throbber
ROUNDTREE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`CAUSE NO. DC-19-09051
`
`FILED
`11/13/2020 4:39 PM
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`DALLAS CO., TEXAS
`Terri Kilgore DEPUTY
`
`LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MATTHEW STINSON, NSOH
`
`HOLIDAY ROAD, LLC, and NSOH
`
`HOLIDAY ROAD 11, LLC.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`MATTHEW STIN SON, N SOH.,
`
`HOLIDAY ROAD, LLC, and N SOH
`
`HOLIDAY ROAD II, LLC,
`
`Third- Party Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`FRANK STINSON,
`
`macaw:ammcmcmcmmwowocmcmcmwawowocmcmcmwammcmcm
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`Third Party Defendant.
`
`192ND JUDICIAL DISTIRCT
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Matthew Stinson, NSOH Holiday Road, LLC, and NSOH Holiday Road II, LLC
`
`(collectively, the “MS-NSOH Parties”) file this Original Counterclaim against Plaintiff, Roundtree
`
`Automotive Group LLC and their Third-Party Petition against Frank Stinson.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This lawsuit was wrongfully filed by Plaintiff Roundtree Automotive Group LLC
`
`(“Roundtree”) at the instance of Frank Stinson. There is no merit to Roundtree’s claims. Matthew
`
`Stinson is owed money by Roundtree, which has wrongfully interfered with the use and enjoyment
`
`of property owned by the MS-NSOH Parties. It is time to set the record straight and end the abuse
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`of civil process by Roundtree and Frank Stinson.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Roundtree is a Louisiana limited liability company that initiated this lawsuit and
`
`thus consented to jurisdiction in this court.
`
`3.
`
`Frank Stinson is the founder, President, and owner of the majority of Class A
`
`membership interests in Roundtree. Frank Stinson maintains a residence at 437 N. Andalusia Ave,
`
`Santa Rosa Beach, FL, 32459, where he may be served with process.
`
`4.
`
`Matthew Stinson owns the remaining Class A membership interests in Roundtree
`
`and served as its Chief Executive Officer during much of the relevant time period.
`
`5.
`
`NSOH Holiday Road LLC and NSOH Holiday Road II LLC are Texas limited
`
`liability companies formed by Matthew Stinson and his wife to acquire and hold certain real
`
`property in Texas.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the parties as each is a Texas citizen, maintains a
`
`principal place of business or residence in Texas, or has voluntarily submitted to the Court’s
`
`jurisdiction. This Court further has jurisdiction over the parties because each has done business in
`
`Texas and/or has had sufficient minimum or continuing contacts with Texas.
`
`7.
`
`Pursuant to Texas Civil Procedure and Remedies Code §15.002(a)(l), venue is
`
`proper in this district because Dallas County is the county in which all or a substantial part of the
`
`events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred.
`
`RULE 47 STATEMENT
`
`8.
`
`Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, the MS—NSOH Parties seek monetary
`
`relief over $1,000,000.00 and nonmonetary relief described below.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`Matthew Stinson worked for Roundtree for more than 20 years, including serving
`
`as its Chief Operating Officer and later as its Chief Executive Officer. During his employment
`
`with Roundtree, Matthew Stinson — acting in the interest of the company —— repeatedly deferred
`
`payment of bonuses owed to him by Roundtree. Matthew Stinson also personally guaranteed and
`
`provided consent to enable entities in which he held an ownership interest to pledge assets to secure
`
`loans taken out by Roundtree to support the business, including a line of credit from World Omni
`
`Bank of $15 million.
`
`In these and many other ways, Matthew Stinson supported the business of
`
`Roundtree and put his own assets at risk for the benefit of the company.
`
`10.
`
`Contrary to the allegations in Roundtree’s First Amended Petition and Request for
`
`Declaratory Judgment (the “Roundtree Petition”), Roundtree’s founder Frank Stinson did not leave
`
`the business between 2012 and 2018. In fact, Frank Stinson was involved in important Roundtree
`
`business meetings throughout the years at issue in the Roundtree Petition.
`
`It was only following
`
`the collapse of the business in 2019 that Frank Stinson fabricated a narrative to pin the blame on
`
`Matthew Stinson, as a salve to Frank Stinson’s ego.
`
`1 1.
`
`Not only was Frank Stinson involved in the business of Roundtree on a continuous
`
`basis, as a member (i.e., owner) of Roundtree, he received periodic reports regarding the amounts
`
`that each member of the Stinson family had received from Roundtree. Frank Stinson discussed
`
`Matthew Stinson’s “AR balance” with him and with Roundtree’s Chief Financial Officer on
`
`multiple occasions. No demand for repayment of any amounts received by Matthew Stinson was
`
`ever made by Frank Stinson — who controlled and continues to control Roundtree — or anyone
`
`acting on behalf of Roundtree. As a result, not only is the Roundtree Petition false in suggesting
`
`that Frank Stinson only discovered the amounts that Matthew Stinson had received after an
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`“investigation and review of Roundtree’s files and financial documents,” in 2018, but Frank
`
`Stinson failed to object to any of those distributions at the time he learned of them. Moreover, the
`
`Roundtree Petition fails to account for any of the monies owed to Matthew Stinson by Roundtree
`
`— amounts that exceed Roundtree’s trumped—up claims.
`
`12.
`
`The transactions made the subject of the Roundtree Petition were all: permissible
`
`under the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Roundtree
`
`(the “2013 Operating Agreement”); similar to transactions between Roundtree and Frank Stinson
`
`and other members of the Stinson family; and properly documented and reflected in the company’s
`
`records.
`
`13.
`
`Matthew Stinson has not had an active role in the management of Roundtree since
`
`January 2019. Since that time, Frank Stinson has abused his position as majority owner to cause
`
`the wrongful filing of the Roundtree Petition; to cause Roundtree to file lis pendens against
`
`properties owned by the MS—NSOH Parties and Matthew Stinson’s personal residence and to
`
`maintain the lis pendens without any claim of right in the properties; to refuse Matthew Stinson
`
`his rights of inspection under the 2013 Operating Agreement; and to deny Matthew Stinson’s
`
`requests for indemnification and advancement under the 2013 Operating Agreement for legal fees
`
`Matthew Stinson has incurred and is incurring in defending this action and responding to legal
`
`process in other actions related to his service as an officer of Roundtree
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`COUNT I — FRAUDULENT CLAIM AGAINST REAL PROPERTY
`
`14.
`
`The MS-NSOH Parties re-allege and incorporate by reference all facts and
`
`allegations set forth above.
`
`15.
`
`Roundtree made and used a document (a) with knowledge that the document is a
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`fraudulent claim against real property or an interest in real property or (b) with the intent that the
`
`document be given the same legal effect as a court record evidencing a valid claim against real
`
`property.
`
`16.
`
`Roundtree acted with intent to cause the MS—NSOH Parties to suffer financial
`
`injury and to cause Matthew Stinson to suffer mental anguish or emotional distress.
`
`17.
`
`The MS-NSOH Parties have been damaged by Roundtree’s action.
`
`18.
`
`Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §12.001 et. seq., Roundtree is liable to
`
`the MS-NSOH Parties for the greater of $10,000.00 or the actual damages caused by the violation;
`
`court costs; reasonable attorney’s fees; and exemplary damages in an amount determined by the
`
`court.
`
`COUNT II-BREACH OF CONTRACT: MONIES OWED TO MATTHEW STINSON
`
`19.
`
`Matthew Stinson re-alleges and incorporates by reference all facts and allegations
`
`set forth above.
`
`20.
`
`Matthew Stinson performed services for Roundtree for which Roundtree agreed to
`
`pay him a bonus based on Roundtree’s annual profits.
`
`21.
`
`Roundtree has failed to pay the required bonuses to Matthew Stinson, which total
`
`more than $1,000,000.00.
`
`22.
`
`Matthew Stinson has been damaged by Roundtree’s failure to honor its contractual
`
`obligations to pay him a bonus for his services to Roundtree.
`
`COUNT III - ACCOUNTING
`
`23.
`
`Matthew Stinson re-alleges and incorporates by reference all facts and allegations
`
`set forth above.
`
`24.
`
`Matthew Stinson owns 490 units of the Class A membership interests in Roundtree.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`25.
`
`In light of the allegations of the Roundtree Petition and the fact that many
`
`distributions were made by Roundtree to members of the Stinson family (regardless whether they
`
`directly owned membership interests in Roundtree or worked for Roundtree), Matthew Stinson
`
`requests a formal accounting of Roundtree’s affairs. Circumstances render it just and reasonable
`
`that Roundtree should account for all distributions made to members, any contributions made by
`
`each member to Roundtree, and any other transactions that affect the value of each member’s
`
`interests.
`
`COUNT IV — BREACH OF CONTRACT: INSPECTION RIGHTS
`
`26.
`
`Matthew Stinson re-alleges and incorporates by reference all facts and allegations
`
`set forth above.
`
`27.
`
`By letter dated August 29, 2020, Matthew Stinson requested to inspect the books
`
`and records of Roundtree. This right is available to him as a member of Roundtree under
`
`applicable state law and Section 11.4 of the 2013 Operating Agreement, which states: “The books
`
`and records shall at all times be maintained at the principal executive office of the Company and
`
`shall be open to the reasonable inspection and examination of the Members or their duly authorized
`
`representatives during reasonable business hours.”
`
`28.
`
`By letter dated September 8, 2020, Roundtree — through counsel — notified Matthew
`
`Stinson that it was refusing to grant his right of inspection.
`
`COUNT V — BREACH OF CONTRACT: INDEMNIFICATION & ADVANCEMENT
`
`29.
`
`Matthew Stinson re-alleges and incorporates by reference all facts and allegations
`
`set forth above.
`
`30.
`
`By letter dated August 29, 2020, Matthew Stinson requested that Roundtree
`
`indemnify him against loss in connection with the Roundtree Petition and a third-party subpoena
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`served upon him by Ally Bank, a long—time lender to Roundtree.
`
`31.
`
`The 2013 Operating Agreement provides in Section 11.2 “Indemnification of
`
`Members and Officers:
`
`Any Person made a party to any administrative, civil or criminal action, suit or
`proceedings by reason of the fact that such Person is or was a Member or Officer,
`shall be indemnified by the Company against the reasonable expenses, including,
`without limitation, attorneys’ fees, fines, penalties and amounts paid in satisfaction
`of judgment or in settlement, actually and reasonably incurred by such Person in
`connection with, or resulting from the defense of, such administrative, civil or
`criminal action, suit or proceeding, or in connection with or resulting from any
`appeal therein, if such Person acted in good faith and in a manner such Person
`reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the Company,
`and with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to
`believe the conduct was unlawful.
`
`32.
`
`By letter dated September 8, 2020, Roundtree — through counsel — notified Matthew
`
`Stinson that it was refusing to indemnify him or advance his legal fees, in violation of the terms of
`
`the 2013 Operating Agreement.
`
`33.
`
`Matthew Stinson has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Roundtree’s
`
`refusal to indemnify him and advance his legal fees and expenses.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`THIRD PARTY PETITION
`
`COUNT I — CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY
`
`34.
`
`The MS-NSOH Parties re-allege and incorporate by reference all facts and
`
`allegations set forth above.
`
`35.
`
`Frank Stinson is the majority owner of the Class A membership interests in
`
`Roundtree. Under the terms of the 2013 Operating Agreement, Frank Stinson controls all aspects
`
`of the operation of Roundtree.
`
`36.
`
`Throughout the period at issue in the Roundtree Petition, Frank Stinson participated
`
`in the business affairs of Roundtree and monitored the accounts of Roundtree as they pertained to
`
`distributions, loans, and other payments to members of the Stinson family. Throughout the period
`
`at issue in the Roundtree Petition — and for years beforehand — Frank Stinson had distributed funds
`
`of Roundtree to himself, his wife, and other family members for various personal expenses,
`
`vacations, and luxuries, including hi gh—end jewelry.
`
`37.
`
`If the MS—NSOH Parties are found liable to Roundtree for any of the matters alleged
`
`in the Roundtree Petition, then they are entitled to contribution and indemnification from Frank
`
`Stinson, who was in a position to safeguard the assets of Roundtree and either knowingly approved
`
`the distributions at issue or failed to object or take other action to protect Roundtree from the
`
`alleged conduct of Matthew Stinson, which was in fact no different from Frank Stinson’s own.
`
`COUNT TWO — BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
`
`38.
`
`Matthew Stinson re-alleges and incorporates by reference all facts and allegations
`
`set forth above.
`
`39.
`
`Frank Stinson abused his position as majority owner to cause Roundtree to file a
`
`baseless lawsuit against Matthew Stinson, file improper lis pendens on properties owned directly
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`or indirectly by Matthew Stinson, and deny Matthew Stinson his rights as a member of Roundtree
`
`to inspect the books and records and be afforded indemnification and advancement in lawsuits
`
`related to his tenure as an officer and member of Roundtree.
`
`40.
`
`In these regards, Frank Stinson has breached his fiduciary duties to Matthew
`
`Stinson as a minority member of Roundtree and caused damage to Matthew Stinson.
`
`41 .
`
`Frank Stinson has acted with malice toward Matthew Stinson and the intent to cause
`
`harm and loss to Matthew Stinson, for which actions Matthew Stinson seeks exemplary damages.
`
`CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
`
`42.
`
`All conditions precedent to the MS-NSOH Parties’ recovery have occurred or have
`
`been performed.
`
`ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`43.
`
`The MS-NSOH Parties re-allege and incorporate by reference all facts and
`
`allegations set for the above.
`
`44.
`
`The MS-NSOH Parties have been forced to retain counsel to defend the Roundtree
`
`Petition and to enforce their rights in this litigation. The MS-NSOH Parties pray that they recover
`
`all attorney’s fees they have incurred herein as permitted by law.
`
`RULE 194 DISCLOSURE REQUEST
`
`Pursuant to Rule 194, the MS-NSOH Parties hereby request Roundtree and Frank Stinson
`
`to disclose, within thirty (30) days of service of this pleading, the information or material described
`
`in Rule l94.2(a)-(1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`PRAYER
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Matthew Stinson, NSOH Holiday Road,
`
`LLC, and NSOH Holiday Road II, LLC request that they be awarded a judgment against Roundtree
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Automotive Group LLC for the following:
`
`i.
`
`Specific performance of Matthew Stinson’s contractual right to inspect books and
`
`records of Roundtree;
`
`ii.
`
`Specific performance of Matthew Stinson’s contractual right to indemnification
`
`and advancement of legal fees as a member and former officer of Roundtree;
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`A formal accounting of Roundtree’s affairs;
`
`Actual damages;
`
`Exemplary damages;
`
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
`
`vii.
`
`Court costs;
`
`viii.
`
`Attorney’s fees; and
`
`ix.
`
`Such other and further relief at law or in equity to which they may be entitled.
`
`Matthew Stinson, NSOH Holiday Road, LLC, and NSOH Holiday Road II, LLC further
`
`request that they be awarded a judgment against Frank Stinson for the following:
`
`i.
`
`Indemnification and contribution for any amounts for which Matthew Stinson is
`
`found liable to Roundtree Automotive Group LLC;
`
`ii.
`
`Actual damages;
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Exemplary damages;
`
`Pre—judgment and post—judgment interest;
`
`Court costs;
`
`Attorney’s fees; and
`
`vii.
`
`Such other and further relief at law or in equity to which they may be entitled.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Dated: November 13, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARROW-GILLESPIE HEATH WITTER LLP
`
`/s/Mafl L. 0 ’Connor
`By:
`Mary L. O’Connor
`State Bar No. 15186900
`
`FARROW-GILLESPIE HEATH WITTER, LLP
`
`1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3700
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`214.361.5600 phone
`214.203.0651 fax
`
`mary.oconnor@fghwlaw.com
`
`/S/ Brad D. Weiss
`By:
`Brad D. Weiss, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Appearance
`CHARAPP & WEISS, LLP
`
`8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1000
`
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`(703) 564-0220 (office)
`(703) 564—0221 (facsimile)
`brad.weiss
`cwattome s.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 1 l
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all
`counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of CiVil Procedure on November 13, 2020.
`
`
`/s/Mary L. 0 ’Connor
`
`Mary L. O’Connor
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Mary O'Connor
`Bar No. 15186900
`mary.oconnor@fghwlaw.com
`Envelope ID: 48095919
`Status as of 11/17/2020 9:09 AM CST
`
`Associated Case Party: NSOH HOLIDAY ROAD LLC
`
` Eliot Burriss -— 11/13/2020 4:39:05 PM ERROR
`
`Associated Case Party: ROUNDTREE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC
`
`m-M—W
`———--
`————-
`———--
`———--
`————-
`———--
`————-
`———--
`———--
`
`
`
`Associated Case Party: NSOH HOLIDAY ROAD ll LLC
`
`
`
`Eliot Burriss -— 11/13/2020 4:39:05 PM ERROR
`
`Associated Case Party: MATTHEW STINSON
`
`Morgan Kleoppel
`
` Michelle Webb
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Mary O'Connor
`Bar No. 15186900
`mary.oconnor@fghwlaw.com
`Envelope ID: 48095919
`Status as of 11/17/2020 9:09 AM CST
`
`Associated Case Party: MATTHEW STINSON
`
`Mary LO'Connor
`
`mary.oconnor@fghwlaw.com 11/13/2020 4:39:05 PM SENT
`
`Eliot Burriss -— 11/13/2020 4:39:05 PM ERROR
`
`Eliot Burriss
`
`Brad DWeiss
`
`————-
`————-
`————-
`
`Case Contacts
`
` Emily Shanks- eshanks@foley.com 11/13/2020 4:39:05 PM 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