1

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 CIGS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

On January 9, 2019 Plaintiff Edrick Fuller visited Jeno AutoPlex looking to

purchase a truck for work. Plaintiff test drove and put $1500 cash down on a 2013

Ford F-150. Plaintiff asked about the mileage and hitch that was connected to the

truck when he returned from the test drive. Plaintiff was told the mileage was due

to freeway miles and the hitch was there because the truck was hooked to an RV

when they received it, and that the last owners were travelers. Plaintiff informed

that he would only take the truck with a warranty outside of the 2 year Free

Maintenance warranty sticker that was already on the window.(See Exhibit 3)

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 41 PageID 913
2

Plaintiff wanted a warranty on the Truck itself. They agreed to a 90 day warranty.

(See Exhibit F, last page of warranty)The employee for Jeno AutoPlex informed

Plaintiff that he had to get full coverage insurance with a 500 deductible before he

could take the truck. Plaintiff called and got insurance on the truck over the phone

and was told to bring the Truck in for pictures as soon as I left the dealership.

Plaintiff signed the contract for the truck and a warranty for 90 days. All this was

done on January 9, 2019. *(See Exhibit 2, Exhibit 2A, Exhibit 2B) Plaintiff never

returned to Jeno Autoplex until March 2019. In March of 2019 while on a route for

work, Plaintiff's truck ran hot and stopped. Plaintiff had the truck towed to a Jiffy

Lube in Plano, showed the sticker that was previously on the window when I got

the truck, and that they were on the list I was given to go for free maintenance for 2

years. He ran the Plan and said the Plan does not exist and that Jeno Autoplex was

nowhere in their system. Plaintiff tried to call Jeno Autoplex while there but was

not getting an answer. So Plaintiff had Triple A to take it to his house. Plaintiff

Continued to call Jeno Autoplex without an answer. Once Plaintiff got home, he

borrowed a car and drove to Watuga, TX where Jeno Autoplex was located. Upon

arrival, Plaintiff saw that the parking lot that was once full of nice cars was empty.

The Dealership was closed. Plaintiff got out of the car and went to the door to read

the signs, and one sign read "Closed For Personal Reasons”. Plaintiff asked a

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 41 PageID 914
3

person that I saw who was nearby and asked if he knew why they had closed, he

said they had been caught scamming people.

Plaintiff called CIG and informed them of the broken down truck and about the

warranty and free 2 year maintenance that came with the truck. They said they did

not have a warranty and knew nothing of the 2 year free maintenance. Plaintiff

informed them that he could not pay for the truck to be fixed plus the note one the

truck and Insurance. Not only that, Plaintiff also told them he did not have the

money to pay for the truck to be fixed. The Ford dealership was asking almost

$1300 to replace the radiator that had been previously repaired with some kind of

stop leak and the problems that it caused. Plaintiff informed CIG that he would not

pay March but instead get the truck fixed. They understood and agreed that I get

the truck fixed. Plaintiff found another shop that could have it fixed for 700.

During this time, Plaintiff route was being subbed by another Independent contract

driver. The goal for the Independent contract driver that I work around is to get

what we call a permanent route, permanent route means the route you run

everyday, it's your route to run. If you cannot make it, the person you get your

route through will find a substitute to run it for you, but you lose the permanent tag

after a two week absence and would have to sub again until you can get a

permanent route. Substituting is part time, a driver only gets to sub when someone

has to miss a day, which is not that often.

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 41 PageID 915
4

Plaintiff Ended up losing his route but was able to sub for other days with a

borrowed truck, and was able to pay April's note even though the truck was still

giving Plaintiff problems. When it came time for the note to be paid in May

Plaintiff informed them that he would not be able to pay this time, he needed to get

the truck completely fixed, they agreed again to get the truck fixed first. The time

for June payment came and the truck was now fixed and Plaintiff informed CIG

that he needed to make the money to pay, and that's when they told me they would

have to repossess it if I do not pay. Plaintiff asked them would they give him his

money back since the reason he could not pay was that he bought the truck for

work and the truck had broken down and had to be fixed out of Plaintiffs pocket.

Their answer was no, they would not return the money. June 2019, Plaintiff did not

pay, July 2019, Plaintiff was not able to make enough money to pay the note in full

and we agreed I send a partial payment. August 2019, Plaintiff did not pay. During

this time CIG knew Plaintiff was only subbing for work and was waiting on a

permanent route to open up.

August 2019, Plaintiff gets into a fender bender backing out of a store parking lot

where a driver saw an opportunity as Plaintiff was reversing to cause plaintiff to

back into him. Plaintiff ended up damaging the bumper and the full coverage

insurance that Plaintiff had on the truck sent Plaintiff a check for a little over $900

after the $500 deductible to have it repaired in September 2019. Plaintiff could not

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 4 of 41 PageID 916
5

cash the check without CIGS signature since they were lien holders to the title.

Plaintiff sent the check to CIG unsigned and told them to sign it and send it back.

They did not send it back, they somehow cashed it without Plaintiff's signature and

told him it was added to his account.

October 2019, Plaintiff calls CIG to inform them that he now has a permanent

route again and wants to know where his account stood. Plaintiff was informed that

the $900 plus was added to his principle and that he was still behind on his

payments. Plaintiff disagreed and said that it should have been added to his

monthly payments instead which would have caught him up at least two months.

They said they would see what they could do. Plaintiff informed them that he

would be getting paid every 2 weeks on the 14th and 30th of each month. Plaintiff

got a call back with them informing me on a two month deferment agreement.

Plaintiff agreed and told them to send him the paperwork to sign. They sent the

paperwork and it stated that I would pay starting October 15, 2019. (See Exhibit

10) Plaintiff did not sign it, but instead called CIG back and told them I would not

be able to make the Car note payment on the 15th, for two reasons, the first was

that I did not work enough days the previous pay period to have a full check. and

the second reason was that I needed to use the first check to handle more important

bills. We agreed that I would pay the notes on the second check at the end of the

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 5 of 41 PageID 917
6

month to make it better for Plaintiff, but they never sent another agreement

changing the date. Plaintiff paid $439.68 on October 31, 2019.

Same as during October, during November CIG kept sending emails talking about

a charge off when we have just gotten off of the phone and them knowing the

situation. Plaintiff did not understand and even confronted them about this. They

were saying it was something they were required to do even with our

conversations. For the second pay period of November for Plaintiff, he knew he

would not have enough coming on the check to pay the full $432.68 November 29,

Plaintiff called and informed CIG that he would not have enough for the full

payment. The employee for CIG asked how much he would have, and Plaintiff told

him he would have $340. November 30, 2019 A CIG employee emailed to give

him a call. (See Exhibit 5)Plaintiff called back and they said they were going to

lower Plaintiffs payment each month from $432 to $380 Plus the $7 service fee and

would I be able to come up with $387. Plaintiff said yes and could he pay with

different cards. Plaintiff stated that he had $347 on one card and $40 on another,

and he would borrow $40 from his mother from another card. Plaintiff was then

given directions on how to pay and he paid it. Afterwards, Plaintiff was sent an

email stating that the payments from the cards with the payments of $340 and $7

were accepted, but that the payment for $40 was not because it was a Credit

Card.(See Exhibit 6) I informed my mother that the card she gave me was a credit

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 6 of 41 PageID 918
7

card, she said oh, she gave me the wrong one and handed me a debit card. Plaintiff

paid the $40 with the debit card. Plaintiff paid $387 November 30, 2019. The note

for December 30th Plaintiff knew he would be able to make, but the checks did not

come out on time due to a settlement report filed by the Contractor who pays

everyone because his amount was short. After Plaintiff saw that the issue would

not be resolved until the next day, Plaintiff told the contractor to send him 400 so

he could pay his note because the people sent him an email about a charge off

again for December 31, at 12:00 pm and he wanted to go ahead and pay them

before the deadline(See Exhibit 7). He agreed to send it but did not send it right

then. He did not send it till early the next morning when he called and told me he

wanted me to run another route for him that day that would pay more. He sent the

money by the time I got in my truck that morning to warm it up. Plaintiffs truck

was parked in the driveway unblocked or anything because he had no intentions

that his truck was being repossessed that day. As Plaintiff was sitting waiting to be

called back and told where to go, Plaintiff kind of dozed off a little and was woken

up by a deep humming sound and then his truck being lifted. Plaintiff immediately

started blowing the horn and flickering the lights on and off to let the tow truck

driver know he was in the vehicle.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 7 of 41 PageID 919
8

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint at law alleged violations of the FDCPA, DTPA,

TDCA, and multiple Texas torts. Defendants have now moved for summary

judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims on the basis that Defendants had a present

right to possession because Plaintiff was in default under the terms of his retail

installment contract and that CIG Financial LLC had a valid security interest in

Plaintiff's vehicle. An already ruled statute of limitations defense, Liability and

Damages.

Response to CIGS Arguments

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

Equitable Tolling Does Not Apply Here.

Response: The Judge has already made a ruling on this, (id) and CIG does not

provide any new arguments. (See doc 24:)

B. Alternatively, CIG is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims

because the evidence clearly shows that CIG actually hired another company,

CARS (a nonparty), and not Hide or Seek, to repossess Plaintiff’s Vehicle, and

that CARS had delegated the repossession of the Vehicle to Hide & Seek

without CIG’s prior knowledge or consent. Therefore, CIG is not vicariously

liable for Plaintiff’s alleged damages caused by the actions of Hide & Seek’s

driver at the day of the Incident.

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 8 of 41 PageID 920
9

Response: On October 27,2019 Plaintiff moved to strike the Defendant’s

Supplemental Initial Disclosure of adding Consolidated Asset Recovery System,

Inc. who they allege is a non-party to this suit and responsible third-party who is

liable to CIG or to Plaintiff as a witness. The Defendant’s Supplemental Initial

Disclosures, was submitted to Plaintiff after the Stipulated August 31, 2022

deadline for Initial Disclosures by both parties. Defendants emailed Plaintiff asking

would he agree to a Stipulate a deadline from August 5, 2022 to submit Initial

Disclosures that were not submitted yet by all parties. Plaintiff messaged back

stating he had submitted his Initial disclosures at the time of filing his complaint.

There was a back and forth and still Defendants said it was not, so Plaintiff agreed

to Stipulated Initial Disclosure agreement anyhow, not knowing what they were

talking about. Plaintiff saw their Initial disclosures submitted August 31, 2022 and

saw it was basically the same that I told them that I already submitted, except they

added the federal rules. Defendants stated they wanted a full computation of the

damages instead of the bare 1.5 million number that I asked for at the filing of the

complaint. Plaintiff understood and submitted as well. Defendants supplementing

their Initial Disclosures in a timely fashion a short time after and well before the

Discovery deadline giving Plaintiff time to respond and adjust would have been

accepted. Defendants supplementing their Initial Disclosures October 13, 2023, 14

months Past the deadline for filing such disclosures and well after the Discovery

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 9 of 41 PageID 921
10

Deadline, and with only two weeks left before Summary Judgement, Surprises and

Prejudices Plaintiff. 2. The Defendant’s untimely disclosure has left the Plaintiff

with inadequate time to explore the nature of the additional non-party who could

also be held liable, and whom Defendants seek to shift their liability to, 2 weeks

prior to the November 1, 2023 Summary Judgement deadline. In light of the above

reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defendant’s Supplemental

Disclosure of adding Consolidated Asset Recovery System, Inc as a non-party

Witness be stricken.

C. CIG is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims

against CIG for violations of the FDCPA, TDCA, and Tex. Fin. Code §

392.301, negligence, or battery because Plaintiff’s alleged damages was not

foreseeable or reasonably anticipated when CIG hired CARS to repossess to

the Vehicle.

Response: CIG contends that CARS is liable for plaintiffs damages. See MBank El

Paso, N.A. v. Sanchez, 836 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex. 1992) (interpreting predecessor

statute). Thus, the creditor who elects to pursue nonjudicial repossession assumes

the risk that a breach of the peace might occur. Id. at 154. A secured creditor

"remains liable for breaches of the peace committed by its independent contractor."

Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, Precautions Required by Statute or

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 10 of 41 PageID 922
11

Regulation, § 424 (1965)). Thus, a creditor cannot escape liability by hiring an

independent contractor to repossess secured property.

Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp., 877 F. Supp. 1439 (D. Kan. 1994)

Thus, the court holds that "[a] creditor cannot escape the duty of peaceable

repossession by delegating it to an independent contractor," whether an

independent contractor in the first instance or an independent contractor once

removed. Sanchez, 836 S.W.2d at 153. Holding otherwise would encourage

repossessing creditors to simply stack independent contractors between it and the

debtor, thereby insulating the creditor from liability. Further more, CIG does not

provide any new arguments from the Motion to dismiss that has already been ruled

on.

D. Plaintiff has no or insufficient evidence of his alleged damages, including

“injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature, ... stress, anxiety, and emotional

distress,” or punitive damages.

All that Plaintiff has submitted to CIG through his Initial Disclosures and

Discovery request is sufficient evidence of Plaintiff's damages, including “injuries

of a personal and pecuniary nature, ... stress, anxiety, and emotional distress,” and

punitive damages. Their whole scam on Plaintiff has damaged Plaintiff's life.

Plaintiff is on probation and would have had it completed if not for being

mysteriously and surprisingly removed from a class he was required to complete

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 11 of 41 PageID 923
12

on allegations of being disrespectful and behind on fees. Plaintiff thought the

Instructor had turned on him and had something against him for reporting these

things without notifying him or warning.(See Exhibit 9) Plaintiff Paid $350 to start

the class and told the Instructor to inform him when he needed to pay again. See

Exhibit. Plaintiff now believes CIG Attorneys and their Dallas connections to the

legal system had something to do with that. Why else would they mention or bring

up that instance? It all makes sense now, CIG may have also had a hand in the

bogus charges brought against Plaintiff. Which can explain when Plaintiff was

arrested from his home of the extra effort to impound Plaintiff's truck that was in

the backyard. Plaintiff asked what was taking so long after being arrested, and the

officer stated that they were trying to see if they could get the truck as well.

Plaintiff asked why, he said he did not know, but he knows they can not do it since

I was not in the truck when arrested. Also, CIGs charge off on Plaintiff's account

caused a negative impact on Plaintiff's credit score causing the denial of an EDIL

Loan. After a few months of applying for the EIDL it became widely reported that

a credit score of 540 would get approval of a loan, even with any type of missed

payments or collections.The only thing that could deny the loan was any kind of

negative charge off. The wait for the approval or denial of the loan caused Plaintiff

Financial problems during covid when work was hard to come by. The financial

problems also led to relationship problems with my daughter's mom causing

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 12 of 41 PageID 924
13

Plaintiff to be arrested. Plaintiff could have easily defended himself of actual

physical contact if the full video of the incident was provided during discovery.

The video would have also justified Plaintiff's actions to any normal human being.

Plaintiff was prejudiced, only the clip of him leaving was provided and told that

was all they had. Plaintiff just agreed to probation and the stipulations in order to

move on with his life. No one cared about the cause and the truth, they just only

wanted to convict the plaintiff because he was confident he would prevail once the

video was shown. If CIG and their attorneys do not consider what Plaintiff went

through to be damaging, then they really are the Monsters that Plaintiff has come to

believe they are. Plaintiff can not get over the fact that they have hacked his

computer and email account. Something that will be expressed in more detail in

Plaintiff's response to The Car Sources Motion for Summary Judgement.

E. Alternatively, or additionally, Plaintiff’s own fault, or his intentional

actions, negligence, or omissions caused his alleged damages.

On January 9, 2019 Plaintiff signed an installment contract with Jeno Autoplex.

(See Exhibit 1). The Installment contract that Plaintiff received is not the same that

CIG has provided (See doc 60 Exhibit A-1(App. 5-11). Plaintiff has never seen the

contract that CIG has provided that states it was executed on January 16,2019, nor

are those Plaintiffs signatures signed by him.CIG was not on the Installment

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 13 of 41 PageID 925
14

Contract that Plaintiff signed, which is why plaintiff stated in the status report

concerning jury trial that the contract was between the buyer and seller not the

third party assignee because CIG was not on Plaintiffs installment Contact. (see

doc 33 pg 11)Plaintiff has always believed that CIG acquired Plaintiff's note

through some type of contract transfer that had nothing to do with him. Another

Company called Coastal Credit LLC was on Plaintiff's contract.(See Exhibit 1E)

More evidence is that Plaintiff had to get full coverage insurance while there before

he could leave. The Insurance card was issued on the 9th of January 2019, also

proving Plaintiff signed his contract January 9, 2019, not January 16, 2019. Also to

add, CIG was not even the Finance company name given for the insurance, the

name on Plaintiffs insurance given by the dealer to the insurance company when

they talked was Premium Finance Company.(see Exhibit 2). Plaintiff contacted

Jeno Autoplex February 8 2019 asking who to pay the note to. They said I would

get a call back. CIG called back that same day informing Plaintiff they were who I

would be paying the note to and gave me instructions on how to pay it online.

Plaintiff paid the next day, February 9, 2019 on time. (See Exhibit 4) CIGS

installment Contract provided is a fraud document with plaintiffs forged signature

created to fit their narrative that Plaintiff was in default of his contract with them.

Accordingly, in O'Brien v. Phillips Motors Excelsior, Inc., 288 Minn. 183, 179

N.W.2d 158 (Minn. 1970), Affirming trial court's judgment in favor of buyer in

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 14 of 41 PageID 926
15

"non-signature" claim because seller did not furnish customer with copy of

installment sales contract. Texas Finance Code § 348.101. states,

RETAIL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

(a) A retail installment contract is required for

each retail installment transaction. A retail installment contract

may be more than one document.

(b) A retail installment contract must be:

(1) in writing;

(2) dated;

(3) signed by the retail buyer and retail seller; and

(4) completed as to all essential provisions before it

is signed by the retail buyer except as provided by Subsection (d).

O'Brien v. Phillips Motors Excelsior holds that:

The plain purpose of the provision is to inform the installment buyer of the cost of

the credit extended to him, even though it falls short of expressing that cost in

terms of a more understandable annual percentage rate.

Enforcement of that particular requirement is achieved by civil remedies

In case of an intentional failure to comply with any provision of sections, the

buyer shall have a right to recover from the person committing such violation, to

set off or counterclaim in any action by such person to enforce such contract an

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 15 of 41 PageID 927
16

amount as liquidated damages, the whole of the contract due and payable, plus

reasonable attorneys' fees.

By CIG not being on the Installment contract provided to Plaintiff, CIG cannot use

the defense that plaintiff was in default or any defense against any of plaintiffs

claims that refers to the contract. Furthermore, Plaintiff was not in Default. In

October we had just made an agreement to defer the two payments that Plaintiff

was behind. Plaintiff Last payment on November 30, 2019 was not a partial

payment but an agreed new amount to pay of $380 + $7. After these agreements,

CIG should not have continued to try and repossess and Charge off on Plaintiffs

Account. Accordingly, in re Krueger, 192 F.3d 733, 738 (7th Cir. 1999) (quoting

Barker v. Leonard, 635 N.E.2d 846, 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)). Specifically, [w]here

a party accepts late payments it may waive or suspend its right to timely payments

and its right to declare a forfeiture unless the buyer is given a definite and written

notice of the intention to require strict compliance with the contract in the future . .

. To reestablish strict compliance, the notice must give a reasonable time for

performance, and what is a reasonable time depends on the facts in the case. City

of Chicago v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 563 N.E.2d 65, 70 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)

(quoting Allabastro v. Wheaton National Bank, 395 N.E.2d 1212, 1217 (Ill. App.

Ct. 1979)). The failure to make payments within the contract time may be waived

by the receipt and acceptance of overdue payments. Where the time fixed by the

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 16 of 41 PageID 928
17

contract for performance is permitted to pass, both parties concurring, the time of

performance thereafter becomes indefinite, and one party cannot rescind until full

notice and a reasonable time for performance is given. Romualdo P. Eclavea, et al.,

Waiver of Delay: Generally, 12A Ill. Law and Prac. Contracts § 279 (2016).

Plaintiff was sent an email December 30, 2019 at 11:21 am stating Please contact

CIG FINANCIAL 949-271-4248. Your account will be CHARGE OFF tomorrow

@ 12:00 pm (See Exhibit 7 ). They already Knew I got paid on the 30th and

Plaintiff figured that the email was just a reminder that he had until the 31 to pay.

The payment History that CIG provided is also a fraudulent document. Plaintiff

paid his note the first three months. Also, plaintiff paid a total of $387.00 with 2

different cards that is not reflected on plaintiffs payment on November 30, 2019.

See Exhibit 6) In light of the above reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the

Defendant’s Payment History be stricken for being a false edited document.

Extended Facts

CIG also submitted the phone conversations made December 31, 2019. If the Judge

reviews closely, the times do not match the police report, CIGs hours of operation,

nor is it an actual transcript of the recordings. (see doc 60: Exhibit A-3:App. 14-16)

Instead it is a custom explanation of the recordings, using the term “He” and

describing what Plaintiff said, and not what he actually said. The phone transcript

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 17 of 41 PageID 929
18

was falsely modified to fit CIGS narrative of not being liable and to undermine the

courts judgment, which is not admissible. The Declaration of this false submission

was also submitted in bad faith which should call for a sanction. Fed rule 56 (h)

states:

Affidavit or Declaration Submitted in Bad Faith. If satisfied that an affidavit or

declaration under this rule is submitted in bad faith or solely for delay, the court –

after notice and a reasonable time to respond – may order the submitting party to

pay the other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a

result. An offending party or attorney may also be held in contempt or subjected to

other appropriate sanctions. In light of the above reasons, Plaintiff respectfully

requests that the Defendant’s Loan Comment report for Plaintiff on December 31,

2019 be stricken.

Defendants also submitted a Deposition transcript from a Stenographer. (see doc

60: Exhibit B:App. 17-59) We are in 2023 where everything can be video recorded,

Stenographers are an automatic prejudice. At the first break during deposition

Plaintiff asked what she was typing on, because it did not have buttons, symbols

and letters like a typewriter but she was typing after every word as if it did. As she

was explaining how it worked, the first thing that came to plaintiffs mind was,

what kind of sorcery is this! A short handed typing machine used by a woman old

enough to be Plaintiff's mother reeks prejudice all over it. Plaintiff is 43 years old.

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 18 of 41 PageID 930
19

After reading the transcript provided and seeing all mistakes and frauds committed

by Stenographer and editing of Plaintiff's answers or answers made

incomprehensible, Plaintiff was sure of the prejudice this method of recording

provided. Defendants also used Steno to hack Plaintiffs computer with a phishing

email. (See Exhibit 8-8B) This Hacking provided the Defendants the ability to

remotely log on to plaintiffs computer, go into his email account and erase his

discovery response sent to The Car Source. I guess desperate times call for

desperate measures. Plaintiff has not forgotten to submit anything. Plaintiff has

spent the past 3 weeks trying to figure out how his computer was hacked. And if

you seek you shall find. In light of the above reasons, Plaintiff respectfully

requests that the Defendant’s Deposition Transcript be stricken for being edited.

CONCLUSION

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

Defendants CIG Financial LLCs Motion for summary judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Edrick Fuller

Edrick Fuller

1906 Berwick

Dallas, Tx 75203

214-941-1125

edricfuller@my.untdallas.edu

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 19 of 41 PageID 931
20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 27, 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 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 20 of 41 PageID 932
21

Exhibit 1

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 21 of 41 PageID 933
22

Exhibit 1B.

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 22 of 41 PageID 934
23

Exhibit 1C

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 23 of 41 PageID 935
24

Exhibit 1D

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 24 of 41 PageID 936
25

Exhibit 1E

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 25 of 41 PageID 937
26

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 26 of 41 PageID 938
27

Exhibit 1F

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 27 of 41 PageID 939
28

Exhibit 2

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 28 of 41 PageID 940
29

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 29 of 41 PageID 941
30

Exhibit 2A

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 30 of 41 PageID 942
31

Exhibit 2B

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 31 of 41 PageID 943
32

Exhibit 3

Photo from Jeno Aotoplex Facebook page

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 32 of 41 PageID 944
33

Exhibit 4

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 33 of 41 PageID 945
34

Exhibit 5

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 34 of 41 PageID 946
35

Exhibit 6

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 35 of 41 PageID 947
36

Exhibit 7

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 36 of 41 PageID 948
37

Exhibit 8

Exhibit 8B Phishing

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 37 of 41 PageID 949
38

Exhibit 9

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 38 of 41 PageID 950
39

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 39 of 41 PageID 951
40

Exhibit 10

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 40 of 41 PageID 952
41

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 65 Filed 11/27/23 Page 41 of 41 PageID 953