IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

KATHLEEN D. LIEBERMAN and ) 

MARK J. LIEBERMAN ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No.: 4:23-CV-00887 

 ) 

JUSTIN PAUL and ) 

WENDY WALKER, ) 

) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED RESPONSE (ECF 19) TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 12(b)(6)

Comes now Defendants Justin Paul and Wendy Walker in response to the Petitioners’ 

AMENDED RESPONSE (ECF 19) reply to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended 

complaint (EFC 12) and the Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) (ECF 13) re-urges 

the statutory, case law, and analytical analysis provided in Defendants’ original motions. The 

Plaintiffs’ document, while not entitled AMENDED RESPONSE to MOTION TO 

INVALIDATE GUARDIANSHIP, MOTION FOR SOLUTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEY 

FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSE will be addressed as such. The Defendants operate under the 

belief they have all the referenced exhibits identified in the Petitioners’ amended response, while 

they are not marked in sequential order, they appear to cover a wide range of other possible 

exhibits: for example- 1G, 3G, 4G, 6A, 7E, 7J, 8E, Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13. 

Petitioners’ “amended response” fails to provide the court with any new or additional 

statutory authority or case law or any new legal theory that supports their position that a third party 

noncustodial individual or grandparents have jurisdictional standing, either statutory or 

constitutional, to seek the specific relief requested by the Petitioners: monetary damages of 

Case 4:23-cv-00887-SDJ-KPJ Document 21 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 210
2 

$78,000 and punitive damages, (Petitioners’ amended complaint (ECF 3 at para XVII) and 

injunctive relief to enforce grandparent visitation. The Petitioners’ amended response provides no 

legal position or theory not previously pled but only continues to present to the Court issues not 

presented in their amended petition. The amended response provides a lengthy case history of 

previous guardianships and procedural matters addressed by the Oklahoma District Court but is 

still void of any legal authority to allow the Petitioners under the facts of this case, to the relief that 

they seek. The Petitioners continued to request relief as to issues not before the Court as well as 

attempting to use their response to inappropriately “join” other parties to the lawsuit. 

The Petitioners directed the Court’s attention on page 2 of their amended response, to the 

Texas family code section 153.432 that purports under our fact scenario to give biological or 

adoptive grandparents the ability to request “possession” or access to a grandchild, this issue has 

never been pled before the court in the original petition nor the amended petition, as such is not an 

issue the Court may grant relief. Petitioners again attempt to interject that issue through their

response/amended response to the motion to dismiss attempting to establish a foundational basis 

for the Court’s statutory or constitutional jurisdiction to address the limited issues in the amended

petition. Additionally, the material presented to the Court in the amended response does not 

address or rebut the basis of the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Petitioners again address 

the two separate motions of the Defendants in a single compilation and presentation of the myriad 

of proposed facts and unrelated matters that again, after extrapolation, still fail to address the lack 

of statutory authority or case law that provides sufficient legal basis to support any remedy 

available for the specific issues pled in their petition. 

PETITIONERS CONTINUED VIOLATION OF OKLA.STAT. 30, § 1-122 and 

RULE 5.2 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Case 4:23-cv-00887-SDJ-KPJ Document 21 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 211
3 

The Petitioners continue to flagrantly violate Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Oklahoma Title 30 § 1-122, by including and publishing in a public form 

confidential information of parties involved in guardianship matters. See Petitioners’ exhibits: 

ECF DOCs 19-1, 19-4, 19-5, 19-6, 19-9. 

CONCLUSION

Because there is no basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter, and the 

Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, AND the Petitioners’ “response” 

is void of statutory authority or case law that vests the Petitioners with standing to file the amended 

complaint or use their “response” as a means of joinder of other parties as such the complaint and 

amended complaint should be dismissed and attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses should be 

awarded to Defendants.

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ David C. Youll 

 David C. Youll, OBA No. 16553 

 Welsh & McGough, PLLC 

 2727 E. 21st St., Ste. 600 

 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114 

 Telephone: 918.585.8600 

 Telefax: 918.794.4411 

david@tulsafirm.com 

 Attorney for Defendants Justin Paul/Wendy Walker

Case 4:23-cv-00887-SDJ-KPJ Document 21 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 212
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing motion was 

filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system which caused an electronic copy of the same to be served on 

the following counsel of record: 

Mark Lieberman

1704 Pine Hills Lane 

 Corinth, Texas 76210 

 Mjc358@hotmail.com 

 /s/ David C. Youll 

 David C. Youll 

Case 4:23-cv-00887-SDJ-KPJ Document 21 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 213