briefs." Tothe extent Plaintiffs To the extent Plaintiffswish haveaamotion tohave wishto motionaand/or nd/ormotions heard,Silverado motionsheard, Silverado
requests proper notice requests proper oreview noticetto reviewthe respond,adequately the briefing,respond, argumentand prepareargument adequatelyprepare andappear. appear. Silverado Silverado further bjectstthat furtheroobjects hatPlaintiffs' Plaintiffs' Motion o Reconsider Motiontto Reconsideris vagueandambiguous isvagueand ambiguous
insofar aassSilverado insofar annotddetermine Silverado ccannot etermine whethersanctions whether aresought sanctionsare soughtagainst Josh Davisindividually. againstJoshDavis individually. WhileMr.Davisis not mentioned While Mr. Davis is not nywherein mentioned aanywhere inthe the bodyof body of the argument sseeking the argument eekingsanctions, sanctions, N namehim Plaintiffsname him individually individuallyin inthe the prayer. Silveradoobjects, prayer. Silverado objects,specially excepts,sseeks specially excepts, eeks N clarificationand an opportunity and an opportunityto respondiif torespond fPlaintiffs areinfactseeking Plaintiffsare in fact seekingssanctions anctions againstits against its counsel. counsel. Subject o the Subjecttto foregoingobjectionsandwithoutwaivingthe same,Silverado the foregoing objections and without waiving thesame, filesthe Silverado files the followingsubstantive limitedothemotion response limitedtto following substantive response andbriefingasindicated the motion and briefingas herein. indicated herein. RESPONSE RESPONSE
A) MOTION A) MOTION T0 TO RECONSIDER MUSTBE DENIED BE DENIED Plaintiffs' MotiontoReconsider askstheCourttoreconsider Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider asks the Courtto andrescind its91aOrder reconsider and rescind its 91a Order enteredonNovember 10,2014whichdismissed Plaintiffs' falseimprisonment, assaultandbattery, entered on November 10, 2014 which dismissed Plaintiffs' false imprisonment, assault and battery, andconspiracy and conspiracy causes ofactionpursuant toRule9l R. P.91a.Plaintiffs asksthe causes of action pursuant to Rule 91a.2 TEX. R. Ov. P. 91a. Plaintiffs asks the Court toreconsider itsruling na spirited yetmisguidedargument thatdoes in address to reconsider its rulingoon a spirited-- yet misguided-- argument that does not inanyway any way address Rule9laorthestandard governing the v. No.14-13-00385-CV, 2014 Rule 91a or the standard governing the same.3 Id.; Wooley v. Schaffer, No. 14-13-00385-CV, 2014 Tex.App.LEXIS8983at *10(Tex.App.Houston[14thDist.]Aug.14,2014)quoting((Bell Tex. App. LEXIS 8983 at *10 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2014) quoting ((Bell Ad.
SeeDef`endants' Motion toDismiss Rule91a(seeking toTRCP Pursuant dismissal onthebasisthat 2 See Defendants' had PlaintiffsclaimsMotion to Dismiss no basisin Pursuant toWithdrawal law); TRCP Rule andReply 91a (seeking todismissal onR Plaintiffs'the basis that esponse to Plaintiffs claims had no basis in law); Partialalso Motion toDismiss PursuanttoTRCP 9la;see Withdrawal and Reply OrderGranting to Plaintiffs' 91aMotion Response toDismiss to entered Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to TRCP 91a; see also Order Granting 91a Motion to Dismiss entered on November10,2014all on filewiththeCourtandincorporated byreferenceas if setout fully on November 10, 2014 all on file with the Court and incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein. herein. Plaintiffs' Motion toReconsider atpg.1-2. 3 See Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider at pg. 1-2.
4815-8867-2544.1 2
Silverado Appx. 0453 No. 1-15-567-CV 1517 Corp. Corp. vv.. Twombly, Twombly,550U.S.544,570,127S.Ct.1955, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955,1167 67L.Ed.2d929(2007) L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (Ashcroftv.v.Iqbal, lqbal, 556U.S. 556 U.S.6662, 62,678,129S.Ct. 678, 129 S.Ct.1937, 1937,1173 73L.Ed. L.Ed.22d d868(2009)).Likewise, requestthatthe 868 (2009)). Likewise, Plaintiffsrequest that the
Court reconsider reconsiderits its ruling pursuant to theclean-hands pursuantto the clean-handsdoctrine doctrinebbased asedon on Ms.Schwager's Ms. Schwager's
interpretation ofthefacts interpretation of the factsw hichiissequally which equallyiinapplicable napplicable toRule to Rule 91a.4See SeeTEX. Tex.R. R. Civ.P.91a.7; P. 91a.7;see see also v. Chase also Drake v. Chase Bank, 2014