nor County District Court oon about uly18,2014, or about JJuly 18, 2014, sseeking eekingaa Temporary TemporaryRestraining RestrainingOrder Order and againstSilverado and Temporary Injunction against S ilverado SSenior eniorLLiving, iving,CCarol arolAnnManley, Ann Manley,David David Peterson, Peterson, et, al.See et, al. See OriginalPetition, by5 sworn affidavits. PLAINTIFF Petition, verified by 5sworn S non- PLAINTIFFS non- suitedthe GUARDIANSHIP APPLICATION byMICHAELHIRSCHimmediately. suited the GUARDIANSHIP APPLICATION filed by MICHAEL HIRSCH immediately. 2. DEFENDANTSamended theirpleadings 2. DEFENDANTS amended their pleadingstocreate jurisdiction to create jurisdictiontosupport their equest forthis to support theirrrequest for this Courtto transferPLAINTIFF'S tort caseto probatecourt,whichoccurred aftertheJuly25, Court to transfer PLAINTIFF'S tortcase to probatecourt, which occurred after the July 25, 2014hearingon DEFENDANTS' MOTION TOTRANSFER. At thishearing,SARAH 2014 hearing on DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER. At this hearing, SARAH PACHECO ANDJILL YOUNG on the recordthat theywouldnot hold PACHECO AND JILL YOUNG represented on the record that they would not hold PLAINTIFFS to representationsof MICHAEL HIRSCH - but violatedthispromise PLAINTIFFS to representations of MICHAEL HIRSCH - but violated this promise inbadfaithandformalicious purposes. repeatedly thereafter in bad faith and for malicious purposes. 3. The grantedthetransfer July25,2014andPLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR 3. The Court granted the transfer on on July 25, 2014 and PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY hearingbeganon JULY28,2014.OnJuly28,2014,the INJUNCTION TEMPORARY INJUNCTION hearing began on JULY 28, 2014. On July 28, 2014, the hadextensive Parties discussions regarding socialmediapostsandvideos pertaining toRUBY Parties had extensive discussions regarding social media posts and videos pertaining to RUBY PETERSON, whichhadpreviously beendisseminated andrevealedthatRUBYPETERSON PETERSON, which had previously been disseminated and revealed that RUBY PETERSON wantedtoleaveSILVERADO SENIOR butwasheldagainst LIVING herwill.Seevideosof wanted to leave SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING but was held against her will. See videos of RubyPeterson, entered intoevidence and ofJULY 28,2014hearing. Ruby Peterson, entered into evidence and transcript of JULY 28, 2014 hearing.
Silverado Appx. 0529 No. 1-15-567-CV 1618 4. DEFENDANTS 4. DEFENDANTS askedtheJudge to enter asked the Judge to enteran ORDER,prohibiting anORDER, prohibitingPLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS AND/OR AND/OR
THEIR THEIR ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS from from posting posting tthe hethree three videos att issue, videos a anyother issue, any videos,or othervideos, publicly orpublicly disseminating information information in socialmedia in social concerning mediaconcerning RUBYPETERSON RUBY PETERSONwithfeigned with feigned
concerns concerns ofRUBY'S of RUBY'S privacy rights(and privacyrights (andthose thoseof ofothers theyroutinely others they violateby routinely violate byreleases releases
designed designed to SILVERADO to permit SILVERADO to exploit to exploit residents residents intheir in their advertising). advertising).
5. TheCourt 5. refusedttoodo The Court refused doso, acknowledging so,acknowledging thatthis couldbe casecould that this case FirstAmendment beaa First Amendmentcase case
whichgenerated which generatedpublic concern public concern aand ndfurther questioning further questioning hisauthority doso. his authority ttoo do TheCourt so.The Court
0 clearly thatitwould stated notORDER SCHWAGER totakethevideos down orcease clearly stated that it would not ORDER SCHWAGER to take the videos down or cease tai bloggingaboutthe blogging case andthatthe about the case partieshad and that the parties to agree had to the"Rule to the agreeto "Rulell Agreement"or 11 Agreement" or presentan present appropriate anappropriate MOTION MOTION FORPROTECTIVE FOR PROTECTIVEAND/OR AND/OR G AGORDER GAG ORDER forhim to for him to haveauthority have authority tto o rule. In deference Indeference andout and outofofrespect