IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

DALLAS DIVISION

EDRICK FULLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIG FINANCIAL, LLC, AND THE CAR

SOURCE, LLC d/b/a “HIDE AND SEEK

RECOVERY,”

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No.: 3-22-cv-1289-D

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS THE CAR SOURCE

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

On December 31, 2019, between 5:30-6:30 am in the morning, still dark outside,

getting ready to leave for work, the vehicle was parked in the driveway on private

property at Edrick’s home address. Defendants Repossession Agent Julius Sims

backed a tow truck up in the driveway and began to hook the vehicle up. Plaintiff

noticed the vehicle being lifted and began to blow the horn letting him know that

he was in the vehicle. . The Repossession agent, without lowering the vehicle, got

out of the tow truck and informed that he was taking the truck. Plaintiff told him

that I had started to repay and that they were informed that he would get paid at the

end of the month which is when he could make the payments. Plaintiff told Julius

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 36 PageID 961
Sims that he was not taking the vehicle because he had started back paying, and

that they needed to talk to CIG who opens at 8:00 am to get matters straight so he

could pay and Julius Sims could release the vehicle. Julius Sims agreed to wait, but

he did not release the vehicle from its position in the air, nor did he turn his heavy

fume-emitting diesel engine tow truck off. We waited 2 and a half hours. 18. On

said Date, from around 5:30 am (dark) through 8:00am (daylight) when CIG

opened, we waited with the vehicle hoisted in the air with his tow truck motor

running. By this time the neighbors had started to come out and see the dispute and

started recording it also. Plaintiff's Mother, Father and neighbors were all outside

witnessing and recording the commotion. 20. At 8:00am Plaintiff called CIG and

spoke with Esmeralda Chavez who was in charge of Edricks account. I informed

her of what was happening and that I wanted to pay my note so that their agent

could release the vehicle and I could leave for work. She refused payment and said

I needed to pay the full behind balance owed in order to release the vehicle. Edrick

tried to see if he could come up with more than what I had, so I ended the call and

he made some quick phone calls and was only able to get another 800 that

someone had promised to give me days before. I called her back and the 1200 was

refused and she proceeded to tell Plaintiff to get out of (her) vehicle so her agent

could tow it in a very unprofessional manner which changed the tone of the whole

conversation. I informed her that she sent him a notice to start back making

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 36 PageID 962
payments to avoid charge off, which was done. She still continued to refuse

payment. 21.Plaintiff informed her that she could not repossess a vehicle that I was

paying on, and that Julius Sims had already broken the law by having me up in the

air and not releasing the vehicle for almost 4 hours when I told him not to take it in

the beginning. Now the neighbors are outside looking at all the commotion. The

call ended. Plaintiff told Julius Sims to lower and release the vehicle, that he was

not going to turn it over to him because he was able to make my payments and that

he waited to compromise, but now he had to leave for work that he was already

late for. And that he would settle the issue later. Julius Sims refused and got on the

phone with his bosses and Esmeralda Chaves. Julius Sims then returns to Edricks

driver window handing me the phone with Esmeralda Chavez on the other end. She

continued to scream at me to get out of (her) vehicle so her (Agent) could tow it.

Those were her exact words, again Edrick refused and told her Agent to release the

vehicle. Edrick handed him back his phone and Julius Sims went back to his tow

truck as if to comply. Julius Sims the Repossession Agent returned to the driver's

window where Edrick was seated with the phone up to his ear talking to Esmeralda

and said could he just give him the vehicle and for him to go and find something

else and let this one go. Edrick told him no and once again to release the vehicle so

he could leave. He looked at Edrick and said, “So you're not going to get out of the

vehicle?” Edrick said no, and he asked again, “So you're not going to get out of the

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 3 of 36 PageID 963
vehicle?” He asked both times in a do it or else manner, while holding the phone to

his ear. After Edrick said no again, he started walking to his tow truck with an

angry fast pace, which made Edrick become alert when he connected his

movements with the do it or else questions, to trouble brewing. Julius Sims then

gets into his tow truck, proceeds to lift the Vehicle up higher and takes off out the

driveway as if he punched the gas, which caused a strong Jerk of the vehicle on the

tow with Edrick inside. With the fear of losing his life and with his life no longer in

his control, because Julius Sims now had taken control of his life, the only thing

Edrick could do at the moment was brace and start blowing the horn telling him to

stop with his mother and neighbors all screaming stop as well. Realizing his

actions, he then stops around the corner and Edrick told him he was calling the

police and Julius Sims said he was calling too.(See Exhibit 2) They both called the

police at the same time. (see Exhibit 1) Edrick then called Esmeralda Chavez back

and informed her of the current situation and that police were called. The police

arrived at 10:25am.(see Exhibit 1) They both informed the police of the situation

and after hearing both sides the police told him to release the vehicle. Finally after

a total of 5 hours of inhaling diesel fumes Julius Sims releases the vehicle. The

aforementioned conduct by The Car Source dba Hide And Seek, by and through

Julius Sims the Repossession Agent, constituted a “breach of the peace” in

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 4 of 36 PageID 964
violation of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §9-609(b)(2). As a result of said breach of the

peace, Defendants did not have a present right to take possession of the vehicle.

Response to The Carsources IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. The Statute of Limitations Bar Plaintiff’s Claims Except TDCA, and

Equitable Tolling Does Not Apply Here

Response. This Defense has a;ready been ruled on by this court. See Doc 24.

Further, The Cars source provides no new arguments that merits a change of the

previous ruling. The arguments The Car source does provide only showed one

reason for the statute of limitations to be equitably tolled, plaintiff has provided

multiple. Plaintiff would also like to state that it has now been realized that any

victims of wrongful repossessions, fraudulent installment contracts from spot

deliveries and yoyo sales will more than likely never get their valid claim heard

before the courts properly if you go online contacting any of the consumer rights

attorneys. It is now clear to Plaintiff that these Advertised Consumer rights

attorneys telling victims to contact them are strategically placed by these finance

corporations. Once you hire any of these attorneys, they will cooperate with the

corporations to make sure your case will not be filed altogether, or have it

dismissed by some technical issue during discovery. If a victim does not file

Pro-se, they will never get their claim heard. Plaintiffs research of similar claims

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 5 of 36 PageID 965
like mine shows that this is some kind of ring which causes all these types of

claims to get dismissed. Plaintiff is intelligent enough to understand that a lot of

people have stock in companies like CIG Financial LLC and this causes cheeks to

be turned the other way when violations occur and rulings in their favor.

B. Defendant is Entitled to Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s TDCA claim or

any other basis for damages the Plaintiff has alleged.

1. Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate Actual Damages Under the TDCA

2. Plaintiff’s Failure to Timely Respond to Requests for Admissions and other

Discovery Preclude His Damages Claims.

Response. The Car Sources claim that Plaintiff did not submit Discovery responses

to them was a shock to Plaintiff when he knew perfectly well that they were sent.

Once Plaintiff saw that his response was erased from his email and his computer,

Plaintiff knew then that my computer had been hacked. I not only remember

sending it but also double checking. To add if The Car Source did not File a motion

to compel when they realized I did not send a discovery response. By virtue of

failing to address a discovery violation when the movant first learns of the issue, a

party risks waiving the issue. United States v. Stinson, No. 6:14-cv-1534-Orl-22

TBS, 2016 WL 8488241, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2016); see also Coleman, 2015

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 6 of 36 PageID 966
WL 2449585, at *8 (“[W]aiver principles apply in the discovery context just as

they do in other aspects of litigation.”) (citations omitted).

The Car source never mentioned at the Discovery deadline that the response was

not sent. This was a tactical move to abuse the discovery process.

Furthermore. The Plaintiff's computer was hacked by defendants. Exhibits 3-13

show how they Used Steno with a link that sent me to a page with the malware link

saying an account was created. See Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 shows me being alerted

that steno is phishing. Exhibit 5 now shows the link that was there when the first

email is no longer available. Exhibit 8 shows a foreign site that alerts about

Microsoft Exchange being hacked and what to look for. Exhibit 6 shows my sign

ins on my microsoft account and shows my account being signed in through an sso

which is a remote single sign on. Exhibit 7 shows me alerting the school that my

email account was hacked through some sso. Exhibit 9 shows the Github codes

used to hack into Microsoft accounts, it takes multiple contributors but it can be

done. Exhibit 10 show and malicious google update September 18, 2023 that has

now been removed once I let them know that I know I was hacked.Exhibit 11

shows my computer is executing remote commands from a remote computer.

Exhibit 12 shows that if anything is deleted from my pc somehow it is deleted

everywhere. Exhibit 13 shows that the hacker activated something called Hello

business remotely on my computer. All this proves Plaintiff was hacked.

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 7 of 36 PageID 967
CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Plaintiff Edrick Fuller, respectfully requests the Court to deny

Defendants The Car Sources Motion for summary judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Edrick Fuller

Edrick Fuller

1906 Berwick

Dallas, Tx 75203

214-941-1125

edricfuller@my.untdallas.edu

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 8 of 36 PageID 968
I hereby certify that on December 04, 2023, electronically filed this

document with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and,

through the electronic filing system, a copy of the foregoing document was served

on the following counsel and parties of record:

Farrah I. Ahmed

State Bar No. 24071934

fahmed@thompsoncoe.com

700 N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor

Plaza of the Americas

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 871-8200

106 Ex. A at ¶ 22 (App. 3); Ex. A-2 (App. 12-13).30

Facsimile: (214) 871-8209

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

CIG FINANCIAL LLC

Hessam Parzivand

The Parzivand Law Firm, PLLC

10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185

Stafford, Texas 77477

Email: hp@parzfirm.com

Attorney for Defendant The Car Source LLC

/s/Farrah Ahmed

Farrah I. Ahmed, Esq.

/s/Edrick Fuller

Edrick Fuller

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 9 of 36 PageID 969
Exhibit 1

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 10 of 36 PageID 970
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 11 of 36 PageID 971
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 12 of 36 PageID 972
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 13 of 36 PageID 973
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 14 of 36 PageID 974
.

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 15 of 36 PageID 975
Exhibit 2

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 16 of 36 PageID 976
Exhibit 3

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 17 of 36 PageID 977
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 18 of 36 PageID 978
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 19 of 36 PageID 979
Exhibit 4

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 20 of 36 PageID 980
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 21 of 36 PageID 981
Exhibit 5

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 22 of 36 PageID 982
Exhibit 6

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 23 of 36 PageID 983
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 24 of 36 PageID 984
Exhibit 7

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 25 of 36 PageID 985
Exhibit 8

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 26 of 36 PageID 986
Exhibit 9

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 27 of 36 PageID 987
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 28 of 36 PageID 988
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 29 of 36 PageID 989
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 30 of 36 PageID 990
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 31 of 36 PageID 991
Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 32 of 36 PageID 992
Exhibit 10

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 33 of 36 PageID 993
Exhibit 11

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 34 of 36 PageID 994
Exhibit 12

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 35 of 36 PageID 995
Exhibit 13

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 36 of 36 PageID 996