in Re Forum Studio, Inc. and Clayco, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 16, 2015·No. 15-0674·Published

Opinion

FILED 15-0674 11/16/2015 2:17:39 PM tex-7866695 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

1R ,QWKH 6XSUHPH&RXUWRI7H[DV                      † 2ULJLQDO3URFHHGLQJ       † ,QUH)RUXP6WXGLR,QF † DQG&OD\FR,QF    † )URPWKHWK'LVWULFW&RXUW  Relators † † † 2I'DOODV&RXQW\7H[DV                5HDO3DUW\LQ,QWHUHVW¶V$SSHQGL[              

Real Party In Interest files this Appendix to their Response to Petition for

Writ of Mandamus . The Court is requested to consider the following attachments:

Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Greg C. Noschese ( R.P. Appx. 003-006)

Exhibit 2: Defendant's Original Answer (R.P. Appx. 007-009) Exhibit 3: Defendant's Counterclaim Against Clayco, Inc. (R.P. Appx. 010-191)

Exhibit 4: Respondents' Objections, Reservation of Rights and, Subject to and Without Waiver of the Same, Their Answering Statement (R.P. Appx. 192-199)

Exhibit 5: Order Partially Granting and Partially Denying Respondents' Motion to Dismiss on Statutes of Limitations (R.P. Appx. 200- 204)

Exhibit 6: Plaintiffs' Original Petition (R.P. Appx. 205-303)

R.P. Appx. 001 Exhibit 7: Order on Plaintiffs' Application to Stay Arbitration (R.P. Appx. 304)

Exhibit 8: Order Denying Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order (R.P. Appx. 305)

Exhibit 9: Defendant Intellicenter Dallas Investment LLP's Motion to Compel Arbitration (R.P. Appx. 306-311)

Exhibit 10: Defendant Intellicenter Dallas Investments LLP's Response to Plaintiff's Application to Stay Arbitration (R.P. Appx. 312-410)

Exhibit 11: Texas Board of Architectural Examiners Public Information results regarding Hans Hecker (R.P. Appx. 411)

Exhibit 12: Texas Board of Architectural Examiners Public Information results regarding Clayco, Inc. (R.P. Appx. 412-413)

R.P. Appx. 002 No. I S-0674 In the Supreme Court of Texas

§ Origi.nal Proceeding § In re Forum Studio, I nc. § and Clayco, Inc., § From tbe 1601h District Cour t Relators. § § § Of Dallas County, Texas

Affidavit of Greg C. Noscbese

STATEOFTEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day appeared Greg C.

Noschese, who is personally known by me, and after first being duly sworn

according to law upon his oath, deposed and said:

1. "My nan1e is Greg C. Noschese. I am over eighteen years of age, am

of sound mind and am competent to make this affidavit. The facts stated herein are

within my personal knowledge and are all true and correct.

2. 1 am an attorney licensed to practice Jaw in the State of Texas. I am

an attorney of record for Intellicenter Dallas Investments LLP, the Real Party in

Interest in this proceeding and in the underlying proceeding before Respondent.

Affidavit of Greg C. Noschese R.P. Appx. 003 3. The following documents, which are being presented as Exhibits to

the Court in the Appendix to the Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, are

true and correct copies of the original documents filed in the underlying trial court

and arbitration proceedings:

Exhibit 2- Defendant's Original Answer (Cause No. DC-15-020 18);

Exhibit 3 -Defendant's CountercJaim Against Clayco, Inc. (Cause No. DC-15-020 18);

Exhibit 4 - Respondents' Objections, Reservation of Rights and, Subject to and Without Waiver of the Same, Their Answering Statement (AAA Case No. 01- 14-0001-0249);

Exhibit 5 - Order Partially Granting and Partially Denying Respondents' Motion to Dismiss on Statutes of Limitations (AAA Case No. 01-14-0001-0249);

Exhibit 6 - Plaintiffs' Original Petition (Cause No. DC-15-02018);

Exhibit 7 - Order on Plaintiffs' Application to Stay Arbitration (Cause No. DC-15-02018);

Exhibit 8 - Order Denying Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order (Cause No. DC-15-020 18);

Exhibit 9 - Defendant Intellicenter Dallas Investment LLP's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Cause No. DC-15-02018); and

Exhibit 10 - Defendant Intellicenter Dallas Investments LLP's Response to Plaintiffs Application to Stay Arbitration (Cause No. DC-15-020 18).

4. The following docwnents, which are being presented as Exhibits to

the Court in the Appendix to the Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, are

Affidavit of Greg C. Noschese 2 R.P. Appx. 004 true and correct print-outs of the information via the Internet obtained from the

official website of the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners:

Exhibit II - Texas Board of Architectural Examjners Public Information License Search Results regarding Hans Hecker; and

Exhibit 12 - Texas Board of Architectural Examiners Public Information License Search Results regarding Clayco, Inc.

Further affiant sayeth not."

Affidavit of Greg C. Noschese 3 R.P. Appx. 005 - SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on this the 16ih day of November 2015.

~C1~LD (~J{ib=l_ Sharon D. Blackstock Notary Public in and for the State of Texas My Commission Expires:

01-21-19

SHAROND. BlACKSTOCK My Commfeilon Expjtue • January 21, 2018

Affidavil of Greg C. Noschese 4 R.P. Appx. 6672351v.1 006 5554/38 FILED DALLAS COUNTY 3/2/2015 4:05:16 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

Candace Tyler

DC-15-02018

FORUM STUDIO, INC. and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT CLAYCO, INC., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § INTELLICENTER DALLAS § INVESTMENTS LLP, § § Defendants. § 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER

Intellicenter Dallas Investments LP (the “Defendant” or “Intellicenter”) files its answer to

Clacyo’s and Forum Studios’ Original Petition as follows:

I.

General Denial

1. Intellicenter denies generally each and every, all and singular, the material

allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition for Declaratory Relief and demand strict proof

thereof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rule 54 Denial of Condition Precedent

2. Intellicenter hereby denies that Defendants have satisfied all conditions

precedent entitling them to the relief sought by their petition.

II.

Affirmative Defenses

3. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by waiver.

4. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by estoppel.

5. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code Section 16.069.

6. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by first material breach.

DEFENANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER - Page 1

5990124v.1 5554/38

R.P. Appx. 007 7. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by fraud.

8. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by illegality.

9. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by misrepresentation.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully request that upon

trial or hearing of this matter, Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their causes of action, that

Defendant go hence with their costs, attorney’s fees and all other relief to which they may show

themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.

/s/ Greg C. Noschese _________________ Greg C. Noschese, SB No. 00797164 500 North Akard Street, Suite 3800 Dallas, Texas 75201-6659 (214)855-7500 (Telephone) (214)855-7584 (Facsimile) Email: gnoschese@munsch.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

DEFENANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER - Page 2

R.P. Appx. 008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in Re Forum Studio, Inc. and Clayco, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

in Re Forum Studio, Inc. and Clayco, Inc. (in Re Forum Studio, Inc. and Clayco, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Webb v. Investacorp, Inc.
89 F.3d 252 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)
Fedmet Corporation v. M/V Buyalyk
194 F.3d 674 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)
American Heritage Life Insurance v. Lang
321 F.3d 533 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston
376 U.S. 543 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Southland Corp. v. Keating
465 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1984)
At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers
475 U.S. 643 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
537 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Nokia Corporation
466 F.3d 1366 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
In Re Weekley Homes, L.P.
180 S.W.3d 127 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
In Re Labatt Food Service, L.P.
279 S.W.3d 640 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
In Re Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
293 S.W.3d 182 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Pennzoil Company v. Arnold Oil Company
30 S.W.3d 494 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
In Re Global Construction Co.
166 S.W.3d 795 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)