the Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Kevin Krause v. Lewis Hall and Richard Hall, Individually and on Behalf of Rxpress Pharmacies and Xpress Compounding

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in the Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Kevin Krause v. Lewis Hall and Richard Hall, Individually and on Behalf of Rxpress Pharmacies and Xpress Compounding. Read the opinion of the Court — 579 S.W.3d 370
Texas Supreme Court·Decided December 21, 2017·No. 17-0637·Published

Opinion

FILED 17-0637 12/21/2017 3:21 PM tex-21442760 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

NO. 17-0637

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC. AND KEVIN KRAUSE,

PETITIONERS

V.

LEWIS HALL AND RICHARD HALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF RXPRESS

PHARMACIES AND XPRESS COMPOUNDING,

RESPONDENTS

ON APPEAL FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS

NO. 02-16-00371-CV

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. CV16-0309 rd 43 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY, TEXAS

RESPONDENTS’ UNOPPOSED CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS:

Respondents, Lewis Hall and Richard Hall individually and on behalf of

Rxpress Pharmacies and Xpress Compounding (collectively “Respondents”), file

this Unopposed 1 Conditional Motion for Judicial Notice, and would respectfully

show the Court:

Respondents conditionally2 request the Court take judicial notice of the

following documents:

1. Tab A – Plaintiff’s Original Petition
2. Tab B – Plaintiff’s Amended Petition
3. Tab C – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
4. Tab D – Supplement to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

The above-referenced court records, particularly the transcripts attached to

Tabs C and D, contain evidence supporting the statements in Respondents’

Advisory to the Court and Parties filed in the trial court. CR 979–1086.

Particularly, these documents support the allegations that Petitioner Krause had not

just a passive role in the publication of the complained of publications, but that he

struck a deal to publish matters that he knew to be false or dramatically overstated

for the purpose of creating a story3 that would sell newspapers at Respondents’

1 Respondents direct the Court’s attention to the certificate of conference. Clearly Petitioners request for judicial notice is improper and should not be granted. 2 The request is conditional upon this Court’s ruling on the Motion for Judicial Notice filed by Petitioners. As explained more fully in Respondents’ motion and response to the Petitioners’ motion, consideration of these matters is not for this Court or the court of appeals, but rather the trial court in the normal course of this lawsuit. However, should the Court entertain the court records proffered by Petitioners, those proffered by Respondents should likewise be considered. 3 Respondents again recognize the constitutional implications raised when the media is sued for defamation. However, Respondents cannot ignore that the Fourth Estate has come under recent scrutiny itself for the publication and/or creation of “fake news” at the expense of those they are

expense—literally.

Pursuant to Rule 201, Respondents hereby conditionally request the Court

take judicial notice of the attached records for consideration of the Petition for

Review and any further briefing or consideration of this case.

Respondents so conditionally pray and for other general relief.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. Myers, SBN 14765380 John J. Shaw, SBN 24079312 MYERS ✯LAW 2525 Ridgmar Blvd., Ste. 150 Fort Worth, TX 76116 Tel: (817) 731-2500 Fax: (817) 731-2501 rmyers@myerslawtexas.com jshaw@myerslawtexas.com

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS

meant to serve. What better example would there be than a reporter sacrificing independence for the sake of sensationalism?

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the foregoing document contains 371 words, excluding the portions excluded by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1). It was prepared in Microsoft Word using 14-point typeface for body text and 12-point typeface for footnotes. In making this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word count provided by the software used to prepare the document.

John J. Shaw

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I have conferred with counsel in this matter and he is unopposed to the relief sought, specifically stating:

“Petitioners are not opposed to the Court taking judicial notice of these filings, but Petitioners do not concede that these filings are relevant, admissible, or properly considered by the Court under the TCPA.”

Thus this matter is tendered to the Court for ruling.

Certified to on this 21st day of December, 2017.

John J. Shaw

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on December 21, 2017, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel listed below using the Court’s electronic case filing system.

Thomas S. Leatherbury Marc A. Fuller Kimberly R. McCoy Margaret D. Terwey VINSON & ELKINS, LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, Ste. 3700 Dallas, TX 75201

John J. Shaw

TAB A

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 9/29/2017 1:54 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

Marissa Pittman

NB~-17-13448

BNM, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

Plaintiff, § §

v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS §

JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, § §

Defendants. § - -- JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Plaintiff BNM ("Plaintiff'), and files this, Plaintiff's Original Petition

against Defendants JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10 ("Defendants") and, for cause, would respectfully

show unto this Honorable Court as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This suit is the vehicle through which the Plaintiff can recover against the

outlandish, brazen acts of the Defendants, morally bankrupt individuals unlawfully tarnishing the

reputation of a highly decorated former Assistant United States Attorney. The Plaintiff brings

this claim for defamation and tortious interference with contract/prospective business advantage.

2. Plaintiff alleges that as a proximate result of the tortious and willful conduct of

the Defendants, he has suffered financial damages. The Defendants have committed

extraordinary acts of dishonesty and deceit towards Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks all

compensatory damages allowed under Texas law for the injuries caused by their tortious acts and

om1ss1ons.

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

3. Discovery shall be conducted under Level 3 pursuant to Rule 190.03 of the

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff BNM can be served by and through his undersigned counsel of record.

5. Defendant JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10 are unknown at this time but the Plaintiff will

supplement with the individual names of the Defendants.

6. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter, as the amount of the dispute

is within the jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas,

as it is a county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

described herein occurred. This case is not subject to removal.

7. At this time, the Plaintiff is seeking more than $1,000,000.00 in damages against

the Defendants, jointly and severally, and an expedited trial by jury. This case is not subject to

removal to federal court

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. This action arises out of Defendant's blatant, egregious, and inequitable trespasses

to, and violations of Plaintiff, Plaintiffs rights and interests, as well as numerous breaches of duties

Defendants owed to Plaintiff. Defendants' fraud, negligence, and intentional torts against Plaintiff,

includes the infliction of severe physical and emotional hardship upon the Plaintiff, and the

intentional infliction of harm to Plaintiff. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants

knowingly, recklessly, or negligently pursued Plaintiff with tactics designed to deceive, coerce,

harass, or force Plaintiff to engage in dealings with the Defendants.

9. The Defendants have knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently engaged, or have

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

the Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Kevin Krause v. Lewis Hall and Richard Hall, Individually and on Behalf of Rxpress Pharmacies and Xpress Compounding, (Tex. 2017).

the Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Kevin Krause v. Lewis Hall and Richard Hall, Individually and on Behalf of Rxpress Pharmacies and Xpress Compounding (the Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Kevin Krause v. Lewis Hall and Richard Hall, Individually and on Behalf of Rxpress Pharmacies and Xpress Compounding) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Duval County Ranch Co. v. Alamo Lumber Co.
663 S.W.2d 627 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Huie v. DeShazo
922 S.W.2d 920 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Borden, Inc. v. Valdez
773 S.W.2d 718 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson
220 F.R.D. 467 (N.D. Texas, 2004)