In Re Robert Edward Battaile v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Robert Edward Battaile v. the State of Texas (In Re Robert Edward Battaile v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
15-25-00153-CV ACCEPTED 15-25-00142-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-25-000719 10/8/2025 3:01 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK 459TH DISTRICT COURT TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS FOR THE 15TH COURT OF APPEALS 15-25-00142-CV 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
ROBERT EDWARD BATTAILE, Relator,
v.
KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; JANE
NELSON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS; AND ALL REAL PARTIES IN
INTEREST LISTED BELOW AS COURTESY APPELLEES/RESPONDENTS
(INCLUDING DISMISSED PARTIES WITH ONGOING HARMS), Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE 459TH COURT
FOR THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE 15TH COURT OF APPEALS:
Relator Robert Edward Battaile, pro se, files this Original Petition for Writ of
Mandamus pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, Texas Government Code
§ 22.221, and Article V, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution. Relator seeks extraordinary
relief to compel Respondents—Attorney General Ken Paxton and Secretary of State
–1– 15-25-00142-CV Jane Nelson—to perform ministerial duties under the Texas Election Code, including
investigating and overseeing a new election for the 2024 Manor, Texas, City Council
and Mayoral contest, certifying results, addressing related civil rights and constitutional
violations, and halting cemetery desecration, parkland theft, destruction of historic sites,
police retaliation, civil rights abuses, systemic neglect and other offenses.
These failures constitute an abuse of discretion, deprive Relator of constitutional
rights, and leave no adequate remedy at law. The underlying trial court (459th District
Court, Travis County) has demonstrated on-going delays, bias, and incapacity, with
unruled motions pending for nine months despite statutory expedited timelines.
Dismissals of key parties do not erase ongoing harms (e.g., historic desecration,
election fraud, services denial), necessitating this Court's intervention via Special Master
or direct fact-finding without remand to the lower court. Given statewide implications,
Relator prays this Court exercise original jurisdiction to resolve all issues, ensuring
notice to all prior defendants via eService thru 459th to 3rd Circuit 03-25-00484-CV and
to 15th Circuit which has accepted the case.
A. IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Relator: Robert Edward Battaile, pro se. Address: [Redacted for Privacy; on file with
the Court].
Respondents: Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas; Jane Nelson, Secretary of
–2– 15-25-00142-CV State of Texas. Represented by the Office of the Attorney General, 300 W. 15th Street,
Austin, TX 78701.
Real Parties in Interest: All original and amended defendants from Cause No. D-1-
GN-25-000719, including but not limited to: State of Texas; City of Manor, Texas
(dismissed but ongoing harms persist via successors/contractors); Travis County;
developers/consultants such as Freese and Nichols (dismissed but Comprehensive Plan
misuse continues https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/manortx-meet-
b02aa618f52c4bcc9c0676edfcaee146/ITEM-Attachment-001-
477254d950f245f483b2737bb2a38793.pdf ); other officials/entities implicated in ultra
vires acts, election coercion, historic desecration, land misappropriation, or civil rights
violations. Despite dismissals, these parties remain involved due to persistent and
irreparable harms (e.g., demolitions, quorum-less operations).
New party in interest: DG Manor Downs Property Owner LP – Attn: Joseph Walker,
General Counsel, Dalfen Industrial, 17304 Preston Rd., Suite 550, Dallas Texas 75252
New party in interest: Texas A&M University Foundation, Attn: Will Fusselman,
VP/General Counsel, 401 George Bush Dr., College Station, TX 77840
B. TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Identity of Parties and Counsel .............................................. 2
B. Table of Contents ................................................................... 3
–3– 15-25-00142-CV C. Index of Authorities ............................................................... 4
D. Statement of the Case ............................................................ 8
E. Statement of Jurisdiction ........................................................ 16
F. Issues Presented ...................................................................... 17
G. Statement of Facts .................................................................. 17
H. Argument ................................................................................ 19
I. Rule 171 Masters in Chancery .................................................. 22
I. Prayer for Relief ........................................................................ 24
C. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
•Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) — preserves the right to
a jury on legal claims even when equitable issues are present; supports your
request that any damages issues be tried to a jury after mandamus relief stabilizes
the case posture.
•Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) — courts may intervene in election
administration to prevent unequal treatment; supports extraordinary relief for
tainted local procedures.
•City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2012) — property/takings
determinations require meaningful judicial (and often jury) review; supports
–4– 15-25-00142-CV injunctions and later compensation issues tied to demolition/historic loss.
•City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) — ultra vires
exception to sovereign immunity; lets you seek prospective orders against
officials despite immunity defenses.
•City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2011) — municipal contract
claims can proceed; supports your Bocce League contract theory notwithstanding
immunity arguments.
•Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) — § 1983 civil-rights damages carry a
jury-trial right; frames what happens after mandamus on your legal claims.
•Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962) — labels can’t convert legal
claims into equity to evade a jury; reinforces your demand to preserve jury issues.
•Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) — permits injunctive relief against state
officials for ongoing constitutional violations; supports naming Paxton/Nelson
for prospective mandates.
•Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, 437 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971) — unequal municipal
services can violate equal protection; supports your reparations/under-service
remedial framework.
•Illinois Central R.R. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
15-25-00153-CV ACCEPTED 15-25-00142-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-25-000719 10/8/2025 3:01 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK 459TH DISTRICT COURT TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS FOR THE 15TH COURT OF APPEALS 15-25-00142-CV 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
ROBERT EDWARD BATTAILE, Relator,
v.
KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; JANE
NELSON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS; AND ALL REAL PARTIES IN
INTEREST LISTED BELOW AS COURTESY APPELLEES/RESPONDENTS
(INCLUDING DISMISSED PARTIES WITH ONGOING HARMS), Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE 459TH COURT
FOR THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE 15TH COURT OF APPEALS:
Relator Robert Edward Battaile, pro se, files this Original Petition for Writ of
Mandamus pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, Texas Government Code
§ 22.221, and Article V, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution. Relator seeks extraordinary
relief to compel Respondents—Attorney General Ken Paxton and Secretary of State
–1– 15-25-00142-CV Jane Nelson—to perform ministerial duties under the Texas Election Code, including
investigating and overseeing a new election for the 2024 Manor, Texas, City Council
and Mayoral contest, certifying results, addressing related civil rights and constitutional
violations, and halting cemetery desecration, parkland theft, destruction of historic sites,
police retaliation, civil rights abuses, systemic neglect and other offenses.
These failures constitute an abuse of discretion, deprive Relator of constitutional
rights, and leave no adequate remedy at law. The underlying trial court (459th District
Court, Travis County) has demonstrated on-going delays, bias, and incapacity, with
unruled motions pending for nine months despite statutory expedited timelines.
Dismissals of key parties do not erase ongoing harms (e.g., historic desecration,
election fraud, services denial), necessitating this Court's intervention via Special Master
or direct fact-finding without remand to the lower court. Given statewide implications,
Relator prays this Court exercise original jurisdiction to resolve all issues, ensuring
notice to all prior defendants via eService thru 459th to 3rd Circuit 03-25-00484-CV and
to 15th Circuit which has accepted the case.
A. IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Relator: Robert Edward Battaile, pro se. Address: [Redacted for Privacy; on file with
the Court].
Respondents: Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas; Jane Nelson, Secretary of
–2– 15-25-00142-CV State of Texas. Represented by the Office of the Attorney General, 300 W. 15th Street,
Austin, TX 78701.
Real Parties in Interest: All original and amended defendants from Cause No. D-1-
GN-25-000719, including but not limited to: State of Texas; City of Manor, Texas
(dismissed but ongoing harms persist via successors/contractors); Travis County;
developers/consultants such as Freese and Nichols (dismissed but Comprehensive Plan
misuse continues https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/manortx-meet-
b02aa618f52c4bcc9c0676edfcaee146/ITEM-Attachment-001-
477254d950f245f483b2737bb2a38793.pdf ); other officials/entities implicated in ultra
vires acts, election coercion, historic desecration, land misappropriation, or civil rights
violations. Despite dismissals, these parties remain involved due to persistent and
irreparable harms (e.g., demolitions, quorum-less operations).
New party in interest: DG Manor Downs Property Owner LP – Attn: Joseph Walker,
General Counsel, Dalfen Industrial, 17304 Preston Rd., Suite 550, Dallas Texas 75252
New party in interest: Texas A&M University Foundation, Attn: Will Fusselman,
VP/General Counsel, 401 George Bush Dr., College Station, TX 77840
B. TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Identity of Parties and Counsel .............................................. 2
B. Table of Contents ................................................................... 3
–3– 15-25-00142-CV C. Index of Authorities ............................................................... 4
D. Statement of the Case ............................................................ 8
E. Statement of Jurisdiction ........................................................ 16
F. Issues Presented ...................................................................... 17
G. Statement of Facts .................................................................. 17
H. Argument ................................................................................ 19
I. Rule 171 Masters in Chancery .................................................. 22
I. Prayer for Relief ........................................................................ 24
C. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
•Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) — preserves the right to
a jury on legal claims even when equitable issues are present; supports your
request that any damages issues be tried to a jury after mandamus relief stabilizes
the case posture.
•Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) — courts may intervene in election
administration to prevent unequal treatment; supports extraordinary relief for
tainted local procedures.
•City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2012) — property/takings
determinations require meaningful judicial (and often jury) review; supports
–4– 15-25-00142-CV injunctions and later compensation issues tied to demolition/historic loss.
•City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) — ultra vires
exception to sovereign immunity; lets you seek prospective orders against
officials despite immunity defenses.
•City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2011) — municipal contract
claims can proceed; supports your Bocce League contract theory notwithstanding
immunity arguments.
•Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) — § 1983 civil-rights damages carry a
jury-trial right; frames what happens after mandamus on your legal claims.
•Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962) — labels can’t convert legal
claims into equity to evade a jury; reinforces your demand to preserve jury issues.
•Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) — permits injunctive relief against state
officials for ongoing constitutional violations; supports naming Paxton/Nelson
for prospective mandates.
•Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, 437 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971) — unequal municipal
services can violate equal protection; supports your reparations/under-service
remedial framework.
•Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) — anchors the public-trust
doctrine; supports claims against alienating parks/plazas without lawful
–5– 15-25-00142-CV safeguards.
•In re Hotze, 627 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2020) — Texas Supreme Court
exercised mandamus in an election-law dispute; confirms the extraordinary-writ
pathway for election oversight.
•In re Triantaphyllis, 68 S.W.3d 861 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) —
courts of appeals may use special masters/fact-finding to craft workable relief
when the trial court is ineffective.
•Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977) — authorizes structural remedies for
systemic violations; supports tribunal/special-master relief across institutions.
•Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) — municipal liability for
policies/customs; supports § 1983 claims against City/County actors (not the
State).
•Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) — landmark-
preservation regulation is not a per se taking; supports interim injunctions to
protect historic resources.
•Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008) — due-process/right-to-
counsel attachment at first appearance; supports your narrative on procedural
failures around arrest/charging.
•Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982) — sustained injunctive/structural
–6– 15-25-00142-CV relief for unconstitutional confinement conditions; supports court-supervised
remedies (e.g., jail/booking conditions) adjunct to mandamus.
•Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) — sets the Texas mandamus
standard: clear abuse of discretion + no adequate appellate remedy; your threshold
showing.
Statutes
•Tex. Const. art. I, § 15 — guarantees the right to trial by jury; supports your
request to preserve jury issues once equitable relief (via mandamus) is set.
•Tex. Elec. Code §§ 31.003, 273.001, 273.021, 232.012 — chief election officer
duties and mandamus/investigation tools (31.003, 273.001, 273.021)
plus expedited election-contest timelines (232.012); foundation for compelling
statewide oversight and speed.
•Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(a)–(b), § 22.220(d) — courts of appeals’ mandamus
power (22.221) and appellate jurisdictional context (22.220(d)); anchors this
Court’s authority over your original proceeding alongside the companion appeal.
•Tex. Gov’t Code § 402.028 — authorizes AG assistance to local prosecutions
upon request; supports involving the AG in election-offense matters.
•Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001 et seq. (Public Information Act) — guarantees public
–7– 15-25-00142-CV access to records; supports your ask to compel disclosure of any election-
investigation materials and to curb obstructive cost estimates.
•Tex. Health & Safety Code § 711.010 — cemetery protections/access with court
involvement before disturbance; supports injunctive relief and GPR-survey orders.
•Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 253.001 — voter approval required to sell/lease public
parkland; supports public-trust/park-misappropriation claims.
•42 U.S.C. § 1983 — vehicle for constitutional claims against local governments
and officials; pairs with Monellfor municipal liability and preserves damages/jury
issues.
D. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This mandamus arises from Relator's Second Amended Petition (filed August
18, 2025, in the 459th District Court, Travis County), which amends prior filings
(January 29 and March 17, 2025) to contest the November 2024 Manor election
under Texas Election Code §§ 221-233. Allegations include fraud, ballot denial
(e.g., to Bobby Reese), federal election coercion, lack of quorum, civil rights
claims (42 U.S.C. § 1983), ultra vires acts piercing immunity, historic protections
(e.g., Black cemeteries, 1840 Manor homestead), public land misappropriation
(parks/plazas via 380 agreements), reparations for 20+ years of denied services,
contract breach (Austin Bocce League), and demands for jury trial/damages.
–8– 15-25-00142-CV Filing in the 459th before the full transfer to the 15th Circuit of Appeals ensures
eService to all prior defendants, keeping them accountable despite dismissals.
Respondents have ministerial duties (Tex. Elec. Code §§ 31.003, 273.001, 273.021; Tex.
Gov't Code § 402.028) but refused intervention despite certified protests (Aug. 2, 2025,
to Nelson; Aug. 28, 2024, to Paxton) and stymied FOIA requests. Specifically, Attorney
General Paxton's office determined that Secretary of State Nelson is not required to
reveal results of any mandated investigation into Relator's allegations of election
coercion, without even confirming that an investigation occurred.
Additionally, Relator submitted a FOIA request to the Manor Police Department for
records of all reports filed by Relator and related "investigations" (including alledged
coverups and "inactive" files), receiving an exorbitant cost estimate of $3,625.64 based
on 200 hours (five weeks) of work—an attempt to obstruct access for a pro se litigant.
Relator filed a complaint with Attorney General's office regarding these onerous costs.
The trial court's nine-month delays on motions (Exhibit A: "Unruled Motions")
violate expedited rules (Tex. Elec. Code § 232.012). Dismissals (e.g., City of Manor,
Nelson) suggest indifference/concealment, but harms continue (e.g., demolitions by
successors), creating a conundrum resolvable only by Special Masters or this Court.
One Real Party in Interest dismissed without prejudice by Judge Mangrum was
Legacy Performance Capital, LLC; the developer seeking to build 95 townhomes on the
“newly discovered” 1906 McVey “Cemetery Lot” site beside the 1871 Manor Cemetery.
–9– 15-25-00142-CV Properties in imminent danger of irreparable harm that we are seeking A
TEMPORARY 45-Day INJUNCTION to immediately halt the following:
1. Immediate 45-day Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin any and all further
demolition, grading, or construction by Legacy Performance Capital at the
historic 1906 Martin McVey Cemetery site pending Ground Penetrating Radar survey
and judicial determination of cemetery boundaries.
(Cross-ref: Pl. 2nd A Pet. Item 22, pp. 65–68; Pl. App. R1 pp. 65–68)
Applicable law: Tex. Health & Safety Code § 711.010; City of San Antonio v. Kaur,
574 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2019, no pet.).
A. New urgency. On Sept 25, 2025 Manor resident, Donald McVade was
murdered at his home next to the Manor Cemetery and water plant. Donald was a 75-
year old man that was one of the Old Manor locals regularly seen walking. If Mr.
McVade family wishes, Relator feels that the most righteous burial site is at the adjacent
Martin McVey Cemetery likely purchased by his great- or great-great grandfather for “a
cemetery lot” in 1906; and now slated to be underneath 95 town-homes. Owner, Legacy
Performance Capital was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE in District Court case.
B. Further, Relator recently did a Public Information Act request on Sept 11, 2025
for the GPR Mapping results at the Manor Cemetery, and to see the LSI Agreement, and
to know the account that this $32,500 expenditure was drawn from. I paid an $18
– 10 – 15-25-00142-CV invoice for this information that was never provided. “No responsive records” is
unacceptable. Thus, I filed an Ethics Complaint via email on Wed, Oct 1, 2025 which
must cause the Ethics Commission to be enacted by the City Manager who refused to do
so with Relator's previous Ethics Complaint. This GPR mapping would be crucial to
selecting Mr. McVade's closest available burial spot.
– See Exhibit A. Historic District of Manor Map; Cemetery location and graves
Exhibit B. McVey (McVade) Parcel shown beside Manor Cemetery, rectangular lily
patches, and vertical sidebar showing 1906 Deed Registry for “cemetery lot.”
– See 2nd Am to Pet – Prayer pg 24, et seq.; also Item X. p 30:33 cemetery desecration
and misuse of funds; App 1 R1 p 16:42
2. Immediate 45-day Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin any and all further
construction on the 1840’s James B. Manor Homestead property; by Manor MF, LLC
(eastern parcels); and Las Entradas (western parcels) [et al with ownership interests]
pending final adjudication of claims for historic preservation and public trust violations.
Further, Appellant is adding Texas A&M Foundation as a Party in Interest as they
were the recipient of the properties for this item 2. Despite Appellant's efforts using the
Public Information Act; he has gotten runaround from discovering the exact parcels
donated by Col. Eppright; along with any CCR's and other deed restrictions. These
parcels were purchased by Pete Dwyer (possibly as Cottonwood Holdings) and later sold
– 11 – 15-25-00142-CV to Las Entradas Development, Manor MF LLC and others.
Appellant also wants to insure that this purchase was an arm's length transaction and
not a sweetheart deal resulting in lost tax revenue or funds to the Foundation.
– See Exhibit C: Map with Manor City limits in yellow and Manor ETJ in blue.
Respondent's notes for poster used in campaigning at poll locations. Old Manor is tiny
section at lower left.
– See App 1 R1 p 2:14; also p 138:140)
Applicable law: Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 253.001; City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284
S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009).
3. Immediate 45-day Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin any and all further
construction on Halt ongoing development at 104 E Townes St. by Carlos Moyeda and
associated entities, where the historic mansion was demolished in violation of the City’s
Historic District ordinances, to be replaced by townhomes. A zoning change in which
the Comprehensive Plan was used as a cudgel against the citizens to destroy our town.
– See App 1 R1 p 116. et seq inc Manor Historic Resources Survey by Travis County
Historical Commission.
Applicable law: Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 253.001; City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d
562 (Tex. 2012).
– 12 – 15-25-00142-CV 4. Immediate 45-day Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin any and all further
construction and site work on Boyce Street projects by BuildBlock.io pending review
for historic resource impacts; and faulty approvals within historic district. Removing
single-family homes for two horrible, out-of-scale office/store/apartments.
– See 2nd A Pet. Item 26, pp. 75–77; Pl. App. R1 p 149:154)
Applicable law: Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 253.001; Tex. Gov’t Code § 2206.001; City of
El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009).
5. Enjoin Manor Grocery renovation project proposed by owner, Maqil Inc. who now
has a Manor PO Box 399 shown in TravisCAD. This may be a result of Appellant
notifying the Agency that their owner listing was incorrect when Citations were unable
to be served at the prior address. This historic Main Street property has applied for a
zoning change and plans demolitions of the gas pumps and metal building long part of
Old Manor, along with other improper changes.
New Urgency: Wed Oct 8, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission includes the
Special Zoning Permit application: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a
Specific Use Permit for one (1) lot on 0.2376 acres, more or less, and being TCAD parcel 238889
also known as 100/102 E Parsons St, Manor, TX. Applicant: Cristian Garcia Owner: Maqil Inc
– See App 1R1 p 142:148)
Applicable law: Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 253.001; City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d
– 13 – 15-25-00142-CV 562 (Tex. 2012); Tex. Nat. Res. Code ch. 191 (Texas Antiquities Code).
6. Issue a 45-day Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin DG Manor Downs Property
Owner LP / Dalfen Industrial from any demolition, grading, or construction at the
historic Manor Downs racetrack site (approximately 146.920 acres), where no
warehouses have yet been constructed. City of Manor improperly “agreed” to not
require a Traffic Impact Analysis. City never disclosed that the company had already
done one as noticed on Sept. 23, 2022 in which Travis County required Dalfen to spend
$2,368,849 with a 10% bond against future repairs. Travis County also imposed
environmental requirements—water-retention ponds and plantings within 100' from the
center of Gillelands Creek. Instead of requiring a new TIA, Manor approved rich
incentives: Phase I up to $5,693,953; Phase I + II up to $8,907,771; wastewater impact-
fee reimbursement up to $345,288; plus 100% property-tax rebate for years 1–3 and
50% for years 4–13. The historic racetrack/grandstands are still standing and under
imminent threat. City claims to “preserve” the historic signifigance by bulldozing it
down and putting the name “Manor Downs” on the warehouse park. That's a highly
offensive prospect and another reason that all actions taken by this fraudulent council
must be thrown out based on an illegal quorum.
New Urgency: Dalfen Industries wants to remove heritage tree, and has submitted the
following agenda item to the Wed Oct 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting:
16.Consideration, discussion, and possible action to remove a Heritage Tree in the Manor Downs
– 14 – 15-25-00142-CV Industrial project, being a 29” Pecan tree identified as #5019 in the tree survey for said project,
and being located at 8916 Hill Lane, Manor, TX. Applicant: Bowman Consulting Group, LTD
Owner: DG Manor Downs Property Owner, LP
Applicant wants to tear out an entire grove of historic trees rather that move driveway.
– See Êxhibit D. Photos of Manor Downs “stadium” front and side views
Exh E. Current view of adjacent building and stands – needs restoration
Exh F. Willie Nelson and Stevie Ray Vaughn Posters from Farm Aid Concerts.
Exh G. This is the replacement “amphitheater?” and latest site plan w more bldgs
Exh H. Tree(s) slated for removal for P&Z commission vote 10-8-25
Exh I. Dalfen Industries Annexation “presentation” brochure
Exh J. Travis County Contruction Agreement; and Manor Agreement
Exh K. Chapter 380 Agreement with City of Manor (with unnecessary incentive
“giveaways” worth several million dollars.)
Applicable law: Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 253.001; Tex. Health & Safety Code §
711.010; City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2012).
Note that Plaintiff was prevented from speaking at council meetings and opposing
the City’s April 2025 Manor Downs ordinance in real time because bail restrictions
prohibited his attendance at Council and Planning & Zoning meetings due to the
– 15 – 15-25-00142-CV requirement to stay 600' feet from alleged criminals, City Manager Leslie Moore, and
City Secretary, Lluvia Almaraz. Further, despite the Open Meetings Act – Travis
County and the State of Texas did NOTHING to enforce that “empty” constitutional
right when the City refused to even read his public comments at these meetings. Those
retaliatory bail restrictions have since been dismissed in Travis County Criminal Courts
for lack of evidence, one citing Owens v. State. Accordingly, Manor Downs is being
raised here as a newly discovered matter of urgent concern.
Appendix One Rev One provides extensive background critical to the broader
understanding of this case and its impact for the protection of Manor history, its pride as
a people ~ and its former and current potential for a robust civic culture, recreation and
quality of life.
E. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has original mandamus jurisdiction under Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221(a)-
(b) and exclusive appellate authority over state-involved matters (Tex. Gov't Code §
22.220(d)). Election contests with statewide impact warrant extraordinary relief. See In
re Hotze, 627 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2020). Equity powers allow Special Master
appointment or fact-finding where lower courts fail. See In re Triantaphyllis, 68 S.W.3d
861 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002).
– 16 – 15-25-00142-CV F. ISSUES PRESENTED
Compel election oversight/new contest, addressing persistent fraud despite
dismissals. Pierce sovereign immunity for ultra vires acts by all parties. Appoint Special
Master for historic protections/tribunals (including GPR survey for 1906 McVey
Cemetery Lot area). Remedy land misappropriations including parklands and public
plazas under public trust doctrine. Award reparations for decades of services denial in
Old Manor. Enforce contract breaches to Austin Bocce League, a 501(c)(3) charitable
organization. Determine damages via jury. Set jury trial for factual issues. Enjoin
Respondents to release all information related to any election investigation, including
confirmation of its existence and results. Compel Respondents to address and remedy
onerous FOIA costs for Manor Police records, including investigation of Relator's
complaint and waiver/reduction for pauperis status; or as part of the “normal” discover
process outlined in Plaintiff's pleadings.
G. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Per the Second Amended Petition (pages 1-10): Relator seeks neutral oversight
outside Travis County; reasserts struck requests for external judge/election supervisor;
details protests/FOIA obstructions, including the Attorney General's determination
shielding election investigation results and the excessive Manor Police FOIA cost
estimate/complaint; proposes Bexar/Harris oversight or tribunals (Reparations/Historic
– 17 – 15-25-00142-CV Justice, Parks/Recreation Trust) with eminent domain powers; highlights City's $105M
funds for community needs and uses including parks, culture, recreation and historic
preservation; notes epiphany of dismissed Defendant's having no ability to provide
equitable remedies (e.g., July 28, 2025, problems when severance was requested for
dismissed Nelson); demands partial summary judgment/jury trial.
Dismissals don't erase decades of infractions (civil rights, cultural suppression, empty
parks). Facts invoke Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), and Monell v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
The 1906 McVey Cemetery has been confirmed through deed records, photographic
evidence, and site visits to contain known and suspected burial grounds of historically
Black residents of Manor, Texas. Relator owns plots within the cemetery and has been
active in efforts to preserve the James B. Manor Homestead and other landmarks.
Despite public outcry, the City of Manor has approved a 95-unit townhome
development using a flawed “Comprehensive Plan Dashboard” which ignored the
cemetery designation, the community character and its placement within the Historic
District of Old Manor. This development threatens to irreparably destroy sacred land,
and authorities have refused to investigate despite formal police reports and complaints.
After being arrested on May 27th, 2025 and spending two days in the horrible
conditions of Travis County Central Booking based on charges from the Manor Police
– 18 – 15-25-00142-CV Chief; email Stalking Charges against Relator were rejected on August 19, 2025, for
insufficient evidence citing Owens v Texas, supporting retaliation claims.
Note that Plaintiff has been publishing an email Newsletter to local groups in Manor
including the City Council and Staff, Chamber of Commerce, ManorISD, churches,
police and others for over three years now. He is an Activist and a Political Cartoonist
having a positive impact in the community. This case reveals harm to Plaintiff's
Freedom of Speech and his Freedom of the Press constitutional guarantees.
Additional Unaddressed Motions regarding Facts are attached as Exhibit A and
included by reference herein.
H. ARGUMENT
Mandamus issues when (1) a clear abuse of discretion exists, (2) relator has a clear
legal right to performance of a ministerial act, and (3) no adequate appellate remedy
exists. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992). Respondents’ inaction and the
459th District Court’s nine-month delays violate statutory timelines (Tex. Elec. Code §
232.012) and due process, with no remedy via appeal given irreparable harms (e.g.,
demolitions, election invalidity). Dismissed parties’ persistent harms (e.g., land
misappropriation, historic desecration) necessitate this Court’s intervention via Special
Master or direct jurisdiction, bypassing the incapable trial court. Remedies align with
precedents: (a) Special Master for fact-finding/oversight, (b) this Court’s original action,
(c) neutral venue/jury trial—no remand to the 459th.
– 19 – 15-25-00142-CV 1. Election Contest: Respondents abused discretion by failing to
investigate/oversee the 2024 Manor election despite certified protests (Aug. 2,
2025, to Nelson; Aug. 28, 2024, to Paxton), leaving fraud (ballot denial, coercion)
unaddressed and the City without quorum. Tex. Elec. Code §§ 31.003, 273.001
mandate oversight; § 232.012 demands expedited trial within 10 days of answer—
ignored here.
Furthermore, Attorney General Paxton's office improperly determined that
Secretary of State Nelson need not reveal results of any mandated investigation
into Relator's election coercion allegations, without confirming an investigation's
existence, violating transparency duties under Tex. Gov't Code § 552.001 et seq.
(Public Information Act) and due process. Dismissed parties (e.g., City of Manor)
perpetuate harm via successors’ actions. In re Hotze, 627 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2020),
supports extraordinary jurisdiction. Remedy: (a) Special Master investigates fraud
(Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98); (b) this Court orders new election/hears evidence
(TRAP 52); (c) transfer to neutral county (e.g., Bexar) for trial; (d) enjoin
Respondents to release all investigation-related information immediately.
2. Sovereign Immunity: Dismissals do not bar relief where ultra vires acts persist.
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009), allows claims against
officials for illegal acts; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), permits injunctions
against unconstitutional conduct. Real parties (e.g., developers, City successors)
– 20 – 15-25-00142-CV continue misdeeds (e.g., eminent domain misuse), despite trial court’s
indifference. Remedy: (a) Special Master sorts ultra vires facts; (b) this Court
strips immunity directly; (c) neutral fact-finding.
3. Historic Protections and Cemetery Desecration: Ongoing demolitions of
Black cemeteries and the 1840 Manor homestead violate public interest. Penn
Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), and City of Dallas v.
Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2012), limit such actions; Tex. Gov’t Code §
2206.001 requires just compensation; Tex. Health and Safety Code § 711.010
prohibits disturbance without authorization. Dismissed parties’ successors
perpetuate desecration, unaddressed by the 459th. Remedy: (a) Special Master
surveys sites/emergency oversight (Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115); (b) this Court
issues TROs/precedents and orders GPR survey; (c) neutral mandate.
4. Real Estate Misappropriation: Public lands (parks, plazas) misappropriated
via 380 agreements breach the public trust doctrine. Illinois Central R.R. v.
Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892), and Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 253.001 (voter
approval needed) apply. Dismissed City and developers’ successors maintain
empty parks despite $105M funds ($35M unrestricted). Remedy: (a) Special
Master accounts for swaps; (b) this Court declares actions ultra vires; (c) neutral
relief/damages trial.
5. Reparations for Lack of Services: 20+ years of denied services to Old Manor
– 21 – 15-25-00142-CV residents violate equal protection. Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, 437 F.2d 1286 (5th
Cir. 1971), and Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977), support remedies for
neglect. Dismissed parties’ systemic failures persist via successors. Remedy: (a)
Special Master calculates baseline; (b) this Court remands damages to neutral
jury; (c) neutral tribunal.
6. Austin Bocce League Breach: Proprietary contract breach waives immunity.
City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2011), allows claims.
Dismissed City’s successors ignore the agreement. Remedy: (a) Special Master
assesses reliance/damages; (b) this Court affirms breach; (c) neutral jury
quantification.
7. Damages Determination: Jury required for legal claims. Curtis v. Loether, 415
U.S. 189 (1974), and Tex. Const. art. I, § 15 guarantee this. Dismissed parties’
actions affect damages scope. This Court cannot assess but must ensure jury trial
in neutral venue.
8. Jury Trial for Outstanding Issues: Factual disputes (damages, discrimination)
demand jury. Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959), and Dairy
Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962), preserve this right. Dismissed parties’
ongoing harms heighten need. Remedy: (a) Special Master prepares facts; (b) this
Court sets neutral jury; (c) direct equitable relief by Court.
9. Release of Election Investigation Information: Respondents' refusal to
– 22 – 15-25-00142-CV disclose investigation results or confirm its existence, as determined by Paxton's
office, constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates Relator's rights under the
Texas Public Information Act (Tex. Gov't Code § 552.001 et seq.) and due
process. No discretion exists to withhold such public information absent valid
exemptions, which are not applicable here. Remedy: (a) this Court enjoins
Respondents to immediately release all related records; (b) Special Master verifies
compliance; (c) neutral oversight if needed.
10. Onerous FOIA Costs for Manor Police Records: The exorbitant $3,625.64
cost estimate for Relator's FOIA request to Manor Police, based on 200 hours, is
an obstructive tactic against a pro se pauperis litigant, prompting Relator's
complaint to the Attorney General. Respondents have ministerial duties under
Tex. Gov't Code § 552.269 to investigate such complaints and ensure reasonable
access (e.g., via waiver or reduction). Dismissed parties' successors (e.g., City of
Manor) perpetuate coverups through such barriers. Remedy: (a) compel
Respondents to investigate the complaint and order cost waiver/reduction; (b)
Special Master reviews records for relevance; (c) this Court declares the estimate
invalid and mandates free or nominal-cost disclosure. Commence Discovery.
This Court’s equity powers and the conundrum of dismissed yet unresolved and non-
existent remedies justify immediate action, echoing In re Triantaphyllis, 68 S.W.3d 861
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002).
– 23 – 15-25-00142-CV – See Exhibits M – O regarding dismissals of Relator's criminal charges
Exh L shows wrong email addressed use that caused harms to Relator and community.
J. RULE 171. MASTERS IN CHANCERY
In the alternative, and to ensure a fair, transparent, and structured adjudication of the
multifaceted issues presented, Relator invokes Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 171,
which authorizes the appointment of a Master in Chancery in “exceptional cases” for
“good cause.” This case presents precisely such exceptional circumstances—complex
constitutional, administrative, and social policy issues that overlap and resist efficient
adjudication by the trial court alone.
Given the breadth and sensitivity of the matters at issue, Relator respectfully requests
that, if mandamus is not granted outright, this Court direct the trial court to appoint three
separate Masters in Chancery, each with narrowly tailored jurisdiction, including but not
limited to:
1. One Master to oversee and investigate all claims related to Election Irregularities,
Police Coverups, and ensuing impact/reversals of civic actions, including those due to
lack of legal quorum—ensuring that evidence is properly compiled, witnesses are
examined, and factual findings are developed for the Court’s review and NEW
– 24 – 15-25-00142-CV ELECTION commences in expedited fashion, with additional protections as outlined in
Plaintiff original Amended Petition;
2. One Master to manage matters pertaining to Parks and Recreation and Land Trusts,
including the lawful handling of parkland dedications, developer obligations for plazas
and open spaces, and compliance with statutory restrictions such as Tex. Loc. Gov’t
Code § 253.001 including holding townhalls and approving/distributing funds to
contractors for building amenities and having program activities;
3. One Master to act as caretaker of the Historic District of Old Manor (established
2017) and to oversee matters related to Reparations, including preservation of historic
properties, review of demolition or redevelopment affecting protected sites, and the
development of equitable remedies to address systemic harms due to decades of
neglected roads, sidewalks, drainage, sewer, parks, activities, as City of Manor took tax
monies from owners, rentors and residents and delivered services elsewhere.
This structure ensures that each Master’s expertise and attention is primarily devoted
to a discrete, critical domain, avoiding overlap and ensuring public confidence in the
process. The Supreme Court’s decision in Simpson v. Canales, 806 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.
1991) emphasizes that Rule 171 appointments are justified only in truly extraordinary
circumstances; likewise, the First Court of Appeals in Orsak v. Chase Manhattan
Mortgage Corp., 2006 WL 667482 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.)
– 25 – 15-25-00142-CV reaffirmed that “good cause” and exceptional conditions must exist, beyond ordinary
complexity or docket congestion. Here, the interlocking constitutional, public trust, and
preservation issues far exceed ordinary litigation and demand the safeguard that Rule
171 provides.
Each Master, under the Court’s direction, would have defined powers: to receive and
weigh evidence, administer oaths, hear witnesses, rule on evidentiary and procedural
matters, and prepare findings and recommendations—subject always to the trial court’s
authority to confirm, modify, or reject those recommendations. By dividing
responsibilities across election integrity, parkland and land trust stewardship, and
historic district preservation, this Court can ensure that no single domain overwhelms
another and that all claims are addressed thoroughly, fairly, and efficiently.
J. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Compel Respondents to oversee new election/investigate. Enjoin Respondents to
release all information related to any election investigation, including confirmation of its
existence and full results. Compel Respondents to address Relator's complaint regarding
onerous FOIA costs for Manor Police records, including investigation, waiver/reduction
of costs, and release of the records. Exercise original jurisdiction: Appoint Special
Master/tribunals for fact-finding/oversight; conduct direct hearings; declare invalid
election, pierce immunities, issue injunctions; set jury trial in neutral venue. Order
– 26 – 15-25-00142-CV eService/notice to all real parties in interest, including dismissed defendants, to address
persistent harms. Award costs/equitable relief.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert Edward Battaile Robert Edward Battaile, Appellant Pro Se 502 E Eggleston St Unit B Manor TX 78653 512-662-2955 robert@manortx.us
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
I, Robert Edward Battaile, certify that this petition complies with the type-volume
limitations of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2)(B), containing approximately
4,031 words, excluding the parts exempted by Rule 9.4(i)(1). The document was
prepared using OpenOffice Writer with a proportionally spaced typeface (Times New
Roman, 14-point font). I further certify that a copy of this petition has been served on all
parties via the Court’s electronic filing system on August 25, 2025, at 11:25 PM CDT,
as required by Rule 9.5. and by Certified mail to new parties as noted.
/s/ Robert Edward Battaile Robert Edward Battaile, Appellant Pro Se
– 27 – 15-25-00142-CV CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 25, 2025 at approximately 11:25 CDT, a true and correct copy of
this petition was served on all counsel of record and appellees via the Court’s electronic
filing system; as well as by certified mail to:
a) DG Manor Downs Property Owner LP, Attn: Josesph Walker, General Counsel
Dalfen Industrial, 17304 Preston Rd, Ste. 550, Dallas, TX 75252; and
b) MAQIL, Inc. - P O Box 399, Manor TX 78653; and
c) Texas A&M Foundation, Attn: Will Fusselman, Vice President and General Counsel,
401 George Bush Dr., College Station, TX 77840.
.
/s/ Robert Edward Battaile Robert Edward Battaile, Appellant
– 28 – 15-25-00142-CV EXHIBIT A – Petition for Writ of Mandamus – Unaddressed Motions
These are Motions unaddressed and unresolved by the 459th Court:
1. All the Historic Preservation Injunctions for Temporary Restraining Orders;
2. Motion to Reconsider Recusal of Judge Soifer;
3. Motion to Compel Transcripts – some illegible or missing;
4. Motion for Reparative Damages;
5. Motion to Waive Immunity;
6. Motion to Strike Dismissals on Unaddressed Claims;
7. Motion to enforce Spanish language use in city communications;
8. Motion for Judicial Continuity
9. Motion to Award Damages to Bobby Reese
10. Motion to Compel Public access to Parkland;
11. Motion to Compel Discovery and Attorney General response;
12. Motion to Validate Election Filing Equitable Tolling;
13. Motion to Compel Damages to Austin Bocce League;
14. Motion to Investigate Chapter 380 Misuse;
15. Motion to Set Aside Election Certification;
16. Motion for Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law;
– 29 – 15-25-00142-CV 17. Motion for Sanctions Against City Mayor;
18. Motion to Void City Concil Decisions for Lack of Legal Quorum;
19. Motion for Judicial Review of Courts of No Record;
20. Motion for Emergency Relief Pending Appeal;
21. Motion to Quash Retaliation Warrant [Plaintiff was arrested. State dismissed the
felony email “stalking” charges due to “lack of evidence. Plaintiff has a Sept 8 hearing
in Travis County to Quash the Travis County charges against Plaintiff;
22. Motion for Sanctions for Ethics Commission supression;
23. Motion to Preserve Claims for Appeal;
24. Motion to Compel Enforement of Historic Preservation;
25. Motion to Enforce Use of Public Trust Parkland;
26. Motion for Old Manor Reparations or Tribunal;
27. Motion for Parks and Recreation Tribunal;
28. Motion to Consolidate under Rule 2;
29. Motion to Void improper hearings not noticed to Plaintiff;
30. Motion to Strike Language from Judicial Orders; and to include other wording.
– 30 – 15-25-00142-CV EXHIBIT B. CANDIDATES FOR SPECIAL MASTERS OF CHANCERY:
Due to the extraordinary complexity, overlapping jurisdictions, and constitutional
implications presented in this case, Plaintiff requests the Court appoint a Special Master
or Masters pursuant to Rule 171 to assist the Court with factual review, management of
unruled motions, and preliminary findings on civil rights, public trust, and land-use
matters; and not simply remand this to the 459th District Court which has proven they are
not capable of handling this litigation in a fair and thorough manner.
A. ELECTION CONTEST, Police Misconduct, Lack of Legal Quorum, Civic
inconsistencies, ethics violations.
1. The Honorable Orlinda Naranjo (Retired)
Former Presiding Judge, 419th District Court (Travis County); served also on the Texas
Judicial Council and Commission on Judicial Conduct. Widely respected for her ethical
leadership and procedural diligence in high-volume civil dockets.
https://www.austinbar.org/?blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=74029
2. Professor David A. Anderson (Emeritus, UT Law)
Renowned constitutional law scholar and media law expert. Held the Wulff Centennial
Chair at UT Law. Experienced in constitutional harms, torts, and First Amendment
procedure.https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/david-a-anderson
3. Justice Harriet O’Neill (Retired)Former Texas Supreme Court Justice, also
– 31 – 15-25-00142-CV served on the 14th Court of Appeals and 152nd District Court. Chaired multiple judicial
reform bodies including the Access to Justice Commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_O%27Neill
Plaintiff further requests the formation of two Tribunal Panels:
B. Parks & Recreation Public Trust Tribunal
To assess claims regarding misuse of parkland dedication fees, illegal conveyances,
lack of services in historically underserved areas (e.g., Old Manor), and access barriers.
4. Charles Bergh (Retired)
Former Travis County Parks Director with 45+ years in public lands, development
of over $230M in capital improvements, and acquisition of 12,000+ acres of
parkland.https://www.austinoutside.org/board-of-directors
5. Kim Mickelson (Retired)
Attorney and planner specializing in land use, municipal equity, and community
development. Longtime member of the Texas chapter of the American Planning
Association.https://txgovernmentlaw.org/council/kim-mickelson
C. Reparations & Historical Justice Tribunal
To consider allegations of desecration of historic Black cemeteries, misappropriation
– 32 – 15-25-00142-CV of historical sites, exclusionary zoning practices, and denial of equal services and
political access.
Suggested Members:
(2 above) Professor David A. Anderson (Emeritus) (also listed above)
Neutral academic voice with legal expertise on structural exclusion, free speech,
and public information access.
(3 above) Justice Harriet O’Neill (Retired) (also listed above)
Recognized for statewide equity and reform leadership, retired from partisan
obligations, and experienced in rights-based litigation.
– 33 – 15-25-00142-CV V:\070422 - Dalfen Industrial\070422-01-002 (ENG) - Manor Downs Industrial\Engineering\Landscape Design\02 Drawings\Sheets\070422-01-002 SP-B_TREE PRESERVATION.dwg, 52 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN - 4 OF 4, August 18, 2025, 5:55 PM, dsharkey
MATCHILINE - SHEET 17
MATCHILINE - SHEET 16 EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS > >
EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS
EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS
EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
MURRA Y DALF EN DRIV E (1) > > > > Know what's below. Call before you dig.
R
BFP SHEET INDEX MAP
FIRE T
FM
< WL 50
LEGEND <
PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL
TREE PROTECTION FENCING (TPF)
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREE 51
LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION
PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
FIRE HYDRANT
WATER VALVE
WATER METER
MANHOLE BACKFLOW PREVENTER PROPOSED SIDEWALK
CURB AND GUTTER
FORCE MAIN LINE
WATER LINE
FIRE LANE
CREEK CENTERLINE EASEMENT LINE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE 49
R.O.W GRATE INLET
CURB INLET PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVISIONS MC
REG I ST 61 OF 52
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN - 4 OF 4 ST E REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE A
RED E R T E . M A U R
RO TE
B
--- --- --- LANDSCAPE A 070422-01-002
OF T 2622 MG
MANOR DOWNS INDUSTRIAL - SITE PLAN B © 2024 Bowman Consulting Group Ltd 08/18/2025
TBPE Firm Registration No. F-14309 ER EX
CH AS ECT IT 8500 HILL LN 807 Las Cimas Parkway Phone: (512) 327-1180 MK
MANOR, TEXAS, 78653 Suite 350 Austin, Texas 78746 Fax: (512) 327-4062 www.bowman.com Manor Downs Industrial Park Annexation into the City of Manor
April 2024 Manor Downs Industrial Park
Site Plan
Dalfen Industrial is proposing the annexation of 1,247,560 SF of industrial space, across 6 buildings, into the City of Manor
Plans subject to change Manor Downs Industrial Park
City of Manor Boundaries
Current City of Manor Boundary
Proposed Howard Lane Extension
Proposed Future Community Area (to be developed by City of Manor) Manor Downs Industrial Park
Annexation LOI Terms
1. Taxes Abatement – The City will review a tax abatement for the property once the results of the Economic Impact Study are available. 2. Wetland/Environmental Features – The City will acknowledge that it has reviewed the environmental report (the “Bowman Report”) provided by Bowman Consultants and accepts the findings of The Bowman Report. The City will acknowledge there are no other environmental features that will affect permitting or the development other than those defined in the Bowman Report. 3. Cut/Fill – The City will acknowledge there are no restrictions to the amount of cut/fill required to develop the site. 4. Floodplain – The City will acknowledge that there is no active floodplain on the property as defined in the FEMA flood maps. 5. TIA – The City will acknowledge that a TIA is not necessary given the amount of road improvements included by the Property. The City agrees to allow the Owner to dedicate the North-South connector road to the city after completion and acceptance of the road. 6. Sewer – The City will, in the event that the Property is released/removed from the City of Austin wastewater service area, provide wastewater through the City as defined in the feasibility study (the “Feasibility Study”). 7. Permit Review – The City will expedite permit review for the project and agree to provide approval to begin grading no later than 90 days after approval of the Annexation. Dalfen Industrial Overview
7 Manor Downs Industrial Park
Dalfen’s History
Founded as a family apparel retail chain in the 1930s and has been exclusively focused on industrial real estate since 2010 Focus shifted exclusively to Focus shifted industrial real exclusively to estate;
1935 2006 Launch of 2018 U.S. commercial Fund I 2013 Launch of Launch of real estate -2008 Fund III Fund V
Dalfen’s Limited 1992 Profitably 2010 Launch of 2016 Launch of 2022 was founded as divested most of Fund II Fund IV a family apparel U.S. portfolio, retail chain by selling $150M Joseph Dalfen of commercial real estate
Tacoma Supply Chain Center, Fund IV, Seattle, WA Turnpike Logistics Center, Fund IV, West Palm Beach, FL Interstate Park Logistics Center, Fund IV, West Palm Beach, FL
8 For institutional use only, not for use with retail investors Manor Downs Industrial Park
Seasoned Management Team
Fully Vertically Integrated Platform with 85+ Employees Nationwide Dalfen’s Executive Team1
Murray Dalfen Sean Dalfen Fred Tkalec Max Gagliardi
Mariam Ghoul Joseph Walker Shelly Drakes Mike Cohen Christine Moore Alex Steele
Overseeing dedicated in-house teams across 23 15 5 17 8 2 Accounting / Asset / Property Capital Markets Acquisition/ Administrative Legal disciplines 1 Finance Management Professionals Development and HR Professionals Professionals Professionals Professionals Professionals
11 Offices Across 87+ ~Exec. Tenure ~$4 Billion ~55M SF North America Employees 12 Years2 AUM3 Invested Across Dalfen Platform4
9 Manor Downs Industrial Park
Dalfen’s Competitive Advantage Integrate Platform with Local Expertise
Represents Dalfen Office
Vertical Integration Local expertise with 11 offices across North America Fully staffed deal sourcing, development, asset and property management capabilities across the country 10 Manor Downs Industrial Park
The Following Tenants are Clients of Dalfen Industrial
Representative client list and subject to change. For institutional use only, not for use with retail investors……….. 11 DALLAS | MONTREAL | DENVER | ORLANDO | ATLANTA | BAY AREA AUSTIN | CHICAGO | CINCINNATI | PHILADELPHIA WWW.DALFEN.COM IR@DALFEN.COM THE STATE OF TEXAS § § § Chapter 380 Grant Agreement § Project – Manor Downs Commerce Center COUNTY OF TRAVIS §
THIS CHAPTER 380 GRANT AGREEMENT – Project – Manor Downs Logistics Center (hereinafter, this “Agreement”) is executed by and between DG MANOR DOWNS PROPERTY OWNER, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (including its successors and assigns) duly authorized to do business in the State of Texas, (hereafter referred to as “COMPANY”) and the CITY OF MANOR, TEXAS, a home-rule city and municipal corporation of Travis County, Texas (hereinafter, the “CITY”)( CITY and COMPANY hereinafter sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the CITY has established an Economic Development Policy (hereinafter, the “Policy”) pursuant to Chapter 380, Texas Local Government Code, to provide for a grant of economic development incentives to new or expanding businesses in Manor under the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that the COMPANY qualifies for economic development incentives under the Policy, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Property is not located within a tax increment financing district;
WHEREAS, the COMPANY owns/leases the following described property: approximately 146.920 acres of property located in Travis County, Texas, being more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes (hereinafter, the “Property,” and further defined herein); and
WHEREAS, the COMPANY made application to the CITY for an economic incentive related to the construction of four buildings that will total at a minimum 894,650 square feet square feet on the Property, with a COMPANY option to construct two additional buildings that will total an additional 487,944 square feet on the Property (hereinafter, the “Facilities,” and further defined herein); and
WHEREAS, the COMPANY’s application to the City provides that the anticipated construction cost (exclusive of land cost) of Phase 1 of the Facilities, as defined herein, shall be approximately $64,323,397 and that the anticipated construction cost (exclusive of land cost) of the optional Phase 2 of the Facilities, as defined herein, shall be approximately $36,238,046; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the Facilities, the relocation of the Company to the Property, and operation of the Business Operations on the Property will promote economic
44320467v.1 development of the CITY, encourage businesses to locate and expand in the CITY, and increase opportunities for increased property tax and employment; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the COMPANY must fulfill its obligations under this Agreement in order for the CITY to pay the Chapter 380 Grant (herein defined); and
WHEREAS, Chapter 380 of the Texas Local Government Code provides statutory authority for granting the economic incentives and administering the Policy provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to provide the economic incentives set forth herein subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, the CITY and the COMPANY, for and in consideration of the mutual premises and promises contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency thereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby agree, covenant and contract as set forth below:
I. Definitions
A. “Business Operations” refers to the COMPANY’S business operating on the Property.
B. “Calendar Year” means the twelve month period of time that begins on January 1st and ends on December 31st of the same numbered year.
C. “Chapter 380 Grant” is defined as the economic incentive payment further described in Article V, not to exceed the Maximum Grant Amount.
D. “Certificate of Occupancy” means the final certificates of occupancy issued by the CITY for the shell and core buildings of the Facilities.
E. “Eligible Property” is defined as the Property, all real property improvements affixed to the Property, and business property located thereon.
F. “Facilities” means four buildings that total a minimum of 894,650 square feet (hereinafter sometimes “Phase 1”), and, at the COMPANY’S option, two additional buildings that total a minimum of 487,944 square feet (hereinafter sometime “Phase 2”), suitable for the Business Operations, constructed on the Property in accordance with the CITY-approved plans, and applicable local, state, and federal regulations, out of which the Business Operations will be conducted.
G. “Grant Criteria” is defined as the criteria set forth in Article IV that the COMPANY must meet to receive the Chapter 380 Grant defined in Article V.
H. “Maximum Grant Amount” shall mean the total amount of payments paid to COMPANY under this Agreement, whether by Real Property Tax Rebate, reimbursement of wastewater impact fees, or combination thereof, in the schedule provided in Section V.A.1 herein and in an amount not to exceed $5,693,953 for Phase 1, and $8,907,771 for
2 Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined. The terms, “Phase 1,” and, “Phase 2,” are defined and described in greater detail in Section IV.A herinbelow.
I. “Ongoing Documentation” is defined as copies of the following documents for the tax year for which a Chapter 380 Grant is sought: (1) proof of compliance with Section IV.B.- D.; and (2) proof of payment ad valorem taxes and wastewater impact fees actually paid. The CITY may reasonably request additional records to support the information shown in the Ongoing Documentation and compliance with the applicable Grant Criteria.
J. “Ongoing Grant Criteria” is defined as the criteria the COMPANY is required to meet for payment of Chapter 380 Grants after Year 1, which are set forth in Section IV.A.2.
K. “Premises” are defined as the real property (land and improvements) located on the Property.
L. “Project” is defined to mean the Facilities, together with all other accessory and permitted uses on the Property, upon which the Business Operations will be conducted.
M. “Property” is defined as that certain 146.920 acre tract, being more particularly described in Exhibit A.
N. “Annual Incentive Payment(s)” means the quarterly Real Property Tax Rebate payments for the four calendar quarters in each of the three (3) full Calendar Years that follow the first Real Property Tax Rebate payment.
O. “Real Property Improvements” are defined as improvements to the Property, which shall include the Project and any other buildings, structures or fixtures erected or affixed to land on the Property that are included in the definition of real property set forth in Section 1.04(2), Texas Tax Code as amended.
P. “Real Property Tax Rebate” means the percentage of Real Property Taxes paid by the COMPANY and actually received by the CITY and paid to the COMPANY pursuant to Section V.A.1.
Q. “Real Property Taxes” shall mean the ad valorem tax assessed on the Eligible Property or a portion thereof, as appropriate, appraised by the Travis Central Appraisal District.
R. Intentionally Omitted.
S. Intentionally Omitted.
T. “Threshold Documentation” is defined as copies of the following documents required for payment of the Chapter 380 Grant for each completed building of the Facilities: (1) proof of compliance with Section IV.B.-D.; (2) proof of the issuance of a Building Core and Shell Certificate of Occupancy for each building of the Facilities demonstrating that the building core and shell was constructed and completed on the Property per Section IV.A.1; (3) proof of construction hard costs for the completed core and shell of the building; and (4) the Threshold 380 Grant Certification described in Section VI.A. The CITY may request
3 additional records to support the information shown in the Threshold Documentation or compliance with this Agreement.
U. “Threshold Grant Criteria” is defined as the criteria the COMPANY is required to meet for payment of Chapter 380 Grants to be paid for each completed building of the Facilities, which are set forth in Section IV A. 1.
V. “Year 1” is defined as the tax year following the date on which each building for the Facilities is constructed and completed on the Property, and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the shell and core of each such building.
II. General Provisions
A. The Eligible Property is not in an improvement project financed by tax increment bonds.
B. The Eligible Property is not owned or leased by any member of the City Council or any member of the Planning and Zoning Commission of CITY.
C. It is acknowledged and agreed by the Parties that the completion of the Project is consistent with the purposes of encouraging state and local economic development and to stimulate business and commercial activity within the City.
III. Representations and Warranties
A. The CITY hereby represents and warrants to the COMPANY that the CITY has full constitutional and lawful right, power, and authority, under current applicable law, to execute and deliver and perform the terms and obligations of this Agreement, and all of the foregoing have been or will be duly and validly authorized and approved by all necessary CITY proceedings, findings, and actions. Accordingly, this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid, and binding obligation of the CITY, is enforceable in accordance with its terms and provisions, and does not require the consent of any other governmental authority.
B. The COMPANY hereby represents and warrants to the CITY that the COMPANY has full constitutional and lawful right, power, and authority, under current applicable law, to execute and deliver and perform the terms and obligations of this Agreement, and all of the foregoing have been or will be duly and validly authorized and approved by the COMPANY’S governing body or authority by all actions necessary to bind the COMPANY to his Agreement. Accordingly, this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid, and binding obligation of COMPANY, is enforceable in accordance with its terms and provisions, and does not require the consent of any other authority or entity. COMPANY represents and warrants that COMPANY is a registered business in the State of Texas.
IV. Performance Criteria
A. Grant Criteria.
4 1. Threshold Grant Criteria. The following events must occur for the COMPANY to receive the Chapter 380 Grant described in Article V:
a. The COMPANY completes construction of a building of the Facilities and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for such building. The Parties agree that COMPANY intends to construct the Facilities one building at a time and that the COMPANY shall be entitled to receive the Chapter 380 Grant on a pro rata basis of the square footage of the building upon the completion and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the constructed and completed core and shell of each building of the Facilities, and upon the schedule described in Article V. Completion of the first building of the Facilities is anticipated to occur on or before 18 months after CITY approval of a building permit for the first building of the Project. Completion of all four buildings comprising Phase 1 of the Facilities is anticipated to occur on or before July 2028 (“Phase 1”).
b. Additionally, the COMPANY, at its sole option, may elect to construct the two additional buildings comprising Phase 2 of the Facilities during the term of this Agreement. The Parties agree that in the event COMPANY elects to construct Phase 2 of the Facilities, COMPANY intends to construct Phase 2 one building at a time and that COMPANY shall be entitled to receive the Chapter 380 Grant on a pro rata basis of the square footage of the building upon the completion and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building of Phase 2 of the Facilities, and upon the schedule described in Article V. In the event the COMPANY determines to construct the two additional buildings comprising Phase 2 of the Facilities, completion of the two additional buildings comprising Phase 2 of the Facilities is anticipated to occur on or before February 2030. In the event the COMPANY determines not to construct the two additional buildings comprising Phase 2 of the Facilities, COMPANY shall provide written notice of its decision to the CITY. Phase 2 construction not completed by February 28, 2031, will not be eligible for Chapter 380 Grant (“Phase 2”).
c. The COMPANY is in compliance with Sections IV.B-D.
2. Ongoing Grant Criteria. After the first Chapter 380 Grant payment made to the COMPANY following completion of a building, the COMPANY must comply with the following requirements for each year in which the COMPANY seeks a Chapter 380 Grant payment for such building:
. a. The COMPANY is in compliance with Section IV.B-D.
5 3.Square Footage and Construction Cost of Facilities by Building and Phase. The Parties agree that the minimum square footages and construction costs for the Facilities shall be as follows:
Building Phase Square Footage Construction Cost
Building 3 Phase 1 483,991 SF $31,954,043 Building 4 Phase 1 190,663 SF $14,218,906 Building 5 Phase 1 87,998 SF $7,629,553 Building 6 Phase 1 131,998 SF $10,520,896
SUB TOTAL: 894,650 SF $64,323,397
Building 1 Phase 2 285,768 SF $20,673,597 Building 2 Phase 2 202,176 SF $15,574,440
SUB TOTAL: 487,944 SF $36,248,036
GRAND TOTAL: 1,382,594 SF $100,571,433
Construction of Phase 2 of the Facilities shall be at the option of COMPANY, per Section IV.A.1.b.
B. The Project shall conform to the applicable building codes, zoning ordinances, plans approved by the jurisdiction issuing permits for the Project, and all other applicable Federal and State Laws, ordinances, and regulations.
C. The COMPANY shall not allow the ad valorem taxes or business personal property owed to CITY or the Manor Independent School District (hereinafter, the “District”) on any real property or business personal property owned by COMPANY and located within the City of Manor or the District to become delinquent beyond the last day they can be paid without assessment of penalty. Notwithstanding the foregoing the COMPANY may contest and appeal any and all taxes/ad valorem taxes associated with the Property and owed to the District or any other applicable governmental entity, and during such appeal/contest the COMPANY shall not be required to pay taxes/ad valorem taxes associated with the Property to the District or any other applicable governmental entity until such time as the contest/appeal is finally and fully resolved, and in such event the CITY shall not be required to pay the Chapter 380 Grant until the contest/appeal is finally and fully resolved.
D. The COMPANY covenants and certifies that the COMPANY does not and will not knowingly and directly employ an undocumented worker as that term is defined by Section
6 2264.001(4) of the Texas Government Code. In accordance with Section 2264.052 of the Texas Government Code, if the COMPANY is convicted of a violation under 8 U.S.C. Section 1324a (f), the COMPANY shall repay to the CITY the full amount of Chapter 380 Grants made under Article V of this Agreement. Repayment shall be paid within 120 days after the date following an unappealable conviction of the COMPANY, provided, however, the COMPANY shall not be liable for a violation by a subsidiary, affiliate, or franchisee of the COMPANY or by a person with whom the COMPANY contracts including, but not limited to, all tenants and subcontractors.
V. Economic Development Grants
A. Chapter 380 Grant Payments For Each Completed Building.
1. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, and COMPANY’S full and timely performance of, and compliance with, each of the applicable Grant Criteria set forth in Article IV, the CITY agrees to pay to COMPANY the following Chapter 380 Grant payments for each completed building, commencing in Year 1 for such building and continuing through year 13, provided that the Chapter 380 Grant will cease when the Maximum Grant Amount has been reached:
• Years 1 - 3: o An amount equal to 100% of the Real Property Taxes received by the CITY on a quarterly basis. • Years 4-13: o An amount equal to 50% of the Real Property Taxes received by the CITY on an annual basis.
2. The CITY shall pay the Real Property Tax Rebate Amount annually and quarterly as provided in this Section V. To be eligible to receive the Chapter 380 Grant in the years following Year 1, the Ongoing Grant Criteria must be met each year. The COMPANY will not be paid the 380 Grant payment for those tax years in which the Ongoing Grant Criteria are not met.
3. COMPANY shall annually provide the CITY the Documentation described in Article VI. The CITY shall pay the Real Property Tax Rebate Amount annually upon the later to occur of: (i) forty- five (45) days following the date the Documentation is received by the CITY; or (ii) within forty- five (45) days following the date the Real Property Taxes are received by the CITY and the COMPANY has notified the CITY that the taxes have been paid; provided that the applicable Grant Criteria as set forth in Article IV have been met.
B. Payment of Chapter 380 Grant For Reimbursement of Wastewater Impact Fees.
7 1. Up to $345,288 of the Maximum Grant Amount shall be reimbursed by the City of Manor to the COMPANY within 60 days of submittal of written evidence of payment of actual wastewater impact fees received by the City of Manor for each building of the Facilities.
C. Payment of Chapter 380 Grants Subject to CITY’S Budget and Reconciliation Procedure. 1. As a statutory requirement, all payments of Chapter 380 Grants are subject to the CITY’S budget and reconciliation procedure.
D. Maintenance of Books and Records. The CITY shall maintain complete books and records showing ad valorem taxes received by the CITY from the Property, which books and records shall be deemed complete if kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as applied to Texas municipalities. Such books and records shall be available for examination by the duly authorized officers or agents of COMPANY during normal business hours upon request made not less than five (5) business days prior to the date of the examination. The CITY shall maintain such books and records throughout the term of this Agreement and store the same for four (4) years thereafter.
VI. Reports, Audits and Inspections
A. Annual Certification and Reports. The COMPANY shall certify in writing to the CITY that the COMPANY is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and shall provide the CITY with reports and records reasonably necessary to demonstrate fulfillment of the performance criteria set forth in Article IV as follows:
1. Certification. COMPANY shall complete and certify a 380 Grant Certification in a form substantially similar to that set forth in Exhibit B, which shall include the COMPANY Threshold or Ongoing Documentation, as appropriate. Such Documentation and Certification shall be submitted at the time the COMPANY pays its respective Real Property Taxes.
2. Additional Reports. The COMPANY shall furnish CITY any additional records and information reasonably requested to support the Grant Criteria and the reports required by this Agreement. The COMPANY shall further furnish the CITY with copies of or access to additional information reasonably required to verify the information set forth in the Threshold or Ongoing Documentation.
B. Right to Audit Books and Records. CITY shall have the right to audit the books and records of the COMPANY related to the Eligible Property. CITY shall notify the COMPANY in advance in writing of their intent to audit in order to allow the COMPANY,
8 as applicable, adequate time to make such books and records available (in no event shall the COMPANY, as applicable, have less than five (5) business in order to make such books and records available).
C. Inspection. At all times throughout the term of this Agreement, CITY shall have reasonable access to the Property upon providing at least 48 hours’ written notice to the COMPANY for the purpose of inspecting the Property to ensure that the Facilities are designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CITY’S inspection of the Property shall not interfere with the operation of the Property.
VII. Breach A. Breach. A breach of this Agreement may result in termination or modification of this Agreement as provided herein. The following conditions shall constitute a breach of this Agreement:
1. The COMPANY fails to meet the performance criteria as specified in Article IV above for a period of two consecutive grant years.
2. The COMPANY falsely certifies that the performance criteria in the Threshold Documentation submitted to the CITY under Article VI has been met.
3. CITY fails to timely make payments to the COMPANY under the terms of this Agreement.
B. Notice of Breach. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no Party shall be deemed to be in default under this Agreement until the passage of sixty (60) business days after receipt by such Party of notice of default from the other Party (“Cure Period”), which notice shall specify, in reasonable detail, the nature of the default. Upon the passage of the Cure Period without cure of the default, such Party shall be deemed to have defaulted for purposes of this Agreement; provided that, if the nature of the default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within the Cure Period, the Party receiving the notice of default may during such Cure Period give the other Party written notice that it has commenced cure within the Cure Period and will diligently and continuously pursue a cure to completion as soon as reasonably possible, and such written notice together with diligent and continuous pursuit of the cure shall extend the Cure Period for up to an additional ninety (90) calendar days so long as the cure is being diligently and continuously pursued during such time; and provided further that, if the cure cannot be reasonably accomplished within the additional ninety (90) calendar day period but the applicable facts, circumstances, and progress establish that a cure will be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the expiration of the ninety (90) calendar day period, the time for cure will be extended for an additional period of time as mutually agreed by the Parties in writing (such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld). If a default is not cured within the applicable Cure Period, or any extension of the cure period described herein, then the non-defaulting Party may terminate this Agreement, pursue the remedies set forth in this Agreement, as well as any other remedies available in equity or law.
9 C. Repayment of Chapter 380 Grants.
In the event that the COMPANY commits a breach of this Agreement according to Section VII.A.2, the COMPANY shall pay back to the CITY the Chapter 380 Grant for the tax year for which false certification was submitted within thirty (30) days of written demand by the CITY. There shall be no repayment obligation for any certification later determined to be substantively incorrect if COMPANY relies in good faith on information received from third parties, including tenants and subtenants, as long as COMPANY uses proper and reasonable due diligence and professional methods in collecting such information.
D. Tax Lien Not Impaired. It is expressly agreed and acknowledged between the parties to this Agreement that nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to affect the lien for taxes against the property established by Section 32.01 of the Texas Tax Code. Such lien shall secure the payment of all taxes, penalties and interest ultimately imposed on the Property. Any such lien may be fully enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Code. For purposes of this Subsection, “property” refers to the Premises and Eligible Property described herein.
E. Limitations on Liability. The CITY shall not be liable for consequential damages, specifically lost profits, and any damages claimed against the CITY shall be limited to amounts recoverable under §271.153 of the Texas Local Government Code. The parties agree that this Agreement shall not be interpreted as or otherwise claimed to be a waiver of sovereignty or governmental immunity on the part of the CITY.
F. Personal Liability of Public Officials; No Debt Created. No employee of the CITY, nor any councilmember or agent of the CITY, shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or growing out of this Agreement. The Chapter 380 Grant made hereunder shall be paid solely from lawfully available funds that have been appropriated by the CITY. Under no circumstances shall the CITY’S obligations hereunder be deemed to create any debt within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provision.
VIII.
Indemnification
COMPANY COVENANTS AND AGREES TO FULLY INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS, THE CITY AND ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND REPRESENTATIVES, INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY, FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL COSTS, CLAIMS, LIENS, DAMAGES, LOSSES, EXPENSES, FEES, FINES, PENALTIES, PROCEEDINGS, ACTIONS, DEMANDS, CAUSES OF ACTION, LIABILITY AND SUITS OF ANY KIND AND NATURE BROUGHT BY ANY THIRD PARTY AND RELATING TO COMPANY’S ACTIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, MADE UPON THE CITY OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM OR RELATED TO COMPANY OR COMPANY’S AFFILIATE’S GROSS NEGLIGENCE, WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN ITS ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ANY SUCH ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF COMPANY OR COMPANY’S AFFILIATE, ANY AGENT, OFFICER, DIRECTOR, REPRESENTATIVE,
10 EMPLOYEE, CONSULTANT OR SUBCONSULTANTS OF COMPANY OR COMPANY’S AFFILIATE, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICERS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, DIRECTORS AND REPRESENTATIVES WHILE IN THE EXERCISE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE RIGHTS OR DUTIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, ALL WITHOUT, HOWEVER, WAIVING ANY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AVAILABLE TO CITY, UNDER TEXAS LAW AND WITHOUT WAIVING ANY DEFENSES OF THE PARTIES UNDER TEXAS LAW. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION ARE SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO CREATE OR GRANT ANY RIGHTS, CONTRACTUAL OR OTHERWISE, TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY. COMPANY SHALL PROMPTLY ADVISE CITY IN WRITING OF ANY CLAIM OR DEMAND AGAINST THE CITY, RELATED TO OR ARISING OUT OF COMPANY OR COMPANY’S TENANTS’ ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND SHALL SEE TO THE INVESTIGATION AND DEFENSE OF SUCH CLAIM OR DEMAND AT COMPANY’S COST TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED UNDER THE INDEMNITY IN THIS PARAGRAPH. CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT, AT ITS OPTION AND AT ITS OWN EXPENSE, TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH DEFENSE WITHOUT RELIEVING COMPANY OF ANY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH.
IT IS THE EXPRESS INTENT OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT THAT THE INDEMNITY PROVIDED FOR IN THIS PARAGRAPH, SHALL NOT BE AN INDEMNITY EXTENDED BY COMPANY TO INDEMNIFY, PROTECT AND HOLD HARMLESS CITY FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT. THE INDEMNITY PROVIDED FOR IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL APPLY ONLY, TO THE EXTENT OF ANY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE STATUTES AND FINDINGS, WHEN THE NEGLIGENT ACT OF CITY IS A CONTRIBUTORY CAUSE OF THE RESULTANT INJURY, DEATH, OR DAMAGE, AND IT SHALL HAVE NO APPLICATION WHEN THE NEGLIGENT ACT OF CITY IS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE RESULTANT INJURY, DEATH, OR DAMAGE. COMPANY FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, AT ITS OWN EXPENSE AND ON BEHALF OF CITY AND IN THE NAME OF CITY ANY CLAIM OR LITIGATION BROUGHT AGAINST CITY (AND ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND REPRESENTATIVES), IN CONNECTION WITH ANY SUCH INJURY, DEATH, OR DAMAGE FOR WHICH THIS INDEMNITY SHALL APPLY, AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
IT IS THE EXPRESS INTENT OF THIS SECTION THAT THE INDEMNITY PROVIDED TO THE CITY AND THE COMPANY SHALL SURVIVE THE TERMINATION AND OR EXPIRATION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND SHALL BE BROADLY INTERPRETED AT ALL TIMES TO PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY AND / OR THEIR OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS PERMITTED BY LAW. IX. Notice
All notices called for or required by this Agreement shall be addressed to the following, or such other party or address as either party designates in writing, by certified mail postage prepaid or by hand delivery:
COMPANY: DG Manor Downs Property Owner LP Attn: Tim Kraftson Development Manager-Central Region Dalfen Industrial
11 17304 Preston Road, Suite 550 Dallas, Texas 75252
With a copy to: DG Manor Downs Property Owner LP Attn: Joseph Walker General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer Dalfen Industrial 17304 Preston Road, Ste. 550 Dallas, Texas 75252
CITY: City of Manor Attn: Economic Development Director 105 E. Eggleston Street Manor, TX 78653 sjones@manortx.gov
With a copy to: The Knight Law Firm Attn: Veronica Rivera 223 E. Anderson Ln. Austin, TX 78752
X. City Council Authorization
This Agreement was authorized by motion and vote of the City Council recorded in the minutes authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CITY.
XI. Severability
In the event any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word is held invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, the balance of this Agreement shall stand, shall be enforceable and shall be read as if the parties intended at all times to delete said invalid section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word.
XII. Estoppel Certificate
Any party hereto may request an estoppel certificate from another party hereto, so long as the certificate is requested in connection with a bona fide business purpose. The certificate, which if requested will be addressed to a subsequent purchaser or assignee of COMPANY, shall include, but not necessarily be limited to statements that this Agreement is in full force and effect without
12 default (or if default exists the nature of same), the remaining term of this Agreement, the levels and remaining term of the eligible grants and such other matters reasonably requested by the party(ies) to receive the certificates.
XIII. Standing
COMPANY, as a party to this Agreement, shall be deemed a proper and necessary party in any litigation questioning or challenging the validity of this Agreement or any of the underlying ordinances, resolutions or City Council actions authorizing same, and COMPANY shall be entitled to intervene in said litigation.
XIV. Applicable Law
This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Texas without regarding to its conflict of laws provisions. Venue for any action under this Agreement shall be the State’s District Court of Travis County, Texas. This Agreement is performable in Travis County, Texas.
XV. Force Majeure
It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties to this Agreement that the parties shall not be found in default of this Agreement if any party’s failure to meet the requirements of this Agreement is delayed by reason of war, Act of God, fire, pandemic, material or labor shortage, strike, civil unrest, governmental action, or any other reason beyond the reasonably control of the respective party, or other casualty or event of a similar nature.
XVI. No Other Agreement
This Agreement embodies all of the agreements of the parties relating to its subject matter as specifically set out herein, supersedes all prior understandings and agreements regarding such subject matter, and may be amended, modified or supplemented only by an instrument or instruments in writing executed by the parties.
XVII. Headings
The headings of this Agreement are for the convenience of reference only and shall not affect in any manner any of the terms and conditions hereof.
XVIII. Successors and Assigns; Independent Contractor Status
The Parties to this Agreement each bind themselves and their successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the other Party of this Agreement and to the successors, executors, administrators and assigns of such other Party in respect to all covenants of this Agreement. No
13 successor, executor, administrator or assign is valid in the place of the Parties to this Agreement without the written consent of CITY and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
COMPANY shall be fully responsible for its employees, including meeting all state and federal requirements for minimum wage, income tax withholding, workers' compensation, insurance, and all city, state, and federal requirements governing employer/employee relations. COMPANY hereby certifies that it shall be and is in compliance with all such regulations, laws and requirements. This Agreement does not create a partnership nor employment relationship with the City.
XIX. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which may be executed by any one or more of the parties hereto, but all of which shall constitute one instrument, and shall be binding and effective when all of the parties hereto have executed at least one counterpart.
XX. No Third-Party Beneficiaries
For purposes of this Agreement, including its intended operation and effect, the Parties specifically agree that: (1) the Agreement only affects matters/disputes between the Parties to this Agreement, and is in no way intended by the Parties to benefit or otherwise affect any third person or entity, notwithstanding the fact that such third person or entities may be in a contractual relationship with CITY or the COMPANY; and (2) the terms of this Agreement are not intended to release, either by contract or operation of law, any third person or entity from obligations owing by them to either CITY or the COMPANY.
XXI. Remedies
Except as provided in this Agreement, no right or remedy granted herein or reserved to the Parties is exclusive of any right or remedy herein by law or equity provided or permitted; but each shall be cumulative of every right or remedy given hereunder. No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived without consent of the Parties. Forbearance or indulgence by either Party shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed pursuant to this agreement.
XXII. Term and Termination
A. Term.
Unless terminated earlier as provided herein, this Agreement shall terminate upon the earliest occurrence of any one or more of the following: (1) the written agreement of the Parties; or (2) The Agreement’s Expiration Date. The Expiration Date shall be the date that the Maximum Grant Amount is paid to COMPANY; provided that the following shall survive termination of this
14 Agreement for any reason: Article III; Article V; Article VI.B; Article VII; Article VIII; Article XIII, Article XIV, Article XV, Article XVI, Article XVIII, Article XX, and Article XXI.
B. Termination.
During the term of this Agreement, should the COMPANY commit a breach of this Agreement according to the Sections VII.A.1. or 2., the CITY may terminate this Agreement, subject to Section VII.B. In addition, the CITY may terminate the Agreement in the event that the COMPANY fails to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for each building of Phase I by July 31, 2028 and by February 28, 2031, for Phase II, if applicable.
XXVII. Statutory Verifications
A. In accordance with Chapter 2270, Texas Government Code, the CITY may not enter into a contract with a COMPANY for goods and services unless the contract contains a written verification from the COMPANY that it: (a) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract. The signatory executing this contract on behalf of the COMPANY verifies that the COMPANY does not boycott Israel and will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.
B. To the extent the Agreement constitutes a contract for goods or services within the meaning of Section 2274 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, solely for purposes of compliance with therewith, and subject to applicable Federal law, the COMPANY represents that the COMPANY does not, and will not for the duration of this agreement, have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association. Further, the COMPANY represents that the COMPANY does not, and will not for the duration of this agreement, have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association. The phrase “Discriminates Against a Firearm Entity or Firearm Trade Association” as used in this paragraph have the meanings assigned to the phrase “Discriminate Against a Firearm Entity or Firearm Trade Association” in Section 2274.001(3) of the Texas Government Code, as amended.
C. To the extent the Agreement constitutes a contract for goods or services within the meaning of Section 2274 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, solely for purposes of compliance with therewith, and subject to applicable Federal law, the COMPANY represents that the COMPANY does not (i) boycott energy companies and (ii) will not boycott energy companies through the term of this Agreement. The phrase “Boycott Energy Companies” as used in this paragraph have the meanings assigned to the phrase “Boycott Energy Company” in Section 809.001 of the Texas Government Code, as amended.
D. To the extent this Agreement constitute a governmental contract within the meaning of Section 2252.151 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, solely for purposes of compliance with Chapter 2252 of the Texas Government Code, and except to the extent otherwise required by applicable federal law, COMPANY represents that COMPANY nor
15 any wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent COMPANY or affiliate of COMPANY is a COMPANY listed by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts under Sections 2270.0201, or 2252.153 of the Texas Government Code. Further, COMPANY represents that COMPANY nor any wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent COMPANY or affiliate of COMPANY is a COMPANY listed by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts under Sections 2270.0201, or 2252.153 of the Texas Government Code.
E. Form 1295. Texas law and the City requires that business entities, as defined in Texas Government Code, Section 2252.908, who contract with the City complete the on-line of Form 1295 "Certificate of Interested Parties" as promulgated by the Texas Ethics Commission (https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/filinginfo/1295/). Form 1295 is also required for any and all contract amendments, extensions or renewals. Prior to any payment to Contractor hereunder, Contractor shall provide proof of submission to the City Secretary that the appropriate Form 1295 documentation has been submitted.
XXVIII. Effective Date
This Agreement shall be effective on the _____ day of _______________, 2025 (the “Effective Date”).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year written above. DG MANOR DOWNS PROPERTY OWNER, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
By: Name: Title:
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF ______________ §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this ____ day of ____________, 2025, by _______________, ____________ of DG Manor Downs Property Owner, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership.
16 (SEAL)
Notary Public, State of ___________
CITY OF MANOR, TEXAS
By: _______________________________
_______________________________ CITY MANAGER Date:
ATTEST:
_________________________________
_________________________________ CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
THE STATE OF TEXAS § § CITY OF MANOR, TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS §
Acknowledgment
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared _________________, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the CITY OF MANOR, TEXAS, a municipal corporation of Travis and Travis Counties, Texas, and as the ______________________________ thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, and in the capacity therein expressed.
17 GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the _______ day of March, 2023.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY’S PRINTED NAME
18 EXHIBIT A
The Property
44320467v.1 EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MANOR CHAPTER 380 AGREEMENT (THE “AGREEMENT”) GRANT REPORT FORM
Chapter 380 Grant Certification
PROJECT STATUS – THRESHOLD GRANT CRITERIA (provide in Year 1 only for each completed building)
Certificate of Occupancy for Building ___ of the Facilities issued on ___________________.________________. Square footage for Building ___ of the Facilities is____________.
Please provide each of the following documents as an attachment to this Certification:
☐ Proof of payment of the ad valorem taxes.
☐. Proof of compliance with Threshold Grant Criteria, i.e., affidavit of compliance.
For Years Subsequent to Year 1 for each completed building, provide
1. Proof of payment of ad valorem taxes;
2. Proof of Compliance with Ongoing Grant Criteria (Sections IV B.-D. of Agreement), i.e. affidavit of compliance.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information and attached documents provided in this Chapter 380 Grant Certification are true and accurate and in compliance with the terms of the Chapter 380 Agreement with the City of Manor. I further certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, I have met the requirements of the Threshold Grant Criteria, as that term is defined in the Agreement.
Printed Name and Title of Certifying Officer Signature of Certifying Officer
Date Telephone Number Email Address
NOTE: This Chapter 380 Grant Certification shall be filed with the City for each completed building of the Facilities prior to the payment of the Chapter 380 Grant for such completed building.
4877-6920-0393, v. 1 44320467v.1 Good afternoon,
Adding Mr. Battaile. We do still need this hearing. The motions to be presented tomorrow are non-evidentiary.
Regards,
Ian T. Todd Sneed, Vine & Perry, A Professional Corporation itodd@sneedvine.com (512) 930-9775
From: Batool Fatima
Counsel:
Your upcoming in-person hearing has been assigned to the 345th District Court for Wednesday, July 16th, at 9:00 a.m. Your hearing will take place at the new Travis County Civil and Family Courts Facility at 1700 Guadalupe in courtroom 10C. The Court may be assigned multiple hearings on that day and time, and if so, the Judge will hold a brief docket call before we get started.
Please confirm that all necessary parties are included in this email and, if not, please ‘Reply All’ and add any missing counsel of record or self- represented parties as recipients.
Attached to this email are this Court’s current Expectations and Preferences and Guidance on Submission of Electronic Exhibits. These include practice tips for the 345th and instructions on how to upload your exhibits and other materials to Box.
Please note that each counsel of record and self-represented party listed on the announcement form is receiving this email, which gives each of you access to the Box folder to upload and review documents for this case. It is extremely important that you follow the instructions on how to upload your exhibits properly.
For additional permissions to BOX exhibit folders, please review and add all parties, attorneys, and paralegals who will be working on the case or will need access to electronic exhibits in the Announcement Application: Home - Announcements [cts-ext-web2] For Technical Assistance with BOX, please contact Courts-Help (courts- help@traviscountytx.gov) at 512-854-8324.
If your time announcement changes or you no longer need this hearing, please let me know as soon as possible.
If your hearing is not an evidentiary hearing (i.e., one at which no sworn testimony will be presented), a court reporter is generally not present. If you have a specific reason why you are requesting a record on a non- evidentiary hearing, please let me know and the judge will evaluate your request.
Interpretation: If either party has an interpreter, please let me know their name and email address as soon as possible. If any party needs an interpreter, please contact the Court Administrator’s Office at (512) 854-2484 and they will arrange one for you.
*If you have filed anything within the last week, please be sure to upload these documents to the “other materials” folder as the clerk’s office is sometimes behind in uploading filings to the Court’s electronic file. Best, Batool Fatima Judicial Executive Assistant 345th Judicial District Court - The Honorable Jan Soifer P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767 (512) 854-9712
This electronic mail message, including any attachments, may be confidential or privileged under applicable law. This email is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, disclosure or any other action taken in relation to the content of this email including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this email, including secure destruction of any printouts. Exhibit A - D-1-GN-25-000719
<<<------ EXHIBIT B - D-1-GN-25-000719
<<<<<------- Docusign Envelope ID: 81EF3F9C-3077-4C6E-9324-2EEC7CDBEC7C
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY P.O. Box 1748, Austin, TX 78767 JOSÉ P. GARZA Telephone 512/854-9400 TRUDY STRASSBURGER DISTRICT ATTORNEY Telefax 512/854-4206 FIRST ASSISTANT
TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
REJECTION OF CHARGES IN D1DC25500292
CUSTODY STATUS: On Bond
The District Attorney’s Office has reviewed the evidence in the case listed below and determined that no felony charges will be filed at this time. For the reason: Insufficient Evidence (Include note)
Additional Information:
Cause # D1DC25500292 MNI: 2418479 Court: 427th
TRN: 9239081186 TRS: A001 DPS: 13160014
ROBERT BATTAILE DOB: 8/14/1950 SEX: Male RACE: White
Filing Agency: TX2270200 MANOR PD
Charge: STALKING - PC 42.072(b) - F3
Authorized By: __________________________________ BERNARD AMMERMAN
Date: 8/19/2025
Ronald Earle Building, 416 West 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 106610284 Filing Code Description: Original Proceeding Petition - Exempt Filing Description: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS for 15th Court of Appeals Status as of 10/8/2025 3:19 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jeffrey Hobbs 24012837 jhobbs@abaustin.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Michael Kabat 24050847 mkabat@mcginnislaw.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Joanna Salinas 791122 joanna.salinas@fletcherfarley.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
William Davidson 5447000 bdavidson@chmc-law.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Gavin Villareal 24008211 gavin.villareal@bakerbotts.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Michael Roberts 24082153 mroberts@jw.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Cynthia Veidt 24028092 cynthia.veidt@traviscountytx.gov 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Stephanie Serrano 24092655 sserrano@rothberg.law 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Kevin O'Hanlon 15235500 kohanlon@808west.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Patrick Kelly 11228000 pat.kelly@traviscountytx.gov 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Tyler Ryska 24096597 tryska@rigbyslack.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Austin Jones 24116579 ajones@mcginnislaw.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
William Duncan 24124453 wduncan@rigbyslack.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Roy Adams roy.adams@oag.texas.gov 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Tristan AGarza tristan.garza@oag.texas.gov 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Lauren Bush 24142742 lbush@jw.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Anna Puff 24144206 apuff@sneedvine.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Edward Smith 24037790 esmith@808west.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Robert EdwardBattaile robert@manortx.us 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Annette Bittick abittick@mcginnislaw.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Patricia Muniz paralegal@rigbyslack.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Raylynn Howell raylynn.howell@bakerbotts.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 106610284 Filing Code Description: Original Proceeding Petition - Exempt Filing Description: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS for 15th Court of Appeals Status as of 10/8/2025 3:19 PM CST
Raylynn Howell raylynn.howell@bakerbotts.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Kim McBride kmcbride@mcginnislaw.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Lea Ohrstrom lohrstrom@808west.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Sneed Vine &Perry gtwnfilings@sneedvine.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Stormy Downing sdowning@rrspllc.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Andy Soule asoule@rrspllc.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Karah Powers kpowers@chmc-law.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Martha AnnAdams madams@abaustin.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Benjamin C. Hunt ben.hunt@bakerbotts.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Eldridge Burns eburns@rrspllc.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Amy Botelho abotelho@mcginnislaw.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Carol Shipley cshipley@rrspllc.com 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Emily Hill ehill@manortx.gov 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Anne Weir aweir@manortx.gov 10/8/2025 3:01:03 PM SENT
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Robert Edward Battaile v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-edward-battaile-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.