throbber
2 CIT/ESERVE
`
`FILED
`5/12/2021 3:44 PM
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`DALLAS CO., TEXAS
`Alicia Mata DEPUTY
`
`DC-21-06135
`CAUSE NO. ________________________
`
`§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`
`116th
` _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`
`OMNICARE PHARMACY OF TEXAS 2, LP
`d/b/a OMNICARE OF TYLER,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TYLER OPS LTC INC. d/b/a PETAL HILL
`NURSING AND REHABILITATION, and
`NORTH TX OPS LTC INC. d/b/a ROSE
`HILL NURSING AND REHABILITATION,
` Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
`
`By this action, Plaintiff Omnicare Pharmacy of Texas 2, LP d/b/a Omnicare of Tyler
`
`(“Omnicare”), seeks, among other things, to enforce its contractual and/or quasi-contractual
`
`rights against each of defendants Tyler Ops LTC Inc. d/b/a Petal Hill Nursing and Rehabilitation
`
`(“Petal Hill”) and North TX Ops LTC Inc. d/b/a Rose Trail Nursing and Rehabilitation (“Rose
`
`Trail”), for the provision of pharmaceutical goods and services.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff is a Delaware limited partnership registered to do business in Texas.
`
`Defendant Petal Hill is a domestic corporation, with a place of business
`
`designated in Smith County, Texas. Defendant Petal Hill may be served with process through its
`
`registered agent, Trent B. Krienke, at 5608 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78731, or
`
`wherever they may be found.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Rose Trail is a domestic corporation, with a place of business
`
`designated in Smith County, Texas. Defendant Petal Hill may be served with process through its
`
`registered agent, Trent B. Krienke, at 5608 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78731, or
`
`wherever they may be found.
`
`

`

`4.
`
`At all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, the nursing and
`
`rehabilitation facilities known as Petal Hill and Rose Trail are owned by the Hopkins County
`
`Hospital District, and defendants, collectively, operate, manage, and/or otherwise exercise
`
`control over the day-to-day operations of each for said Hopkins County Hospital District.
`
`5.
`
`At all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, defendants are
`
`under the collective control of, among other people, William Schindele, who is the sole officer
`
`and director of each defendant.
`
`DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
`
`6.
`
`Discovery is to be conducted under Level 1 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds this Court’s minimum jurisdiction requirement.
`
`8.
`
`In bringing this action in this venue, Plaintiff waives the venue provision set forth
`
`in Section 8.11 of the 2018 Master Agreement, but expressly reserves all remaining provisions of
`
`the 2018 Master Agreement pursuant to In re ADM Investor Serv., Inc., 257 S.W.3d 817, 820
`
`(Tex. App.–Tyler 2008) (stating that forum selection clauses apply to all parties to the contract,
`
`but may be waived by either party).
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas because all or a substantial part of the
`
`events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Dallas County, Texas. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
`
`REM. CODE ANN. §§ 15.002 and 15.035(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`10.
`
`Defendants’ predecessor-in-interest, Regency Integrated Health Services, LLC
`
`(“Regency”) and Omnicare entered into a certain master pharmacy services agreement dated as
`
`of October 1, 2018, pursuant to which Omnicare agreed to provide certain pharmaceutical goods
`
`and services to the nursing home and skilled nursing facilities operated, managed, or otherwise
`
`under the control of Regency (the “2018 Master Agreement”).
`
`11.
`
`The 2018 Master Agreement included as exhibits thereto various “standard
`
`facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements.
`
`12.
`
`The Regency facilities relevant for the purposes of 2018 Master Agreement were
`
`the facilities operated at each of:
`
`a.
`
`900 South Baxter Avenue, Tyler, Texas (known publicly as Petal Hill);
`
`and
`
`b.
`
`930 South Baxter Avenue, Tyler, Texas (known publicly as Rose Trail);
`
`(collectively, the “Facilities”).
`
`13.
`
`Pursuant to the terms of the 2018 Master Agreement, each of the Facilities entered
`
`into separate forms of the “standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy
`
`consulting” agreements with Omnicare.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to the terms of the 2018 Master Agreement, and as more specially set
`
`forth in each Facility’s “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and
`
`“pharmacy consulting” agreements, Regency and the Facilities agreed to pay Omnicare in
`
`exchange for Omnicare’s provision of pharmaceutical goods and services in accordance with the
`
`terms of the Agreement.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`15.
`
`From the execution of the 2018 Master Agreement and the execution of each of
`
`the Facilities’ “standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting”
`
`agreement, Regency and Omnicare operated their respective businesses in accordance with the
`
`2018 Master Agreement, in that Omnicare provided pharmaceutical goods and services to the
`
`Facilities, and Regency and the Facilities paid Omnicare for the pharmaceutical goods and
`
`services received, based on the competitive pricing determined by the 2018 Master Agreement.
`
`16.
`
`In or about May, 2019, Defendants acquired management rights and/or control of
`
`each of the Facilities from Regency, and continued to operate the Facilities in substantially the
`
`same outwardly fashion as Regency, in that the Facilities continued operating at the same
`
`locations, and with the same staff and personnel.
`
`17.
`
`In accordance with the 2018 Master Agreement, upon information and belief,
`
`Regency notified Omnicare that it had assigned each of the Facilities’ “specific standard
`
`facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements, including all
`
`of its rights and responsibilities, to Defendants and/or Defendants’ subsidiaries that operated the
`
`Facilities.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, as part of the May, 2019 acquisition of the now-
`
`former Regency Facilities by Defendants, the 2018 Master Agreement and the Facilities’
`
`“specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting”
`
`agreements were expressly assumed by Defendants – as evidenced by the fact that Regency,
`
`upon information and belief, informed Omnicare of its assignment of the 2018 Master
`
`Agreement to Defendants, and that Defendants accepted Omnicare’s provision of continuous
`
`service to the Facilities immediately after the acquisition.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, if the Facilities’ “specific standard facility”,
`
`“pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements were not expressly
`
`assumed or assigned by Defendants, Defendants’ acceptance of Omnicare’s provision of several
`
`months of continuous service to the Facilities immediately after the acquisition demonstrates an
`
`implied assumption and/or assignment.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, if the Facilities’ “specific standard facility”,
`
`“pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements were not expressly or
`
`impliedly assumed or assigned by Defendants, the post-May, 2019 operation of the Facilities by
`
`Defendants in the same locations, with generally the same staff and personnel, evidenced and
`
`constituted a de facto merger of consolidation of Regency and Defendants at the Facilities.
`
`21.
`
` After the May 2019 acquisition of the now-former Regency Facilities by
`
`Defendants, regardless of the form of Defendants’ acquisition of the Facilities, Omnicare
`
`continued to provide and service the Facilities, and Defendants accepted the receipt of
`
`pharmaceutical goods and services from Omnicare.
`
`22.
`
`From May 2019 through December 2019, Omnicare provided pharmaceutical
`
`goods and services to Defendants at the Facilities pursuant to the terms of the 2018 Master
`
`Agreement, and continued to honor the competitive pricing it had provided to Regency before
`
`the Defendants’ acquisition of the Facilities.
`
`23.
`
`From May 2019 through December 2019, Defendants accepted Omnicare’s
`
`provision of pharmaceutical goods and services at the Facilities pursuant to the terms of the
`
`2018 Master Agreement.
`
`24.
`
`If not for the existence of the 2018 Master Agreement and the Facilities’ “specific
`
`standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Defendants implied and/or express assignment and assumption of the same, Omnicare would not
`
`have even been able to provide Defendants with pharmaceutical goods and services.
`
`25.
`
`In accordance with the terms of the 2018 Master Agreement, and the Facilities’
`
`“specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting”
`
`agreements, Omnicare sent monthly invoices to Defendants for the pharmaceutical goods and
`
`services provided by Omnicare during the prior month, which invoices mirrored the competitive
`
`pricing structure pricing Omnicare had provided to Regency before the Defendants’ acquisition
`
`of the Facilities.
`
`26.
`
`Despite receipt of the Omnicare monthly invoices, Defendants failed to pay the
`
`same in full.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants later in email correspondence dated March 10, 2020 explicitly
`
`acknowledged that they owed a “substantial amount” of money to Omnicare.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants subsequently began to assert that they
`
`did not pay Omnicare’s invoices because there was no contract and that they needed to audit
`
`each account despite this provision not appearing on the face of the 2018 Master Agreement or
`
`the face of any of Omnicare’s invoices.
`
`29.
`
`As a result of all of the foregoing, despite Omnicare’s best efforts to negotiate
`
`with Defendants, Defendants failed to pay the balances due and owing to Omnicare in full as
`
`more fully set forth on the per-Facility schedules attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`30.
`
`Omnicare provided pharmaceutical goods and services to Defendants throughout
`
`their entire relationship because Omnicare was obligated to do so pursuant to the 2018 Master
`
`Agreement and doing so was in the best-interests of the individuals in need of the pharmaceutical
`
`goods and services Omnicare provided.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`31.
`
`As of January 31, 2021, the total principal amount due and owing from
`
`Defendants to Omnicare, after the application of all available credits is the sum of $195,432.78.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Breach of Contract)
`
`32.
`
`Omnicare repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
`
`30 of this complaint.
`
`33.
`
`The 2018 Master Agreement and each Facilities’ “specific standard facility”,
`
`“pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements required Omnicare to
`
`provide the Facilities with certain pharmaceutical goods and services.
`
`34.
`
`The terms of the 2018 Master Agreement and each Facilities’ “specific standard
`
`facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements, obligated the
`
`Facilities to pay Omnicare for its provision of pharmaceutical goods and services pursuant to the
`
`competitive pricing determined by the 2018 Master Agreement.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, in accordance with the 2018 Master Agreement,
`
`Regency notified Omnicare of its assignment of the 2018 Master Agreement and each Facilities’
`
`“specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting”
`
`agreements, including all of its rights and responsibilities, to Defendants.
`
`36.
`
`In
`
`the alternative, Defendants by
`
`its actions of accepting Omnicare’s
`
`pharmaceutical goods and services for seven months, impliedly assumed the 2018 Master
`
`Agreement and each Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and
`
`“pharmacy consulting” agreements.
`
`37.
`
`In the alternative, inter alia Defendants by its actions of accepting Omnicare’s
`
`pharmaceutical goods and services for seven months at the same location with the same
`
`personnel, is the de facto successor, and assumed the 2018 Master Agreement and each
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy
`
`consulting” agreements.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants’ operation of the Facilities, inter alia, in
`
`the same locations, with generally the same staff and personnel, constituted a de facto merger or
`
`consolidation of Regency and Defendants sufficient that Defendants were or should be bound to
`
`the terms of the 2018 Master Agreement and each Facilities’ “specific standard facility”,
`
`“pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Therefore, Omnicare and Defendants are parties to a contract.
`
`After the May 2019 acquisition of the now-former Regency Facilities by
`
`Defendants, regardless of the form of Defendants’ acquisition of the Facilities, Omnicare
`
`continued to provide and service the Facilities, and Defendants accepted the services.
`
`41.
`
`Omnicare fully performed and complied with all terms and conditions of the
`
`2018 Master Agreement (and each of the Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy
`
`product and services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements).
`
`42.
`
`Defendants breached the assumed, assigned, or merged 2018 Master Agreement
`
`(and each of the Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and
`
`“pharmacy consulting” agreements), by, among other things, failing and/or refusing to make
`
`payments in full for the goods and services provided by Omnicare.
`
`43.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, Omnicare has been damaged in the total principal
`
`amount of $195,432.78, plus accrued interest, late fees, costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Unjust Enrichment)
`
`44.
`
`Omnicare repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
`
`42 of this complaint.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`45.
`
`After the May 2019 acquisition of the now-former Regency Facilities by
`
`Defendants and Defendants’ express and/or implied assignment of the 2018 Master Agreement
`
`and each Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy
`
`consulting” agreements, Omnicare continued
`
`to service
`
`the Facilities by providing
`
`pharmaceutical goods and services to the Facilities.
`
`46.
`
`Throughout the entirety of the relationship between Omnicare and Defendants,
`
`Defendants accepted the goods and services provided by Omnicare.
`
`47.
`
`If not for the existence of the 2018 Master Agreement and Defendants implied
`
`and/or express assignment and assumption of same, Omnicare would not have even been able to
`
`provide Defendants with pharmaceutical goods and services.
`
`48.
`
`Due to Defendants’ acceptance of the goods and services provided by Omnicare
`
`for
`
`seven months and Defendants’ express and/or
`
`implied assignment of
`
`the
`
`2018 Master Agreement and each Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and
`
`services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements, including the competitive pricing determined
`
`by the 2018 Master Agreement, it reasonably was expected Defendants would provide full and
`
`complete payment to Omnicare for the goods and services received.
`
`49.
`
`Despite the aforesaid, Defendants failed to and/or refused to make full payment
`
`for the goods and services provided by Omnicare.
`
`50.
`
`By reason of the acts of Defendants, as aforesaid, and without any wrongdoing on
`
`the part of Omnicare, Defendants were unjustly enriched to Omnicare’s detriment.
`
`51.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, Omnicare has been damaged in the principal amount
`
`of $195,432.78, which amount consists of the unpaid balance of its invoices to Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Quantum Meruit)
`
`52.
`
`Omnicare repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
`
`50 of this verified complaint.
`
`53.
`
`In accordance with the terms of the 2018 Master Agreement (and each of the
`
`Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy
`
`consulting” agreements), Agreement, Omnicare provided pharmaceutical goods and services to
`
`the Facilities, all of which are owned by the Defendants.
`
`54.
`
`Throughout the entirety of the relationship between Omnicare and Defendants,
`
`Defendants accepted the goods and services provided by Omnicare.
`
`55.
`
`Despite the Defendants and the Facilities acceptance of Omnicare’s provision
`
`pharmaceutical goods and services, Defendants did not pay the invoices for the same in full.
`
`56.
`
`Defendants had actual knowledge of Omnicare’s reasonable expectation to be
`
`compensated for the goods and services provided because Defendants received monthly invoices
`
`from Omnicare evidencing payment owed for the good and services.
`
`57.
`
`In the alternative, Defendants had chargeable knowledge of Omnicare’s
`
`reasonable expectation to be compensated for the goods and services provided because
`
`Defendants either impliedly assumed or had assigned to it the 2018 Master Agreement and each
`
`Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy
`
`consulting”
`
`agreements,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`competitive
`
`pricing
`
`determined
`
`by
`
`the
`
`2018 Master Agreement.
`
`58.
`
`The fair and reasonable value of still unpaid portion of Omnicare’s
`
`pharmaceutical goods and services, as reflected on Omnicare’s invoices not yet paid in full,
`
`which services were still accepted by Defendants, is $195,432.78.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`59.
`
`As a result, thereof, despite due demand therefor, Defendants have wrongfully
`
`and without justification withheld payment in the principal amount of $195,432.78.
`
`60.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, there is now due and owing to Omnicare the principal
`
`amount of $195,432.78, plus interest and costs.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Account Stated)
`
`61.
`
`Omnicare repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
`
`59 of this complaint.
`
`Omnicare submitted numerous invoices to Defendants as set forth on Exhibit A.
`
`Defendants received and retained each invoice without timely or proper objection
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`or complaint.
`
`64.
`
`Defendants had actual knowledge of Omnicare’s reasonable expectation to be
`
`compensated for the goods and services provided because Defendants received the monthly
`
`invoices from Omnicare evidencing payment owed for the good and services.
`
`65.
`
`In the alternative, Defendants had chargeable knowledge of Omnicare’s
`
`reasonable expectation to be compensated for the goods and services provided because
`
`Defendants either impliedly assumed or had assigned to it the 2018 Master Agreement and each
`
`Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy
`
`consulting”
`
`agreements,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`competitive
`
`pricing
`
`determined
`
`by
`
`the
`
`2018 Master Agreement.
`
`66.
`
`Although demands have been duly made therefor, the invoices have not been paid
`
`in full.
`
`67.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, Omnicare has suffered damages in the principal
`
`amount of $195,432.78, plus accrued interest, late fees, costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Breach of Implied Contract)
`
`68.
`
`Omnicare repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
`
`66 of this verified complaint.
`
`69.
`
`After the May, 2019 acquisition of the now-former Regency Facilities by
`
`Defendants and Defendants’ express and/or implied assignment of the 2018 Master Agreement
`
`and each Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and services” and “pharmacy
`
`consulting” agreements, Omnicare continued
`
`to service
`
`the Facilities by providing
`
`pharmaceutical goods and services to the Facilities.
`
`70.
`
`If not for the existence of the 2018 Master Agreement and Defendants implied
`
`and/or express assignment and assumption of same, Omnicare would not have been able to
`
`provide Defendants with pharmaceutical goods and services.
`
`71.
`
`Throughout the entirety of the relationship between Omnicare and Defendants,
`
`Defendants accepted the goods and services provided by Omnicare.
`
`72.
`
`Due to Defendants’ acceptance of the goods and services provided by Omnicare
`
`for
`
`seven months and Defendants’ express and/or
`
`implied assignment of
`
`the
`
`2018 Master Agreement and each Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and
`
`services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements, including the competitive pricing determined
`
`by the 2018 Master Agreement, it reasonably was expected Defendants would provide full and
`
`complete payment to Omnicare for the goods and services received.
`
`73.
`
`Despite the aforesaid, Defendants failed to and/or refused to make full payment
`
`for the goods and services provided by Omnicare.
`
`74.
`
`By reason of the acts of Defendants, as aforesaid, and without any wrongdoing on
`
`the part of Omnicare, Defendants were unjustly enriched to Omnicare’s detriment.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`75.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, Omnicare has been damaged in the principal amount
`
`of $195,432.78, which amount consists of the unpaid balance of its invoices to Defendants.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Estoppel)
`
`76.
`
`Omnicare repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
`
`74 of this verified complaint.
`
`77.
`
`Throughout the entirety of the relationship between Omnicare and Defendants,
`
`Defendants accepted the goods and services provided by Omnicare.
`
`78.
`
`Due to Defendants’ acceptance of the goods and services provided by Omnicare
`
`for
`
`seven months and Defendants’ express and/or
`
`implied assignment of
`
`the
`
`2018 Master Agreement and each Facilities’ “specific standard facility”, “pharmacy product and
`
`services” and “pharmacy consulting” agreements, including the competitive pricing determined
`
`by the 2018 Master Agreement, it reasonably was expected Defendants would provide full and
`
`complete payment to Omnicare for the goods and services received.
`
`79.
`
`In accordance with the terms of the 2018 Master Agreement, Omnicare sent
`
`monthly invoices to Defendants for the pharmaceutical goods and services provided by
`
`Omnicare.
`
`80.
`
`Despite receipt of the Omnicare monthly invoices, Defendants failed to pay the
`
`same in full.
`
`81.
`
`Defendants later in email correspondence dated March 10, 2020 explicitly
`
`acknowledged that he owed a “substantial amount” of money to Omnicare.
`
`82.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants subsequently began to falsely assert that
`
`they did not pay Omnicare’s invoices because there was no contract and that they needed to audit
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`each account despite this provision not appearing on the face of the 2018 Master Agreement or
`
`the face of any of Omnicare’s invoices.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants stated that there is a substantial amount that they owe Omnicare for
`
`the services provided yet refused to pay in full.
`
`84.
`
`As a result of all of the foregoing, Omnicare was left with balances due and owing
`
`for pharmaceutical goods and services provided to Defendants.
`
`85.
`
`Defendants, in essence, were trying to gain the benefit of a proposed contract to
`
`which they refused to become a party, to justify not submitting payment in full towards invoices
`
`resulting from a contract to which they already were a party.
`
`86.
`
`By reason of the acts of Defendants, as aforesaid, and without any wrongdoing on
`
`the part of Omnicare, Defendants were unjustly enriched to Omnicare’s detriment.
`
`87.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, Omnicare has been damaged in the principal amount
`
`of $195,432.78, which amount consists of the unpaid balance of its invoices to Defendants.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
`
`(1)
`
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all Counts of this Complaint in an
`amount to be proven at trial, together with interest and costs as permitted
`by law;
`
`Award all monetary relief to which the Plaintiffs are entitled;
`
`Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
`
`Award such other and further relief as is just and proper under the
`circumstances.
`
`
`Dated: May 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WRIGHT & GREENHILL, P.C.
`900 Congress Ave., Suite 500
`Austin, Texas 78701
`512/476-4600
`512/476-5382 (Fax)
`
`By:
` Craig A. Nevelow
` State Bar No. 14933580
` cnevelow@w-g.com
`
`
`
`
`
`- AND, SUBJECT TO PRO HAC VICE -
`
`
`RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF
`CUNNINGHAM LLC
`1600 Liberty Building
`Buffalo, New York 14202
`(716) 854-3400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/Benjamin D. Burge
`Benjamin D. Burge, Esq.
`State Bar No. 4990057
`burge@ruppbaase.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`Exhibit
`A
`
`

`

`
`
`Petal Hill Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Invoice
`
`Date
`
`Due Date
`
`Balance
`
`PH3927944
`
`6/30/19
`
`7/30/19
`
`22,922.17
`
`PH3948062
`
`7/31/19
`
`8/30/19
`
`27,730.14
`
`PH3968326
`
`8/31/19
`
`9/30/19
`
`11,884.10
`
`PH3987633
`
`9/30/19
`
`10/30/19
`
`18,530.32
`
`PH4006468
`
`10/31/19
`
`11/30/19
`
`7,852.04
`
`PH4025343
`
`11/30/19
`
`12/30/19
`
`21.36
`
`PH4043906
`
`12/31/19
`
`1/30/20
`
`2,114.79
`
`
`
`
`
`Rose Trail Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
`
`Invoice
`
`Date
`
`Due Date
`
`Balance
`
`PH3927943
`
`6/30/19
`
`7/30/19
`
`30,119.18
`
`PH3948060
`
`7/31/19
`
`8/30/19
`
`18,064.58
`
`PH3968324
`
`8/31/19
`
`9/30/19
`
`24,126.30
`
`PH3987632
`
`9/30/19
`
`10/30/19
`
`17,819.44
`
`PH4006467
`
`10/31/19
`
`11/30/19
`
`14,921.02
`
`PH4025244
`
`11/30/19
`
`12/30/19
`
`(838.31)
`
`PH4043869
`
`12/31/19
`
`1/30/20
`
`165.65
`
`
`
`

`

`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.
`Samantha Houston on behalf of Craig Nevelow
`Bar No. 14933580
`shouston@w-g.com
`Envelope ID: 53401565
`Status as of 5/13/2021 10:56 AM CST
`
`Case Contacts
`
`Name
`Craig ANevelow
`Samantha Houston
`Benjamin Burge
`
`BarNumber Email
`cnevelow@w-g.com
`shouston@w-g.com
`burge@ruppbaase.com
`
`TimestampSubmitted
`5/13/2021 10:25:47 AM
`5/13/2021 10:25:47 AM
`5/13/2021 10:25:47 AM
`
`Status
`SENT
`SENT
`SENT
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket