In Re Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 15-25-00002-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. _____________

FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS In the Court of Appeals AUSTIN, TEXAS for the Fifteenth District of Texas 1/3/2025 4:01:27 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

In re Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC,

Relator.

Original proceeding arising from the First Business Court Division, Dallas County No. 24-BC01B-0007 Hon. Bill Whitehill, Presiding

Record in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus

David S. Coale Lynn Pinker Hurst & State Bar No. 00787255 Schwegmann, LLP dcoale@lynnllp.com 2100 Ross Avenue Michael K. Hurst Suite 2700 State Bar No. 10316310 Dallas, TX 75201 mhurst@lynnllp.com Gregory A. Brassfield Attorneys for Relator State Bar No. 240799900 gbrassfield@lynnllp.com DATE: January 3, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David S. Coale David S. Coale State Bar No. 00787255 dcoale@lynnllp.com Michael K. Hurst State Bar No. 10316310 mhurst@lynnllp.com Gregory A. Brassfield State Bar No. 240799900 gbrassfield@lynnllp.com Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 981-3800 Telephone (214) 981-3839 Facsimile

Attorneys for Relator

2 Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on January 3, 2025, a true and correct copy of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus was forwarded to all counsel of record

via the Electronic Service Provider pursuant to the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure as follows:

Barry Barnett Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75225 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com

Ophelia Camiña Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002 ocamina@susmangodfrey.com

Ravi Bhalla Susman Godfrey L.L.P. One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 rbhalla@susmangodfrey.com

Hon. Bill Whitehill First Business Court Division BCDivision1B@txcourts.gov

/s/ David S. Coale David S. Coale

3 DECLARATION OF DAVID COALE

1. My name is David Coale. My date of birth is June 24, 1968. My business address is 2100 Ross Ave, Suite 2700, Dallas, TX 75201. I am of sound

mind and am capable of making this declaration. The following facts are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. My personal knowledge is based on my role as counsel for Appellant in this case at the relevant times.

2. I have reviewed the record submitted in support of Realtor’s petition for mandamus filed January 3, 2025. The court filings included in that record are true and correct copies of the originals filed with the 191st District Court as well as filings in the Business Court of Texas, 1st Division. 3. Specifically, Documents 2, 3, 5 and 6 are filings by the parties before the business court, Document 1 is HGS Parties’ Seventh Amended Answer and Counterclaims filed with the 191st District Court, and included in the removal record filed with the business court. Documents 4 and 7 are orders issued by Judge Whitehill of the business court. 4. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Dallas County, State of Texas, on January 3, 2025.

/s/ David Coale David Coale

1 Index

Item Pages Date Description 1 1-37 04/26/23 HGS Parties' Seventh Amended Answer and Counterclaims 2 38-129 10/01/24 Notice of Removal to Business Court 3 130-142 10/15/24 Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, Section 8 4 143-144 10/16/24 Additional Briefing Notice 5 145-152 10/23/24 Plaintiff’s Response to Court’s October 16, 2024 Order Regarding H.B. 19, Section 8 6 153-164 10/23/24 HGS Parties’ Response to Synergy’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, Section 8 7 165-175 10/31/24 Opinion and Order

2 No. DC-19-20539

SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LLC, § § Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, § § v. § DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S § HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, § INC., and HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC, § § Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, § v. § § ALI GANJAEI, § § Counter-Defendant. § 191ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Under Rules 92 and 97 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants and Counter-

Plaintiffs Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. (“HGSI”) and HGS Healthcare, LLC (“HGS Healthcare”

and, together with HGSI, the “HGS Parties”) answer Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition (the

“Petition”) and assert their counterclaims against Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Synergy Global

Outsourcing, LLC (“Synergy”) and third-party Counter-Defendant Ali Ganjaei (“Ganjaei” and,

together with Synergy, “Counter-Defendants”) as follows:

AMENDED ANSWER

General Denial

1. Under Rule 92, the HGS Parties generally deny all material allegations in the

Petition and demand strict proof of each of them.

DEFENDANTS’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND SIXTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 1 001 Affirmative Defenses

2. Synergy’s unclean hands bar its claims in whole or in part, including its quantum

meruit claim and any other request for equitable relief or remedy.

3. Synergy’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of fraud, fraudulent

inducement, illegality, indefiniteness, mistake, unconscionability, undue influence, duress,

overpayment, impossibility, impracticality, frustration of purpose, waiver, and substantial

performance.

4. Synergy’s claims are barred in whole or in part by its knowing participation and

active complicity in breaches of fiduciary duties and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties,

including breaches of fiduciary duties before, during, and after execution of the Broker Agreement,

by Ganjaei and others.

5. Synergy lacks capacity and standing to assert claims for breach of contract relating

to any oral contract and quantum meruit.

6. Synergy failed to satisfy at least one condition precedent to recovery on its claims,

the condition precedent has not otherwise occurred, and its non-satisfaction and non-occurrence

bar Synergy’s claims in whole or in part. Under Section 3 of the Broker Agreement, for instance,

any right to compensation depends on whether HGSI entered into agreements to provide services

after it signed the Broker Agreement. Section 3 provides that Synergy “shall be entitled to a

‘Brokerage Fee’” only “[i]n the event that[,] as a result of” Synergy’s “contacts” with “the potential

Customer,” HGSI and “the CUSTOMER enter into a written agreement for the providing of

Services.” The Exhibits to the Broker Agreement also state that the Customer’s “Brokerage Fee

period . . . begins” at a future time when HGSI “enter[s] into an agreement” with the potential

Customer. To the extent Synergy bases its claims on agreements that preexisted the Broker

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 2 002 Agreement, its express terms preclude Synergy from recovering any Brokerage Fees or other

compensation with respect to any agreements HGSI entered into before it signed the Broker

Agreement.

7. Synergy’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of payment. The

HGS Parties paid Synergy millions of dollars before and after HGSI signed the Broker Agreement.

Those payments exceed any amount the HGS Parties might owe Synergy under the Broker

Agreement or otherwise.

8. Synergy’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the lack or failure of

consideration, including to the extent the claims are based on consideration or agreements that

preexisted HGSI’s signing of the Broker Agreement.

9. Synergy’s claims are barred in whole or in part by Synergy’s failure to perform.

10. Synergy’s claims relating to any oral agreement to pay brokerage fees is barred by

Section 26.01(b)(6) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

11. The HGS Parties are entitled to a set off or recoupment of any amount owing to

Synergy with the amounts owing to the HGS Parties as a result of Synergy’s wrongful conduct

and wrongful receipt of payments, including as alleged in the counterclaims below, and with the

excessive amounts Synergy received and amounts it received despite having no right to them.

12. Synergy’s claims relating to any broker agreement whose terms differ from or

conflict with the unambiguous language of the Broker Agreement are barred by the parol evidence

rule. Synergy is also barred from presenting extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of the

Broker Agreement or to support any claim relating to any oral broker agreement.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 3 003 13. Synergy’s claims for damages, if they are entitled any at all, are limited to

commissions for the 36 months from the date of breach, if any, in accordance with Section 4 of

the Broker Agreement.

14. The HGS Parties reserve the right to plead additional matters in defense.

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

The Parties

1. HGSI is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Lisle,

Illinois.

2. HGS Healthcare (now doing business as Sagility) is an Illinois limited liability

company.

3. Synergy is a Nevada limited liability company with its headquarters in Dallas,

Texas. It was formed in 2004.

4. Ali Ganjaei is a citizen of the State of New Jersey.

Jurisdiction

5. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

The HGS Parties seek monetary relief over $1,000,000 and all other relief to which they are

entitled.

6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Synergy because it has submitted to the

Court’s jurisdiction by filing this cause and appearing before the Court.

7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Ganjaei under Section 17.042 of the Texas

Civil Practice and Remedies Code because, as more specifically alleged below, Ganjaei

established minimum contacts with Texas by purposefully conducting activities in and directed to

Texas, including those described below, for Ganjaei’s benefit, thereby obtaining the benefits and

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 4 004 protections of the laws of Texas and doing business in Texas, and because the respective

counterclaims HGSI and HGS Healthcare bring against Ganjaei relate to and arise out of Ganjaei’s

contacts with Texas. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Ganjaei in this case comports with

the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

Venue

8. Venue in Dallas County is proper because it is the venue in which Synergy initially

brought this action.

Factual Background

The Hinduja Group and the “Family Ownership” Principle

9. In 1914, Paramanand Deepchan Hinduja (“P.D. Hinduja”) founded the enterprises

that became the Hinduja Group in Shikarpur, India. Firm believers in traditional family values,

P.D. Hinduja and his four sons Srichand, Gopichand, Prakash, and Ashok built the Hinduja Group

into one of the largest conglomerates in the world. All along, they have striven to inculcate the

family concept in their business enterprises. Today, the diverse companies making up the Hinduja

Group employ over 200,000 people worldwide and have offices in many key cities, including

Austin and El Paso, Texas.

10. P.D. Hinduja died in 1971, but the family concept he laid down to his sons has

endured. A core element of the family concept was the “Family Ownership” principle. Family

Ownership meant that, regardless of which family members might manage, operate, or own title

to a particular Hinduja Group company or asset, “everything belongs to everyone and nothing

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 5 005 belongs to anyone.”1 As a result of the principle, family members could not treat any part of the

Hinduja Group as their own and instead had an overriding obligation to share the benefits of

owning or operating a Hinduja Group company with all members of the family.

11. The sons took their father’s directive so seriously that they formalized the Family

Ownership principle by entering into a July 2, 2014 agreement reflecting it.

Hinduja Global Solutions

12. In 1973, the Hinduja brothers added a business-process management (“BPM”)

organization, with headquarters in Bangalore, India, to the Hinduja Group. BPM consists of

providing call-center, back-office, and other support services for clients. In 1995, Hinduja Global

Solutions Ltd. (“HGSL”) became the holding company for the BPM business worldwide. The

stock of HGSL trades on Indian stock exchanges, but Hinduja Group entities hold the majority of

HGSL’s shares for the benefit of Hinduja family members.

13. In 2000, HGSI became an HGSL subsidiary responsible for providing BPM

services in the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean. HGSI’s primary predecessor had its

headquarters in a New Jersey suburb of New York City but now maintains its principal office in

Lisle, Illinois, near Chicago. HGS International owns HGSI, and HGSL owns HGS International.

14. HGS Healthcare, a former subsidiary of HGSI, provided BPM services for one or

more HGSI clients until January 2022, when affiliates of Betaine B.V. acquired all of the equity

interests in HGS Healthcare. HGS Healthcare now operates as “Sagility.”

1 “United for global growth,” Panorama, Mar. 2019 (available athttps://www.hindujagroup.com/newsletter/mar19/interview-g-p-hinduja.html) (quoting Gopichand P. Hinduja).

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 6 006 Partnership Between Remi Hinduja and Ali Ganjaei

15. Ramkrishan Hinduja (“Remi”), a grandson of P.D. Hinduja, grew up in

Switzerland, graduated from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania in

Philadelphia, and worked as an auditor before moving to the United States. He currently resides in

New York City. By 2007, he already held top positions within the Hinduja Group. Since then, he

has served in the following powerful roles:

(a) Chairman of HGSL’s Board of Directors from January 28, 2008 until September 4, 2019;

(b) Director and later Chairman of HGSI’s Board of Directors from at least 2007 until September 4, 2019;

(c) Director and later Chairman of HGS Healthcare from at least May 2018 and until September 4, 2019.

By accepting these positions, Remi became a fiduciary to HGSL, HGSI, and HGS Healthcare and

throughout his tenure owed HGSI and HGS Healthcare fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, and good

faith.

16. A native of Iran, Ali Ganjaei received a law degree in 1986 and practiced law in

Colorado before moving to New York. There he met Remi and soon started working for him as a

consultant with HBI Incorporated N.V. (“HBI N.V.”). Thus began a long, close, and mutually

beneficial partnership.

17. Before long, Remi promoted Ganjaei to positions of significant authority and trust

within the Hinduja Group. In the years that followed, Remi placed Ganjaei in the following

positions, among others:

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 7 007 (a) sole Manager and Chief Executive Officer of HBI N.V. and successor entities since 1997, including HBI Group, Inc. (“HBI”);2

(b) Managing Member of Synergy due to HBI’s ownership of a controlling interest in Synergy since 2011;

(c) sole manager and attorney for Hinduja Group International, LLC (“HGIL”),3 which since its formation in 2018 has owned 100 percent of HBI;

(d) attorney for HGSI and member of its Board of Directors from 1997 until October 2019;

(e) attorney for HGS Healthcare, a member of its Board of Directors from at least July 2018 to October 2019, and a member of its Board of Managers from at least June 2019 until October 2019; and

(f) sole manager of Mesilla Office Solutions, LLC (“Mesilla”), an HBI subsidiary.

By accepting these positions, Ganjaei became a fiduciary to each of the companies, and throughout

his tenure he owed each of them fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, and good faith.

HGSI, Humana, and Synergy

18. In the two decades after its formation, HGSI, with its subsidiary HGS Healthcare,

provided BPM services from facilities in the United States, Canada, Jamaica, and Colombia. Its

operations principally involved furnishing other companies with back office, contact call center,

and human resource services.

19. HGSI, through its subsidiary HGS Healthcare, operated call centers in various

locations, including two in El Paso.

20. On or about December 19, 2003, the health insurance company Humana Inc.

(“Humana”) signed a Master Services Agreement (“Humana MSA”) with HTMT Limited India

2 HBI was formed in New York on December 24, 2015. HBI N.V. and NV Transition, Inc. were its predecessors.

3 HBI N.V. was HGIL’s predecessor.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 8 008 (“HTMT”) – a predecessor of HGSI – to provide insurance claims processing and other BPM

services to segments of Humana. In his capacity as legal counsel to HTMT, Ganjaei communicated

frequently with individuals located in Texas to negotiate, draft and execute the Humana MSA.

21. Innovative Outsourcing (“Innovative”), a Dallas-based entity, helped introduce

HTMT to Humana. However, no written agreement between HTMT and Innovative has been

identified. Innovative was an entity owned by three Dallas residents: Walter Frank (“Frank”) and

Ludwell Denny (“Denny”) each owned 45 percent of Innovative, and Wilkes McCain (“McCain”)

owned the remaining 10 percent.

22. On or about February 11, 2004, HTMT appointed Universal Vision Corporation

(“UVC”) to serve as its “billing agent” in connection with the Humana MSA. As billing agent,

UVC sent invoices to Humana and collected payments from Humana for those services. UVC then

transmitted 95 percent of Humana’s payments to HTMT and kept 5 percent as a “service fee.”

23. On or about September 2, 2004, Synergy was formed. At the time Synergy was

formed, HTMT had been providing services to Humana for many months. At its formation, the

owners of Synergy were Media Commerce Partners, LLC (42.5 percent), Frank (42.5 percent),

McCain (10 percent), and Lori Sanchez (10 percent). Sanchez was Frank’s long-time bookkeeper,

and Media Commerce Partners was owned by Denny. Synergy claims that it was formed for the

purpose of collecting the 5 percent service fee held back by UVC. However, no written agreement

between UVC and Synergy has been identified.

24. On October 6, 2009, HGSI made a loan to Synergy under a Credit Agreement

(“HGSI Loan”). In connection with the HGSI Loan, Synergy signed a Promissory Note and

Security Agreement under which Synergy pledged any commissions from the Humana relationship

as security for the HGSI Loan.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 9 009 25. By late 2009, HGSI (HTMT’s successor), replaced UVC as its billing agent. The

delay in getting paid coupled with UVC’s usurious five-percent “service fee” made it unfeasible

for HGSI to continue to use UVC.

26. Effective November 1, 2009, UVC transferred its rights as billing agent to HGSI.

27. In December 2009, Synergy defaulted on the HGSI Loan.

Remi’s Purchase of Control over Synergy Through HBI N.V.

28. Initially, HBI N.V. was formed as a Hinduja Group entity, and its assets were held

collectively for the benefit of the entire Hinduja family in accord with the Family Ownership

principle. But, upon information and belief, with the assistance of Ganjaei, HBI N.V.’s assets were

surreptitiously transferred to a trust or other holding entity for the benefit of only three members

of the Hinduja family – Remi Hinduja and his two cousins, Vinoo Hinduja and Shanu Hinduja.

HBI N.V.’s revenues have been usurped and misappropriated for the benefit of those three family

members together with Ganjaei and others who aided in this scheme.

29. Effective January 1, 2010, HBI N.V. became the majority owner of Synergy. In late

2009, HBI N.V. acquired a 51 percent interest in Synergy. At around the same time, Telcomco

also became an owner of Synergy by acquiring 39 percent. Telcomco, however, was not actually

formed until almost a year later, on February 17, 2011, with ownership listed as 50/50 by John

Flood and Denny’s daughters. Synergy however did not prepare a new Operating Agreement until

March 9, 2011. That Operating Agreement reflects ownership of Synergy as: HBI N.V. (51

percent), Telcomco (39 percent), and McCain (10 percent).

30. In 2010, Synergy prepared and signed the Broker Agreement at issue in this case.

At HGSI’s request, Ganjaei reviewed and approved it but directed HGSI’s president not to sign it

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 10 010 right away. The delay allowed Remi and Ganjaei to arrange and carry out the purchase of a

controlling interest in Synergy through HBI N.V. before the Broker Agreement took effect.

31. At the time that the Broker Agreement was presented to HGSI, Remi was Chairman

of the Board of HGSI, and Ganjaei was a Director of HGSI and its acting General Counsel. Remi

and Ganjaei used their fiduciary positions to cause and direct HGSI to sign the Broker Agreement.

32. At same time Remi and Ganjaei were using their fiduciary positions to direct HGSI

to sign the Broker Agreement, Remi also controlled HBI N.V. and its ultimate owners, and Ganjaei

was the Managing Member of Synergy and the CEO of its majority owner HBI N.V. Remi and

Ganjaei knew that their positions created a major conflict of interest because they stood on both

the payor side (HGSI) and the payee side (Synergy and HBI N.V.). Ganjaei stood to gain

personally from the Broker Agreement due to, among other things, HBI N.V.’s profit-sharing plan,

which entitled him to 20 percent of the company’s profits in addition to his salary and bonus. The

purpose of this money-laundering scheme was to establish a stream of large monthly payments,

from HGSI to Synergy, that would continue to flow indefinitely despite the fact that Synergy

provided nothing HGSI did not already have.

33. At the direction of Remi and Ganjaei, HGSI’s president signed the Broker

Agreement on April 25, 2011.

The Colombian Call Centers

34. In 2011, Remi and Ganjaei met with Frank in Dallas to negotiate the purchase of

call centers in Columbia. Ganjaei was involved in the negotiation and purchase of the call centers

and also in the formation of the entity to hold the call centers, AIB Cayman.4 HBI (HBI N.V.’s

4 AIB stands for Atlantic International BPO.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 11 011 successor) owns 62% of AIB Cayman making it the majority owner and Coltelco owns 38 percent.

Coltelco is owned by Flood, Denny’s daughters, and McCain. AIB Cayman owns 100 percent of

AIB Columbia. AIB Columbia owns and operates the call centers in Columbia. Caytel Contracting,

a US-based entity, handles the contracting and billing for AIB Columbia.

35. On February 3, 2016, Synergy prepared a Second Amended Operating Agreement.

This agreement increased HBI’s ownership in Synergy from 51 percent to 53 percent and

decreased McCain’s ownership in Synergy from 10 percent to 8 percent. In exchange for this

decrease, McCain received his 3 percent ownership in Coltelco.

Synergy’s Misuse of the Hinduja Group Name

36. After Remi and Ganjaei through HBI N.V. acquired a controlling interest in

Synergy, Synergy began holding itself out publicly as a “member” of the “Hinduja Group” when

in fact it knew it was not a member of the Hinduja Group. Synergy also made representations that

it had licenses or certifications that it did not have (but that HGSI does have). It also appears to

have asserted that it had one or more of the same offices and officers as HGSI. Synergy did these

things in interstate commerce, on the internet and otherwise, for the purpose of holding itself out

and deceiving its audience into making purchasing decisions.

HGS Healthcare Replaces HGSI

37. In 2017, HGS Healthcare, then a subsidiary of HGSI, replaced HGSI as Humana’s

counterparty in the Humana MSA. HGS Healthcare then began providing services to Humana

under the Humana MSA and the lines of business subject to that agreement. Commencing at this

time, HGSI stopped providing any services to Humana and no longer received any revenues from

Humana.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 12 012 38. The Broker Agreement was never assigned to HGS Healthcare. But under the

direction of Remi and Ganjaei, HGS Healthcare nonetheless sent monies to Synergy, ultimately

benefitting Remi and Ganjaei.

Nondisclosure of Personal Benefits to Fiduciaries of HGSI and HGS Healthcare

39. Ganjaei, Remi, and other fiduciaries of HGSI (“HGSI Fiduciaries”) and HGS

Healthcare (“HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries”) never disclosed to the HGS Parties or to the Hinduja

family—and continue to this day to conceal—the payments and benefits they derived from HBI’s

control of and majority ownership in Synergy. Nor did they disclose the money-laundering scheme

they had created. This information was material to the HGS Parties’ respective officers and

directors, to HGSL (the HGS Parties’ parent), and to members of the Hinduja family. The

nondisclosure and concealment of the money-laundering scheme aimed to and did prevent

effective action to halt the HGSI Fiduciaries and HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries from diverting

monies and benefits to themselves.

40. Ganjaei, Remi, and the other HGSI Fiduciaries and HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries

never disclosed to the HGS Parties and the Hinduja family—and continue to this day to conceal—

their actions in causing the HGS Parties to pay monies to Synergy. Nor did they disclose how these

payments were part of a money-laundering scheme created to benefit them to the exclusion of

many members of the Hinduja family. Absent their control by Ganjaei and Remi, the HGS Parties

(as well as members of the Hinduja family) would have strenuously objected to any such payments

by the HGS Parties to Synergy.

Unfairness of the Broker Agreement

41. Among the many reasons that the HGS Parties and members of the Hinduja family

would have objected is that the Broker Agreement was unfair and unconscionable. In the first

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 13 013 place, it called for commission payments to Synergy for introducing HGSI to a client (Humana)

when in fact Humana had been an existing HGSI client for the previous eight years. See Humana

MSA entered in December 2003. Second, it called for commissions payments to Synergy even

though Synergy was required to do nothing. See Broker Agreement ¶ 2 (“[Synergy] shall not be

obligated to participate with or assist [HGSI] in the process of selling its Services to a potential

Customer, or to coordinate or attend meetings between [HGSI] and the potential Customer.”).

Third, it called for commission payments to Synergy “for the life of the relationship with [Humana]

or in perpetuity.” Broker Agreement ¶ 3. Fourth, Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGSI Fiduciaries

caused HGSI to sign the Broker Agreement as part of a money-laundering scheme intended to

circumvent and deprive many members of the Hinduja family and instead line the pockets of Remi,

Ganjaei, and other HGSI Fiduciaries. Finally, to the extent that the Broker Agreement was intended

to compensate Synergy for its role in introducing Humana to HGSI, HGSI had already paid this

fee to Innovative through UVC.

42. In truth and in fact, the Broker Agreement was a vehicle for Remi, Ganjaei, and

other HGSI Fiduciaries to siphon money from HGSI and, later, from HGS Healthcare for their

own personal benefit. Even if the Broker Agreement were nominally approved by HGSI’s board

of directors, such approval was improper and ineffective because, among other things, Remi and

Ganjaei were financially interested in the Broker Agreement and did not disclose this fact to the

Board. The Board was unaware of the financial interest in the Broker Agreement by Remi, Ganjaei

and other HGSI Fiduciaries. The Board was also unaware that HBI was the majority owner in

Synergy, that Ganjaei functioned as the Managing Member of Synergy, and that Remi, Ganjaei,

and other HGSI Fiduciaries would be profiting from the arrangement. Remi and Ganjaei also used

their positions with HGSI to influence and direct the remaining board members who were so

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 14 014 beholden to Remi and Ganjaei that they could not (and did not) exercise independent judgment

regarding the Broker Agreement.

43. HGSI and its subsidiaries entered into several other broker agreements under which

HGSI or its subsidiaries sent funds to Synergy. For example, in November 2014, TeamHGS

Limited and Synergy executed a broker agreement concerning TeamHGS Limited’s provision of

services to Humana. HGSI and Synergy also entered into a broker agreement on August 7, 2018,

regarding HGSI’s business relationship with Manhattan Life Insurance Company. At no point did

Remi or Ganjaei disclose that they stood to financially benefit from payments to Synergy under

these or any other broker agreements with Synergy.

44. Payments to Synergy ceased in September 2019, and the Broker Agreement

terminated.

Ganjaei’s Texas Contacts

45. Ganjaei and Remi traveled to Texas on behalf of Synergy in 2011 to negotiate, with

Walter J. Frank Jr., a citizen and resident of Texas, the purchase of call centers covering an entire

city block in Barranquilla, Colombia, for millions of dollars. Frank was negotiating on behalf of

Media Commerce Partners, LLC, a company that was registered and authorized to do business in

Texas and had its principal place of business in the same location as Synergy, 17250 Dallas

Parkway, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas 75248. Although the opportunity to acquire the call centers

properly belonged to HGSI, Ganjaei and Remi arranged the purchase to benefit themselves. As

part owners of the purchasing entity, they expected to and did benefit from the purchaser’s receipt

of payments from HGSI for the call centers’ services and from Synergy’s receipt of sham

Brokerage Fees for those services. The purchase of the call centers from a Texas citizen thus

facilitated the diversion of funds from HGSI (and, later, HGS Healthcare) for the benefit of

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 15 015 Ganjaei, Remi, and others. Ganjaei also breached his fiduciary duties by engaging in and benefiting

from the usurpation of this corporate opportunity.

46. Ganjaei’s breaches of fiduciary duties to HGSI also arise in substantial part from

legal services Ganjaei provided to Synergy in Texas. Ganjaei’s legal services to Synergy include

Ganjaei’s selection of Texas counsel to represent Synergy in this action and in a related Texas

action (“Mesilla action”); his disclosure of HGSI’s confidential information to Texas counsel to

aid them in prosecuting this action and the Mesilla action; and his active supervision and direction

of Texas counsel, McCain, and other Texas residents in connection with this action and the Mesilla

action. Ganjaei was compensated for his legal services with payments that he knew originated

from a Texas bank and from Synergy’s Texas-based offices. Ganjaei also acted as Synergy’s legal

counsel in making demands on HGSI and HGSI’s parent company, HGSL, for payments under the

Broker Agreement to Synergy’s Texas-based bank account.

47. Ganjaei provided HGSI with legal services that he performed partly in Texas to

benefit HGSI’s call-center operations in El Paso. During and after an HGSI board meeting he

personally attended in El Paso, Ganjaei assisted HGSI in forming a strategy for the settlement and

defense of employment disputes arising from its call-center operations there. Ganjaei also hired El

Paso legal counsel to represent HGSI in the employment disputes and supervised their Texas-based

work.

48. In 2014, Ganjaei prepared and filed with the Texas Secretary of State’s office on

behalf of HGSI an application for registration as a foreign for-profit corporation in Texas. The

application listed Ganjaei as a member of HGSI’s board of directors. As Ganjaei intended, his

filing authorized HGSI to do business in Texas with Synergy.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 16 016 49. In 2015, Ganjaei attended an HGSI board meeting held in El Paso and toured

HGSI’s El Paso-based call centers. At the time, HGSI’s El Paso call centers provided services to

Humana, and payments to HGSI for those services resulted in payments to Synergy, distributions

to HBI, and profit-sharing payments to Ganjaei.

50. Ganjaei has long been HBI’s point of contact and representative for Synergy and

spoke over the telephone with Dallas-based McCain regarding Synergy matters regularly and

several times a year. Ganjaei also called and attended Synergy’s board meetings in which McCain

participated from Texas.

51. Ganjaei also orchestrated this Texas litigation knowing the unscrupulous origins

and fraudulent basis of the Broker Agreement. At Ganjaei’s direction, Synergy brought this action

in Texas on December 30, 2019, and on the same day it obtained a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”) that purported to require HGSI to make the “contractual” payments now under review.

Synergy’s application and the TRO itself suffered from glaring defects, including a complete

absence of admissible evidence supporting it (both declarations submitted by Synergy lacked a

jurat), the unavailability of a mandatory injunction or one granting an award of monetary damages

under these circumstances, and the absence of an expiration date in the TRO. Also glaringly

missing was disclosure of the Broker Agreement’s origins, its fraudulent basis, and the plain

language of the Broker Agreement that was in conflict with the requested relief.

52. Despite a motion by HGSI to dissolve the TRO on these and other grounds, and

again at the knowing direction of Ganjaei, Synergy pursued a motion to enforce the TRO and

induced an Associate Judge to grant the motion on January 8, 2020, forcing HGSI to pay Synergy

more than $650,000 pursuant to the TRO and enforcement order. Synergy’s conduct was wrongful,

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 17 017 and as a result of the TRO’s manifest defects Synergy abandoned its application for a temporary

injunction and agreed that the TRO should be dissolved.

53. In March 2020, Ganjaei participated in this action by submitting a declaration in

support of Synergy’s motion for protection. Ganjaei also communicated by email and telephone

with McCain and Synergy’s counsel in Texas regarding Synergy’s strategy in pursuing this case

and his legal work for Synergy on, among other things, the Broker Agreement and the relationships

between Synergy, the HGS Parties, and the HGSI Fiduciaries and HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries,

including Ganjaei himself. Counsel for Synergy and Ganjaei have communicated while in Texas

about efforts to thwart discovery concerning HBI’s ownership structure and the connections

between Ganjaei and HGSI Fiduciaries and between Ganjaei and the HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries.

54. Ganjaei has in Texas committed multiple violations of his professional obligations.

At various times, Ganjaei delivered to Synergy’s lawyers located in Texas confidential and

privileged documents belonging to the HGS Parties. These disclosures were not authorized by the

HGS Parties and violated Ganjaei’s professional obligations to the HGS Parties. The unauthorized

disclosures include documents Synergy submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment

it filed on February 7, 2021.

55. Ganjaei also engaged the same Texas counsel to represent him in this matter.

Through his counsel, Ganjaei directed demands to Texas that HGSI indemnify and advance

Ganjaei’s legal fees as incurred in Texas.

56. Ganjaei is also the Manager of Mesilla, a Texas LLC. HBI is the sole managing

member of Mesilla. On July 30, 2017, HGSI’s board of directors approved a lease agreement

between Mesilla and HGS Healthcare (“Lease Agreement”). Under this Lease Agreement, Mesilla

agreed to lease used office furniture and equipment to HGS Healthcare on an as-is basis for HGS

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 18 018 Healthcare’s operations in El Paso, Texas. At the time the Lease Agreement was approved and

signed, Ganjaei was a member of HGSI’s board of directors as well as legal counsel to HGSI and

its various subsidiaries, including HGS Healthcare. The Lease Agreement was executed between

Mesilla and HGS Healthcare on November 27, 2018.

57. A few months after the Lease Agreement was signed, Ganjaei became a manager

of HGS Healthcare.

58. An independent valuation of the equipment in May 2017 concluded that the fair

value of Mesilla’s equipment was only $113,500. The Lease Agreement however required HGS

Healthcare to pay Mesilla a whopping $360,000 over the course of just one year—roughly three

times the fair market value of the equipment.

59. Remi, Ganjaei, and the HGS Fiduciaries of the HGS Parties who stood to gain from

the Lease Agreement exerted their significant influence over the leadership of the HGS Parties to

force HGSI to approve the Lease Agreement and HGS Healthcare to sign the Lease Agreement.

Each director of HGSI and the President of HGS Healthcare understood and believed that anyone

who refused to approve the Lease Agreement would be demoted or fired.

60. By forcing HGS Healthcare to pay an inflated, unreasonable fee for used office

equipment provided on an as-is basis, Ganjaei successfully diverted hundreds of thousands of

dollars in payments under the Lease Agreement to Remi, himself, and HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries.

61. In October 2019, Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGSI Fiduciaries and HGS Healthcare

Fiduciaries affiliated with HBI resigned from HGSI’s board of directors after information came to

light suggesting that HBI’s ownership structure and funds had been abused for the benefit of Remi,

his cousins, Ganjaei, and other HGSI Fiduciaries and HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 19 019 Count I (Breach of Contract—HGSI v. Synergy)

62. HGSI realleges each of the preceding allegations.

63. Synergy billed and collected monies from the HGS Parties related to services being

provided by the HGS Parties under the Humana MSA. Synergy’s conduct in billing and collecting

these monies was wrongful and in breach of the Broker Agreement.

64. The Broker Agreement states that Synergy is entitled to claim compensation only

for future customers secured for HGSI after the Broker Agreement was executed. Section 3 of the

Broker Agreement provides that Synergy is entitled to claim a brokerage fee only “[i]n the event

that[,] as a result of” Synergy’s “contacts” with “the potential Customer,” and only if the potential

customer and HGSI “enter into a written agreement for the providing of Services,” something that

can be done only if the customer had not already entered into a contract. The Exhibits to the Broker

Agreement similarly require that the potential customer’s “Brokerage Fee period . . . begins” at a

future time when HGSI “enter[s] into an agreement” with the potential customer.

65. At the time the Broker Agreement was executed, Humana had been a pre-existing

customer of HGSI for over seven (7) years. Because Humana was a pre-existing customer (and

not a potential customer), the Broker Agreement did not entitle Synergy to claim any right to

compensation. And, because Humana had entered into the MSA with HGSI in 2003, over seven

years before the Broker Agreement, Synergy was not entitled to claim any right to compensation

for services provided to Humana under the MSA.

66. Synergy breached the Broker Agreement by billing the HGS Parties for

compensation related to the services provided to Humana under the Humana MSA. Synergy also

breached the Broker Agreement by collecting monies as compensation related to services provided

to Humana under the Humana MSA.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 20 020 67. As a result of these breaches, HGSI has suffered substantial damages totaling

millions of dollars.

Count II (Money Had and Received—HGS Healthcare v. Synergy)

68. The HGS Parties reallege each of the preceding allegations.

69. Synergy wrongfully collected millions of dollars in monies from HGS Healthcare

(“wrongfully collected monies”).

70. Synergy holds the wrongfully collected monies.

71. The wrongfully collected monies belong to HGS Healthcare in equity and good

conscience.

72. The wrongfully collected monies must be returned to HGS Healthcare.

Count III (Breaches of Fiduciary Duties—HGSI v. Ganjaei)

73. HGSI realleges each of the preceding allegations.

74. Fiduciary relationships existed at all relevant times between HGSI and Ganjaei,

who as legal counsel to HGSI and a member of its board from 2010 through 2019 had ongoing

duties and obligations to HGSI. These fiduciary duties included duties of care, good faith, and

loyalty.

75. From 2011 through the present, Ganjaei, Remi, and other HGSI Fiduciaries

breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith, and loyalty to HGSI. They did so by, among

other ways:

 failing to disclose to HGSI that HBI acquired a controlling interest in Synergy before

HGSI’s president signed the Broker Agreement in April 2011;

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 21 021  failing to disclose to HGSI that HBI acquired the controlling interest in Synergy for the

purpose of personally benefitting Ganjaei, Remi, and a subgroup of the Hinduja family;

 failing to disclose to HGSI that Ganjaei, Remi, and other HGSI Fiduciaries set up and

operated HBI to belong to and benefit a subgroup of the Hinduja family;

 approving the Broker Agreement and advising and directing HGSI’s president to sign

it;

 usurping HGSI’s opportunity to acquire HBI or an interest in HBI;

 usurping HGSI’s opportunity to acquire Synergy or an interest in Synergy;

 usurping HGSI’s opportunity to acquire the Colombian call centers from Media

Commerce Partners;

 directing and allowing HGSI from 2011 through 2017 to pay sham “Brokerage Fees”

to Synergy;

 directing and allowing HGSI to pay sham “Brokerage Fees” to Synergy; and

 personally benefitting from the sham “Brokerage Fees” HGSI paid to Synergy without

authorization.

76. Ganjaei also breached his fiduciary duties by supervising and controlling Synergy’s

business activities through his role as HBI’s representative to Synergy from 2010 through the

present. HGSI was injured each time Synergy was involved in their acquisition of new lines of

business covered by the Broker Agreement as it purportedly required HGSI to make further

payments to Synergy under the guise of the Broker Agreement which were then diverted to Remi,

Ganjaei, and other HGSI Fiduciaries through HBI. As Ganjaei knew and intended, hundreds of

thousands of dollars in the ill-gotten gains benefitted and were paid to Synergy and McCain in

Texas.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 22 022 77. Ganjaei further breached his fiduciary duties to HGSI in his capacity as HGSI’s

legal counsel and/or as a member of its board of directors by advising and causing HGSI and its

subsidiaries or affiliates to enter into subsequent broker agreements with Synergy, thus allowing

Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGSI Fiduciaries to divert to themselves the benefit of payments by

HGSI under those agreements. Ganjaei also breached his fiduciary duties by directing Synergy to

seek unfair commission rates when negotiating these broker agreements.

78. Ganjaei further breached his fiduciary duties to HGSI in his capacity as HGSI’s

legal counsel and/or as a member of its board of directors by, among other things, advising and

causing HGSI and its subsidiaries to enter into subcontracting agreements with call centers that

Ganjaei and Remi controlled through HBI in Colombia and diverting to himself, Remi, and other

HGSI Fiduciaries the benefits of payments by HGSI and its subsidiaries under those agreements.

79. Ganjaei committed, and continues to commit, breaches of his ongoing duty of

disclosure to HGSI by failing to provide full disclosure of all material facts regarding the nature

of his own interests and the interests of Remi and other HGSI Fiduciaries in HBI, HGIL, the Broker

Agreement, subsequent broker agreements, and the Colombian call centers.

80. Between 2019 and the present, Ganjaei committed new breaches of his fiduciary

duties and ethical obligations to HGSI as its former legal counsel by, among other ways:

 representing Synergy in its efforts to collect payments under the Broker Agreement

from HGSI;

 disclosing and using information he obtained from HGSI while serving as their legal

counsel to the detriment of HGSI and for his own benefit and the benefit of others;

 engaging Texas counsel for Synergy to bring and prosecute this lawsuit against HGSI

in this Court and developing and executing with Synergy and Texas counsel a strategy

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 23 023 of disclosing to counsel and encouraging counsel to use in this lawsuit HGSI’s

privileged and confidential documents and information against HSGI in this litigation;

and

 refusing to return to HGSI the files relating to legal work Ganjaei supervised or

performed on behalf of HGSI as its legal counsel.

81. These breaches of fiduciary duty injured HGSI, and ongoing and future breaches

will continue to injure HGSI unless the Court restrains them. These breaches of fiduciary duty

benefited, and will continue to benefit, Remi, Ganjaei, and the other HGSI Fiduciaries.

82. HGSI is entitled to recover from Ganjaei the damages proximately caused by the

various breaches of fiduciary duties and to require Ganjaei to disgorge any benefits he received as

a result of the breaches, including payments under the Broker Agreement and any subsequent

broker agreements and to take other corrective measures, including production to counsel for

HGSI, and a full accounting for, all files relating to HGSI in Ganjaei’s possession, custody, or

control.

Count IV (Breaches of Fiduciary Duties—HGS Healthcare v. Ganjaei)

83. HGS Healthcare realleges each of the preceding allegations.

84. Fiduciary relationships existed at all relevant times between HGS Healthcare and

Ganjaei, who as legal counsel to HGS Healthcare, a member of its Board of Directors from at least

July 2018 to October 2019, and a member of its Board of Managers from at least June 2019 until

October 2019. These fiduciary duties included duties of care, good faith, and loyalty.

85. From 2017 through the present, Ganjaei, Remi, and other HGS Healthcare

Fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith, and loyalty to HGS Healthcare.

They did so by, among other ways:

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 24 024  failing to disclose to HGS Healthcare that HBI acquired a controlling interest in

Synergy before HGSI’s president signed the Broker Agreement in April 2011;

 failing to disclose to HGS Healthcare that HBI acquired the controlling interest in

Synergy for the purpose of personally benefitting Ganjaei, Remi, and a subgroup of the

Hinduja family;

 failing to disclose to HGS Healthcare that Ganjaei, Remi, and other HGS Healthcare

Fiduciaries set up and operated HBI to belong to and benefit a subgroup of the Hinduja

family, including Remi;

 directing and allowing HGS Healthcare from 2017 through 2019 to pay sham

“Brokerage Fees” to Synergy; and

 personally benefitting from the sham “Brokerage Fees” HGSI paid to Synergy without

86. Ganjaei also breached his fiduciary duties by supervising and controlling Synergy’s

business activities through his role as HBI’s representative to Synergy from 2010 through the

present. HGS Healthcare was injured each time Synergy was involved in their acquisition of new

lines of business covered by the Broker Agreement as it purportedly required HGS Healthcare to

make further payments to Synergy under the guise of the Broker Agreement which were then

diverted to Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries through HBI. As Ganjaei knew

and intended, hundreds of thousands of dollars in the ill-gotten gains benefitted and were paid to

Synergy and McCain in Texas.

87. Ganjaei further breached his fiduciary duties to HGS Healthcare in his capacity as

HGS Healthcare legal counsel and/or as a member of its Board of Directors and Board of Managers

by advising and causing HGS Healthcare and its subsidiaries or affiliates to enter into subsequent

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 25 025 broker agreements with Synergy, thus allowing Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGS Healthcare

Fiduciaries to divert to themselves the benefit of payments by HGS Healthcare under those

agreements. Ganjaei also breached his fiduciary duties by directing Synergy to seek unfair

commission rates when negotiating these broker agreements.

88. Ganjaei further breached his fiduciary duties to HGS Healthcare in his capacity as

HGS Healthcare’s legal counsel and/or as a member of its Board of Directors and Board of

Managers by, among other things, advising and causing HGS Healthcare and its subsidiaries to

enter into subcontracting agreements with call centers that Ganjaei and Remi controlled through

HBI in Colombia and diverting to himself, Remi, and other HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries the

benefits of payments by HGSI and its subsidiaries under those agreements.

89. Ganjaei committed, and continues to commit, breaches of his ongoing duty of

disclosure to HGS Healthcare by failing to provide full disclosure of all material facts regarding

the nature of his own interests and the interests of Remi and other HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries in

HBI, HGIL, the Broker Agreement, subsequent broker agreements, and the Colombian call

centers.

90. Between 2019 and the present, Ganjaei committed new breaches of his fiduciary

duties and ethical obligations to HGS Healthcare as its former legal counsel by, among other ways:

 representing Synergy in its efforts to collect payments under the Broker Agreement;

 disclosing and using information he obtained from HGS Healthcare while serving as

their legal counsel to the detriment of HGS Healthcare and for his own benefit and the

benefit of others;

 engaging Texas counsel for Synergy to bring and prosecute this lawsuit in this Court

and developing and executing with Synergy and Texas counsel a strategy of disclosing

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 26 026 to them and encouraging them to use in this lawsuit privileged and confidential

documents and information that belong to HGS Healthcare against them in this

litigation; and

 refusing to return to HGS Healthcare the files relating to legal work Ganjaei supervised

or performed on behalf of HGS Healthcare as its legal counsel.

91. These breaches of fiduciary duty injured HGS Healthcare, and ongoing and future

breaches will continue to injure HGS Healthcare unless the Court restrains them. These breaches

of fiduciary duty benefited, and will continue to benefit, Remi, Ganjaei, and the other HGS

Healthcare Fiduciaries.

92. HGS Healthcare is entitled to recover from Ganjaei the damages proximately

caused by the various breaches of fiduciary duties and to require Ganjaei to disgorge any benefits

he received as a result of the breaches, including payments under the Broker Agreement and any

subsequent broker agreements and to take other corrective measures, including production to

counsel for HGS Healthcare, and a full accounting for, all files relating to HGS Healthcare in

Ganjaei’s possession, custody, or control.

Count V (Knowing Participation in Breaches of Fiduciary Duties—HGSI v. Synergy)

93. HGSI realleges each of the preceding allegations.

94. Fiduciary relationships existed at all relevant times between HGSI and Ganjaei,

who as legal counsel to HGSI and a member of its board from 2010 through 2019 had ongoing

duties and obligations to HGSI. These fiduciary duties included duties of care, good faith, and

95. From 2011 through the present, Ganjaei, Remi, and other HGSI Fiduciaries

breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith, and loyalty to HGSI.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 27 027 96. Synergy participated in the various breaches of fiduciary duties by Remi, Ganjaei

and other HGSI Fiduciaries because, among other things, it executed the sham Broker Agreement

and subsequent broker agreements with HGSI and transferred the funds it received from HGSI to

HBI for the benefit of Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGSI Fiduciaries.

97. Synergy knowingly participated in the breaches of fiduciary duties committed by

Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGSI Fiduciaries because it was controlled and owned by Remi, Ganjaei,

and these same HGSI Fiduciaries.

98. The breaches of fiduciary duty injured HGSI and benefited Synergy, Remi,

Ganjaei, and the HGSI Fiduciaries.

99. HGSI is entitled to recover from Synergy the damages proximately caused by the

breaches of fiduciary duty, including funds paid by HGSI to Synergy that ultimately benefitted the

HGSI Fiduciaries, and to require Synergy to disgorge any benefits it received as a result of the

breaches, including payments under the Broker Agreement, and to take other corrective measures.

Count VI (Knowing Participation in Breaches of Fiduciary Duties—HGS Healthcare v. Ganjaei)

100. HGS Healthcare realleges each of the preceding allegations.

101. Fiduciary relationships existed at all relevant times between HGS Healthcare and

Ganjaei, who as legal counsel to HGS Healthcare, a member of its Board of Directors from at least

July 2018 to October 2019, and a member of its Board of Managers from at least June 2019 until

October 2019, had ongoing duties and obligations to HGS Healthcare. These fiduciary duties

included duties of care, good faith, and loyalty.

102. From 2017 through the present, Ganjaei, Remi, and other HGS Healthcare

Fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith, and loyalty to HGS Healthcare.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 28 028 103. Synergy participated in the various breaches of fiduciary duties by Remi, Ganjaei

and other HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries because, among other things, it distributed funds it received

from HGS Healthcare to HBI for the benefit of Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGS Healthcare

Fiduciaries.

104. Synergy knowingly participated in the breaches of fiduciary duties committed by

Remi, Ganjaei, and other HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries because it was controlled and owned by

Remi, Ganjaei, and these same HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries.

105. The breaches of fiduciary duty injured HGS Healthcare and benefited Synergy,

Remi, Ganjaei, and the HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries.

106. HGS Healthcare is entitled to recover from Synergy the damages proximately

caused by the breaches of fiduciary duty, including funds paid by HGS Healthcare to Synergy that

ultimately benefitted the HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries, and to require Synergy to disgorge any

benefits it received as a result of the breaches, including payments under the Broker Agreement,

and to take other corrective measures.

Count VII (Civil Conspiracy to Cause Breaches of Fiduciary Duties—HGSI v. All Counter- Defendants)

107. HGSI realleges each of the preceding allegations.

108. Fiduciary relationships existed at all relevant times between HGSI and Ganjaei,

who as legal counsel to HGSI and a member of its board from 2010 through 2019 had ongoing

duties and obligations to HGSI. These fiduciary duties included duties of care, good faith, and

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 29 029 109. From 2011 through the present, Ganjaei, Remi, and other HGSI Fiduciaries

breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith, and loyalty to HGSI. The breaches of fiduciary

duty injured HGSI and benefited Synergy, Remi, Ganjaei, and the other HGSI Fiduciaries.

110. HGSI is entitled to recover from Synergy and Ganjaei the damages proximately

caused by the breaches of fiduciary duties, including funds paid by HGSI to Synergy that

ultimately benefitted Remi, Ganjaei and other HGSI Fiduciaries, and to require Synergy and

Ganjaei to disgorge any benefits either of them received as a result of the breaches, including

payments under the Broker Agreement, and to take other corrective measures.

Count VIII (Civil Conspiracy to Cause Breaches of Fiduciary Duties—HGS Healthcare v. All Counter- Defendants)

111. HGS Healthcare realleges each of the preceding allegations.

112. Fiduciary relationships existed at all relevant times between HGS Healthcare and

Ganjaei, who as legal counsel to HGS Healthcare, a member of its Board of Directors from at least

July 2018 to October 2019, and a member of its Board of Managers from at least June 2019 until

October 2019, had ongoing duties and obligations to HGS Healthcare. These fiduciary duties

113. From 2011 through the present, Ganjaei, Remi, and other HGS Healthcare

Fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith, and loyalty to HGS Healthcare.

114. The breaches of fiduciary duty injured HGS Healthcare and benefited Synergy,

Remi, Ganjaei, and the other HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries.

115. HGS Healthcare is entitled to recover from Synergy and Ganjaei the damages

proximately caused by the breaches of fiduciary duties, including funds paid by HGS Healthcare

to Synergy that ultimately benefitted Remi, Ganjaei and other HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries, and to

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 30 030 require Synergy and Ganjaei to disgorge any benefits either of them received as a result of the

breaches, including payments under the Broker Agreement, and to take other corrective measures.

Count IX (False Advertising—HGS Parties v. Synergy)

116. The HGS Parties reallege each of the preceding allegations.

117. Synergy made false statements of fact about its services and commercial services

in commercial advertisements, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

118. The statements actually deceived or have a tendency to deceive a substantial

segment of their audience.

119. The deception is likely to influence a purchasing decision.

120. Synergy caused the false statements to enter interstate commerce.

121. The HGS Parties were injured as a result.

122. The HGS Parties are entitled to recover, under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), Synergy’s

profits as well as the damages incurred by the HGS Parties, and the costs of this action.

Count X (Injunctive Relief—HGS Parties v. All Counter-Defendants)

123. The HGS Parties reallege each of the preceding allegations.

124. Synergy and Ganjaei’s wrongful conduct has caused and, unless the Court restrains

them, will continue to cause irreparable injury to the HGS Parties, including through loss of

goodwill and reputation. The HGS Parties accordingly request the Court to enter temporary and

permanent injunctions (a) prohibiting Synergy and Ganjaei from continuing to engage in wrongful

conduct alleged above and (b) correcting effects of the wrongful conduct.

Count XI (Wrongful Injunction and Enforcement Order—HGSI v. All Counter-Defendants)

125. HGSI realleges each of the preceding allegations.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 31 031 126. Synergy and Ganjaei wrongfully obtained the TRO and the order enforcing it.

Synergy’s and Ganjaei’s wrongful conduct injured HGSI. HGSI seeks return of its payment

resulting from the wrongful injunction and enforcement order and all other available damages and

relief.

Count XII (Declaratory Judgment—HGS Parties v. All Counter-Defendants)

127. The HGS Parties reallege each of the preceding allegations.

128. The Broker Agreement provides that Synergy is entitled to claim a brokerage fee

only “[i]n the event that[,] as a result of” Synergy’s “contacts” with “the potential Customer,” and

only if the potential customer and HGSI “enter into a written agreement for the providing of

Services,” something that can only be done if the customer had not already entered into a contract.

The exhibits to the Broker Agreement similarly require that the potential customer’s “Brokerage

Fee period . . . begins” only in the future when HGSI “enter[s] into an agreement” with the potential

customer.

129. At the time the Broker Agreement was executed, Humana had been a pre-existing

customer of HGSI and HGSI had been providing services to Humana under the Humana MSA for

over seven years.

130. The HGS Parties thus seek a declaration that the Broker Agreement did not entitle

Synergy to any monies related to the services provided by the HGS Parties’ to Humana under the

Humana MSA.

15. The Broker Agreement states that Synergy is entitled to claim compensation only

for future customers secured for HGSI after the Broker Agreement was executed. See e.g., Broker

Agreement, Section 3, which provides that Synergy is entitled to claim a brokerage fee only “[i]n

the event that[,] as a result of” Synergy’s “contacts” with “the potential Customer,” and only if the

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 32 032 potential customer and HGSI “enter into a written agreement for the providing of Services,”

something that can only be done if the customer had not already entered into a contract. The

Exhibits to the Broker Agreement similarly require that the potential customer’s “Brokerage Fee

period . . . begins” at a future time when HGSI “enter[s] into an agreement” with the potential

131. At the time the Broker Agreement was executed, Humana had been a pre-existing

customer of HGSI for over seven (7) years. Because Humana was a pre-existing customer (and

not a potential customer), the Broker Agreement did not entitle Synergy to claim any right to

compensation. And, because Humana had entered into the MSA with HGSI in 2003, over seven

years before the Broker Agreement, Synergy was not entitled to claim any right to compensation

132. Synergy breached the Broker Agreement by billing the HGS Parties for

compensation related to the services provided to Humana under the Humana MSA. Synergy also

breached the Broker Agreement by collecting monies as compensation related to services provided

133. The involvement of the HGSI Fiduciaries and HGS Healthcare Fiduciaries in

ownership, control, and legal representation of Synergy and its affiliates, in direct or indirect

receipt of payments and other benefits in connection with the sham Broker Agreement, other

broker agreements and otherwise, and in their connections to HBI, HBI affiliates, and HGSI’s

publicly-traded parent, raises substantial questions regarding the legality of the payments under

the sham Broker Agreement and other broker agreements and otherwise in light of applicable law.

134. Synergy and Ganjaei deny that the involvement of HGSI Fiduciaries and HGS

Healthcare Fiduciaries presents any issues of legality or enforceability, and a substantial and actual

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 33 033 controversy exists between the parties regarding those questions. The subject matter of the Office

of Foreign Asset Control investigation raises additional legality concerns. The HGS Parties seek a

judgment declaring whether the circumstances alleged above render the sham Broker Agreement

or payments under it are unenforceable or illegal under applicable law. The HGS Parties seek an

award of its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as well as all other appropriate relief under

Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Statement Concerning Statute of Limitations

135. The counterclaims of the HGS Parties did not accrue until at the earliest September

2019. The injury suffered by the HGS Parties by virtue of the various breaches of fiduciary duty

was inherently undiscoverable and was objectively unverifiable before September 2019 at the

earliest, and the HGS Parties neither knew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have

known of the injury any earlier.

136. Additionally, Ganjaei and Synergy had actual knowledge of the wrongs alleged

herein with respect to the various breaches of fiduciary duties and the wrongs were purposefully

concealed by Ganjaei and Synergy by making a misrepresentation and/or remaining silent when

they had a duty to speak. The HGS Parties reasonably relied on those misrepresentations and

silence by not pursuing its claim for breaches of fiduciary duty at an earlier date.

137. Additionally, Ganjaei and other wrongdoers were in control of the HGS Parties

until September 2019.

138. Further, breaches of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy to engage in breaches of

fiduciary duty occurred within the two years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and within two

years of joining Ganjaei as a counter-defendant and will occur in the future.

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 34 034 139. HGS Healthcare’s counterclaims were filed prior to the 30th day after its answer

was required. Thus, HGS Healthcare’s counterclaims are not subject to any statute-of-limitations

defense. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 16.069.

Attorney’s Fees

140. Pursuant to Chapter 37.009, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, the HGS

Parties seek their costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.

141. Pursuant to Chapter 38.001, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, the HGS

Parties seek their reasonable attorney’s fees.

Exemplary Damages

142. Because Synergy and Ganjaei acted with fraud, malice and gross negligence, the

HGS Parties are also entitled to recover exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the

trier of fact under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Prayer

143. The HGS Parties request that the Court enter judgment dismissing Synergy’s claims

with prejudice; directing that Synergy take nothing by its claims; and awarding the HGS Parties

all appropriate relief, including actual and exemplary damages, disgorgement, profits, temporary

and permanent injunctions, declaratory relief, reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, and costs.

Respectfully submitted,

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

/s/ Barry Barnett Barry Barnett State Bar No. 01778700 5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75225 Phone: 866-754-1900 Fax: 713-654-6666

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 35 035 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com

Ophelia Camina State Bar No. 03681500 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713-653-7803 Fax: 713-654-6666 ocamina@susmangodfrey.com

Counsel for Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. and HGS Healthcare, LLC

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 36 036 VERIFICATION

1. My name is Tanner Laiche, my date of birth is February 28, 1992, and my business

address is 401 Union Street, Suite 3000, Seattle, WA 98101, in the United States of America. I

declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration is made in

accordance with Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ann. § 132.001.

2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of California and Washington.

I am admitted pro hac vice to practice law in the State of Texas on this matter.

3. I am an Attorney with the firm of Susman Godfrey, L.L.P.

4. In the deposition of Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC, on March 30, 2022, Wilkes

McCain testified that an alleged oral contract was made with Innovative Outsourcing, LLC, that

Synergy is a distinct entity from Innovative Outsourcing, LLC, that the alleged oral contract began

before Synergy came into existence, and that Synergy did not exist when the Master Services

Agreement between Humana and HGSI’s predecessor was executed.

5. Based on my personal review of the aforementioned sworn deposition testimony,

I verify that the affirmative defenses in paragraph 5 above are true and correct.

Tanner Laiche

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This certifies that on the 26th day of April, 2023, my office properly forwarded a true and

correct copy of HGS Parties’ Seventh Amended Answer and Counterclaims to counsel of record

in accordance with Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure via electronic filing.

/s/ Barry Barnett Barry Barnett

HGS PARTIES’ SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS – Page 37 037 E-filed in the Office of the Clerk for the Business Court of Texas 10/1/2024 9:56 PM Accepted by: Beverly Cruml Case Number: 24-BC01B-0007 24-BC01B-0007 CAUSE NO. _______________________________

SYNERGY GLOBAL § IN THE BUSINESS COURT OUTSOURCING, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, § INC. AND HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC § § FIRST BUSINESS COURT DIVISION Defendants. § § § § § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO BUSINESS COURT

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 355, Plaintiff Synergy Global Outsourcing,

LLC, hereby remove this action to the First Business Court Division of the Business Court of

Texas, and show as follows:

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The business court has authority and jurisdiction over this action. TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(b)(2).

The business court has jurisdiction over Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty counterclaims

against Ali Ganjaei and Synergy (April 27, 2023 HGS Parties’ 7th Am. Answer and

Counterclaims, Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII) because the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million

and Defendants assert claims against Ali Ganjaei for his role as Defendants’ board member and

legal counsel and conspiracy and knowing participation claims regarding the same breaches. See

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 25A.004(b)(4) (“an action by an organization, or an owner of an

organization, if the action: (A) is brought against an owner, controlling person, or managerial

Notice of Removal to Business Court Page 1 of 4 038 official of the organization; and (B) alleges an act or omission by the person in the person’s

capacity as an owner, controlling person, or managerial official of the organization). See also TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 25A.004(b)(5) (“an action alleging that an owner, controlling person, or

managerial official breached a duty owed to an organization or an owner of an organization by

reason of the person’s status as an owner, controlling person, or managerial official, including the

breach of a duty of loyalty or good faith”.)

The business court also has jurisdiction over Defendants’ claim for injunctive relief (HGS

Parties’ 7th Am. Answer and Counterclaims, Count X) regarding the alleged breaches also within

the Court’s jurisdiction under TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 25A.004(b). See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 25A.004(e).

The business court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

Texas Government Code Sections 25A.004(b) and 25A.004(e).

II. PERSONAL JURISDICTION

This Notice is being filed subject to Counter-Defendant Ali Ganjaei’s Special Appearances

filed in the 191st District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

III. VENUE

Venue is proper in the First Business Court Division. TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(b)(2)(B); TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 25A.003(c). Because the 191st District Court of Dallas County, Texas,

previously had jurisdiction over this case, the First Business Court Division, with jurisdiction over

Dallas County, is the proper venue for this removal. Compare Pl.’s 2d Amend. Pet. ¶ 6 (citing TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.002) (alleging that venue is proper in Dallas County because

all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in this

county), with TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 25A.006(a) (providing that “[t]he party filing the action

Notice of Removal to Business Court Page 2 of 4 039 must plead facts to establish venue in a county in a division of the business court, and the business

court shall assign the action to that division.”).

IV. TIMELINESS

All parties do not agree to this removal. TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(b)(1). This removal is

nevertheless timely filed because it is filed within thirty days of the day that Plaintiff discovered

“facts establishing the business court’s authority to hear the action.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(c)(2)(A).

Those facts are: (1) the business court gained authority to hear this case on September 1, 2024, Act

of May 25, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 380, § 8; and (2) the business court has jurisdiction and

venue over this case for the foregoing reasons.

V. APPENDIX

Appended to this notice of removal is a true and correct copy of the docket sheet for Cause

No. DC-19-20539 pending in the 191st District Court of Dallas County, Texas attached hereto as

Exhibit A. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(b)(3). The Original Petition in this lawsuit was first filed on

December 30, 2019 and copies of “all process, pleadings, and orders in the action” are extremely

voluminous; the docket sheet alone is 86 pages. Plaintiff will supplement with copies as soon as

practicable.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff hereby removes this case from the191st District Court

of Dallas County, Texas to the First Business Court Division and notifies all parties of the same.

DATED: October 1, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael Hurst Michael K. Hurst State Bar No. 10316310 mhurst@lynnllp.com

Notice of Removal to Business Court Page 3 of 4 040 Gregory A. Brassfield State Bar No. 240799900 gbrassfield@lynnllp.com Daniela Vera Holmes State Bar No. 24124113 dholmes@lynnllp.com Leo Park State Bar No. 24122983 lpark@lynnllp.com

LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3800 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record via Texas E-file and Email on October 1, 2024.

/s/ Michael Hurst Michael K. Hurst

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On October 1, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff attempted to confer with counsel for Defendants regarding this Notice of Removal by phone and by email, but no response was received. Plaintiff presumes Defendants do not consent to removal.

Notice of Removal to Business Court Page 4 of 4 041 EXHIBIT A

042 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

Case Information

DC-19-20539 | SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLC vs. HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

Case Number Court Judicial Officer DC-19-20539 191st District Court SLAUGHTER, GENA File Date Case Type Case Status 12/30/2019 CNTR CNSMR COM DEBT OPEN

Party

PLAINTIFF Active Attorneys  SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLC Attorney PARK, LEO DAESU Retained

Attorney HURST, MICHAEL K Retained

Lead Attorney BRASSFIELD, GREGORY A Retained

DEFENDANT Active Attorneys  HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Lead Attorney BARNETT, BARRY C Retained

DEFENDANT Active Attorneys  HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC Lead Attorney 043 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 1/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details BARNETT, BARRY C Retained

DEFENDANT Active Attorneys  Ganjaei, Ali Lead Attorney MCKAY, BRANDI JO Retained

DEFENDANT Active Attorneys  Ganjaei, Ali Lead Attorney MCKAY, BRANDI JO Retained

Bond

Bond Type Bond Number Bond Amount Current Bond Status

TRO CASH BOND $1,000.00 POSTED

Events and Hearings

12/30/2019 NEW CASE FILED (OCA) - CIVIL

12/30/2019 ORIGINAL PETITION 

ORIGINAL PETITION

044 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 2/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

12/30/2019 ORDER - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

ORDER - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

12/30/2019 BOND FILED

12/30/2019 TRUST RECEIPT 

TRUST RECEIPT

12/31/2019 REQUEST FOR SERVICE 

REQUEST FOR SERVICE

12/31/2019 ISSUE CITATION 

ISSUE CITATION

01/02/2020 RETURN OF SERVICE 

EXECUTED CITATION - HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

Comment EXECUTED CITATION - HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

01/06/2020 MOTION - COMPEL 

PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Comment PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY - AND MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER

01/06/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING - EMER M/COMPEL AND SHOW CAUSE

Comment EMER M/COMPEL AND SHOW CAUSE

01/06/2020 RETURN OF SERVICE 

Comment EXECUTED CITATION - HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUATIONS, INC.

01/06/2020 CITATION 

Served 01/06/2020

Anticipated Server ESERVE 045 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 3/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Anticipated Method Actual Server PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER

Returned 01/07/2020 Comment HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INC.

01/07/2020 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment COURT. COPY RECD - TAKEN TO JUDGE PURDY

01/07/2020 RETURN OF SERVICE 

EXECUTED CITATION - HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC

Comment EXECUTED CITATION - HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC

01/08/2020 Motion - Compel 

Judicial Officer PURDY, MONICA

Hearing Time 09:15 AM

Comment if court reporter needed to bring own.

01/08/2020 MOTION - DISSOLVE 

MOTION DISSOLVE TRO

Comment TRO

01/08/2020 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

OPPOSITION TO EMERG M/COMPEL

Comment OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S EMERGENCY MOTION COMPEL AND FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER

01/08/2020 ORDER - COMPEL 

ORDER - COMPEL

Comment AND SHOW CAUSE

01/08/2020 NOTICE SENT VIA EMAIL/FAX 

NOTICE SENT VIA EMAIL/FAX 046 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 4/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment AJ DECISIOI AND FAX TRANSMITTAL

01/09/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOH -

Comment MOTION TO DISSOLVE TRO

01/10/2020 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

REQUEST/DE NOVOH HRNG--DEF

Comment REQUEST/DE NOVO HRNG

01/13/2020 MOTION - MISCELLANEOUS 

AGREED MOTION DISSOLVE TRO

Comment AGREED MOTION DISSOLVE TRO

01/13/2020 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

AGREED ORDER DISSOLVE TRO

Comment AGREED ORDER DISSOLVE TRO

01/13/2020 RULE 11 

RULE 11 AGREEMENT

Comment RULE 11 AGREEMENT

01/14/2020 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

Notice of Synergy Deposition 1-14-20.pdf

Comment DEFENDANT HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.'S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLC

01/14/2020 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

LETTER TO DEFT FILING REQ FOR PRODUCTION

Comment LETTER TO DEFT FILING 1ST SET REQ FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

01/17/2020 RESPONSE 

047 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 5/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

Comment TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE DEPOSITION

01/17/2020 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

LETTER DEFT FILING RESP TO PLTF 1ST SET REQ PRODUCTION

Comment LETTER DEFT'S RESP TO PLTF 1ST SET OF REQ FOR PRODUCTION

01/24/2020 MOTION HEARING 

Judicial Officer SLAUGHTER, GENA

Hearing Time 02:00 PM

Cancel Reason REQUESTED BY ATTORNEY/PRO SE

Comment (also m/dissolve) TEMP INJ WAS TAKEN OFF BY TONYA IN MICHAEL HURST OFFICE

01/27/2020 ORDER - DISSOLVE 

ORDER - DISSOLVE

Comment TEMORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

01/29/2020 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

DEF(HGSI) /NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS

Comment HGSI'S NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO HBI GROUP INC. AND ALI GANJAEI

HGSI AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

Comment HGSI'S AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO HBI GROUP INC. AND ALI GANJAEI

01/30/2020 MOTION - QUASH 

MOTION - QUASH

02/10/2020 ORIGINAL ANSWER - GENERAL DENIAL 

048 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 6/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details DEF/ORIGINAL ANSWER

02/26/2020 DISCOVERY 

DISCOVERY

03/05/2020 COUNTER CLAIM 

COUNTER CLAIM AND AMENDED ANSWER

Comment AND 1ST AMENDED ANSWER

03/11/2020 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

COD

Comment NARASIMHA MURTHY

03/13/2020 MOTION - DISMISS 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Comment 91A

03/13/2020 MOTION - PROTECT 

PROTECT--ADMIN

03/27/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTION/DISMISS

Comment ON MOTION FOR PROTECTION/DISMISS

04/07/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RE: MOTION PROTECT AND DISMISS (VIA ZOOM)

Comment AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RE: MOTION PROTECT & DISMISS (VIA ZOOM)

04/15/2020 OBJECTION 

HGSI'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Comment HGSI'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

049 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 7/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details OBJECTION

Comment TO SYNERGY'S MOTION FOR PROTECTION

04/17/2020 MOTION - LEAVE 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE / ZACHARY SAVAGE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

Comment FOR ZACHARY SAVAGE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

04/20/2020 RESPONSE 

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS

Comment PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

04/22/2020 Motion - Protect 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RE: MOTION PROTECT AND DISMISS (VIA ZOOM)

OBJECTION

Hearing Time 9:00 AM

Comment ZOOM 1 HR * APRIL SANDEFUR 214 981 3800

04/24/2020 ORDER - DISMISSAL 

ORDER - DISMISSAL

Comment 91A, AS TO DEFENDANT CLAIM FOR KNOWING PARTICIPATION IN A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

04/28/2020 ORDER - PRETRIAL 

ORDER - PRETRIAL

Comment NON JURY

04/29/2020 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT  050 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 8/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details DE NOVO HEARING

Comment DE NOVO HEARING

04/30/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE HEARING REQUEST DE NOVO

Comment REQUEST DE NOVO

05/18/2020 AMENDED ANSWER - AMENDED GENERAL DENIAL 

DEF(HGSI) AMENDED ANSWER AND AMENDED COUNTER CLAIM

Comment AND AMENDED COUNTER CLAIM

05/18/2020 AMENDED CROSS-CLAIM - AMENDED COUNTER-PETITION 

AMENDED CROSS-CLAIM - AMENDED COUNTER-PETITION

Comment AMENDED COUNTER CLAIM

05/22/2020 MOTION HEARING 

DE NOVO HEARING

Hearing Time 02:30 PM

Comment ***ZOOM*** (SET UP BY ATTY) DE NOVO SET BY ZACK SAVAGE 201-615-3944

05/22/2020 MOTION - LEAVE 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE

05/22/2020 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER - GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE

Comment GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE

PROPOSED ORDER ON HGSI MOTION TO DISMISS

051 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 9/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment ON HGSI MOTION TO DISMISS

05/26/2020 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON DE NOVO REVIEW

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON DE NOVO REVIEW

06/08/2020 ORDER - MISC. 

ORDER ON DE NOVO REVIEW

Comment ORDER ON DE NOVO REVIEW

06/10/2020 ORDER - LEAVE 

ORDER - LEAVE

Comment TO AMEND COUNTER-CLAIMS TO JOIN ALI GANJAEI AS COUNTER-DEFENDANT

06/17/2020 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER - PLAINTIFF

06/24/2020 ORDER - MISC. 

ORDER - MISC.

Comment MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED/ MOTION FOR PROTECTION GRANTED

07/01/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

MOTION HEARING NOTICE

Comment MOTION HEARING

07/02/2020 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment COURT COPY RECD - BLACK BINDER IN ADMIN TRAY

07/02/2020 AMENDED ANSWER - AMENDED GENERAL DENIAL 

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER

052 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 10/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND SECOND AMENDED COUNTER CLAIM

07/02/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 07/08/2020 10:00 RE: SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment AMENDED 07/08/2020 10:00 RE: SCHEDULING ORDER

07/02/2020 MOTION - ENTER ORDER 

DEF/ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment HGSI'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

07/06/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE O HEARING - SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment TO ENTER SCHEDULING ORDER

07/08/2020 MOTION HEARING 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 07/08/2020 10:00 RE: SCHEDULING ORDER

Hearing Time 10:00 AM

Cancel Reason BY COURT ADMINISTRATOR

Comment 15 MINS SET BY TONYA 972-854-9479 *SCHEDULING ORDER* INFORMED TONYA ASHWORTH TO INCLUDE EMAIL ADDRESSES IN NOH

07/08/2020 MOTION - PRO HAC VICE 

MOTION PRO HAC VICE - ELIZA FINLEY

Comment ELIZA FINLEY

07/17/2020 MOTION - EXTEND 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Comment FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

053 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 11/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

07/17/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING - MOTION TO EXTEND

Comment ON MOTION TO EXTEND

07/20/2020 MOTION - EXTEND 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Comment - EXTENTION OF TIME FOR DEADLINES

07/20/2020 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

AMENDED CERTIFICATE CONFERENCE/EXTENSION OF TIME-DEFENDANT

Comment AMENDED CERTIFICATE CONFERENCE/EXTENSION OF TIME-DEFENDANT

07/23/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING

Comment AMENDED NOTICE

07/28/2020 WAIVER 

NOTICE OF WAIVER OF CITATION

Comment NOTICE OF WAIVER OF CITATION

08/12/2020 RESPONSE 

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HGSI'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment - PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HGSI'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

08/13/2020 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE TO MOTION EXTENSION OF TIME

Comment TO MOTION EXTENSION OF TIME

08/14/2020 MOTION HEARING 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 054 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 12/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details AMENDED CERTIFICATE CONFERENCE/EXTENSION OF TIME-DEFENDANT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HGSI'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Hearing Time 03:00 PM

Comment MOTION TO ENTER SCHEDULING ORDER, SET BY TYSON GARCIA 832-341-7188, ZOOM ** ALSO, DEF'S EXTEND TIME - ELIZA FINLEY STATED TYSON GARCIA WORKS WITH MS FINLEY @ 310 789 3137 - WAS INFORMED TO INCLUDE PARTICIPANTS EMAIL ADDRESS IN NOH

08/17/2020 SPECIAL APPEARANCE 

SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND ORIGINAL ANSWER SUBJECT TO SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Comment AND ORIGINAL ANSWER SUBJECT TO SPECIAL APPEARANCE

08/18/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Comment NOTICE OF HEARING ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE

08/21/2020 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

LETTER TO JUDGE SLAUGHTER

Comment LETTER TO JUDGE SLAUGHTER

08/21/2020 MOTION - ENTER ORDER 

MOTION - ENTRY FOR SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment FOR SCHEDULING ORDER

08/26/2020 MOTION - PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

PLAINTIFF-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment TRADITIONAL & NO-EVIDENCE

08/31/2020 AFFIDAVIT 

AFFIDAVIT/SUPPORT/AWARD ATTORNEY FEES-OPHELIA CAMINA

055 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 13/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment SUPPORT/AWARD ATTORNEY FEES-OPHELIA CAMINA

09/03/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment ON PLAINTIFFS' TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

09/11/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMETN

Comment AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON PALINTIFF'S TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMETN

09/14/2020 MOTION - COMPEL 

DEF/MOTION TO COMPEL

09/15/2020 MOTION - CONTINUANCE 

MOTION - CONTINUANCE

09/16/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING - MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment MOTION TO COMPEL

NOTICE OF HEARING - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

09/16/2020 MOTION - QUASH 

MOTION TO QUASH - JOHN H. FLOOD III

Comment DEPOSITION OF JOHN H. FLOOD III

MOTION TO QUASH - MCCAIN

056 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 14/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment DEPOSITION OF WILKES MCCAIN

MOTION TO QUASH - SYNERGY GLOBAL

09/22/2020 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

Comment DECLARATION GREGORY BRASSFIELD/IN SUPPORT OF AWARD ATTORNEY FEES

10/07/2020 AMENDED ANSWER - AMENDED GENERAL DENIAL 

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

Comment SECOND AND THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

10/07/2020 RESPONSE 

DEFENDANT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S TRADITIONAL & NO-EVIDENCE MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment - DEFENDANT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S TRADITIONAL & NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/12/2020 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment TO MOTION TO COMPEL

10/14/2020 Motion - Summary Judgment 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DEFENDANT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S TRADITIONAL & NO-EVIDENCE MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Time 9:30 AM

Comment GREG 214-981-3827/ ADDED MOTION TO CONTINUE SYNERGY'S MSJ SET BY KYSE GARCIA 832-341- 7188

057 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 15/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

10/14/2020 Motion - Compel 

Comment 15 MINS SET BY TYSON 832-341-7188

10/14/2020 RESPONSE 

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONTINUE

Comment PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONTINUE

10/16/2020 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON OCTOBER 14, 2020 HEARING

Comment ON AUGUST 14, 2020 HEARING

10/27/2020 ORDER - MISC. 

Comment TO CONTINUE MSJ HEARING

10/29/2020 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING HEARING HELD ON 8/14/20

Comment PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING HEARING HELD ON 8/14/20

11/02/2020 MOTION - COMPEL 

MOTION TO COMPEL

11/03/2020 ORIGINAL ANSWER TO CROSS CLAIM - COUNTER PETITION 

ORIGINAL ANSWER TO COUNTER-CLAIM - SYNERGY

Comment PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

11/03/2020 ORIGINAL ANSWER TO CROSS CLAIM - COUNTER PETITION 

058 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 16/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details ORIGINAL ANSWER TO COUNTER-CLAIM - GANJAEI

Comment COUNTER-DEFENDANT ALI GANJAEI'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL APPEARANCE

11/05/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AND DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment ON DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AND DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

11/09/2020 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER

Comment AMENDED / ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Comment AMENDED / ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE

11/10/2020 ORDER - MISC. 

11/23/2020 VACATION LETTER 

VACATION LETTER - GREGORY BRASSFIELD

Comment VACATION LETTER - GREGORY BRASSFIELD

11/25/2020 AMENDED ANSWER - AMENDED GENERAL DENIAL 

3RD AMENDED ANSWER/4TH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS-DEFENDANT

Comment 3RD AMENDED ANSWER/4TH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

12/01/2020 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS

Comment RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS

059 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 17/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

12/04/2020 Motion - Compel 

Comment & docket control order

12/09/2020 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

NON-SIGNED PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON DEPOSITION OF JOHN FLOOD

PROPOSED ORDER LEVEL III SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment PROPOSED LEVEL III SCHEDULING ORDER

01/07/2021 SCHEDULING ORDER 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment LEVEL 3

02/08/2021 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO EXCEED APPENDIX PAGE LIMIT

Comment MOTION TO EXCEED APPENDIX PAGE LIMIT

02/08/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO EXCEED APPENDIX PAGE LIMIT

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO EXCEED APPENDIX PAGE LIMIT

02/08/2021 MOTION - SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

PLAINTIFF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MSJ

Comment STATUE OF LIMITATIONS

060 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 18/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PLAINTIFF APPENDIX RE: MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment APPENDIX TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

02/08/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING RE: PLAINITFF MSJ ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Comment RE: PLAINITFF MSJ ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

02/11/2021 AMENDED ANSWER - AMENDED GENERAL DENIAL 

4TH AMENDED ANSWER AND 5TH AMENDED COUNTER CLAIMS

Comment AND FIFTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

02/11/2021 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

BUSINESS RECORDS OPPOSITION TO SPEC APPEAR

Comment BUSINESS RECORDS DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY NARASIMHA MURTHY IN OPPOSITION TO ALI GANJAEI' SSPECIAL APPEARANCE

02/11/2021 AFFIDAVIT 

DECLARATION OF GENJAEI

Comment DECLARATION OF GANJAEI

02/12/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

PLAINITFF AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RE: PLAINTIFF MSJ ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Comment RE: PLAINTIFF MSJ ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

02/15/2021 Non Jury Trial 

1 9 1 Cover Sheet

Cancel Reason HEARING RESCHEDULED

02/17/2021 MOTION - STRIKE  061 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 19/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details MOTION TO PARTIALLY STRIKE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ALI GANJAEI'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND DECLARATION

Comment PARTIALLY STRIKE COUNTER DEFENDANT ALI GANJAEI'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND DECLARATION

02/22/2021 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

DECALRATION TO (MURTHY) INOPPOSITION TO (GANJAEI) SPECIAL APPREAANCE

Comment DECLARATION OF NARASIMHA MURTHY IN OPPOSITION TO ALI GANJAEI'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE

03/01/2021 Special Appearance 

Comment 7 HOUR TYSON GARCIA 713/655-5646 BY ZOOM

03/12/2021 Motion - Summary Judgment 

PLAINTIFF APPENDIX RE: MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOTICE OF HEARING RE: PLAINITFF MSJ ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

03/12/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Comment FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Comment FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

062 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 20/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

03/17/2021 RETURN OF SERVICE 

EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP

Comment EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP

03/23/2021 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE TO SYNERGY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment TO SYNERGY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

03/25/2021 MOTION - QUASH 

MOTION TO QUASH

03/29/2021 AMENDED PETITION 

FIRST AMENDED PETITION

Comment FIRST AMENDED

03/29/2021 ISSUE CITATION 

ISSUE CITATION - HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC

Comment PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION

03/30/2021 Motion - Summary Judgment 

RESPONSE TO SYNERGY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment SET BY TONYa 972-854-9479

03/30/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

063 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 21/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PROPOSED ORDER - GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (STATUTE-OF LIMITATIONS)

Comment - GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS STATUTE-OF- LIMITATIONS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

03/31/2021 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

ADDRESSED TO JUDGE REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S PRESENTATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment - ADDRESSED TO JUDGE REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S PRESENTATION IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

04/02/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO DENY PARTIALLY COUNTER-DEFENDANT ALI GANJAIE/SPECIAL APPEARANCE/DECLARATION-DEF

Comment PROPOSED PARTIALLY STRIKE COUNTER DEFENDANT ALI GANJAEI/SPECIAL APPEARANCE/DECLARATION-DEFENDANT

04/05/2021 CITATION 

Served 06/16/2021

Anticipated Server ESERVE

Anticipated Method Actual Server PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER

Returned 06/21/2021 Comment HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC

06/07/2021 VACATION LETTER

06/11/2021 MOTION - LEAVE 

MOTION FOR LEAVE

064 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 22/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE

06/11/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

06/11/2021 AMENDED PETITION 

SECOND AMENDED PETITION

Comment SECOND AMENDED

06/15/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE

Comment RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE

06/15/2021 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

06/21/2021 RETURN OF SERVICE 

EXECUTED CITATION - HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC

Comment EXECUTED CITATION - HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC

06/22/2021 REQUEST FOR SERVICE 

REQUEST FOR CITATION VIA EMAIL

06/22/2021 ISSUE CITATION 

06/23/2021 VACATION LETTER

06/29/2021 CITATION 

Served 07/22/2021

Anticipated Server ESERVE 065 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 23/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Anticipated Method Actual Server PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER

Returned 07/22/2021 Comment HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC

07/08/2021 Motion - Leave 

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Hearing Time 10:30 AM

Comment PL/MTN LVE FILED 06/11/21 30M TONIA 214-292-3634

07/08/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE

07/19/2021 MOTION - STRIKE 

DEFS MTN TO STRIKE

07/19/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO STRIKE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO STRIKE

07/22/2021 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

CERT DEPO

Comment SIBY JOY

066 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 24/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

07/22/2021 RETURN OF SERVICE 

07/29/2021 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

Comment MARK POPALY

08/16/2021 AMENDED ANSWER - AMENDED GENERAL DENIAL 

FIFTH AMENDED ANSWER AND AMD CTR-CL

Comment FIFTH / AND 5TH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

09/02/2021 MOTION - COMPEL 

09/02/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL

09/02/2021 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

CERT OF CONF

Comment ON MTN TO STRIKE

09/10/2021 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

REPORTERS CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION - NARASIMBA MURTHY - JULY 12, 2021

Comment REPORTERS CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION - NARASIMBA MURTHY - JULY 12, 2021

09/13/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING

09/15/2021 AMENDED ANSWER - AMENDED GENERAL DENIAL  067 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 25/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details FIFTH AMENDED ANSWER AND SIXTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

Comment FIFTH AMENDED ANSWER AND SIXTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

09/16/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON MTN TO COMPEL

09/23/2021 Motion - Strike 

Comment DF/MTN STRIKE FILED 07/19/21 30M OPHELIA CAMINA 214-213-9027 (VIA ZOOM)

09/24/2021 RULE 11 

Comment AGREEMENT - RE EXPERTS

09/27/2021 MOTION - PROTECT 

MTN TO PROTECT

10/01/2021 RESPONSE 

OPPOSITION TO MTN TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS

Comment OPPOSITION TO MTN TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS

PLT OPPOSITION TO MTN THE STRIKE

Comment OPPOSITION TO MTN TO STRIKE

10/05/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

068 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 26/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO STRIKE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO STRIKE

10/06/2021 Motion - Strike 

Comment ZOOM. OPHELIA CAMINA 2/213-9027 & PLT MTN COMPEL TO FOLLOW

10/06/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RE: PLAINITFF MTN COMPEL

Comment AMENDED RE: PLAINITFF MTN COMPEL

10/06/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER (SYNERGY) MTN COMPEL DEPO OF (DESARKAR & PALAKODETI)

Comment PROPOSED ORDER (SNERGY) MTN COMPEL

PROPOSED ORDER (HGSI) MTN STRIKE (SNERGY) ATTEMPT TO ADD (HGS) AS DEFENDANT

Comment PROPOSED ORDER (HGSI) MTN ASTRIKE (SNERGY) ATTEMPT TO ADD (HGS) AS DEFENDANT

NOTICE OF HEARING RE: DEFENDANT (HGS) MTN PROTECTIVE ORDER

069 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 27/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment RE: DEFENDANT (HGS) MOTION PROTECTIVE ORDER

10/08/2021 Motion - Compel 

PROPOSED ORDER (SYNERGY) MTN COMPEL DEPO OF (DESARKAR & PALAKODETI)

Comment PL/MTN COMPEL FILED 09/02/21 15M TONIA 214-292-3634 (VIA ZOOM)

10/13/2021 DISCOVERY 

DEFS NOTICE OF SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION

Comment DEFS NOTICE OF SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION

10/13/2021 MOTION - QUASH 

MTN TO QUASH AND PROTECT

Comment AND PROTECT

10/18/2021 RETURN OF SERVICE 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE -EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - ALI GANJAEL

Comment AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE -EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - ALI GANJAEL

10/18/2021 MOTION - QUASH 

MOTION TO QUASH AND PROTECT

070 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 28/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details MTN TO QUASH AND PROTECT

10/20/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment AMENDED ON MTN TO PROTECT

10/21/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING

10/25/2021 MOTION - QUASH 

MOTION QUASH/NOTICE DEPOSITION SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING LLC

Comment NOTICE DEPOSITION SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING LLC

10/29/2021 AMENDED ANSWER - AMENDED GENERAL DENIAL 

6TH AMENDED ANSWER

Comment SIXTH / AND SIXTH AMD CTR-CL

10/29/2021 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS(ES) 

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS

11/02/2021 JURY DEMAND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11/08/2021 MOTION - COMPEL 

PLTS MTN TO COMPEL

11/08/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

11/09/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

071 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 29/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details NOTICE OF HEARING

Comment AMENDED ON MTN TO COMPEL

11/10/2021 RULE 11 

Comment AGREEMENT RE EXPERTS

11/10/2021 MOTION - SCHEDULING ORDER 

MTN FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment DEFS HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE

11/11/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON MTN FOR ENTRY OF AMD SCHEDULING

11/19/2021 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS(ES) 

DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES

11/23/2021 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

11/29/2021 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment TO HGS HEALTHCARE S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

12/02/2021 Motion - Protect 

MOTION TO COMPEL 072 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 30/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL

Comment 1H - M/PROTECT & M/COMPEL & MTN FOR ENTRY AMD SCHEDULING ORDER - TYSON 832 341 7188 CELL

12/02/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO COMPEL

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO COMPEL

Comment PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN TO COMPEL

Comment PROPOSED ORDER MTN TO COMPEL

12/09/2021 MOTION - EXCLUDE 

DEF'S MTN TO EXCLUDE

Comment EXPERT TESTIMONY

12/09/2021 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO EXCLUDE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO EXCLUDE

12/09/2021 MOTION - SUMMARY JUDGMENT  073 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 31/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details DEFS MTN FOR TRAD AND NO-EVID SJ

12/10/2021 MOTION - PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED TRADITIONAL/NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comment - AMENDED TRADITIONAL & NO-EVIDENCE

12/10/2021 MOTION - EXCLUDE 

MTN TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS

Comment EXPERTS

12/10/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMT

12/13/2021 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON MSJ

12/15/2021 RESPONSE 

12/21/2021 Motion - Compel 

Hearing Time 12:30 PM

Comment 1HR - P/COMPEL - APRIL

01/07/2022 MOTION - CONTINUANCE 

074 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 32/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PLTS MTN TO CONT SJ HEARING

Comment SUMMARY JUDGMT HEARING

DEFS MTN TO CONT SJ HEARING

01/07/2022 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

DEF'S OPPOSITION TO AMD MTN FOR PARTIAL SJ

Comment OPPOSITION TO AMENDED MTN FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMT

01/10/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON MTN FOR CONT OF HEARING

01/10/2022 MOTION - QUASH 

MTN TO QUASH

01/10/2022 NOTICE OF APPEAL - CT. OF APPEALS 

NOTICE OF APPEAL-COURT OF APPEAL

Comment DESIGNATION REQUESTED AT THE TIME OF ACCEPTANCE BY 4PM 1/19/22

01/13/2022 Motion - Continuance 

PLTS MTN TO CONT SJ HEARING

Hearing Time 10:15 AM

Comment MSJ TONYA 214/292-3634

01/14/2022 Motion - Summary Judgment 

075 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 33/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details DEF'S MTN TO EXCLUDE

DEFS MTN FOR TRAD AND NO-EVID SJ

Comment 1 HR - D/MSJ & D/M/EXCLUDE - TYSON 832 341 7188

01/18/2022 REQUEST REPORTER RECORD 

LETTER TO MELBA WRIGHT REGARDING REPORTER'S RECORD WITH THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

Comment LETTER TO MELBA WRIGHT REGARDING REPORTER'S RECORD WITH THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

01/19/2022 MOTION - QUASH 

01/19/2022 REQUEST CLERK PREPARE RECORD 

REQUEST CLERK PREPARE REORD

Comment DESIGNATION

01/20/2022 MOTION - MISCELLANEOUS 

MTN TO SHOW AUTHORITY

Comment TO SHOW AUTHORITY

01/20/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON MTN TO SHOW AUTHORITY

01/21/2022 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment PREPARING CLERK'S RECORD 076 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 34/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

01/24/2022 CLERK'S RECORD PAYMENT INVOICE 

Comment $2,505.00

01/24/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment PROPOSED AMENDED LEVEL III SCHEDULING ORDER

01/24/2022 COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER 

COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER

Comment RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL

01/26/2022 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment PREPARING SUPPLEMENTAL CLERKS RECORD #1 05-22-00052-CV

01/26/2022 CLERK'S RECORD PAYMENT INVOICE 

Comment SUPPLEMENTAL CLERKS RECORD #1 - $180.00

01/28/2022 VACATION LETTER

01/28/2022 SCHEDULING ORDER 

Comment AMENDED

01/28/2022 REQUEST REPORTER RECORD 

DESIGNATION OF REPORTER S RECORD TO BE INCLUDED

Comment TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL

01/28/2022 REQUEST CLERK PREPARE RECORD 

REQUEST FOR CLERK PREPARE RECORD

Comment SUPPLEMENT #1 DESIGNATION OF CLERK S RECORD TO BE INCLUDED

01/31/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT  077 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 35/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PROPOSED ORDER FOR PHV - ELIZA FINLEY

Comment PROPOSED ORDER FOR PHV - ELIZA FINLEY

01/31/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER FOR PHV - ZACHARY SAVAGE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER FOR PHV - ZACHARY SAVAGE

02/07/2022 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment PREPARING 2ND SUPPLEMENTAL CLERKS RECORD

02/07/2022 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD PAYMENT INVOICE 

Comment EMAILED ATTY $58.00

02/08/2022 COA - POST CARD 

COA - POST CARD

Comment 05-22-00052-CV

02/10/2022 APPELLATE RECORD 

2ND SUPPLEMENT APPELLATE RECORD

Comment SUPLEMENTAL 05-22-00052-CV CLERKS RECORD 1 SUBMIT 5TH COA WITH CONFIRMATION # 47024

02/11/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment AMENDED - ON MTN TO SHOW AUTHORITY

02/11/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

078 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 36/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

02/11/2022 COA - POST CARD 

02/16/2022 RULE 11 

Comment AGREEMENT - DISCOVERY

02/17/2022 ORDER - GRANTING PRO HAC VICE 

ORDER - GRANTING PRO HAC VICE

Comment ZACHARY SAVAGE

02/17/2022 ORDER - LEAVE 

Comment TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVID IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ

02/17/2022 ORDER - SPECIAL APPEARANCE 

ORDER - SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST ALI GANJAEI

Comment AND DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST ALI GANJAEI

02/17/2022 ORDER - MISC. 

ORDER - MISC. ON AUGUST 14,2020 HEARING - MSJ IS CONTINUED AND GRANTING DEFS MTN TO COMPEL

079 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 37/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment ON AUGUST 14,2020 HEARING - MSJ IS CONTINUED AND GRANTING DEFS MTN TO COMPEL

02/22/2022 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment COPY TO PLT AND DEF (ORDER OF SPECIAL APPEAR)

02/22/2022 SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD REQUEST 

Ltr to Clerk Requesting Supp Clerk's Record.pdf

Comment Supplemental Clerk's Record

02/23/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN TO SHOW AUTHORITY

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN TO SHOW AUTORITY

02/23/2022 MOTION - COMPEL 

MTN TO COMPEL

02/24/2022 MOTION HEARING 

Comment 30 MINS - M/SHOW AUTHORITY - APRIL 214 981 3806

02/24/2022 AFFIDAVIT 

DECLARATION OF BARRY BARNETT

Comment DECLARATION OF BARRY BARNETT

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY FARRELL

Comment DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY FARRELL

080 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 38/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

02/25/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

03/01/2022 COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER 

03/03/2022 APPELLATE RECORD 

APPELLATE RECORD

Comment COA ORDER - 3RD SUPLEMENTAL 05-22-00052-CV CLERKS RECORD 1 SUBMIT 5TH COA WITH CONFIRMATION # 47307

03/10/2022 MOTION - SCHEDULING ORDER 

MTN TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment TO AMENDED

03/10/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON MTN TO AMEND SCHEDULING

03/17/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment AMENDED - ON MTN TO AMEND SCHEDULING

03/17/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO RECONSIDER

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION

03/17/2022 MOTION - RECONSIDER 

PLTS MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION

081 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 39/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

03/18/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

03/21/2022 ORDER - STRIKE 

ORDER TO PARTIALLY STRIKE ALI GANJAEI SPECIAL APPEAR & DECLARATION

Comment PARTIALLY STRIKE ALI GANJAEI SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND DECLARATION

03/23/2022 REQUEST CLERK PREPARE RECORD 

DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD

Comment Defendants' and Counter Plaintiffs' Designation of Supplemental Clerk's Record to be Included in the Record on Appeal

03/24/2022 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment 05-22-00052-CV PREPARING SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD 4

03/24/2022 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD PAYMENT INVOICE 

SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD PAYMENT INVOICE

Comment 05-22-00052-CV SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD 4 - EMAILED ATTORNEY $56.00

03/24/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment TO CLARIFY ORDER

03/25/2022 MOTION HEARING 

Hearing Time 11:15 AM

082 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 40/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment 15 MINS - M/AMEND SCHEDULING - ELIZA 408 348 2837

03/25/2022 APPELLATE RECORD 

Comment 05-22-00052-CV SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD 4 SUBMITTED TO 5TH COA WITH TRACE #47582

03/28/2022 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE TO PLTS MTN TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment TO PLTS MTN TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

03/31/2022 MOTION HEARING 

Hearing Time 1:00 PM

Comment Eliza 310-789-3137

03/31/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment AMENDED / ON MTN TO AMEND SCHEDULING

04/04/2022 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment NOTEBOOK/COURTESY COPY APPELLANTS BRIEF

04/05/2022 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE TO MTN TO COMPEL

Comment TO MTN TO COMPEL

04/06/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO COMPEL 083 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 41/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

04/07/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER COMPEL ALI GANJAEI

Comment PROPOSED ORDER COMPEL ALI GANJAEI

PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON DEFS MTN TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

04/08/2022 Motion - Compel 

Hearing Time 01:45 PM

Comment ***zoom link sent** 45 MINS - M/COMPEL & SCH ORD - OTHELIA 214 213 9027

04/08/2022 COA - POST CARD 

04/13/2022 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

SUPPLEMENT TO REQ FOR PAYMENT INTO THE COURT REGISTRY

Comment SUPPLEMENT TO REQ FOR PAYMENT INTO THE COURT REGISTRY

04/14/2022 MOTION HEARING 

084 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 42/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Hearing Time 1:00 PM

Comment RE: CLAIRFY ORDER SIGNED 3/21/22 / MR. HURST 214 981 3838

04/14/2022 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

04/14/2022 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE/HGSI/HGS HEALTHCARE/SYNGERY SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST/PRETRIAL ATTACHMENT OF FUNDS

Comment PRELIMINARY RESPONSE HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE/SYNERGY SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST/FOR PRETRIAL ATTACHMENT OF FUNDS

04/14/2022 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION/HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INC/MARK POPALY

Comment HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INC/MARK POPALY

CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION/HGS HEALTHCARE/MARK POPALY

Comment HGS HEALTHCARE LLC/MARK POPALY

04/15/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO PARTIALLY STRIKE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO PARTIALLY STRIKE

04/15/2022 MOTION - MISCELLANEOUS 

PLAINTIFF S EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING PAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS

Comment EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING PAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS INTO THE COURT REGISTRY

04/20/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON EMERGENCY MTN REQUESTING PAYMENT 085 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 43/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

04/26/2022 ORDER - PROTECT 

ORDER - PROTECT

04/26/2022 OBJECTION 

OBJECTION/OPPOSITION PRETRIAL ATTACHMENT

Comment OPPOSITION PRETRIAL ATTACHMENT

04/27/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment AMENDED ON MTN REQ PAYMENT

04/28/2022 ORDER - MISC. 

Comment REGARDING APRIL 14, 2022 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

05/02/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL ALI GANJAEI

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL ALI GANJAEI

Comment PROPOSED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

05/03/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER RE MTN REQ PAYMENT

Comment PROPOSED ORDER RE MTN REQ PAYMENT

05/04/2022 MOTION HEARING 

PLAINTIFF S EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING PAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS

086 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 44/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Hearing Time 09:30 AM

Comment PL/EMERG MTN REQUESTING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION INTO COURT REGISTRY FILED 04/15/22 30M GINA FLORES 214-292-3637 (VIA ZOOM)

05/06/2022 SCHEDULING ORDER 

05/06/2022 ORDER - COMPEL 

Comment ALI GANJAEI

05/09/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN REQUESTING PAYMENT

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN REQUESTING PAYMENT

05/23/2022 Special Setting 

191st COVER SHEET

05/26/2022 REQUEST CLERK PREPARE RECORD 

SUPPLEMENTAL 1

Comment David Coale Letter to Chief Clerk Requesting Supplemental Clerk's Record

06/08/2022 NOTE - CLERKS 

Comment 05-22-00052-CV PREPARING SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD 5

06/08/2022 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD PAYMENT INVOICE  087 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 45/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD PAYMENT INVOICE

Comment 05-22-00052-CV SUPP CLERK'S RECORD 5 - EMAILED ATTORNEY $36.00

06/09/2022 APPELLATE RECORD 

Comment 05-22-00052-CV SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD 5 SUBMITTED TO 5TH COA WITH TRACE #48674

06/10/2022 COA - POST CARD 

07/20/2022 MOTION - COMPEL 

Comment TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

07/22/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

08/17/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment FOR A STATUS CONF

09/06/2022 RESPONSE 

TO HSGI AND HGSHS MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment TO HSGI AND HGSHS MOTION TO COMPEL SYNERGY TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

09/07/2022 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment AMENDED - ON MTN TO COMPEL AND STATUS CONF RE COA PROCEEDINGS

088 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 46/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

09/08/2022 Status Conference 

Hearing Time 9:15 AM

Comment STAT. CONF. IN REFERENCE TO COA PROCEEDINGS

09/08/2022 Motion - Compel 

Hearing Time 09:30 AM

Comment 30 MINS - D/M/COMPEL - TYSON 832 341 7188 - VIA ZOOM

09/21/2022 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

HGSI'S SUPPLEMENT TO MTN TO COMPEL

Comment SUPPLEMENT TO MTN TO COMPEL

09/28/2022 VACATION LETTER

10/04/2022 Motion - Compel 

Comment SET BY ELIZA 408-348-2837 30M IN PERSON

089 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 47/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

10/04/2022 Status Conference 

Comment **STATUS CONF RE COA PROCEEDINGS** ELIZA 408-348-2837 (IN PERSON)

10/14/2022 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

LETTER TO JUDGE RE HEARING HELD ON OCT 4

Comment LETTER TO JUDGE RE HEARING HELD ON OCT 4

10/14/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

10/17/2022 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

10/17/2022 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

PLTS LETTER RESPONSE TO UNSOLICITED LETTER BRIEF

Comment PLTS LETTER RESPONSE TO UNSOLICITED LETTER BRIEF

10/19/2022 DISCOVERY 

DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

Comment DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION OF GOBINATH NARAYANAN

01/03/2023 MOTION - PRO HAC VICE 

MTN FOR PHV

Comment FOR TANNER LAICHE

01/03/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT  090 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 48/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PHV

Comment PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PHV

01/13/2023 COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER 

Comment RE OPINION

01/13/2023 OPINION 

OPINION

01/17/2023 ORDER - GRANTING PRO HAC VICE 

ORDER GRANTING PHV

Comment TANNER LAICHE

01/18/2023 DISCOVERY 

NOTICE OF INTENT

Comment NOTICE OF INTENT

01/26/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER LVIL III SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment PROPOSED LVL III SCHEDULING ORDER

01/27/2023 MOTION - SCHEDULING ORDER 

PLTS MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment PLAINTIFF'S

02/02/2023 SPECIAL APPEARANCE 

SPECIAL APPEARANCE

091 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 49/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment AND ANSWER TO 6TH AMENDED CTR-CLAIM (ALI GANJAEI) SUBJECT TO SPECIAL APPEAR

02/06/2023 MOTION - MISCELLANEOUS 

PLTS MTN TO DETERMINE

Comment TO DETERMINE

02/06/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MTN FOR SCHEDULING

Comment ON MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING

02/07/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON COUNTER-DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND PLAINTIFFS RULE 248 MOTION TO DETERMINE A QUESTION OF LAW

02/07/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN FOR SCHEDULING

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN TO DETERMINE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN TO DETERMINE

PROPOSED ORDER ON GANJAEIS SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON GANJAEIS SPECIAL APPEARANCE

02/08/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

02/14/2023 MOTION HEARING 

092 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 50/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PLTS MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment 30 MINS - M/SCHEDULING - RONNIE 214 981 3832 * IN PERSON

02/24/2023 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

BITUCE APPEARANCE/DANIELA VERA HOLMES

Comment DANIELA VERA HOLMES

03/01/2023 MOTION - COMPEL

03/01/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

03/01/2023 OBJECTION 

Comment & MOTION TO STAY OR CONTINUE GANJAEI SPECIAL APPEARANCE & RULE 248 MOTION

PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY GANJAEI SPECIAL APPEARANCE & RULE 248 MOTION

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY GANJAEI SPECIAL APPEARANCE & RULE 248 MOTION

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING PLTF RULE 248 PETITION

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING PLTF RULE 248 PETITION

03/03/2023 MISCELLANEOUS EVENT 

OPPOSITION TO MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment OPPOSITION TO MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

03/03/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT  093 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 51/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO DENY MTN FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER

03/07/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE & MTN TO DETERMINE

03/07/2023 SPECIAL APPEARANCE 

AMENDED SPECIAL APPEARANCE

03/08/2023 MOTION HEARING 

Comment ENTRY SCHEDULING ORDER. IN PERSON. RONIE BRACKEN 2/981-3832

03/16/2023 Special Appearance 

PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY GANJAEI SPECIAL APPEARANCE & RULE 248 MOTION

Judicial Officer MERRITT, TAHIRA

Comment 1 HR - SPECIAL APPEAR AND P/M/DETERMINE RONNIE 214 981 3832 - * IN PERSON

03/22/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING

094 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 52/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING

03/22/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

03/30/2023 RETURNED MAIL 

RETURNED MAIL

Comment NOTICE JURY TRIAL-BARRY BARNETT

04/03/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Comment AMENDED - ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND MOTION TO DETERMINE

04/17/2023 MOTION - QUASH 

ALI GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLCS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION

Comment ALI GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLCS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION

04/19/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ALI GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLCS MOTION TO QUASH

Comment [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ALI GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLCS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION FROM NOTICE AND SUBPOENA TO T-MOBILE

04/20/2023 OBJECTION 

TO AND VERIFIED MOTION TO CONTINUE ZOOM HEARING ON GANJAEI'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Comment TO AND VERIFIED MOTION TO CONTINUE ZOOM HEARING ON GANJAEI'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE

04/21/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING - NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION FROM NOTICE

095 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 53/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION FROM NOTICE AND SUBPOENA TO T-MOBILE

04/21/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON OBJECTION TO AND MOTION TO CONTINUE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON OBJECTION TO AND MOTION TO CONTINUE

04/24/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING - HGS PARTIES OBJECTION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE

Comment HGS PARTIES OBJECTION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE

04/25/2023 RETURN OF SERVICE 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - T-MOBILE USA, INC

Comment AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - T-MOBILE USA, INC

04/25/2023 SCHEDULING ORDER 

04/27/2023 MOTION - COMPEL 

HGS' MOTION TO COMPEL

04/27/2023 COUNTER CLAIM 

HGS' AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Comment AMENDED ANSWER

04/27/2023 MOTION - MISCELLANOUS 

GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

Comment GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

04/28/2023 RESPONSE 

096 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 54/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HGSI AND HGSH'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment RESPONSE TO HGSI AND HGSH'S MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO AND MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING

Comment RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO AND MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING

04/28/2023 SPECIAL APPEARANCE 

HGS PARTIES' AMENDED SPECIAL APPEARANCE

Comment HGS PARTIES' AMENDED SPECIAL APPEARANCE

05/01/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment MOTION COMPEL 5/3/23 9:30 AM VIA ZOOM

NOTICE OF HEARING - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

Comment PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

05/02/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING HGS PARTIES' AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL SYNERGY AND GANJAEI

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING HGS PARTIES' AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL SYNERGY AND GANJAEI

05/04/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

Comment [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

05/05/2023 MOTION HEARING 

PLTS MTN TO DETERMINE 097 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 55/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Judicial Officer SLAUGHTER, GENA

Comment MTN/DESTROY & SANCTIONS - 2/ 981-3832 RONNIE - **VIA ZOOM

05/05/2023 MOTION - MISCELLANOUS 

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

Comment OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

05/05/2023 AFFIDAVIT 

OF SERVICE - EXECUTED - NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUBPOENA - T-MOBILE USA, INC

Comment OF SERVICE - EXECUTED - NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUBPOENA - T-MOBILE USA, INC

05/08/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND FOR SANCTIONS

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND FOR SANCTIONS

05/08/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION FROM NOTICE AND SUBPOENA TO T- MOBILE

Comment AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION FROM NOTICE AND SUBPOENA TO T-MOBILE

05/09/2023 ORDER - DENY 

ORDER - DENY EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND FOR SANCTIONS

Comment EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND FOR SANCTIONS

05/11/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND PLAINTIFFS RULE 248 MOTION TO DETERMINE A QUESTION OF LAW

Comment DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND PLAINTIFFS RULE 248 MOTION TO DETERMINE A QUESTION OF LAW

098 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 56/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

05/12/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING HSG'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment HSG'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL

06/01/2023 SUPREME COURT - POST CARD 

SUPREME COURT - POST CARD - 05-22-00052-CV

06/02/2023 Motion - Quash 

ALI GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLCS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION

Comment 30M * PLT * RONNIE BRACKENS 214 981 3832 * ZOOM

06/20/2023 RETURN OF SERVICE 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - ALI GANJAEI

Comment AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - ALI GANJAEI

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - WILKES MCCAIN

Comment AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - WILKES MCCAIN

06/26/2023 OBJECTION 

OBEJECTION TO SUBPOENA

Comment TO SUBPOENA

06/26/2023 MOTION - CONTINUANCE 

AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE 099 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 57/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment AMENDED

06/26/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER TO CONTINUE

Comment PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER TO CONTINUE

06/27/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING HGS's AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE

Comment HGS's AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE

06/27/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON GANJAEI'S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA TO ATTEND HEARING

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON GANJAEI'S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA TO ATTEND HEARING

06/27/2023 MOTION - COMPEL 

06/29/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON AMENDEDM OTION TO COMPELSYNERGY AND GANJAEI

Comment ON AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL SYNERGY AND GANJAEI

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Comment ON MOTION TO COMPEL JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE

Comment ON MOTION TO CONTINUE

07/24/2023 RESPONSE 

Comment RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL 100 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 58/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

07/24/2023 MOTION - QUASH 

OPPOSITION TO GANJAEI'S AND SYNERGY'S MOTION TO QUASH

Comment OPPOSITION TO GANJAEI'S AND SYNERGY'S MOTION TO QUASH

07/24/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PLAINTIFF

07/25/2023 MOTION - SCHEDULING ORDER 

HGSI'S MOTION TO AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment HGSI

07/25/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment HGSI'S PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

07/27/2023 MOTION HEARING 

ALI GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLCS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION

DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND PLAINTIFFS RULE 248 MOTION TO DETERMINE A QUESTION OF LAW

AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE

PROPOSED ORDER ON GANJAEI'S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA TO ATTEND HEARING

NOTICE OF HEARING ON AMENDEDM OTION TO COMPELSYNERGY AND GANJAEI

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING HGSI'S AND HGSH'S/COMPEL JURISDICTION DISCOVERY

Hearing Time 2:00 PM

101 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 59/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment *IN PERSON - 1 HR - D/AMENDED MTN COMPEL & 1 HR D/SPEC. APPEARANCE & RULE 248 & 30M P/M/QUASH - AMD M/CONTINUE

07/27/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO QUASH AND PROTECT

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING HGSI'S AND HGSH'S/COMPEL JURISDICTION DISCOVERY

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING HGSI'S AND HGS'S/COMPEL JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

08/08/2023 SCHEDULING ORDER 

09/12/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION HEARD JULY 27, 2023

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION HEARD JULY 27, 2023

09/19/2023 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

CERT DEPO HAROLD DAVIS

Comment HAROLD DAVIS

09/22/2023 MOTION - LEAVE 

09/25/2023 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION 

CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION

Comment JYL APPLEGATE

10/02/2023 SUPREME COURT - POST CARD 

102 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 60/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

10/03/2023 ORDER - GRANTING PRO HAC VICE 

Comment RAVI BHALLA

10/03/2023 ORDER - MISC. 

ORDER - ORDER ON MOTIONS HEARD JULY 27, 2023

Comment ORDER ON MOTIONS HEARD JULY 27, 2023

10/27/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE SCHEDULING ORDER

10/31/2023 MOTION - VACATE 

DEF'S MOTION TO VACATE

10/31/2023 DESIGNATE LEAD COUNSEL 

DESIGNATE LEAD COUNSEL

Comment SUBJECT AND LIMITED TO SPECIAL APPEARANCE

11/02/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE

Comment DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE

11/02/2023 MOTION - RECONSIDER 

DEF GANJAEI'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

11/03/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO STAY

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO STAY

11/08/2023 MOTION - MISCELLANOUS 

MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER

103 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 61/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER

11/13/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S OPPOSED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

11/14/2023 COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER 

11/14/2023 MANDATE AFFIRM 

MANDATE AFFIRM

11/16/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING - HGSI and HGS'S MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER

Comment HGSI and HGS'S MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER

11/28/2023 MOTION - COMPEL 

11/28/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

11/29/2023 RESPONSE 

PLAINTIFF'S TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

12/05/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE

104 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 62/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

12/06/2023 Motion - Vacate 

Comment 30M * DEF'S M/VACATE * RAVI BHALLA 203 249 3216 * IN PERSON

12/06/2023 RESPONSE 

HGS'S OPPOSITION TO DEF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO STAY

Comment HGS'S OPPOSITION TO DEF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO STAY

12/07/2023 RESPONSE 

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER

Comment RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER

12/07/2023 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE-TO JUDGE/UNDER SEAL EXHBITS E, F. G HGS PARTIES COMPEL

Comment TO JUDGE FILED UNDER SEAL COURTSEY COPIES E, F, G TO THE HGS PARTIES/MOTION COMPEL SYNERGY/PRODUCE WILON M ITCHE/DEPOSITION

12/12/2023 Motion - Reconsider 

Comment 30M * DEF'S M/RECONSIDER * COURTNEY TROTTER 972 707 1808 * IN PERSON

12/12/2023 MOTION HEARING 

MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER 105 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 63/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Judicial Officer SLAUGHTER, GENA

Comment 30M * DEF'S M/ENFORCE ORDER * ALSO, DEF'S M/COMPEL * RAVI BHALLA 203 249 3216 * IN PERSON

12/15/2023 BRIEF FILED 

BRIEF/LETTER TO JUDGE

Comment LETTER TO JUDGE

12/18/2023 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

12/18/2023 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER TO ENFORCE

12/19/2023 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment Notice of Hearing on HGSI and HGS Healthcare's Motion to Compel Synergy to Produce Wilson Mitchell for Deposition (originally filed 12/19/23, refiling per Clerk instruction).

12/20/2023 BRIEF FILED 

LETTER BRIEF

Comment JUDGE SLAUGHTER

01/11/2024 MISCELLANOUS EVENT 

DECLRATION OF RAVI BHALLA

Comment DECLARATION OF RAVI BHALLA

01/12/2024 RESPONSE 

SYNERGY'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment TO MOTION TO COMPEL 106 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 64/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

01/12/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

01/24/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE HEARING/AMENDED-COMPEL/ZOOM

Comment AMENDED NOTICE HEARING/COMPEL-ZOOM

01/31/2024 AFFIDAVIT 

AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION/PROFESSOR DOUGLAS MOLL/IN SUPPORT COMPEL WILSON MITCHELL/DEPOSITION

Comment DECLARATION/PROFESSOR DOUGLAS MOLL/IN SUPPORT COMPEL WILSON MITCHELL/DEPOSITION

02/05/2024 MOTION - MISCELLANOUS 

HGS HEALTHCARE/RENEWED ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDER

Comment RENEWED MOTION TO ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI'S COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER

02/05/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER HGS HEALTHCARE/ENFORCE ALI GANJAIE/COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDER

02/07/2024 Motion - Compel 

NOTICE HEARING/ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/IN PERSON

Comment 30M - ZOOM * DEF'S M/COMPEL * MR BHALLA

02/07/2024 ORDER - COMPEL  107 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 65/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details ORDER - COMPEL

02/09/2024 MISCELLANOUS EVENT 

Comment E-SERVE COVER LETTER

02/15/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

Comment ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/IN PERSON

02/15/2024 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

LETTER RE: EXHIBITS I & J TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment RE: EXHIBITS I & J TO MOTION TO COMPEL

02/15/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

03/15/2024 RESPONSE 

ALI GANJAEI'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO HGS HEALTHCARE'S 2ND RENEWED MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

Comment ALI GANJAEI'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO HGS HEALTHCARE'S 2ND RENEWED MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

03/15/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING HGS HEALTHCARE'S RENEWED MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

03/21/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE HEARING-AMENDED NOTICE HEARING/RENEWED ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDER-IN PERSON

Comment AMENDED NOTICE HEARING/RENEWED ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDER- IN PERSON

03/27/2024 MOTION HEARING 

HGS HEALTHCARE/RENEWED ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDER

108 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 66/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details NOTICE HEARING/ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/IN PERSON

ALI GANJAEI'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO HGS HEALTHCARE'S 2ND RENEWED MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

NOTICE HEARING-AMENDED NOTICE HEARING/RENEWED ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDER-IN PERSON

Hearing Time 1:30 PM

Comment MOTION TO ENFORCE SET BY RAVI #203-249-3216, 30M, IN PERSON

04/02/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER MOTIONS HEARD 3/27/24

Comment PROPOSED ORDER HEARD MARCH 27, 2024

04/02/2024 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

04/04/2024 ORDER - MISC. 

Comment MOTIONS HEARD ON MARCH 27,2024

04/19/2024 VACATION LETTER

06/05/2024 MOTION - MISCELLANOUS 

MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER & FOR SANCTIONS

Comment MOTION TO ENFORCE GANJAEI'S COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS & FOR SANCTOINS

06/12/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE HEARING/ENFORCE/SANCTIONS/IN PERSON

Comment ENFORCE/SANCTIONS/IN PERSON

06/21/2024 CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE 

CORRESPONDENCE/TO JUDGE FILED UNDER SEAL EXS. 5, 8, 9 TO HGS HEALTHCARE/MOTION ENFORCE AND SANCTIONS 109 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 67/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment TO JUDGE FILED UNDER SEAL EXS. 5, 8, 9 TO HGS HEALTHCARE MOTION TO ENFORCE AND FOR SANCTIONS

07/17/2024 AFFIDAVIT 

AFFIDAVIT/*CORRECTED* DECLARATION BHALLA/SUPPORT ENFORCE GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDERS/SANCTIONS

Comment *CORRECTED* DECLARATION RAVI BHALLA/IN SUPPORT ENFORCE GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDERS/SANCTIONS

DECLARATION OPHELLA CAMINA/IN SUPPORT ENFORCE GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDERS/SANCTIONS

Comment DECLARATION OPHELLA CAMINA/IN SUPPORT ENFORCE GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDERS/SANCTIONS

07/18/2024 MOTION - EMERGENCY 

CO-DEFT EMER M.TO STAY PENDING RULING ON PETITIN FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Comment CO-DEFT ALI GANJAEI EMERGENY MOTION TO STAY PENDING RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

07/18/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER COUNTER DEF/STAY PENDING RULING/MANDAMUS

Comment PROPOSED ORDER COUNTER DEF/STAY PENDING RULING/MANDAMUS

07/19/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE HEARING/EMERGENCY STAY-ON PERSON

Comment EMERENCY STAY-IN PERSON

07/22/2024 VACATION LETTER

07/23/2024 MOTION HEARING 

CO-DEFT EMER M.TO STAY PENDING RULING ON PETITIN FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Hearing Time 09:45 AM 110 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 68/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details Comment **IN PERSON** EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAYPENDING RULING ON WRIT OF MANDAMUS 15 MINS KIMBERLLLLLY 214 396 MOTON TO TATYeP

07/23/2024 MISCELLANOUS EVENT 

HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

Comment REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

07/24/2024 MOTION HEARING 

Comment **IN PERSON** MOTION ENFORCE & FOR SANCTS 30 MINS RAZI BHALLA 203 249-3216

07/24/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGS HEALTHCARE'S MOTION TO ENFORCE AND FOR SANCTIONS

Comment AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGS HEALTHCARE'S MOTION TO ENFORCE AND FOR SANCTIONS

07/30/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE'S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

Comment NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE'S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

08/02/2024 MOTION - SEVER 

PLTF'S MOTION SEVER

08/02/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER ON PLTF'S MOTION TO SEVER

08/07/2024 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

111 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 69/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details CERTIFICATE CONFERENCE/SEVER-PLTF

Comment SEVER-PLTF

08/09/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE HEARING/SEVER/ZOOM

Comment SEVER/ZOOM

08/20/2024 MOTION - SEVER 

PLTF AMD MOTION SEVER

Comment AMENDED MOTIN SEVER

08/22/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

AMD NOTICE OF HEAING ON REQ FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

Comment AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE'S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE (Re-file of Envelope Number: 91226995)

08/26/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE OF HEAIRNG - PLTF'S AMD MOTION TO SEVER

Comment PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO SEVER

08/26/2024 MOTION - SEVER 

PLAINTIFF SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO SEVER

Comment PLAINTIFF SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO SEVER

08/26/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING (SYNERGY) 2ND AMD MTN TO SEVER

08/27/2024 MISCELLANOUS EVENT 

HGS' OPPOS TO PLTF 2ND AMD MOTION TO SEVER

Comment HGS PARITES OPPOSITION TO PLTF 2ND AMENDED MOTION TO SEVER

08/27/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

112 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 70/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details NOTICE HEARING/2ND AMD NOTICE HEARING/ SEVER-ZOOM

Comment NOTICE HEARING/2ND AMD NOTICE HEARING/ SEVER-ZOOM

08/29/2024 Status Conference 

NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE'S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

Comment **VIA ZOOM** 30 MIN STATUS CONF SCHED ORDER & DISCOVERY- RACI BHALLA 203 249-3216

08/30/2024 MOTION HEARING 

NOTICE HEARING/2ND AMD NOTICE HEARING/ SEVER-ZOOM

PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER

Comment **VIA ZOOM** 30 MIN - P/2ND AMND M/SEVER & STATUS CONF ASO & DISCOVERY- TONYA 214 292- 3634

08/30/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER AND 2ND AMENDED MOTION TO SEVER

09/03/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

Comment PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLTF'S 2ND AMENDED MOTION TO SEVER

113 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 71/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

09/06/2024 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING 3RD MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

Comment PROPOSED ORDER DENYING 3RD MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

09/06/2024 RESPONSE 

CO-DEFT RESP TPO 3RD MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

Comment COUNTER-DEFENDANT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 3RD MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

09/18/2024 MOTION HEARING 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGS HEALTHCARE'S MOTION TO ENFORCE AND FOR SANCTIONS

Cancel Reason CARRIED TO ANOTHER WEEK

Comment **IN PERSON** 30 MIN MOTION TO ENFORCEI

09/25/2024 NOTICE OF HEARING / FIAT 

NOTICE HEARING/AMD NOTICE HEARING/ENFORCE SANCTION-ZOOM

Comment AMENDED NOTICE HEARING/ENFORCE/SANCTION-ZOOM

10/31/2024 MOTION HEARING 

Comment **VIA ZOOM** 1 HOUR DEFT M/ENFORCE AND FOR SANCTS - RAVI BHALLA 203 249-3216

11/11/2024 Jury Trial - Civil  114 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 72/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER

191st JURY TRIAL LETTER

Financial

SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLC Total Financial Assessment $411.00 Total Payments and Credits $411.00

12/30/2019 Transaction $292.00 Assessment 115 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 73/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

12/30/2019 CREDIT CARD - Receipt # 87620- SYNERGY GLOBAL ($292.00) TEXFILE (DC) 2019-DCLK OUTSOURCING, LLC

12/30/2019 Transaction $4.00 Assessment

12/30/2019 PAYMENT (CASE Receipt # 87821- SYNERGY GLOBAL ($4.00) FEES) 2019-DCLK OUTSOURCING, LLC

12/31/2019 Transaction $8.00 Assessment

12/31/2019 CREDIT CARD - Receipt # 88154- SYNERGY GLOBAL ($8.00) TEXFILE (DC) 2019-DCLK OUTSOURCING, LLC

4/1/2021 Transaction $8.00 Assessment

4/1/2021 CREDIT CARD - Receipt # 19766- SYNERGY GLOBAL ($8.00) TEXFILE (DC) 2021-DCLK OUTSOURCING, LLC

6/25/2021 Transaction $8.00 Assessment

6/25/2021 CREDIT CARD - Receipt # 40552- SYNERGY GLOBAL ($8.00) TEXFILE (DC) 2021-DCLK OUTSOURCING, LLC

11/3/2021 Transaction $40.00 Assessment

11/3/2021 CREDIT CARD - Receipt # 73480- SYNERGY GLOBAL ($40.00) TEXFILE (DC) 2021-DCLK OUTSOURCING, LLC

3/18/2022 Transaction $15.00 Assessment

3/18/2022 CREDIT CARD - Receipt # 16074- SYNERGY GLOBAL ($15.00) TEXFILE (DC) 2022-DCLK OUTSOURCING, LLC

6/8/2022 Transaction $36.00 Assessment

6/14/2022 PAYMENT (CASE Receipt # 35384- LYNN PINKER HURST & ($36.00) FEES) 2022-DCLK SCHWEGMANN LLP HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Total Financial Assessment $2,836.00 Total Payments and Credits $2,836.00

3/6/2020 Transaction $80.00 Assessment

3/6/2020 CREDIT CARD - Receipt # 15996- HINDUJA GLOBAL ($80.00) TEXFILE (DC) 2020-DCLK SOLUTIONS, INC.

1/24/2022 Transaction $2,505.00 Assessment

116 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 74/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details

1/26/2022 Transaction $180.00 Assessment

1/28/2022 PAYMENT (CASE Receipt # 5771- SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP ($2,505.00) FEES) 2022-DCLK

1/31/2022 PAYMENT (CASE Receipt # 6176- SUSMAN GOSFREY L.L.P. ($180.00) FEES) 2022-DCLK

3/24/2022 Transaction $56.00 Assessment

3/25/2022 PAYMENT (CASE Receipt # 17728- GWENDOLYN KELLY ($56.00) FEES) 2022-DCLK

11/1/2023 Transaction $15.00 Assessment

11/1/2023 CREDIT CARD - Receipt # 74122- HINDUJA GLOBAL ($15.00) TEXFILE (DC) 2023-DCLK SOLUTIONS, INC.

Documents

ORDER - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER REQUEST FOR SERVICE EXECUTED CITATION - HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER ISSUE CITATION

TRUST RECEIPT NOTICE OF HEARING - EMER M/COMPEL AND SHOW CAUSE

MOTION DISSOLVE TRO OPPOSITION TO EMERG M/COMPEL

NOH - ORDER - COMPEL

NOTICE SENT VIA EMAIL/FAX

REQUEST/DE NOVOH HRNG--DEF AGREED MOTION DISSOLVE TRO 117 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 75/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details AGREED ORDER DISSOLVE TRO

RULE 11 AGREEMENT Notice of Synergy Deposition 1-14-20.pdf

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION LETTER DEFT FILING RESP TO PLTF 1ST SET REQ PRODUCTION

ORDER - DISSOLVE DEF(HGSI) /NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS HGSI AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

MOTION - QUASH DEF/ORIGINAL ANSWER

COUNTER CLAIM AND AMENDED ANSWER COD MOTION TO DISMISS PROTECT--ADMIN

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTION/DISMISS AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RE: MOTION PROTECT AND DISMISS (VIA ZOOM) HGSI'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS OBJECTION

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE / ZACHARY SAVAGE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 9 1 Cover Sheet 1 9 1 Cover Sheet

ORDER - DISMISSAL ORDER - PRETRIAL DE NOVO HEARING

NOTICE HEARING REQUEST DE NOVO DEF(HGSI) AMENDED ANSWER AND AMENDED COUNTER CLAIM

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE PROPOSED ORDER - GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE

PROPOSED ORDER ON HGSI MOTION TO DISMISS PROPOSED ORDER ON DE NOVO REVIEW

ORDER - LEAVE PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 07/08/2020 10:00 RE: SCHEDULING ORDER 118 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 76/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details DEF/ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER NOTICE O HEARING - SCHEDULING ORDER ORDER - MISC.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME NOTICE OF HEARING - MOTION TO EXTEND

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AMENDED CERTIFICATE CONFERENCE/EXTENSION OF TIME-DEFENDANT AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HGSI'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER RESPONSE TO MOTION EXTENSION OF TIME

SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND ORIGINAL ANSWER SUBJECT TO SPECIAL APPEARANCE NOTICE OF HEARING ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE

LETTER TO JUDGE SLAUGHTER MOTION - ENTRY FOR SCHEDULING ORDER PLAINTIFF-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIDAVIT/SUPPORT/AWARD ATTORNEY FEES-OPHELIA CAMINA NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMETN DEF/MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION - CONTINUANCE NOTICE OF HEARING - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF HEARING - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION TO QUASH - JOHN H. FLOOD III MOTION TO QUASH - MCCAIN

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S TRADITIONAL & NO-EVIDENCE MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

PROPOSED ORDER ON OCTOBER 14, 2020 HEARING ORDER - MISC.

MOTION TO COMPEL ORIGINAL ANSWER TO COUNTER-CLAIM - SYNERGY

ORIGINAL ANSWER TO COUNTER-CLAIM - GANJAEI

NOTICE OF HEARING ON DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AND DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER 119 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 77/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE ORDER - MISC. VACATION LETTER - GREGORY BRASSFIELD

3RD AMENDED ANSWER/4TH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS-DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS

CLERICAL ERROR - FILE MARK ON PROPOSED ORDER ON DEPOSITION OF JOHN FLOOD

NON-SIGNED PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT PROPOSED ORDER LEVEL III SCHEDULING ORDER 1 9 1 COVER SHEET

1 9 1 COVER SHEET SCHEDULING ORDER

PROPOSED ORDER TO EXCEED APPENDIX PAGE LIMIT PLAINTIFF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MSJ PLAINTIFF APPENDIX RE: MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOTICE OF HEARING RE: PLAINITFF MSJ ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

4TH AMENDED ANSWER AND 5TH AMENDED COUNTER CLAIMS BUSINESS RECORDS OPPOSITION TO SPEC APPEAR DECLARATION OF GENJAEI PLAINITFF AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RE: PLAINTIFF MSJ ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MOTION TO PARTIALLY STRIKE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ALI GANJAEI'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND DECLARATION

DECALRATION TO (MURTHY) INOPPOSITION TO (GANJAEI) SPECIAL APPREAANCE FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP RESPONSE TO SYNERGY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION TO QUASH PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PROPOSED ORDER - GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (STATUTE-OF LIMITATIONS) ADDRESSED TO JUDGE REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S PRESENTATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FIRST AMENDED PETITION PROPOSED ORDER TO DENY PARTIALLY COUNTER-DEFENDANT ALI GANJAIE/SPECIAL APPEARANCE/DECLARATION-DEF

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

SECOND AMENDED PETITION NOTICE OF HEARING RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE EXECUTED CITATION - HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC 120 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 78/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details REQUEST FOR CITATION VIA EMAIL

ISSUE CITATION - HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC PROPOSED ORDER ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE

PROPOSED ORDER ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE DEFS MTN TO STRIKE

PROPOSED ORDER TO STRIKE CERT DEPO

EXECUTED CITATION - HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC CERT DEPO

MOTION TO COMPEL PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL

REPORTERS CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION - NARASIMBA MURTHY - JULY 12, 2021 NOTICE OF HEARING

FIFTH AMENDED ANSWER AND SIXTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS NOTICE OF HEARING RULE 11 AGREEMENT

MTN TO PROTECT OPPOSITION TO MTN TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS PLT OPPOSITION TO MTN THE STRIKE PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO STRIKE

PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RE: PLAINITFF MTN COMPEL PROPOSED ORDER (SYNERGY) MTN COMPEL DEPO OF (DESARKAR & PALAKODETI) PROPOSED ORDER (HGSI) MTN STRIKE (SNERGY) ATTEMPT TO ADD (HGS) AS DEFENDANT NOTICE OF HEARING RE: DEFENDANT (HGS) MTN PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFS NOTICE OF SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION MTN TO QUASH AND PROTECT

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE -EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - ALI GANJAEL

MOTION TO QUASH AND PROTECT MTN TO QUASH AND PROTECT

SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING MOTION QUASH/NOTICE DEPOSITION SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING LLC

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLTS MTN TO COMPEL

PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL NOTICE OF HEARING 121 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 79/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details NOTICE OF HEARING RULE 11 AGREEMENT

MTN FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER NOTICE OF HEARING

CERT DEPO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO COMPEL PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

DEF'S MTN TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED ORDER TO EXCLUDE

DEFS MTN FOR TRAD AND NO-EVID SJ PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED TRADITIONAL/NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MTN TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEFS MTN TO CONT SJ HEARING PLTS MTN TO CONT SJ HEARING

DEF'S OPPOSITION TO AMD MTN FOR PARTIAL SJ NOTICE OF HEARING

MTN TO QUASH LETTER TO MELBA WRIGHT REGARDING REPORTER'S RECORD WITH THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS NOTICE OF APPEAL-COURT OF APPEAL MTN TO QUASH MTN TO SHOW AUTHORITY

NOTICE OF HEARING PROPOSED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER 191st COVER SHEET

SCHEDULING ORDER DESIGNATION OF REPORTER S RECORD TO BE INCLUDED

PROPOSED ORDER FOR PHV - ELIZA FINLEY PROPOSED ORDER FOR PHV - ZACHARY SAVAGE

2ND SUPPLEMENT APPELLATE RECORD AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING

PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 122 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 80/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details COA - POST CARD

COA - POST CARD RULE 11 AGREEMENT ORDER - GRANTING PRO HAC VICE

ORDER - LEAVE ORDER - GRANTING PRO HAC VICE

ORDER - SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST ALI GANJAEI

ORDER - MISC. ON AUGUST 14,2020 HEARING - MSJ IS CONTINUED AND GRANTING DEFS MTN TO COMPEL

Cover Sheet (General)

Cover Sheet (General) PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN TO SHOW AUTHORITY

MTN TO COMPEL DECLARATION OF BARRY BARNETT

NOTICE OF HEARING Ltr to Clerk Requesting Supp Clerk's Record.pdf COA - POST CARD APPELLATE RECORD COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER MTN TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

NOTICE OF HEARING COA - POST CARD AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING PROPOSED ORDER TO RECONSIDER PLTS MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ORDER TO PARTIALLY STRIKE ALI GANJAEI SPECIAL APPEAR & DECLARATION DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD

NOTICE OF HEARING APPELLATE RECORD

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING RESPONSE TO MTN TO COMPEL

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO COMPEL PROPOSED ORDER COMPEL ALI GANJAEI

SUPPLEMENT TO REQ FOR PAYMENT INTO THE COURT REGISTRY LETTER TO JUDGE SLAUGHTER

RESPONSE/HGSI/HGS HEALTHCARE/SYNGERY SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST/PRETRIAL ATTACHMENT OF FUNDS 123 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 81/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION/HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INC/MARK POPALY

CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION/HGS HEALTHCARE/MARK POPALY PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN TO PARTIALLY STRIKE

PLAINTIFF S EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING PAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS NOTICE OF HEARING

ORDER - PROTECT OBJECTION/OPPOSITION PRETRIAL ATTACHMENT AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING

ORDER - MISC. PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL ALI GANJAEI

PROPOSED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER PROPOSED ORDER RE MTN REQ PAYMENT SCHEDULING ORDER

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MTN REQUESTING PAYMENT SUPPLEMENTAL 1 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD PAYMENT INVOICE APPELLATE RECORD COA - POST CARD

MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF HEARING

NOTICE OF HEARING TO HSGI AND HGSHS MOTION TO COMPEL AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING

LETTER TO JUDGE RE HEARING HELD ON OCT 4 PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL

DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION MTN FOR PHV

OPINION COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PHV NOTICE OF INTENT

PROPOSED ORDER LVIL III SCHEDULING ORDER PLTS MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

SPECIAL APPEARANCE 124 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 82/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details PLTS MTN TO DETERMINE NOTICE OF HEARING ON MTN FOR SCHEDULING NOTICE OF HEARING

PROPOSED ORDER ON GANJAEIS SPECIAL APPEARANCE NOTICE OF HEARING BITUCE APPEARANCE/DANIELA VERA HOLMES

PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY GANJAEI SPECIAL APPEARANCE & RULE 248 MOTION

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING PLTF RULE 248 PETITION OPPOSITION TO MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING AMENDED SPECIAL APPEARANCE 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER

191st JURY TRIAL LETTER 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER PROPOSED ORDER ON MTN FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING

NOTICE OF HEARING AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON SPECIAL APPEARANCE RETURNED MAIL

ALI GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLCS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ALI GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLCS MOTION TO QUASH

TO AND VERIFIED MOTION TO CONTINUE ZOOM HEARING ON GANJAEI'S SPECIAL APPEARANCE

NOTICE OF HEARING - NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION FROM NOTICE

NOTICE OF HEARING - HGS PARTIES OBJECTION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - T-MOBILE USA, INC

HGS' MOTION TO COMPEL HGS' AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

GANJAEI AND SYNERGY GLOBAL'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HGSI AND HGSH'S MOTION TO COMPEL

HGS PARTIES' AMENDED SPECIAL APPEARANCE 125 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 83/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING HGS PARTIES' AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL SYNERGY AND GANJAEI

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND SANCTIONS

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND FOR SANCTIONS

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION FROM NOTICE AND SUBPOENA TO T- MOBILE OF SERVICE - EXECUTED - NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUBPOENA - T-MOBILE USA, INC

ORDER - DENY EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO DESTROY AND FOR SANCTIONS DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND PLAINTIFFS RULE 248 MOTION TO DETERMINE A QUESTION OF LAW

NOTICE OF HEARING HSG'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL SUPREME COURT - POST CARD - 05-22-00052-CV AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - ALI GANJAEI AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - EXECUTED ATTORNEY ISSUED SUBPOENA - WILKES MCCAIN OBEJECTION TO SUBPOENA

AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER TO CONTINUE

NOTICE OF HEARING HGS's AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE PROPOSED ORDER ON GANJAEI'S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA TO ATTEND HEARING HGS' MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF HEARING ON AMENDEDM OTION TO COMPELSYNERGY AND GANJAEI

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL OPPOSITION TO GANJAEI'S AND SYNERGY'S MOTION TO QUASH HGSI'S MOTION TO AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING HGSI'S AND HGSH'S/COMPEL JURISDICTION DISCOVERY

191st JURY TRIAL LETTER 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER

191st JURY TRIAL LETTER 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER SCHEDULING ORDER PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION HEARD JULY 27, 2023

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION

126 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 84/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details SUPREME COURT - POST CARD - 05-22-00052-CV ORDER - GRANTING PRO HAC VICE

PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE SCHEDULING ORDER DEF'S MOTION TO VACATE

NOTICE OF HEARING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE DESIGNATE LEAD COUNSEL

PROPOSED ORDER TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO STAY DEF GANJAEI'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

NOTICE OF HEARING - HGSI and HGS'S MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE HGS'S OPPOSITION TO DEF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO STAY

CORRESPONDENCE - LETTER TO FILE-TO JUDGE/UNDER SEAL EXHBITS E, F. G HGS PARTIES COMPEL BRIEF/LETTER TO JUDGE LETTER TO JUDGE SLAUGHTER

NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER BRIEF DECLRATION OF RAVI BHALLA SYNERGY'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

NOTICE HEARING/AMENDED-COMPEL/ZOOM AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION/PROFESSOR DOUGLAS MOLL/IN SUPPORT COMPEL WILSON MITCHELL/DEPOSITION

HGS HEALTHCARE/RENEWED ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDER

ORDER - COMPEL COA - CORRESPONDENCE LETTER

NOTICE HEARING/ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/IN PERSON LETTER RE: EXHIBITS I & J TO MOTION TO COMPEL

191st JURY TRIAL LETTER 127 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 85/86 10/1/24, 4:16 PM Details 191st JURY TRIAL LETTER

ALI GANJAEI'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO HGS HEALTHCARE'S 2ND RENEWED MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE NOTICE HEARING-AMENDED NOTICE HEARING/RENEWED ENFORCE ALI GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDER-IN PERSON

ORDER - MISC. MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER & FOR SANCTIONS

NOTICE HEARING/ENFORCE/SANCTIONS/IN PERSON CORRESPONDENCE/TO JUDGE FILED UNDER SEAL EXS. 5, 8, 9 TO HGS HEALTHCARE/MOTION ENFORCE AND SANCTIONS

AFFIDAVIT/*CORRECTED* DECLARATION BHALLA/SUPPORT ENFORCE GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDERS/SANCTIONS DECLARATION OPHELLA CAMINA/IN SUPPORT ENFORCE GANJAEI COMPLIANCE/COURT ORDERS/SANCTIONS

CO-DEFT EMER M.TO STAY PENDING RULING ON PETITIN FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PROPOSED ORDER COUNTER DEF/STAY PENDING RULING/MANDAMUS NOTICE HEARING/EMERGENCY STAY-ON PERSON HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGS HEALTHCARE'S MOTION TO ENFORCE AND FOR SANCTIONS

NOTICE OF HEARING ON HGSI AND HGS HEALTHCARE'S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE PLTF'S MOTION SEVER CERTIFICATE CONFERENCE/SEVER-PLTF

NOTICE HEARING/SEVER/ZOOM PLTF AMD MOTION SEVER NOTICE OF HEAIRNG - PLTF'S AMD MOTION TO SEVER

PLAINTIFF SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO SEVER AMD NOTICE OF HEAING ON REQ FOR STATUS CONFERENCE HGS' OPPOS TO PLTF 2ND AMD MOTION TO SEVER

NOTICE HEARING/2ND AMD NOTICE HEARING/ SEVER-ZOOM PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER

CO-DEFT RESP TPO 3RD MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE NOTICE HEARING/AMD NOTICE HEARING/ENFORCE SANCTION-ZOOM

128 https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 86/86 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.

Ronni Bracken on behalf of Michael K. Hurst Bar No. 10316310 rbracken@lynnllp.com Envelope ID: 92678040 Filing Code Description: Notice of Removal to Business Court Filing Description: NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO BUSINESS COURT Status as of 10/2/2024 8:07 AM CST

Associated Case Party: SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Kay Ridenour kridenour@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Leo Park lpark@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Michael K.Hurst mhurst@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Daniela VeraHolmes dholmes@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Maria Gonzalez mgonzalez@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Gina Flores gflores@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

David S.Coale dcoale@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Greg Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Ronni Bracken rbracken@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Tonia Ashworth tashworth@lynnllp.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC

Ophelia Camina ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Joyce Ingram jingram@susmangodfrey.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Ravi Bhalia rbhalla@susmangodfrey.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Ophelia Camina 3681500 ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

Barry Barnett 1778700 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com 10/1/2024 9:56:58 PM SENT

129 E-filed in the Office of the Clerk for the Business Court of Texas 10/15/2024 7:52 PM Accepted by: Beverly Crumley Case Number: 24-BC01B-0007 CAUSE NO. 24-BC01B-0007

SYNERGY GLOBAL § IN THE BUSINESS COURT OUTSOURCING, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, § INC. AND HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC § § FIRST BUSINESS COURT DIVISION Defendants. § § § § § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEFING REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8

Pursuant to the Court’s October 2, 2024 Order, Plaintiff Synergy Global Outsources, LLC

(“Synergy”) files the following briefing regarding the effect (or lack thereof) of Acts 2023, 88th

Leg., ch. 380 (H.B. 19), § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2023 (hereafter, “H.B. 19, § 8”) and shows as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

H.B. 19, § 8 provides that, “The changes in law made by this Act apply to civil actions

commenced on or after September 1, 2024.” H.B. 19, § 8. Nothing in this section of the Act

enabling the creation of this and other divisions of the Business Court, nor any other section of the

Act, prohibits the removal of actions commenced prior to September 1, 2024; instead, the plain

language of H.B. 19 is silent as to the removal of these cases. Against this backdrop, Plaintiff

properly removed the above-captioned action to this Court on October 1, 2024. See Not. of

Removal.

The plain language of H.B. 19, § 8, the use of different language in other statutes, and

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 1 130 statutory construction principles each indicate that § 8 does not act as a bar to the removal of an

action commenced prior to September 1, 2024. The Court should construe a statute to give effect

to the Legislature’s intent as expressed in its plain language. See R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Tex.

Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619, 628 (Tex. 2011). Accordingly, H.B.

19, § 8 has no impact on the otherwise permissible removal of the above captioned action.

II. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The action removed to this Court consists of Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty and

related counterclaims asserted against Synergy and Counter Defendant Ali Ganjaei for his role as

Defendants’ board member and conspiracy and knowing participation claims regarding those same

breaches. See App’x Vol. 22 at 116-53, April 27, 2023 HGS Parties’ 7th Am. Answer and

Counterclaims, Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII. Plaintiff’s breach of contract action was filed in

District Court on December 30, 2019.

III. ARGUMENT

The Texas Business Court was created to “improve the efficiency, consistency and

predictability of business litigation by allowing judges having the required experience and career

interest, working in a statewide jurisdiction, to focus on complex business litigation exclusively.

These cases will no longer compete with, and when they are heard, delay, the variety of civil and

criminal matters that currently crowd the dockets of state district courts, many of which are given

statutory priority over business cases by Texas Government Code 23.101–.103. A(b)(3).” See

TEXAS BUSINESS LAW FOUNDATION, Enactment of HB 19 by the 2023 Texas Legislature:

Specialized Texas Business Court at 3 (available at https://www.businesscourtsblog.com/wp-

content/uploads/2023/06/TEXAS-BUSINESS-COURT.TBLF-White-Paper-6.21.2023-

01890730xB05D9.pdf). Acknowledging that “many business conflicts [ ] remain unheard in the

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 2 131 Texas court system for years”, the 88th Legislature created the Business Court with the expectation

that it would help address the “[district] court backlogs”. HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, Bill

Analysis HB 19 (2nd reading), May 1, 2023 at 9 (available at

https://hro.house.texas.gov/pdf/ba88R/HB0019.PDF) (last visited Oct. 11, 2024). Indeed, “[d]elay

can, and does, cause litigation costs to explode for business litigants, damaging or destroying

companies and costing jobs and future growth.” TEXAS BUSINESS LAW FOUNDATION, Enactment

of HB 19 by the 2023 Texas Legislature: Specialized Texas Business Court at 22 (available at

https://www.businesscourtsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/TEXAS-BUSINESS-

COURT.TBLF-White-Paper-6.21.2023-01890730xB05D9.pdf ) (last visited Oct. 11, 2024).

This action presents precisely the sort of concerns that the 88th Legislature intended the

business courts to resolve: it is a complex business dispute that has languished in district court for

nearly 5 years, with no hope of reaching trial anytime soon. 1 This protracted litigation threatens

real consequences for Plaintiff Synergy who has been deprived of the majority of its revenue for

the last nearly five years with no recourse. The 88th Legislature expected that “[a] business court

could help to remove complex or lengthy business cases from existing court dockets, which could

facilitate quicker resolutions for all cases.” HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, Bill Analysis HB 19

(2nd reading), May 1, 2023, at 9 (available at https://hro.house.texas.gov/pdf/ba88R/HB0019.PDF)

(last visited Oct. 11, 2024).

Furthermore, Defendants’ assert convoluted breach of fiduciary duty claims between them

and their former board member along with Synergy for associated conduct, with alleged damages

1 The 191st District Court has failed to rule on the following Motions, which remain pending as of this filing date: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Statute of Limitations Affirmative Defense (03/30/21 Hearing); Defendants’ Motion for Entry of a Protective Order (10/22/21); Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Sowards (01/14/22 Hearing); Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Authority (02/24/22 Hearing); Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion Requesting Payment of Commissions into the Court Registry (05/04/22 Hearing); Plaintiff’s Second Amended Motion to Sever (08/30/24 Hearing).

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 3 132 over $5 million. 2 This matter presents two grounds for the invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction.

See Not. of Removal at 1–2 (invoking both Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 25A.004(b) and (e)). Facilitating

the resolution of this action after endless delay in district court is consistent with the purpose of

the Business Court and the reasons for its creation. 3 And nothing within H.B. 19, § 8 presents an

obstacle to this Court’s authority to accept the removal of this case for at least three reasons:

First, a plain language reading of the text of H.B. 19, § 8 reveals no prohibition to the

removal of cases, only an affirmation of this Court’s ability to begin adjudicating cases filed on or

after September 1, 2024.

Second, in instances where the Legislature seeks to prevent the application of a Statute to

actions commenced before the effective date, it has utilized specific language that does not appear

in H.B. 19, § 8.

Third, H.B. 19 (including § 8) is a procedural not substantive statute; accordingly, the

removal process outlined therein applies to ongoing, pre-September 1, 2024 cases.

A. The Plain Language of H.B. 19, § 8 Does Not Prohibit the Removal of Cases Filed Before September 1, 2024.

“The changes in law made by this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after

September 1, 2024.” H.B. 19, § 8. Section 8 prohibits nothing; it contains no limiting language

such as “only,” it does not include a prohibitive follow up phrase outlawing the removal of earlier

filed cases, and it is silent as to cases filed prior to September 1, 2024. See id. Instead, § 8 serves

a different, important role: it acts as a signal that the Business Court, including this First Division

of the Business Court, is open and ready to adjudicate cases. The face of H.B. 19 explains why the

2 Plaintiff denies the merits of Defendants’ allegations entirely and believes Defendants are entitled to no damages. 3 Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023, courts “may” consider the statutes objective and legislative history regardless of whether the statute is ambiguous.

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 4 133 § 8 text is different than other statutes. 4 The purpose of § 8 is to affirm this Court’s ability to begin

adjudicating cases filed on or after September 1, 2024, i.e. a date certain on which the Business

Court is “open for business”. H.B. 19 “takes effect” in 2023 (H.B. § 9), which allows many

administratively activities—such as appointing judges to the court, (H.B. § 6)—to occur between

September 2023-September 2024 to prepare the Business Court to be ready.

“In construing statutes, our primary objective is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent.”

Fort Worth Transp. Auth. v. Rodriguez, 547 S.W.3d 830, 838 (Tex. 2018). Consistent with this

goal, courts “may” consider the statute’s objective and legislative history regardless of whether

the statute is ambiguous. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023. Courts must enforce statutes as written

and refrain from rewriting the text that lawmakers chose. See Jaster v. Comet II Const., Inc., 438

S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. 2014). A court should limit its analysis to the words of the statute and apply

the plain meaning of those words unless a different meaning is apparent from the context, or the

plain meaning leads to absurd or nonsensical results. See id. Here, neither of these factors counsel

in favor of deviating from the plain language of H.B. 19, § 8. Nothing within the remainder of

H.B. 19 indicates that the language of § 8 is a bar to cases filed before September 1, 2024. The

plain language is clear on the face of H.B. 19.

Apart from the legislative materials bearing on intent, other secondary materials should not

be consulted for statutory interpretation, particularly when, as here, there is no ambiguity to

resolve. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023; but see Fort Worth Transp. Auth. v. Rodriguez, 547

S.W.3d 830, 838 (Tex. 2018) (“When a statute is not ambiguous on its face, it is inappropriate to

4 See infra II.(B).

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 5 134 use extrinsic aids to construe the unambiguous statutory language.”); see also Entergy Gulf States,

Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 473 (Tex. 2009) (J. Willett, concurring) (“Even in rare cases

where we mine secondary sources to help clarify ambiguity, judges, while not limited to the text,

should always be limited by the text.” (emphasis in original)).

Ultimately, the plain language controls even when the results of such an interpretation are

unexpected. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 866–67

(Tex. 1999) (reading Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 82.002 to provide manufacturer indemnity to

any “seller,” not just sellers in manufacturer’s chain of distribution); see also Entergy Gulf States,

Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 437–38 (Tex. 2009) (concluding that premises owners could

meet definition of “general contractors” entitled to the benefit of the exclusive remedy defense

under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act); ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d

895, 900–01 (Tex. 2017) (concluding that pre-2019 version of Texas Citizens Participation Act

extended its protections to private communications). Accordingly, the plain language of H.B. 19,

§ 8 does not prohibit the removal of pre-September 1, 2024 actions and therefore does not limit

this Court’s authority over this properly removed action.

B. H.B. 19, § 8 Lacks the Limiting Language that the Legislature Utilizes to Prevent the Application of a Statute to Actions Commenced Before the Effective Date.

The Legislature is aware of how to expressly limit the application of a statute to only cases

filed after a certain date; they did not do so here. H.B. 19 § 8’s language is uniquely brief. 5

Tellingly, in 2023 during the 88th Legislative Session—the same session during which H.B. 19

was passed—H.B. 4381 was also passed, adding Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.007. In H.B.

4381, the Legislature was not silent as to whether it applies to currently pending cases, but instead,

5 Plaintiff has looked for and identified no other Texas statute with identical language to H.B. 19 § 8, and no Texas appellate court determining the meaning of such text.

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 6 135 included limiting language to expressly prevent its application to pending cases. The relevant

clause in H.B. 4381 reads as follows:

The change in law made by this Act applies only to a civil action commenced on or after the effective date of this Act. A civil action commenced before the effective date of the Act is governed by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.007 (ALTERNATIVE SECURITY IN CERTAIN CASES,

2023 Tex. Reg. Sess. Ch. 763, (H.B. 4381, § 2)) (emphasis added). Similar language is

conspicuously absent from H.B. 19, § 8.

Like H.B. 4381, the examples below both include the word “only” in their statements of

applicability and further include an additional explanatory phrase limiting the application of the

amendments, while H.B. § 8 does not.

Source Applicable Language

1. Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25A (CREATION The changes in law made by this Act apply to OF A SPECIALTY TRIAL COURT TO civil actions commenced on or after September HEAR CERTAIN CASES; 1, 2024. AUTHORIZING FEES, 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 380 (H.B. 19, § 8)

2. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.007 The change in law made by this Act applies (ALTERNATIVE SECURITY IN only to a civil action commenced on or after the CERTAIN CASES, 2023 Tex. Reg. effective date of this Act. A civil action Sess. Ch. 763, (H.B. 4381, § 2)) commenced before the effective date of the Act (emphasis added) is governed by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 7 136 3. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001 The change in law made by this Act applies (RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES only to an award of attorney's fees in an action IN CERTAIN CIVIL CASES, 2021 commenced on or after the effective date of this Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 665, (H.B. Act. An award of attorney's fees in an action 1578, § 2)) (emphasis added) commenced before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law applicable to the award immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

4. TCPA (CIVIL ACTIONS INVOLVING Chapter 27, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, THE EXERCISE OF CERTAIN as amended by this Act, applies only to an CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 2019 action filed on or after the effective date of this Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 378 (H.B. Act. An action filed before the effective date of 2730, § 11)) (emphasis added) this Act is governed by the law in effect immediately before that date, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

5. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002 The change in law made by this Act applies (2009 Amendments) only to an action or arbitration filed or (AFFIDAVIT REQUIRED TO BE commenced on or after the effective date of this FILED IN A CAUSE OF ACTION Act. An action or arbitration filed or AGAINST CERTAIN LICENSED OR commenced before the effective date of this REGISTERED PROFESSIONALS, Act is governed by the law in effect 2009 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 789 (S.B. immediately before the effective date of this 1201 § 3)) (emphasis added). Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

6. Tex. Probate Code § 5(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section or (REFORM OF CERTAIN by a specific provision in an article, this Act PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES IN applies only to an action filed on or after the CIVIL ACTIONS, 2003 Tex. Sess. Law effective date of this Act. An action filed before Serv. Ch. 204 (H.B. 4)) (emphasis the effective date of this Act, including an added) action filed before that date in which a party is joined or designated after that date, is governed by the law in effect immediately before the change in law made by this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.”).

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 8 137 7. Tex. Fam. Code § 102.003 (AN ACT The changes in law made to Sections 102.003… RELATING TO THE PARENT-CHILD by this Act apply only to a suit affecting the RELATIONSHIP AND TO SUITS parent-child relationship filed on or after the AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD effective date of this Act. A suit filed before the RELATIONSHIP, 1999 Tex. Sess. Law effective date of this Act is governed by the law Serv. Ch. 1390 (H.B. 1622, § 51(c))) in effect on the date the suit was filed, and the (emphasis added) former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

8. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § (a) ‘This Act applies only to a civil action: (1) 51.014(a)(7) (COURTS— commenced on or after the effective date of this INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS— Act; or (2) commenced before the effective APPEAL, 1997 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. date of this Act but pending on the effective Ch. 1296 (S.B. 453 § 2(a)) (emphasis date of this Act and in which the trial, or any added) new trial or retrial following motion, or appeal, or otherwise, begins on or after that date. (b) An action commenced before the effective date of this Act and in which the trial, or any new trial or retrial is in progress on that date is governed by the law applicable to the action immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.”

9. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.012 (a) Sections 2.01 through 2.12 and Article 3 of (TORT REFORM—REVISION OF this Act apply only to suits filed on or after the CIVIL PROCEDURES AND effective date of this Act. REMEDIES FOR PERSONAL (b) If all or any part of a suit is filed before the INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR effective date of this Act, the entire suit shall be DEATH AND DETERMINATION governed with respect to the subject matter of AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY Sections 2.01 through 2.12 and Article 3 of this AND DAMAGES, 1987 Tex. Sess. Law Act by the applicable law in effect before that Serv. 1st C.S. 2 date, and that law is continued in effect only (S.B. No. 5, § 4.05)) (emphasis added) for this purpose, including any new trial or retrial of any such suit following appeal of the trial court's judgment.

While every word of a statute is presumed to have a purpose, the Texas Supreme Court has

noted that the inverse of this principle is true as well: “…[W] e believe every word excluded from

a statute must also be presumed to have been excluded for a purpose. Only when it is necessary to

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 9 138 give effect to the clear legislative intent can we insert additional words or requirements into a

statutory provision.” Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 540 (Tex. 1981). Here

the Legislature expressly opted not to include a limiting word like “only” in H.B. 19, § 8. See H.B.

19, § 8. It similarly did not include any clarifying phrases explaining that H.B. 19, § 8 was meant

to serve as a bar to the removal of pre-September 1, 2024 cases. See id. This Court should not add

additional text to H.B. 19, § 8 and should instead simply read it as plainly written. Section 8 simply

signals that the Business Courts are open and ready to take on cases as of September 1, 2024.

Removal of the underlying Action is therefore entirely proper.

C. H.B. 19 is a Procedural Statute and therefore Applies Retroactively to Ongoing, Pre- September 1, 2024 Actions.

Arguments claiming that removal of pre-September 1, 2024 actions to this court would be

unconstitutionally retroactive are a red herring. In short, the constitutional prohibitions on

retroactive statutes do not apply to laws amending procedure rather than substantive rights.

“Changes in procedural rules may often be applied in suits arising before their enactment without

raising concerns about retroactivity.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods, 511 U.S. 244, 275 (1994).

There are “diminished reliance interests in matters of procedure” because they “regulate secondary

rather than primary conduct.” Id. Accordingly, H.B. 19—including § 8—is precisely the type of

statute that can permissibly apply retroactively. “[I]n determining whether a statute violates the

prohibition against retroactive laws in article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution, courts must

consider three factors in light of the prohibition’s dual objectives: the nature and strength of the

public interest served by the statute as evidenced by the Legislature’s factual findings; the nature

of the prior right impaired by the statute; and the extent of the impairment.” Robinson v. Crown

Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 335 S.W.3d 126, 145 (Tex. 2010).

“Under this test, changes in the law that merely affect remedies or procedure, or that

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 10 139 otherwise have little impact on prior rights, are usually not unconstitutionally retroactive.” Id. at

146. Courts have previously held that where a statute determines “what tribunal, the Board or the

trial court, has the authority to initially decide a Code issue or claim,” it is procedural in nature.

Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 222 (Tex. 2002). This is

plainly the purpose of H.B. 19: to determine that Business Courts are empowered to hear certain

cases.

Examination of the three Robinson factors makes clear that H.B. 19 is not

unconstitutionally impermissible. First, there is a strong public interest in the creation of the

Business Courts to expedite complex business cases and create consistent precedent, while freeing

district courts to devote additional time to other matters. See, e.g., Texas Business Law Foundation,

Enactment of HB 19 by the 2023 Texas Legislature: Specialized Texas Business Court at 3

(available at https://www.businesscourtsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/TEXAS-

BUSINESS-COURT.TBLF-White-Paper-6.21.2023-01890730xB05D9.pdf ). Second, H.B. 19’s

retroactive application does not impair any right; in fact, the case will continue to proceed to trial,

and perhaps even in an expedited fashion, which would be beneficial to all parties by bringing

about finality sooner. See Robinson, 335 S.W.3d at 145. And third, given that removal to this court

does not impair an existing right, the extent of said impairment is non-existent. See id.

“...[T]he procedural pathway” by which the parties’ claims are resolved “is not a matter

with which the constitutional retroactivity bar is concerned.” Hogan v. S. Methodist Univ., 688

S.W.3d 852, 863 (Tex. 2024). Properly understood, H.B. 19 as a procedural law does not pose any

constitutional concern and instead supports the application of “present law” consistent with

SCOTUS and Texas precedent. Accordingly, removal of this matter is proper.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 11 140 For the foregoing reasons, H.B. 19, § 8 does not prohibit the removal of cases filed prior

to September 1, 2024, the removal of this matter was therefore proper, and the Court has authority

to preside over this action.

DATED: October 15, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael Hurst Michael K. Hurst State Bar No. 10316310 mhurst@lynnllp.com Gregory A. Brassfield State Bar No. 240799900 gbrassfield@lynnllp.com Daniela Vera Holmes State Bar No. 24124113 dholmes@lynnllp.com Leo Park State Bar No. 24122983 lpark@lynnllp.com LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3800 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all counsel of record on October 15, 2024 via E-File.

/s/ Michael Hurst Michael Hurst

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 12 141 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.

Ronni Bracken on behalf of Michael K. Hurst Bar No. 10316310 rbracken@lynnllp.com Envelope ID: 93161876 Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents Filing Description: PLAINTIFFS BRIEFING REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 Status as of 10/16/2024 9:00 AM CST

David S.Coale dcoale@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Michael K.Hurst mhurst@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Kay Ridenour kridenour@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Tonia Ashworth tashworth@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Greg Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Leo Park lpark@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Gina Flores gflores@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Ronni Bracken rbracken@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Daniela VeraHolmes dholmes@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Maria Gonzalez mgonzalez@lynnllp.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Barry Barnett 1778700 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Ophelia Camina 3681500 ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Ravi Bhalia rbhalla@susmangodfrey.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Joyce Ingram jingram@susmangodfrey.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

Ophelia Camina ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/15/2024 7:52:16 PM SENT

142 E-filed in the Office of the Clerk for the Business Court of Texas 10/16/2024 10:56 AM Accepted by: Beverly Crumley Case Number: 24-BC01B-0007

The Business Court of Texas, 1st Division

SYNERGY GLOBAL § OUTSOURCING, LLC, Plaintiff § v. § Cause No. 24-BC01B-0007 § HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, § INC. and HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC, § Defendants

═══════════════════════════════════════ ADDITIONAL BRIEFING NOTICE ═══════════════════════════════════════

Each party may file a response by October 23, 2024.

BILL WHITEHILL Judge of the Texas Business Court, First Division

Signed: October 16, 2024

143 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: 93216080 Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents Filing Description: Additional Briefing Notice Status as of 10/16/2024 11:33 AM CST

David S.Coale dcoale@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Michael K.Hurst mhurst@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Kay Ridenour kridenour@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Tonia Ashworth tashworth@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Maria Gonzalez mgonzalez@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Greg Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Leo Park lpark@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Gina Flores gflores@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Ronni Bracken rbracken@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Daniela VeraHolmes dholmes@lynnllp.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Barry Barnett 1778700 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Ophelia Camina 3681500 ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Ravi Bhalia rbhalla@susmangodfrey.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Joyce Ingram jingram@susmangodfrey.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

Ophelia Camina ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/16/2024 10:56:40 AM SENT

144 E-filed in the Office of the Clerk for the Business Court of Texas 10/23/2024 7:06 PM Accepted by: Beverly Crumley Case Number: 24-BC01B-0007 CAUSE NO. 24-BC01B-0007

SYNERGY GLOBAL § IN THE BUSINESS COURT OUTSOURCING, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, § INC. AND HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC § § FIRST BUSINESS COURT DIVISION Defendants. § § § § § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S OCTOBER 16, 2024 ORDER REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8

Pursuant to the Court’s October 16, 2024 Order, Plaintiff Synergy Global Outsources, LLC

(“Synergy”) files the following Response to HGS Parties’ Response to Court’s October 2, 2024

Order (“HGS Parties’ Response”) and shows as follows:

The crux of this matter lies in whether H.B. 19, § 8 prohibits the removal of cases filed

prior to September 1, 2024. Synergy contends that the statute does not preclude such removals and

that the Court retains the authority to preside over this action.

The statutory language of H.B. 19, § 8 is clear, it contains no limiting language that would

restrict H.B. 19’s application to only cases filed after September 1, 2024. This absence of restrictive

language is a deliberate legislative choice, as evidenced by the Legislature’s consistent practice of

including explicit limiting language in other statutes when such limitations are intended. The HGS

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 1 145 Parties’ interpretation, which seeks to insert additional words into the statute, is fundamentally

flawed and contrary to established principles of statutory construction.

The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to discern and give effect to the Legislature's

intent, which is best achieved by adhering to the plain language of the statute. The administrative

materials cited by the HGS Parties do not provide any authoritative guidance on the Legislature’s

intent regarding the application of H.B. 19, § 8. These materials need not be considered because

they are administrative in nature and fail to illuminate the legislature’s intent.

Accordingly, the removal of this case was proper, and the Court has the authority to preside

over this action. Synergy respectfully requests that the Court uphold the removal and proceed with

the case.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Plain Language of H.B. 19, Section 8 Controls

The Parties agree that the Court’s analysis of H.B. 19 § 8 must rely on the plain reading of

the statute and ascertain the legislature’s intent. Indeed, this is the law. “The statutory language

itself is what constitutes the law. ‘Our basic presumption: legislators enact; judges interpret.’ ”

Sommers v. Sandcastle Homes, Inc., No. 15-0847, at *8 (Tex. June 16, 2017) (citing ANTONIN

SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL

TEXTS, xxx (2012)).

HGS Parties’ 1 interpretation of H.B. 19 § 8 is flawed because contrary to the law—it inserts

words into the statute that do not exist. “A court may not judicially amend a statute by adding

words that are not contained in the language of the statute. Instead, it must apply the statute as

written.” Odyssey 2020 Acad., Inc. v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist., 624 S.W.3d 535, 543 (Tex.

1 Defendants, HGS Healthcare, LLC and Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. (collectively “HGS Parties”).

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 2 146 2021). Nothing in HGS Parties’ Response can change the text of H.B. 19, § 8, which continues to

be silent as to the removal of existing cases. “[C]hanging the meaning of the statute by adding

words to it, we believe, is a legislative function, not a judicial function.” City of Rockwall v.

Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 631 (Tex. 2008).

1. The Administrative Material Does Not Illuminate the Legislature’s Intent

HGS Parties citation to some administrative material that allegedly supports their

interpretation is a red herring. 2 The primary goal of judicial interpretation of the law is to discern

the Legislature’s intent. “In interpreting a statute, a court shall diligently attempt to ascertain

legislative intent and shall consider at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” Tex. Gov’t

Code § 312.005. “Our objective in construing a statute is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent,

which requires us to first look to the statute’s plain language” Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462

S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015). This administrative material, is just that, administrative. HGS

Parties’ exhibits do not tell us anything about the legislature’s intent. Instead, they provide

information about the workings of the Business Court, including filing fees, a form transfer

certificate, a form statement of receipt, etc. HGS Parties’ Exhibit 3 is a document entitled “Filing

in the Texas Business Court”. HGS Parties’ Exhibit 2 is a memorandum from the Office of Court

Administration to the “Texas District and County Clerks”. Indeed, it is the function of the Office

of Court Administration to “provide administrative support to the business court”. Tex. Gov’t Code

§ 25A.0171 (“[t]he Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System shall provide

administrative support to the business court as necessary to enable the business court to carry out

its duties under this chapter.”) These are not judicial opinions or interpretations from any Texas

judge or justice. “Constitutionally, it is the courts’ responsibility to construe statutes” a

2 Although they appear to be different documents, a comparison of the HGS Parties’ Exhibits 2 and 3 shows that they are identical apart from a few lines above the first heading “General Information”. See HGS Parties’ Ex. 2 cf Ex. 3.

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 3 147 responsibility that has not been (cannot be) delegated to any administrative office. Tex. Health

Presbyterian Hosp. of Denton v. D.A., 569 S.W.3d 126, 136 (Tex. 2018). These administrative

memoranda do not usurp the power and duty of the Court to interpret the law as written. “We must

take the Legislature at its word, respect its policy choices, and resist revising a statute under the

guise of interpreting it.” Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Aetna, Inc., 397 S.W.3d 651, 654 (Tex.

2013).

2. The Court Cannot Substitute HGS Parties’ Opinion for the Statutory Text

The HGS Parties’ offer their unsupported opinion that a limit on the cases that can be

brought before the Business Court “makes good sense” and the “Texas Legislature chose to limit

the flow of potential cases and provide the business court an opportunity to ramp up more

gradually.” HGS Parties’ Resp. at 5 (offering no citation). However, “[t]he wisdom or expediency

of the law [or lack thereof] is the Legislature’s prerogative, not ours.” Univ. of Tex. v. Garner,

595 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Tex. 2019) (citing to Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm'n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d

504, 520 (Tex. 1995)) “[W]e may not judicially revise statutes because we believe they are bad [or

to make better] policy.” Id. “[R]ather, our task is to interpret those statutes in a manner that

effectuates the Legislature’s intent.” In re Allen, 366 S.W.3d 696, 708 (Tex. 2012).

Accordingly, H.B. 19, § 8 has no impact on the otherwise permissible removal of the above

captioned action.

B. The Absence of Restrictive Language in H.B. 19, § 8 Is a Deliberate Legislative Choice.

When the Legislature wants to prohibit the law from applying to certain types of cases, it

knows how to do so. It frequently repeats similar language across different acts when doing so,

leaving no doubt through the text. The 88th Legislative Session deliberately included such

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 4 148 language in H.B. 4381 3 and deliberately excluded such language from H.B. 19. 4 “[W]e analyze a

statute as a cohesive, contextual whole, accepting that lawmaker-authors chose their words

carefully, both in what they included and in what they excluded.” Sommers v. Sandcastle Homes,

Inc., No. 15-0847, at *8 (Tex. June 16, 2017). The HGS Parties offer no case law or legislative act

with language identical to H.B. 19 § 8, presumably because there is none. Instead, HGS Parties

cite to 4 cases whose application of the law is consistent with Synergy’s position—none of them

show that H.B. 19 does not apply to existing cases, such as this one. Indeed, all 4 of HGS Parties’

cases refer to legislative acts that contain the limiting word “only” and a clarifying sentence that

expressly states what law applies to cases filed before the effective date of the statute. See summary

table below.

3 “The change in law made by this Act applies only to a civil action commenced on or after the effective date of this Act. A civil action commenced before the effective date of the Act is governed by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.007 (ALTERNATIVE SECURITY IN CERTAIN CASES, 2023 Tex. Reg. Sess. Ch. 763, (H.B. 4381, § 2)) (emphasis added). 4 “The changes in law made by this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.” Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25A (CREATION OF A SPECIALTY TRIAL COURT TO HEAR CERTAIN CASES; AUTHORIZING FEES, 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 380 (H.B. 19, § 8).

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 5 149 HGS Parties’ Cites Act Statutory Text

1. Vickers v. Epic Health Act of April 19, 2021, The change in law made by Servs., Inc., No. 05-20- 87th Leg., R.S., ch. 167, this Act applies only to an 00054-CV, 2022 WL §§ 4–5, 2021 Tex. Sess. action commenced on or 1284165, at *2 (Tex. Law Serv. Ch. 167 (eff. after the effective date of this App.—Dallas Apr. 29, Sept. 1, 2021). Act. An action commenced 2022) before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law as it existed immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

2. Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor TCPA - Act of June 2, Chapter 27, Civil Practice Coll. of Med., 616 S.W.3d 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., and Remedies Code, as 630, 651 (Tex. App.— ch. 378, 2019 Tex. Gen. amended by this Act, applies Houston 2020) Laws 684. only to an action filed on or after the effective date of this Act. An action filed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect immediately before that date, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

3. Casey on Behalf of Est. of TCPA (same as Same as above. Glover v. Stevens, 601 Gensetix, Inc. above). S.W.3d 919, 923-24 ns. 2- 5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2020) 4. Custom Wine Works, LLC TCPA (same as Same as above. v. Talcott, 598 S.W.3d Gensetix, Inc. above). 380, 384-85 ns. 4-7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2020)

As demonstrated by both HGS Parties’ and Plaintiff’s research, the Legislature is capable

of limiting the application of a statute to only cases filed after a certain date—and does so with

regularity. When they choose to do so, the statutory text is express; they chose not to do so here.

This Court should not add additional text to H.B. 19, § 8 but should instead simply read it as plainly

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 6 150 written. Removal of the underlying action is therefore entirely proper.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, H.B. 19, § 8 does not prohibit the removal of cases filed prior

to September 1, 2024, the removal of this matter was therefore proper, and the Court has authority

DATED: October 23, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael Hurst Michael K. Hurst State Bar No. 10316310 mhurst@lynnllp.com Gregory A. Brassfield State Bar No. 240799900 gbrassfield@lynnllp.com Daniela Vera Holmes State Bar No. 24124113 dholmes@lynnllp.com Leo Park State Bar No. 24122983 lpark@lynnllp.com LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3800 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all counsel of record on October 23, 2024 via E-File.

Plaintiff’s Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, § 8 7 151 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.

Ronni Bracken on behalf of Michael K. Hurst Bar No. 10316310 rbracken@lynnllp.com Envelope ID: 93507368 Filing Code Description: Answer/Response Filing Description: PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO COURTS OCTOBER 16, 2024 ORDER REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 Status as of 10/24/2024 9:03 AM CST

David S.Coale dcoale@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Michael K.Hurst mhurst@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Kay Ridenour kridenour@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Tonia Ashworth tashworth@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Greg Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Leo Park lpark@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Gina Flores gflores@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Ronni Bracken rbracken@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Daniela VeraHolmes dholmes@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Maria Gonzalez mgonzalez@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Barry Barnett 1778700 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Ophelia Camina 3681500 ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Ravi Bhalia rbhalla@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Joyce Ingram jingram@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

Ophelia Camina ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 7:06:05 PM SENT

152 E-filed in the Office of the Clerk for the Business Court of Texas 10/23/2024 6:26 PM Accepted by: Beverly Crumley Case Number: 24-BC01B-0007 THE BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS, 1ST DIVISION

SYNERGY GLOBAL OUTSOURCING, § LLC, § § Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, § § v. § § HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., § Cause No. 24-BC01B-0007 and HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC, § § Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, § § v. § § ALI GANJAEI, § § Counter-Defendant. §

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE TO SYNERGY’S BRIEFING REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8

Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. and HGS Healthcare, LLC (the “HGS Parties”), in

accordance with the Court’s October 16, 2024 order, submit the following response to Synergy

Global Outsourcing LLC’s (“Synergy”) Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, Section 8 (“Synergy Br.”). 1

INTRODUCTION

By claiming that Section 8 “simply signals that the Business Courts are open and ready to

take on cases as of September 1, 2024,” Synergy Br. at 10, Synergy’s reading of H.B. 19 “violat[es]

the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that every word of text be given meaning,” Waak v.

1 Counter-Defendant Ali Ganjaei did not file any response to this Court’s October 2, 2024 order requesting briefing. That may be because one of the lawyers who represents Mr. Ganjaei in this case, Andrew Debter, has published an article stating that “the business courts will only have jurisdiction for cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024.” Andrew Debter & Timothy Wells, Texas Means Business: What to Expect Upon the Arrival of Texas’s New Business Courts, Brown Fox PLLC (August 14, 2023), available at https://brownfoxlaw.com/texas-courtsmean- business/ (emphasis added).

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 1 153 Rodriguez, 603 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Tex. 2020). H.B. 19 already states, in Section 5, that, “[e]xcept

as otherwise provided by this Act, the business court is created September 1, 2024.” As Synergy

itself concedes, “every word of a statute is presumed to have a purpose . . . .” Synergy Br. at 9; see

Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 271 S.W.3d 238, 256 (Tex. 2008) (“The Court

must not interpret the statute in a manner that renders any part of the statute meaningless or

superfluous.”). Synergy’s removal of this nearly five-year-old case to the Business Court thus

violates Section 8.

The additional arguments that Synergy offers in favor of its interpretation—which it

tellingly bases on non-legislative, extrinsic sources and the materially different wording of other

statutes—could not override the plain meaning of Section 8. Nor do they support Synergy’s

counter-textual reading. Indeed, the only extrinsic sources that go directly to the question before

the Court are the two memoranda published by the Texas Judicial Branch—and both state,

“Removals to Business Court – Applies only to actions filed after 9/1/2024.” See HGS Parties’

Response to the Court’s October 2, 2024 Order (“HGS Parties Br.”), Exs. 2, 3 (emphasis in

original). The Court should remand this action to the 191st District Court of Dallas County.

ARGUMENT

1. The plain language of Section 8 is clear and Synergy’s interpretation of that language renders Section 5 superfluous.

In their opening briefs, the parties offer two different interpretations of Section 8’s plain

language. As explained in the HGS Parties’ Brief, Section 8 limits the “changes in law” made by

H.B. 19, which include the new removal procedure established by H.B. 19, to “civil actions

commenced on or after September 1, 2024.” HGS Parties Br. at 4. According to Synergy, however,

Section 8 does not provide this limitation, but instead serves to “signal that the Business Court . . .

is open and ready to adjudicate cases” and “to affirm this Court’s ability to begin adjudicating

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 2 154 cases filed on or after September 1, 2024, i.e. a date certain on which the Business Court is ‘open

for business.’” Synergy Br. at 4-5.

But Synergy completely ignores Section 5 of H.B. 19, which states that “the business court

is created September 1, 2024.” HGS Parties Br., Ex. 1 at 25. It is Section 5, not Section 8, that

establishes September 1, 2024 as the “date certain on which the Business Court is ‘open for

business.’” Synergy Br. at 5. That is the plain meaning of Section 5.

Because Section 5 already establishes the date on which the Business Court can begin

adjudicating cases, Section 8 must establish something different. That is because of “the cardinal

rule of statutory interpretation that every word of text be given meaning.” Waak, 603 S.W.3d at

108. The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly framed this interpretive canon as mandatory. See,

e.g., In re CenterPoint Energy Hous. Elec., LLC, 629 S.W.3d 149, 159 (Tex. 2021) (“We must

give effect to all words of a statute and not treat any language as surplusage.”); Randol Mill

Pharmacy v. Miller, 465 S.W.3d 612, 617 (Tex. 2015) (“[W]e may not interpret a statute in a way

that renders any part of it meaningless.”); Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc., 271 S.W.3d at

256 (“The Court must not interpret the statute in a manner that renders any part of the statute

meaningless or superfluous.”). 2

As applied here, this canon requires that Section 8 be interpreted in a way that does not

render Section 5 “meaningless or superfluous” Id. Synergy’s reading of Section 8 renders Section

5 superfluous. Synergy offers no alternative reading of Section 5 or otherwise explains what work

2 Other times, the Texas Supreme Court has indicated that the canon against surplusage must be followed “[i]f possible.” See, e.g., Creative Oil & Gas, LLC v. Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, 591 S.W.3d 127, 134 (Tex. 2019) (“If possible, the words ‘in the marketplace’ [in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(7)(E)] must not be treated as surplusage.”). The canon against surplusage should be followed here because it is entirely possible to read H.B. 19 in a way that gives effect to both Sections 5 and 8.

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 3 155 it does if Section 8 is read as Synergy suggests. By contrast, the HGS Parties’ reading of Section

8 gives effect to both sections: Section 5 establishes the opening date of the Business Court and

Section 8 limits the removal of cases to the Business Court to “civil actions commenced on or after

September 1, 2024.”

Synergy’s remaining plain-text argument—that Section 8 “prohibits nothing” because it

“does not include a prohibitive follow up phrase outlawing the removal of earlier filed cases,”

Synergy Br. at 4—also falls flat. By Synergy’s logic, for Section 8 to bar removal of cases

commenced prior to September 1, 2024, it must say something like: “The changes in law made by

this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024 and do not apply to civil

actions commenced prior to September 1, 2024.” This argument proves too much. While Synergy

is correct that Section 8 does not contain language like the italicized language above, it is also the

case that Section 8 does not contain a phrase that allows removal of civil actions commenced prior

to September 1, 2024. If Synergy’s rule is that Section 8 must directly address pre-September 1

actions in order to govern the removability of pre-September 1 actions, then that rule equally

undercuts Synergy’s reading of Section 8. Besides, there is no such rule of statutory interpretation

(and Synergy cites no authority holding otherwise). Clear statements are not made un-clear by the

existence of other, clear alternatives.

That Section 8 is clear on its face—and should be interpreted to exclude civil actions

commenced prior to September 1, 2024—is supported by an additional canon, expresio unius. “In

general, [expresio unius] means that a statute’s inclusion of a specific limitation excludes all other

limitations of that type.” Rodriguez v. State, 953 S.W.2d 342, 354 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, pet.

denied); see E. El Paso Physicians Med. Ctr., L.L.C. v. Vargas, 511 S.W.3d 172, 177 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 2014, pet. denied) (citing expresio unius and noting that a court “must presume that the

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 4 156 Legislature chose its words carefully, particularly when it sets out a specific list of conditions in a

statute” (cleaned up)); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of

Legal Texts 107 (2012) (“The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others.”).

Here, the “specific list of conditions,” E. El Paso Physicians, 511 S.W.3d at 177, or

“specific limitation,” Rodriguez, 953 S.W.2d at 354, at issue is the “civil actions commenced on

or after September 1, 2024” language of Section 8. The inclusion of that limitation implies the

exclusion of “all other limitations of that type,” id., i.e., all other limitations based on the date on

which a civil action was commenced. Since all civil actions are either commenced on or after

September 1, 2024 or before September 1, 2024, and the Texas Legislature included only the “on

or after” limitation in Section 8, the Texas Legislature intended to exclude the “before” limitation.

That is, “[t]he changes in law made by” H.B. 19 “apply to civil actions commenced on or after

September 1, 2024,” but do not apply to actions commenced before September 1.

Consider an everyday example: “When a car dealer promises a low financing rate to

‘purchasers with good credit,’ it is entirely clear that the rate is not available to purchasers with

spotty credit.” Scalia & Garner, Reading Law 107 (emphasis in original). So, too, here. The Texas

Legislature made changes to the law for “civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.”

It is entirely clear that those changes are not available in civil actions commenced before

September 1, 2024.

2. Synergy’s non-textual arguments need not be considered and do not support Synergy’s reading of Section 8.

The Court’s inquiry need not extend beyond the plain text of Section 8 and the widely

regarded canons of interpretation used to interpret such text. See HGS Parties Br. at 3-4; Fort

Worth Transportation Auth. v. Rodriguez, 547 S.W.3d 830, 838 (Tex. 2018) (“When a statute is

not ambiguous on its face, it is inappropriate to use extrinsic aids to construe the unambiguous

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 5 157 statutory language.”). Synergy nevertheless argues that several extrinsic sources support its

reading of Section 8, but those sources are equally consistent with the HGS Parties’ reading.

Moreover, the Texas Judicial Branch memoranda are the only extrinsic sources identified by either

party that directly address the issue before the Court, and those memoranda are only consistent

with the HGS Parties’ reading of Section 8.

As a threshold matter, Synergy incorrectly cites Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023 3 to argue that

extrinsic sources may be considered “regardless of whether the statute is ambiguous.” Synergy Br.

at 5. As the Texas Supreme Court explained, despite § 311.023’s “grant” of “legal permission” to

go beyond the text of an unambiguous statute, courts do not do so. See Texas Health Presbyterian

Hosp. of Denton v. D.A., 569 S.W.3d 126, 136 (Tex. 2018) (“Although this section may grant us

legal permission, . . . we do not consider legislative history or other extrinsic aides to interpret an

unambiguous statute because the statute’s plain language most reliably reveals the legislature’s

intent.”).

Moreover, § 311.023 is part of Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code (known as the

“Code Construction Act”), and that chapter applies only to “each code enacted by the 60th or a

subsequent legislature as part of the state’s continuing statutory revision program” and other

legislative actions that relate to the code. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.002 (emphasis added). By

contrast, Subchapter A of Chapter 312 of the Texas Government Code (titled “Construction Rules

for Civil Statutes”) “applies to the construction of all civil statutes,” Tex. Gov’t Code § 312.001

(emphasis added), and it does not contain an analogous provision to § 311.023. The interpretive

touchstone it provides instead is: “In interpreting a statute, a court shall diligently attempt to

3 This section, titled “Statute Construction Aids,” states that “[i]n construing a statute, whether or not the statute is considered ambiguous on its face, a court may consider” a list of “matters,” such as the “object sought to be attained” and “administrative construction of the statute.”

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 6 158 ascertain legislative intent and shall consider at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.”

Tex. Gov’t Code § 312.005. And the key to “ascertain[ing] legislative intent,” id., is to look to the

statute’s words. See HGS Parties Br. at 3-4 (collecting cases).

That Section 8 appears only in the text of H.B. 19, a statute, but nowhere in the code, is

another reason why Synergy’s reliance on Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023 is misplaced. See HGS

Parties Br. at 4 (explaining which sections of H.B. 19 amend portions of the code, and which

don’t); Williams v. U.S. Nat. Res., Inc., 865 S.W.2d 203, 209–10 (Tex. App.—Waco 1993, no pet.)

(Vance, J., concurring) (drawing the same distinction between the applicability of Chapter 312 to

“a civil statute” and the applicability of Chapter 311 to “a code”).

Should the Court nevertheless consider extrinsic sources or any of the other factors listed

in Chapter 311, the only sources that are directly on point are the memoranda available on the

Texas Judicial Branch website. Both memoranda clearly state that the removal procedures cannot

be used for cases commenced prior to September 1, 2024. See HGS Parties Br., Exs. 2, 3. Under

the Code Construction Act that Synergy cites, the “administrative construction of the statute” is

explicitly among the “matters” a court may consider. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023. The

memorandum titled “Creation of the Business Court of Texas, Effective September 1, 2024” is

issued directly from the Office of Court Administration, see HGS Parties Br., Ex. 2, which is an

agency within the Texas Judicial Branch, and it adopts a reading of Section 8 that is entirely

inconsistent with Synergy’s. 4

4 A litany of practitioner-commentators are in accord. See Michael W. Tankersley & Eugene Zilberman, Texas Law: New Business Courts Should Reject Prior Pending Cases, The Texas Lawbook (July 24, 2024), available at https://texaslawbook.net/texas-law-new-business-courts- should-reject-prior-pending-cases/ (“The answer is clear. Attempts to remove these cases [pending prior to September 1] should be rejected by the business court.”); LeElle B. Slifer & John Sullivan, Business Courts in Texas – Final Rules Approved, Winston & Strawn LLP (Aug. 29, 2024), available at https://www.winston.com/en/insights-news/business-courts-in-texas-final-rules-

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 7 159 Synergy points to two outside sources, a document from the House Research Organization

and a document from the Texas Business Law Foundation, neither of which addresses the question

before the Court. Synergy instead relies on them to establish the purported legislative intent behind

H.B. 19. Namely, the desire to address “backlogs” in the district courts and facilitate quicker

resolution of cases. See Synergy Br. at 2-3. Setting aside the question of whether such sources are

properly considered evidence of legislative intent (Synergy cites no authority for this proposition),

Synergy ignores that this purported legislative purpose is served equally well regardless of whether

actions that predate September 1, 2024 can be removed to the Business Court or not. H.B. 19

serves these legislative purposes regardless of how Section 8 is interpreted, because H.B. 19 adds

significant judicial resources throughout Texas. It is those additional resources, not Section 8, that

serve the purposes Synergy identifies.

In fact, there are good policy reasons why the Texas Legislature chose to limit removals to

cases filed on or after September 1, 2024. See HGS Parties Br. at 5 (discussing same). Opening

the floodgates to all pending litigation (that otherwise meets the requirements for removal) would

risk overwhelming the brand new Business Court and trading one backlog—in the district courts—

for another. Providing for such removal would also eliminate all efficiencies that arise from a

approved (“Note that only actions filed on or after September 1, 2024 may be removed under Rule 355 to a business court.”); Mitch Garrett & D. Hunter Polvi, Texas Business Court: Essentials, Strategies, & Advocacy – Part II, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers (Aug. 27, 2024), available at https://www.dayl.com/2024/08/texas-business-court-essentials-strategies-and-advocacy-part- ii/ (“Can you remove a case filed in district court before September 1, 2024? No. The changes in law apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.”); David G. Cabrales, Texas Legislature Passes Bill Creating Specialized Business Trial Courts: 12 Things You Need to Know Now, Foley & Lardner LLP (May 26, 2023), available at https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2023/05/texas-legislature-bill-specialized-business- courts/ (“HB 19 will take effect on September 1, 2023, but will apply only to actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.”).

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 8 160 district court’s familiarity with a pending case. That is especially true in long-pending and complex

cases like this one.

Finally, Synergy relies on statutes other than H.B. 19 in an attempt to challenge Section

8’s plain language. See Synergy Br. at 7-9. Specifically, it identifies statutes that contain a

“prohibitive follow up phrase” or the word “only,” id. at 4, in their statements of which civil actions

are affected by their changes in the law. This collapses into the same argument addressed above.

There is no requirement that Section 8 must directly address pre-September 1 actions to govern

the removability pre-September 1 actions. Just because the Texas Legislature, in other statutes,

chose to describe the effects on pending actions differently than it did here, that does not undermine

the fact that the language chosen by the Legislature here is clear.

And again, just as above, this argument equally cuts against Synergy because Section 8

does not say that H.B. 19 applies to pre-September 1 civil actions. The Texas Legislature, on at

least two occasions, has included specific language to indicate that “changes in law” made by a

statute do apply to already-pending actions. See Section 2, Chapter 490 (H.B. 410), Acts of the

79th Legislature, Regular Session, 2005, available at https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/sessionLaws/79-

0/HB_410_CH_490.pdf (“The changes in law made by this Act apply . . . to a suit for dissolution

of a marriage pending before a trial court on or filed on or after the effective date of this Act.”

(emphasis added)); Section 10, Chapter 1090 (H.B. 2249), Acts of the 77th Legislature, Regular

Session, 2001, available at

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/IF92744B323D644E990CB92D9275F0E0F/View/FullText

.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0 (“Except as

provided by Subsection (b) of this section, the changes in law made by this Act apply to a pending

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 9 161 suit affecting the parent-child relationship regardless of whether the suit was filed before, on, or

after the effective date of this Act.” (emphasis added)). No such language is present here.

The bottom line: if the text is clear, as it is here, the inquiry is over. That other statutes have

different formulations of text that are also clear does not change Section 8’s clear statement.

CONCLUSION

The plain text of Section 8 is clear. Actions commenced prior to September 1, 2024 cannot

be removed to the Business Court. The alternative reading suggested by Synergy improperly

renders Section 5 superfluous and violates additional canons of construction. Nor do any extrinsic

sources support Synergy’s reading. All of the sources Synergy cites are, at minimum, equally

consistent with the HGS Parties’ reading. And the Texas Judicial Branch memoranda, the most

on-point extrinsic sources, are consistent with only the HGS Parties’ reading of Section 8. The

Court should find that this action is not removable and remand this action to the 191st District

Court of Dallas County.

Date: October 23, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ravi Bhalla Barry Barnett State Bar No. 01778700 5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75225 Phone: 214-415-9675 Fax: 713-654-6666 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com

Ophelia Camiña State Bar No. 03681500 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713-653-7803 Fax: 713-654-6666

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 10 162 ocamina@susmangodfrey.com

Ravi Bhalla (pro hac vice) New York State Bar No. 5748223 One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212-336-8330 Fax: 212-336-8340 rbhalla@susmangodfrey.com

Counsel for Hinduja Global Solution, Inc. and HGS Healthcare, LLC

I certify that, on October 23, 2024, a true and correct copy of this document was properly served on all counsel of record in accordance with TRCP 21.

/s/ Ravi Bhalla Ravi Bhalla

HGS PARTIES’ RESPONSE REGARDING H.B. 19, SECTION 8 - Page 11 163 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.

Joyce Ingram on behalf of Barry Barnett Bar No. 1778700 jingram@susmangodfrey.com Envelope ID: 93506835 Filing Code Description: Answer/Response Filing Description: HGS Parties' Response to Synergy's Briefing Regarding H.B. 19, Section 8 Status as of 10/24/2024 9:03 AM CST

David S.Coale dcoale@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Michael K.Hurst mhurst@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Kay Ridenour kridenour@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Tonia Ashworth tashworth@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Maria Gonzalez mgonzalez@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Greg Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Leo Park lpark@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Gina Flores gflores@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Ronni Bracken rbracken@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Daniela VeraHolmes dholmes@lynnllp.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Barry Barnett 1778700 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Ophelia Camina 3681500 ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Ravi Bhalia rbhalla@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Joyce Ingram jingram@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

Ophelia Camina ocamina@susmangodfrey.com 10/23/2024 6:26:07 PM SENT

164 The Business Court of Texas, 1st Division

SYNERGY GLOBAL § OUTSOURCING, LLC, Plaintiff § v. § Cause No. 24-BC01B-0007 § HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, § INC. and HGS HEALTHCARE, LLC, § Defendants § ═══════════════════════════════════════ OPINION AND ORDER ═══════════════════════════════════════

Before the court is defendants’ motion to remand this case.1 The court

grants that motion because plaintiff filed this suit on December 30, 2019, but

this court does not have authority over cases filed before September 1, 2024.

Act of May 25, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 380, §§ 8, 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv.

919, 929 (H.B. 19).

1 Although defendants’ October 15, 2024, filing is captioned, “HSG Parties’ Response to the Court’s October 2, 2024[ Order,” their conclusion and prayer asks the court to find that the case is not removable and remand it to the district court. Because that response is in substance a motion to remand, the court treats it as such. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (treat pleading’s substance over form).

165 Background

On December 30, 2019, Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC sued Hinduja

Global Solutions, Inc. (HGSI) in the 191st District Court of Dallas County,

Texas. Synergy later sued Ali Ganjaei and HGS Healthcare, LLC. All parties

were joined before September 1, 2024. This dispute centers on a business

development contract dispute. The district court’s docket sheet shows

seventy-six pages of district and appellate court activity from December 30,

2019, until August 31, 2024. 2

Plaintiff removed the case to this court on October 1, 2024. Its removal

appendix filed two days later contains twenty-five volumes.

On October 3rd, this court requested briefs regarding what effect H.B.

19, § 8 has on this court’s authority to hear this case. H.B. 19, § 1’s operative

sections are codified as Government Code §§ 25A.001-25A.020. GOV’T CODE

§§ 25A.001-25A.020.

Twelve days later, defendants moved for remand arguing based on

statutory plain text that the removal procedures applicable to business court

cases do not apply here because chapter 25A is restricted to actions

2 The district court granted Ganjaei’s special appearance, and the court of appeals affirmed.

-2- 166 commenced on or after September 1, 2024, thus precluding application to this

2019 case. They also cited two non-party memoranda on the judicial branch’s

website stating that only actions filed after September 1, 2024, are removable.

Finally, they referred to prior instances where the legislature limited statutory

amendments to only cases filed after the statute’s effective date.

Plaintiff responded with these basic arguments:

First, a plain language reading of H.B. 19, § 8 reveals no prohibition to the removal of cases, only an affirmation of this Court’s ability to start adjudicating cases filed on or after September 1, 2024.

Second, in instances where the Legislature seeks to prevent the application of a Statute to actions commenced before the effective date, it has utilized specific language that does not appear in H.B. 19, § 8.

Third, H.B. 19 (including § 8) is a procedural not substantive statute; accordingly, the removal process outlined therein applies to ongoing, pre-September 1, 2024 [sic] cases.

Plaintiff expanded those arguments and urged textual points and

referenced nine examples of the legislature including specific language

limiting a statute’s application to cases filed after the statute’s effective date

as evidence that § 8, which omits such explicit language, does not prevent

removal in this case. According to plaintiff, § 8’s purpose is to signal when

the court is open and ready to adjudicate cases as opposed to § 9’s September

-3- 167 1, 2023, date for when the court can begin the administrative process of

preparing to open for business in 2024.

The court gave the parties an opportunity to respond, which they did.

Defendants reiterated their plain text arguments and addressed

plaintiff’s argument that § 8 exists to signal when the court may begin

accepting cases by arguing it is H.B. 19, §5’s statement that the court was

created September 1, 2023, that says when the court may begin accepting

cases and so, § 8 must mean something different.

Defendants also invoked the Negative Implication Canon (inclusio unius

est exclusio alterius) to argue that H.B. 19’s application to cases filed on or

after September 1, 2024, means that the statute including its removal

provisions do not apply to earlier filed cases.

Finally, defendants addressed plaintiff’s examples of statutes expressly

limiting their application to post-effective date cases by referring to two

examples where the legislature included language stating that the legislative

changes apply to existing cases as negating plaintiff’s argument about needing

express language to limit a change in law to new cases.

Plaintiff’s response reiterated that § 8’s plain text omitted words needed

to give it the meaning defendants argued for and identified four cases

-4- 168 defendants cited that, according to plaintiff, support its premise that § 8

needed to include limiting language to limit the court’s authority to cases filed

on or after September 1, 2024.

Finally, plaintiff urged the court to reject extrinsic materials regarding

legislative intent and defendants’ policy argument that limiting the court’s

authority to newly-filed cases makes good sense.

Neither side contends that there are disputed fact issues, and the court

does not find any. Nor do the parties contend that H.B. 19 is ambiguous on

this issue, and the court does not discern any such ambiguity. Finally, no party

requested oral argument.

Analysis

A. Overview

The issue is whether H.B. 19, § 8 restricts the court’s authority to act to

cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024, as defendants contend, or

whether § 8 marks the date when the court can begin accepting cases, as

plaintiff contends. For the following reasons, the court concludes that § 8

serves both purposes. Thus, the court lacks authority to hear this 2019 case.

-5- 169 B. Applicable Law

This is a statutory construction issue, which is a legal question. In re

Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 540 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding). The

applicable principles are:

When a statute’s language is unambiguous, “we adopt the interpretation supported by its plain language unless such an interpretation would lead to absurd results.” “We presume the Legislature included each word in the statute for a purpose and that words not included were purposefully omitted.” We construe statutes and related provisions as a whole, not in isolation, . . ., and as a general proposition, we are hesitant to conclude that a trial court’s jurisdiction is curtailed absent manifestation of legislative intent to that effect, . . ..

Id. (citations omitted).

On June 9, 2023, Governor Abbott signed H.B. 19. H.B. 19, § 1 states:

SECTION 1. Subtitle A, Title 2, Government Code, is amended by adding Chapter 25A to read as follows: . . ..

H.B. 19, § 1. Thereafter, H.B. 19, § 1 adds twenty sections regarding the

business court’s operation, including §§ 25A.004 and 25A.006 concerning

the court’s jurisdiction, removal, and remand rules.

Under § 25A.006(f)(1), a party may file an unagreed to removal notice

within thirty days after it discovered, or reasonably should have discovered,

facts establishing the business court’s jurisdiction over the case. GOV’T

CODE, § 25A.006(f)(1). Based on this section, plaintiff contends that its

-6- 170 removal is timely because it filed its notice within thirty days after September

1, 2024, when the court’s jurisdiction became effective.

But H.B. 19 has seven other enabling provisions, including §§ 8 and 9:

SECTION 8. The changes in the law made by this Act Apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.

SECTION 9. This Act takes effect September 1, 2023.

Because plaintiff’s first and second arguments are related, the court

addresses them together.

C. H.B.19’s plain text is dispositive.

1. The Statute’s Plain Text

Section 25A.006 permits removal of cases to the business court if the

case meets business court jurisdictional requirements. Id. § 25A.006((d)-(h).

But § 25A.006 does not address whether cases, like this one, filed before

September 1, 2024, are removable. Nor does any other part of chapter 25A.

Rather, one must consider H.B. 19 as a whole to resolve that issue. Sections

8 and 9 provide that resolution.

Section 9 establishes that the statute became effective on September 1,

2023. That is, § 9 was the start date for ramping up this brand-new court to

begin hearing cases. Based on § 9 alone, Government Code § 25A.006 would

appear to allow parties to remove pending cases to this court beginning on

-7- 171 September 1, 2023. But removals were not practical then because on that date

this court had no court space, judges, staff, equipment, supplies, systems,

rules, and other things needed to function. So, the legislature provided one-

year for the court to become ready to begin accepting cases. H.B. 19, § 8 is

that authorizing statute.

However, § 8 does more than set the court’s first operational date. If

that were all that § 8 does, it would read, “The court may begin accepting

cases beginning on September 1, 2024.” But that is not what § 8 says.

Rather, § 8 also limits H.B. 19’s changes to the law to cases commenced

on or after September 1, 2024—a full year after the statute’s effective date

and the court was created. Section 8’s “this Act” in this context means entire

H.B. 19, which begins with “An ACT relating to the creation of a specialty

trial court to hear certain cases; authorizing fees.” See H.B. 19, preface.

Section 1 thereafter amends the Government Code by “adding” chapter 25A

and its twenty sections. Id. Since chapter 25A in its entirety is a change in

Texas law, it follows that § 25A.006’s removal provisions also change Texas

law.

This court presumes the legislature wrote § 8 the way it did for a reason

and cannot ignore its plain language. In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d at 540.

-8- 172 Nor may it judicially amend the statute. Id. Indeed, H.B. 19’s plain “text is

the alpha and omega of the interpretative process.” Id. at 540-41 (quoting

BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC, 519 S.W.3d 76, 86 (Tex.

2017)).

Accordingly, this court must construe § 8 as limiting § 25A.006’s

removal provisions to cases filed on or after September 1, 2024.

2. Plaintiff’s Arguments

Nonetheless, plaintiff argues that § 8 does not contain the word “only”

and shows no affirmative prohibition to removing pre-effective date cases and

merely affirms the court’s ability to start accepting cases on September 1,

2024. This argument has several deficits.

To begin, that § 8 restricts the court’s entire chapter 25A authority to

act to cases filed on or after September 1st necessarily restricts all chapter 25A

provisions to cases filed on or after that date. So, no specific reference to

removals is necessary to preclude removing cases filed before September 1,

2024.

Next, plaintiff cites nine examples of legislative enactments saying that

the subject Act applies “only to” cases filed on or after the Act’s effective date

and stating that a case filed before the Act’s effective date is governed by the

-9- 173 law existing before that date. From there, it argues that (i) those words in

those other statutes have meaning and (ii) their absence here means H.B. 19

does not so restrict its procedural application to post-September 1, 2024, filed

cases. However, on at least one occasion the legislature included specific

language expressly applying a change in law to pending actions:

SECTION 10. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this section, the changes in law made by this Act apply to a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship regardless of whether the suit was filed before, on, or after the effective date of this Act.

Act of May 22, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1090, § 10, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws

2395, 2398 (H.B. 2249). Thus, by plaintiff’s reasoning, language of this sort

would be necessary for chapter 25A to have retroactive application here. But

no such language exists here either.

Finally, stating that the statute’s changes in the law apply to cases filed

on or after September 1, 2024, implies that the changes in the law—including

the removal provisions—do not apply to cases filed before that date. See City

of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 145 (Tex. 2011) (inclusio unius est

exclusio alterius applies absent a valid alternative construction); Justice

Antonin Scalia and James A. Garner, Reading Law 107-11 (2012) (Negative

Implication Canon). Here there is no other valid construction. The legislature

-10- 174 could have written the court “may begin accepting cases on or after September

1, 2024” had that been its intent. But they did not say that, and we cannot

rewrite the statute to expand the scope of cases removable to this court. In re

Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d at 540.

3. Remaining Arguments

Because H.B. 19’s plain text is dispositive, the court does not address

the parties’ remaining arguments.

Accordingly, the court concludes that H.B. 19’s plain text precludes

plaintiff’s removal and remands this case to the 191st District Court of Dallas

County, Texas.

It is so Ordered.

BILL WHITEHILL Judge of the Texas Business Court, First Division

SIGNED: October 31, 2024

-11- 175