violation of this Court’s 

order and El Campo’s judgment lien.

When confronted via email, Stratton’s counsel replied that he believed 

Stratton had the right to sell the property, despite having actual knowledge of the 

Abstract of Judgment and the unopposed Writ of Execution. (Dkt. 151, Ex. 1).

On Friday, May 12, 2023, El Campo filed its Emergency Motion for Turnover 

of Sales Proceeds (Dkt. 151). This Emergency Motion details the events leading up 

to its filing and shines a light upon Stratton’s unacceptable conduct in this matter.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 4

The following Monday, May 15, 2023, Stratton paid El Campo 

$4,844,911.90 to satisfy the same judgment it appealed. The same day, El Campo 

filed its appellate brief and requested an award of its appellate fees if successful. 

(Ex. 1) 

Stratton dismissed its appeal the next day, on May 16, 2023. (Dkt.153).

It bears mentioning that Stratton attempted to thwart El Campo’s ability to 

secure its judgment in direct violation of this Court’s order to the contrary. Stratton 

collected nearly $5,000,000.00 from a buyer without ever once mentioning the 

Abstract Judgment or the Writ of Execution to them. At every opportunity, since 

filing its notice of appeal, Stratton and its counsel have failed to fulfill their duty of 

candor to the Court, Target and El Campo. Oddly enough the only logical reason, 

when looking at the timeline and other evidence before this Court and part of this 

record, the parties are even before this Court on this attorneys’ fee issue is Stratton 

was caught in multiple lies and attempts to fraudulently sell and transfer an asset 

subject to a Court order. All these machinations and conscious omissions took time 

and dragged out an appeal without merit, incurring substantial costs to the prevailing 

party, until it concluded, remarkably, because of the discovery of this deceit and 

fraud.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 5

ATTORNEY FEES

Before filing this Motion, El Campo offered to settle these remaining claims 

involving attorney fees and costs for a total of $56,000.00. This offer was rejected 

by Stratton. (Ex. 2)

“The issue of appellate attorney's fees is a matter for the district 

court following the resolution of an appeal.” Instone Travel Tech Marine v. Intern. 

Shipping, 334 F.3d 423, 433 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Previously, this Court awarded El Campo trial attorneys’ fees in the amount 

of $358,980.00. (Dkt. 138). The Court’s decision to award trial attorneys’ fees 

(Dkt. 131, p. 2) was premised on section 38.001(8) of the Texas Civil Practices and 

Remedies Code, which provides for the mandatory award of reasonable attorneys’ 

fees for the prevailing party in a breach of contract suit. 

The issue of awarding El Campo its appellate attorney fees is now ripe for 

this Court’s consideration. “If trial attorney's fees are mandatory under section 

38.001, then appellate attorney's fees are also mandatory when proof of reasonable 

fees is presented.” Ventling v. Johnson, 466 S.W.3d 143, 154 (Tex. 2015). The 

Texas Supreme Court noted that the purpose of chapter 38 is to “encourage 

contracting parties to pay their just debts and discourage . . . vexatious, timeconsuming and unnecessary litigation.” Id. at 155. 
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 6

As a direct result of Stratton’s appeal, El Campo has paid Levinger PC 

reasonable and necessary attorney fees and expenses totaling $50,784.01 for 

appellate representation in this matter. (Ex. 3).

Additionally, El Campo seeks the award of attorney fees for some of the 

hours expended by its trial counsel related to the appeal, the Order for Writ of 

Execution and Sale of Property, the Emergency Motion for Turnover of Sales 

Proceeds, and this Second Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Calculated using

the hourly rates previously awarded by this Court, these reasonable and necessary 

time expenditures result in attorney fees of $7,600.00 (19 hours x $400 per hour, 

see Ex. 4) for Mr. Nevarez and $9,905.00 (28.3 hours x $350 per hour, see Ex. 5) 

for Mr. Gates. Furthermore, El Campo’s trial attorneys anticipate they will incur 

no less than an additional $5,000.00 in attorney fees and travel expenses related to 

attending the upcoming motion hearing scheduled for June 9, 2023 in Austin. 

Thus, the total amount of attorney fees sought by El Campo’s in this motion 

is $73,289.01. This figure is the sum of the $50,784.01 paid to appellate counsel, 

$7,600.00 for Mr. Nevarez, $9,905.00 for Mr. Gates, and the additional $5,000.00 

related to attending Friday’s motion hearing in Austin.

Finally, El Campo requests the award of contingent appellate fees in the 

amount of $50,000.00 should Stratton appeal any portion of the Court’s decision in 

this matter. 
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 7

COSTS

El Campo spent $4,465.40 to comply with the Court’s Order for Writ of 

Execution and Sale of Property. (Ex. 6). This total is comprised of $2,548.86 paid 

to the United States Marshals Service, $1,750.00 paid to Suttle and Associates 

appraisers, $143.00 paid for classified advertisements in the Carrizo Springs 

newspaper, and $23.54 paid for a Federal Express delivery. These costs were all 

incurred following Stratton’s fraudulent transfer of the Property to Target on 

March 31, 2023, and would have been avoided entirely had Stratton simply 

informed the Court and El Campo of its plan to sell the Property.

EL CAMPO HAS BEEN PREJUDICED DUE TO 

STRATTON’S UNAUTHORIZED SALE OF THE PROPERTY

Target paid Stratton $5,000,000.00 for the Property. This amount would 

have covered both the $4,844,911.90 paid to satisfy the original judgment plus the 

$77,754.41 sought in this Motion for El Campo’s attorney fees and costs. The 

Property was Stratton’s sole asset located in the Western District of Texas. 

Stratton has repeatedly demonstrated through its fraudulent conduct that it has no 

intention of paying what is rightfully owed to El Campo. Stratton’s sale of the 

Property in violation of this Court’s order and El Campo’s judgment lien has 

significantly prejudiced El Campo’s ability to collect any amount awarded by the 

Court.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 8

REQUESTED RELIEF

Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code sections 38.001(8) and 

31.002, El Campo requests that the Court set this motion for hearing on June 9, 

2023, award El Campo its attorneys’ fees and costs, take whatever action it deems 

necessary to ensure Stratton’s compliance with said award, and grant all further 

relief to which El Campo may be entitled. 
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 9

 Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF BEN GATES, P.C.

7015 SNIDER PLAZA, SUITE 202

DALLAS, TEXAS 75205

TEL: (214) 756-6053

FAX: (214) 989-7305

BY: ___________________________

BENJAMIN P. GATES

TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 24062740

BPG@BENGATESPC.COM

NEVÁREZ LAW GROUP, P.C.

780 E. RIO GRANDE STREET

EAGLE PASS, TEXAS 78852

TEL: (830) 776-7003

FAX: (830) 776-7003

BY: ___________________________

ALFONSO NEVÁREZ C.

TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 24044929

ANC@NEVAREZLAWGROUP.COM

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PAGE 10

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I conferred with counsel for Defendant Stratton Securities, Inc.

concerning the relief sought in this Motion on May 16, 2023. Mr. Jones stated 

that the Defendant would not pay any additional amounts until they were awarded 

by the Court. 

______________________________

Benjamin P. Gates

CERIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served this Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Attorney Fees and 

Costs on all counsel of record via CM/ECF filing in accordance with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure on June 6, 2023.

______________________________

Benjamin P. Gates