4/17/2018 4:22 PM
`Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
`Envelope No. 23964423
`By: JEANETTA SPENCER
`Filed: 4/17/2018 4:22 PM
`
`CAUSE NO. 2016—84872 A—
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`Pgs—46
`
`48
`
`HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`2016-84872—A
`
`M.N.J GROUP, INC.
`
`V.
`
`@6096”)me
`
`215TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`CAR STEREO OF TEXAS, INC.ET—AL
`
`
`"7"
`
`AMENDED ORDER OF SEVE‘RANCE
`
`
`On this day, came to be considered by submission Defendants, OMAR’S
`
`FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; OMAR’S FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. AND
`
`OMAR OMAR’s motion to sever. After considering the motion, the response and reply,
`
`if any, the Court finds that the Motion is well—taken and should be granted.
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff, M.N.J GROUP, INC.,’s claims against Defendants,
`
`OMAR’S FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; OMAR’S FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS,
`
`INC. AND OMAR OMAR are severed into a new case styled, M.N.J GROUP, INC. Vs.
`
`OMAR’S FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; OMAR’S FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS,
`
`INC. AND OMAR OMAR, and the cause number for the severed case shall be Cause No.
`
`2016-84872-A (the "Severed Case");
`
`IT IS FURTI‘HERED ORDERED that the documents to be included and severed
`
`into the Severed Case are> as identifi ed by the attached Exhibit "A":
`
`-
`
`.
`-
`
`-
`'
`
`o
`
`PlaintifstIiginalPetition;
`
`Defendants, Omar et—al’s Original Answer
`Defendants Omar et-al ’5 Motion for sanction and all attachments
`
`Order Granting Omar et-al’s Motion for Sanction
`Defendants Omar et—al’s Motion for Summary Judgment and all
`attachments;
`Order granting Omar et—al’s Summaiy Judgment signed July 14‘“,
`2017
`
`

`

`The Court incorporates by reference all documents in the original file. The Court
`
`also notes case authority holding that all documents filed in a cause before a severance are
`
`part of the record of the severed case. See New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Tobias, 8O S.W.3d
`
`146 (Tex. App. 2002,110 pet).
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, OMAR’S FINANCIAL
`
`SERVICES, INC._; OMAR’S FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. AND OMAR
`the sanctions ordered on October 27, 2017 and
`A
`.
`.
`
`OMAR, shall pay all costs assoc1ated With the severance;
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff MNJ Group Inc, shall pay all couit
`costs; and
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Severed Order is a final. appealable order
`that disposes of all claims and all parties in the severed case;
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case number of the unsevered claims against
`
`the remaining defendants will remain No. 2016-84872, and that the unsevered case shall
`
`remain an active case.
`
`Signed this
`
`day of
`
`, 2018.
`
`Signed:élflw
`
`4/17/2018
`
`JUDGE PRESIDING
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT " A
`
`CAUSE NO.
`
`12/9/2016 3:33:14 PM
`Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
`Envelope No. 14210493
`By: Nelson Cuero
`Filed: 12/9/2016 3:33:14 PM
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`MNJ Group, Inc.
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`§ §
`
`§
`Car Stereo of Texas, Inc.;
`§
`Texas Electronics & Car Sales, Inc.;
`§
`Nabeel Arafat; Adam Arafat; Kelly Arafat;
`§
`Omar’s Financial Services, Inc.; Omar’s
`Financial Consultants, Inc.; and, Omar Omar §
`Defendants.
`§
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`3?“?
`”52749:”
`{j
`fing
`‘ 3Q?
`HARRISgEOUNTY, TEXAS
`a \y-l
`A“
`\\~/'
`\
`‘ AL PETITION
`" UESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`
`'
`
`PLAINTIFF MNJ GROUP INC.’S ORI
`
`
`4)
`TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT?) “
`€1~2
`»
`43$
`Plaintiff MNJ Group, Inc. (hereinafter,;.:5\__~"J” or “Plaintiff’) files its Original Petition,
`’\‘
`i
`
`
`Request for Disclosure and First Request fgtERroduction, complaining of Defendants Car Stereo
`
`of Texas, Inc.; Texas Electronics & gaégales, Inc.; Nabeel Arafat; Adam Arafat; Kelly Arafat;
`off,"
`Omar’s Financial Services,
`Inq’®tbmar’s Financial Consultants,
`Inc.; and, Omar Omar
`’\
`'
`°§'&‘\
`>7
`cc
`W
`7
`'
`'
`'
`(collectlvely, “Car Stereo of Eire-s or Defendants ) (Defendants Omar s Fmancral Servrces,
`23
`inc; Omar’s Financial (Cisggultants, Inc. and Omar Omar separately referred to as the “CPA
`
`Defendants”). PlarntfifiWbuld respectfully show the Honorable Court as follows:
`
`6
`51§V
`Q
`
`1-
`DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under the Discovery Control Plan
`
`imposed by Level 2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`

`

`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff, MNJ Group, Inc, is a validly existing Texas corporation.
`
`Defendant Car Stereo of Texas, Inc. is a validly existing Texas corporation. This
`
`Defendant may be served with process by serving its duly appointed reg1stered§agent Defendant
`N3
`(J5
`
`Nabeel Arafat, at 5514 Maybrook Park Lane, Katy, Texas 77450.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Texas Electronics & Car Sales,
`
`Inc.
`
`ismaglIahdly existing Texas
`QC )
`3,3.,\\\/
`-:2\7V
`
`corporation This Defendant may be served with process by sen/Imgfis duly appointed registered
`agent, Defendant Adam Arafat, at 5514 Mayb1ook Park Lane.521? Texas 77450.
`5.
`DefendantNabeel ArafatIS an 1nd1v1du/agvih:may be served with process at his
`residence at 5514 Maybrook Park Lane, Katy Texasé’74/50
`6.
`Defendant Adam ArafatIS an Lgfgi’dual who may be served with process at his
`residence at 5514 Maybrook Park Lane, Katégexas 77450.
`7.
`Defendant Kelly ArafatN$42111 individual who may be served with process at her
`residence at 5514 Maybtook ParkingKaty Texas 77450
`8.
`Omar’s FmancyalfSerwces Inc is a validly existing Texas corporation This
`,;;\\<
`\J/
`Defendant may be servedQith process by serving its duly appointed registered agent, Defendant
`{OCR3/?
`Omar Omar, at 2909 Hjtlibroft Street Suite 325, Houston, Texas 77057
`93K»
`('0‘:\:\‘>
`Or®\r’s Financial Consultants, Inc. is a validly existing Texas corporation. This
`
`9.
`
`Defendant m .,xbe served with process by serving its duly appointed registered agent, Defendant
`
`Omar Omar, at 2909 Hillcroft Street, Suite 325, Houston, Texas 77057.
`
`10.
`
`Omar Omar is an individual who may be served with process at 2909 Hillcroft
`
`Street, Suite 325, Houston, Texas 77057.
`
`to
`
`

`

`III.
`
`AGENCY AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
`
`11. Whenever in this petition it
`
`is alleged that Defendant committed any act or
`
`omission, it is meant that such Defendant’s partners, officers, directors, vice-principals, managers,
`
`.
`'st
`.
`.
`.
`agents, servants, and/or employees committed such act or omissmn and that atijgtifi’ time such act
`c, {7‘22“
`or omission was committed, it was done with the full authorization, ratificatfifiEr approval of such
`9 t
`(15"?
`Defendant or was done in the routine course and scope of employmt§n§§df Defendant’s partners,
`938*)
`,«:_\\7
`.
`.
`.
`.
`4: KS};
`Officers, directors, Vice-pnnmpals, managers, agents, servants, Wmfioyees.
`<>A
`Ax:
`\<\\v ,7
`._ \\\-
`,, (Hzo)
`\\\\J
`.0"
`JURISDICTION7~
`
`IV.
`
`12.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in the District,(\€g’giirts of Harris County, Texas, because the
`ages
`i
`amount in controversy exceeds the minimum @fitsdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff seeks
`\
`I.
`monetary relief exceeding $1,000,000.00. 5%
`
`13.
`
`This Court has personals" Tr'isdiction over each Defendant because each conducts
`JR)
`
`business in the state of Texas an@pecifically, in Harris County, Texas. Each Defendant has
`ng
`continuous and systematic minimum contacts with the state of Texas sufficient
`4’: £13“)
`{K
`0,
`so“!
`793.5
`:Qgtgl’W”
`(fis‘xj
`<f)\\§
`<Q
`wick”
`R»
`"xv-Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Jurisdiction.
`
`14.
`
`to confer
`
`V.
`
`VENUE
`
`Remedies Code §15.002(a)(l) because all or a substantial pait of the events or omissions at issue
`
`herein occurred in Harris County, Texas.
`
`(a)
`
`

`

`VI.
`
`CLAIM PURSUANT TO TRCP 47 AND 169:
`NOT AN EXPEDITED ACTION
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff seeks monetary recovery in excess of $1,000,000.00. As such, this is not
`
`an “expedited action” under Tex. R. Civ. P. 47 or 169.
`
`11.
`@337
`gig”
`VII.
`\\/_
`CONDITIONS PRECEDENT PURSUANT TO TRCP54
`{kw};
`16. Pulsuant to Tex R. Civ. P. 54, Plaintiff avers thaiiéié‘fi‘conditions precedent to
`5*?)
`recovery have been performed waived or have occurred, and thgevery notice required by law to
`o (gigb
`11%'
`«711’
`/\ 'éy
`\/
`QE‘C’E)
`FAQIS>
`;.:I\\V
`On November 17 2015, the papifié entered into a contract by which PlaintiffMNJ
`17.
`\x.)
`would purchase certain assets of Car Styreo of Texas. The assets to be pulchased included
`&h\\—j\
`furniture, fixtures, equipment, inven:
`and real property.
`‘1
`18.
`MN] paid Defendaiitsthe total contract price of$3,225,000, with cash ($500,000),
`
`be given has been properly and timely given.
`
`V111
`
`:\\\I_
`4Q)
`
`and with financing ($2755C0903
`19.
`Car Sterggpof Texas represented that of this purchase price, $750,000 comprised
`
`inventory. Howeygésfiis representation was completely false. The inventory purportedtobe sold
`was worthlesfimtendants knowingly and fraudulently conveyed empty boxes of car stereo and
`
`other related goods to MN].
`
`20.
`
`Defendants further warranted that all equipment being sold to MN] was in working
`
`order. Much of the equipment, however, required repairs. These repairs amounted to $130,311,
`
`1 See “Earnest Money Contract" attached hereto as Exhibit -— A.
`
`

`

`which Plaintiff incurred to its detriment. Defendants thus breached their warranty that the
`
`equipment being conveyed to MNJ was in working order.
`
`21. Worse yet, in collusion with its CPA, Car Stereo of Texas completely fabricated
`
`the sales of its car stereo business, and further under—reported its payroll (most of the wages
`
`Defendants paid their employees were in cash and were not disclosed on Def§1iiifint§ financial
`eat/Zr”
`(F $3”
`\\J
`
`.
`statements or tax returns).
`
`22.
`
`Additionally, Car Stereo of Texas agreed it would ngéybmpete in the same or
`933‘»,
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`4r "fink?
`.
`.
`.
`.QJ-years. Defendants breached
`Similar busmess Wlthln a five (5) mile rad1us for a period of fiv
`
`c\-\\/
`.
`'
`o ,{7 5s
`this promise.
`.p':\§\;‘/
`The parties agreed that Car Stereo of Wfi/ould retain the following items that
`23.
`\l\/s\/
`were located on the business premises (which businefigypremises were also transferred as a part of
`#333
`the parties’ transaction): five vehicles, approximately 500 hotel mattresses, and various hotel
`furniture. Despite retaining ownership of mg} items, Car Stereo of Texas failed to remove the
`511529
`.
`.
`.
`items from the premises for a periodoféat‘least three months after MNJ took over said premises.
`As a result, MNJ invoiced Defend@ the sum of $20,341 for storage costs of these items, which
`Q\\\
`invoice remains unpaid.
`_<© 3"
`u"\ (I)
`/ Kg
`24.
`MNJ’S datn‘ggjes include, and it thus sues, for $900,652.42 ($750,000 + $130,311 +
`<.\
`$20,341). MNJ fugfiiéues for treble damages as allowed under the Texas Deceptive Trade
`
`. tap"
`
`Practices and 9r@mer Protection Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code: Chapter 17.41, er
`s;
`
`seq.)
`
`,25.
`
`Car Stereo of Texas also failed to provide MN] the training, marketing and
`
`consulting it promised (See Exhibit — A, Paragraph l3: “TRAINING: Seller or Seller’s
`
`representative shall provide Buyer with training in all aspects of the business at no additional cost.
`
`

`

`Training shall start immediately after closing and continue for 30 calendar days thereafter. Seller
`
`shall pr0vide consulting to Buyer by telephone, as needed, for an additional 120 days”).
`
`IX.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`\.
`(\iZQQ
`Pursuant to Tex R Civ P 58, Plaintiff1ncorp0rates all allegajlbns set forth herein
`
`Breach of Contract
`
`26.
`
`wig”
`by reference.
`{\7
`A valid contract existed between MN] and Car SWofTexas
`27.
`MN] fully performed its obligations under thegantract
`28.
`({\\v
`Car Stereo of Texas breached the partie§\>cg‘rltract.
`29.
`30. MN] suffered damages as a result offledfendants breach for which MNJ now sues.
`Kc};
`
`Era
`K
`-
`-
`Ca1 Ste1eo of Texas made mafinal representations.
`
`31.
`
`5
`32.
`33.
`
`upon by MNJ.
`
`729
`The representations wergflse
`Car Stereo of Texa’sQeEther knew the representations were false when made or made
`L§\\
`them recklessly without any loleedoe of thei1 truth.
`Ir“ K)’
`34.
`Car Stereo\bylexas made the lepresentations with the intention that they be acted
`NI???)
`$1:5"
`“3:5“
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`MN] suffered damages, for which it now sues.
`
`Fraudulent Misrepresentation
`
`37.
`
`Car Stereo of Texas made material misrepresentations to MNJ.
`
`

`

`38.
`
`39.
`
`These representations were false.
`
`Car Stereo of Texas knew the representations were false when made or made them
`
`recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion.
`
`40.
`
`Car Stereo of Texas made the representations with the intention that such
`
`representations be acted upon.
`
`3%?A...
`,-
`v
`5‘34?
`The representations were in fact justifiably relied upon by N431.
`SI:
`(5\\'7
`As a result, MNJ suffered damages, for which it now spite?”
`S‘Qt K‘s,
`:fi:¥7
`
`Negligent Misrepresentation©2er
`(
`\~./
`Car Stereo of Texas made representations<> Lg}! transaction in which it had a
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`pecuniary interest.
`
`“{0}:
`"\x/
`.
`.
`.
`Car Stereo of Texas supplied “false imfigrmanon” to MNJ.
`at???
`‘NI'QS‘J
`Car Stereo ofTexas did not exer®%\rea50iiable care or competence in obtaining or
`.\
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`(0..
`
`communicating the information to MNJ.
`’2'
`\ /
`{(79
`MNJ suffered pecuiiiaigjfoss by justifiably relying on Car Stereo of Texas’
`,—\’~.
`.
`/
`\‘
`.
`.
`misrepresentation, and MNJ now @ for such pecuniaiy loss.
`QR
`\
`Violation of Tex. EmiCom. Code
`
`i ‘9
`
`15.50 a — Covenant not to Com etc
`
`
`
`
`“)7
`it
`.
`,,
`.
`.
`.
`‘
`47.
`As part oftl‘feir contract (Paragraph 12:
`‘ Restricted Competition ), the parties
`/R\\3.)
`.
`° 1%?!”
`.
`.
`.
`entered into a coveiiiflntgmot to compete. Car Stereo of Texas promised it would not compete in the
`(311x?
`same or similar/@‘ness within a five (5) mile radius for a period of five (5) years.
`(”t
`‘
`\\-Ҥ
`
`48.
`
`\~— Car Stereo of Texas violated the parties’ covenant not to compete.
`
`49.
`
`MNJ as a result suffered damages, for which it now sues.
`
`

`

`Violations of The Texas Consumer Protection and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
`And The Texas Business Opportunity Act
`
`50. MN] would show that Car Stereo of Texas engaged in false, misleading and
`
`deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
`
`and Consumer Protection Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter] 17.41, et seq.)
`06:"S?
`
`(“DTPA”), as alleged herein.
`
`
`Car Stereo of Texas engaged in an “unconscionable actigrnngr/course of action” to
`e: 131‘},
`
`51.
`
`MN] to a grossly unfair degree.
`
`52.
`
`the detriment of MN] as that term 1s defined by Sectlon 17.45(5,;)ri§f)the Texas Busmess and
`4’ij
`.\>-
`Commerce Code, by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge {gig/1W, experience, or capacity of
`V\\.,\
`,‘rs‘
`o ‘Zz‘z
` rs.
`<\\
`, Au
`(
`/'
`1.
`Car Stereo of Texas violated Section 1 7% ) ofthe Texas Busmess and Commerce
`(. :5”)
`Mfg) ’
`(79$)
`.
`caused confusion or misubdtgs'tanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval
`or certification ofgoods éervices;
`
`Code, in that Defendant:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`4929
`represented that goqggkjr services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics,
`ingredients, usesfiBEgSiHits, or quantities which they do not have;
`r
`‘\
`i
`\
`\\
`t
`
`advertised googgs or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;
`AC3,
`E;-
`i 3
`x
`-
`.
`represemefja
`fthat an agreement confers or 1nvolves rights,
`,
`obligatibns which it does not have or involve;
`n\\
`/r~\\.7
`0 K5 "
`.
`.
`.
`a§<1f
`{r333 ented that a guarantee or warranty confers or involves nghts or remedies
`<3: ,‘Vrch it does not have or involve; and
`
`.
`remedies, or
`
`\fé§failed to disclose information concerning goods or sen/ices which was known
`\5/
`at the time of the transaction with the intenti on to induce MN} into a transaction
`into which MNJ would not have entered had the information been disclosed.
`
`53.
`
`Car Stereo of Texas breached the following warranties Section 17.50(a)(2) of the
`
`Texas Business and Commerce Code:
`
`a.
`
`the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; and
`
`

`

`b.
`
`the implied warranty of merchantability.
`
`54.
`
`Car Stereo of Texas violated Sections 17.46,
`
`l7.50(h) and 51.302 of the Texas
`
`Business and Commerce Code and Section,
`
`in that Defendant engaged in false, misleading or
`
`deceptive acts as prohibited by a “tie-in” statute the Business Opportunity Actgems Business
`.\._
`
`and Commerce Code, Section 51.001, et seq.)
`fig,
`If“ “1:;
`v
`Car Stereo of Texas violated Section 51 051 of the TexasBusmess and Commerce
`0 \\
`fiv‘)
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Code,
`
`fisid’
`\\\/
`Texas before offering it to MNJ.
`0g¢2§5
`.
`Car Stereo of Texas violated Section 51007<Q§>the Texas Business and Commerce
`117;»;
`éiiib"
`in that Defendant failed to maintain a complée}et of books, records, and accounts of
`.«@291
`business opportunity sales made by the Defendant ”\ 53&5)
`57.
`Car Stereo ofTexas violated Sgbtdon 51.151 ofthe Texas Business and Commerce
`
`j’\
`
`Code, in that Defendant failed to provideWJ w1th a wr1tten d1sclosure statement that meets the
`g3),
`specific disclosure requirements ofyth Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 51,
`1Q)
`///>
`Kb]4"
`Car Stereo atj‘ffihas violated Section 51.201 of the Texas Business and Commerce
`
`58.
`
`\
`
`Subchapter D.
`
`Code, in that Defendant/Faded to supply MNJ the business opportunity contract meeting the
`r’\
`CiNE‘\r”)
`specific requlremfings,and contents prescribed by this Section
`sfi‘eghgence Professional Malpractice of the CPA Defendants
`
`59.
`
`Defendants Omar’ 5 Financial Sewices, Inc; Omar’ 5 Financial Consultants, Inc.
`
`and Omar Omar (“CPA Defendants”) made false and negligent financial representations to MNJ
`
`regarding the financial standing and condition of Defendant Car Stereo of Texas.
`
`

`

`60.
`
`The CPA Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care, knowledge, skill, and
`
`judgment to MNJ because MNJ was a foreseeable user of Defendant Car Stereo of Texas’ financial
`
`statements that the CPA Defendants prepared.
`
`61.
`
`The CPA Defendants breached their duty of reasonable care.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`The CPA Defendants breach was the proximate cause of the WEE? damages.
`5”Z“
`MNJ suffered damages as a result, for which it now sues. Q
`/'\V2
`gego!
`sf:’
`<39\ 7
`DAMAGES
`As a result ofthe acts and omissions complaineéizpf1n its petition, MNJ has suffered
`64.
`.7\\§
`damages1n an amount exceeding $1,000,000 Plaintiff herein sues the Defendants for these and
`/3
`all other damages to which it is entitled under the lavs39:
`35'].x'g\s
`Economic and actual damaoes 7MgTseeks economic and actual damages resulting
`65.
`1
`‘\.
`<7,
`.
`K
`~v’
`from the above-described actions and / or @ssions of Defendants, including (a) out—of-pocket
`t/Jh
`expenses (b) loss ofuse, (c) lost p1ofitskand ((1) lost earnings.
`66.
`Damages for mentalakinuish —MNJ would further show that the false misleading
`
`X.
`
`\
`
`,\\\
`and deceptive acts, practices anglfor omissions descnbed herein were committed “knowingly”,
`F153,?>
`provided by Section 1745(8)of the Texas Business and Commerce Code in that Defendants had
`/2%
`(7,}
`actual awareness oftlkreyfalsny, deception, or" unfairness of such acts, practices, and/or omissions
`(\0(\
`071‘:\V
`As a result of sudifiacts practices and/or omissions, MNJ’ s principal sustained a high degree of
`mental. pam‘agdistress of such nature, duration and severity that would permit the recovery of
`
`damages for mental anguish pursuant to Section17.50(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce
`
`Code, and for which Plaintiff hereby sues in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional
`
`limits of this Cou1t.
`
`10
`
`

`

`67.
`
`Treble / Multiple damages — MNJ would show that the false, misleading and
`
`deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions complained of herein were committed “knowingly” in
`
`that Defendants had actual awareness of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of such acts, practices,
`
`and/or omissions. MNJ further avers that such acts, practices and/or omissions were committed
`
`“intentionally” in that Defendants specifically intended that Plaintiff act in detrimental reliance on
`I.620
`the falsity o1 deception or in detrimental1gn0rance of the unfairness Theifibre MNJis entitled
`
`Commerce Code.
`
`“11’
`Q)
`Exemplag damage — MNJ would furthel <shew that the acts and omissions of
`{<\,
`
`68.
`
`<3)
`V;\:\‘:,V
`
`J
`
`Defendant complained of herein were committed know[@le willfully, intentionally, with actual
`awareness, and with the specific and predetennmedtfgtentlon of enriching Defendants at MNJ’s
`expense In order to punish the Defendants for:su’ch unconscionable overreaching and to deter
`such actions and / or omissions in the fun???MNJ also seeks recovery from Defendants for
`exemplary damages as provided byoSeglejon 41001, et seq, of the Texas Civil Practice and
`,.\\
`Remedies Code.
`(Ci
`3:,
`MN] sues for plreal a’hd post—judgment interest.
`r
`3%”
`\gv'
`AQ:/@P
`«4:3?
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`2V9“
`70.
`Drfégto Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, MN] had to engage the undersigned
`(\E
`attorney to 9&5“ legal remedies for recovery of the sums legally owed MNJ by the Defendants
`
`69.
`
`XI.
`
`71.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph 24 of the parties’ agreement, and pursuant to
`
`the DTPA, MN] seeks recovery of its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs incun'ed
`
`in the prosecution of this action.
`
`11
`
`

`

`XII.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`72.
`
`MNJ hereby formally demands a jury trial, and has paid, or will timely pay, the
`
`appIOpriate jury fee.
`
`x111.
`
`(\r"
`’7
`<~ L"
`/.-\
`PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE Q
`/,»\VI
`MNJ hereby requests and demands that DefendantsfigéSel‘Ve and maintain all
`9??
`p\o°
`evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to this lawsuit;including all electronically
`.\7‘
`stored information, copies and backup, along with any papgrrfjies that any Defendant maintains
`
`73.
`
`Failure to reserve and maintain such items will consti
`136/75 oliation” of the evidence.
`P
`Q)“ P// .r‘
`XIV‘:<;§Q)
`A:3;)
`NOTICE OF AUTHENTIC’_TION OF DOCUMENTS
`MNJ hereby provides actualébtice to each Defendant that MNJ will use any 01
`
`74.
`
`“/9,
`every document produced by each Defendant in response to written discovery in a pretrial
`\:\\‘I
`proceeding or at trial. Pursuant to U R. Civ. P. 193.7, Defendants’ production of a document in
`Q\\_
`response to written discovery{@hentlcates the document for use against any Defendant unless—
`within ten days or a longeidrshorter time ordered by the court—any Defendant objects to the
`
`a?»
`r:(u?
`authenticity of the detriment or any part of it stating the specific basis for its objection An
`I?)\\>
`objection must bféieither on the 1ecord or in writing and must have a good faith factual and legal
`:51?)
`basis. An ob\eétion made to the authenticity of only part of a document does not affect the
`
`authenticity of the remainder.
`
`12
`
`

`

`XV.
`
`REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
`
`75.
`
`Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.1 et seq, MNJ hereby requests each Defendant to
`
`disclose the information or material described in Rule 194.2(a) trough 194.2(1), to wit:
`
`a) Rule 194.2(a):
`
`b) Rule 194.2(b):
`
`c) Rule 194.2(0):
`
`(1) Rule 194.2(d):
`
`e) Rule 194.2(e):
`
`1) Rule 194.2(1):
`
`The correct names of the parties to the lawsurf,’
`c1?“
`The name, address and telephone numbEr of any potential
`parties;
`2&3,
`t: K\Jl
`d’QQJ
`The legal theories and, in Genera}the factual bases of the
`responding party’s claims 0
`ifénses;
`The amount and any (method of calculating economic
`N-
`damages,
`;\c
`“71¢,”
`\ (9/
`The name addres/E)Ehd telephone number of persons having
`knowledge ofrelevant facts and a brief statement of each
`identified persfib$6an connection with the case;
`&
`For any.tistrfymo expert:
`(l) (The. expert’s name address and telephone number;
`_0
`\
`’\‘\_.
`122)» The subject matter on which the expert will testify;
`\\.,’l
`expert’s mental
`the
`substance of
`general
`“\x (3) The
`impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the
`basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by,
`employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the
`responding
`party,
`documents
`reflecting
`such
`information;
`
`(4)
`
`If the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise
`subject to the control of the responding party:
`
`A. All documents, tangible things, reports, models, or
`data compilations that have been provided to,
`reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in
`anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and
`
`B. The expert’s current resume and bibliography;
`
`l3
`
`

`

`g) Rule 194.2(g): Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements;
`
`h) Rule 194.2(h): Any discoverable settlement agreements;
`
`1) Rule 1942(i): Any discoverable witness statements;
`
`j) Rule 194.20): All medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the
`injuries or damages asserted;
`
`\‘g—7
`k)‘ Rule 194.2(k): All medical records and bills obtained bibu by virtue of an
`authorization furnished by any plaintiff/b this lawsuit; and,
`
`1) Rule 194.2(1):
`
`The name address, and telephonérnuiiiber of any person who
`may be designated as a responsibbthird party
`AQVJ)
`Pursuant to Tex R Civ P 192.3(a), the iespgmée;to this request for disclosure
`0V?Ҥ
`upon each Defendant shall be due fifty (50) days after thefierwce of this request upon such
`
`76.
`
`Defendant.
`
`77.
`
`orV
`the following iequests for written dtsé‘gWery within fifty (50) days after service of this Petition:
`
`( 1)
`
`tape
`Please produce all correspondence, emails notes, memoranda,
`’ :1, Social media posts data stored on computer hard drives or on
`
`tangrb’ie things that reflect all communications between (i) MNJ or any of
`W 5 current or tonnei employees / contractors / agents, and (ii) each
`‘ibefendant or any of such Defendants’ current or former employees /
`@X\>contractors / agents, thatin any way relate to the subject mattei of this
`’9 lawsuit. You may limit your response to a period beginning on the date that
`\Bfi?
`is five (5) years prior to the filing ofthis lawsuit, and ending on the date of
`‘ \/
`your response to (or supplementation of) this request.
`
`(2)
`
`Please produce all documents, memoranda and correspondence of any
`nature created by any Defendant or any of such Defendants’ current or
`former employees / contractors / agents, that in any way relate to the subject
`matter of this lawsuit. You may limit your response to a period beginning
`on the date that is five (5) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and ending
`on the date of your response to (or supplementation of) this request.
`
`14
`
`

`

`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`Please produce all communications and documents exchanged between
`each non-CPA Defendants and the CPA Defendants. You may limit your
`response to a period beginning on the date that is one (1) year prior to the
`filing of this lawsuit, and ending on the date of your response to (or
`supplementation of) this request. You may further limit your response to
`communications relating to the transaction made the basis of this lawsuit.
`
`invoices,
`limi’i‘afion,
`Please produce all documents including without
`purchase orders, bank statements, etc. that support tl1e3750 000 value of
`inventory sold as part of the transaction made the 1121wa this suit.
`Please produce all documents that one or 1no§e:e\fthe Defendants relied
`upon in order to produce, or have produced,;Elie financial statements that
`were given to MNJ1n order to fac1htate}h§1§jansactlon made the basis of
`this suit.
`\/
`17/0
`Please produce all bank statements gn§>dep051t slips that support the cash
`balances Defendants claimedn1n%‘financ1al statements that were given to
`
`ction made the basis of this suit.
`
`MNJ1n 01der to facilitate the tr
`
`(7)
`
`J o
`
`«Kg/2;)
`Please p1oduce all bank statements deposit slips customer credit card
`cha1ges and any other fofnfsof receipts of money that support the amount
`of sales Defendants cl imed to have1n the financial statements that were
`given to MNJ111 orderfiyxfacihtate the transaction made the basis ofthis suit.
`Copies of all lawsuits filed against each Defendant You may limit your
`response to mfigfis’od beginning on the date thatIS seven (7) years prior to
`the filing ofijhis lawsuit, and ending on the date of you1 response to (or
`supplementation of) this request.
`5b) 3
`Please\plroduce all documents relating to or evidencing any affirmative
`defeits'e that any Defendant asserts in this case.
`A(Kg/0&9
`Pursuafito Tex. R Civ. P. 196, each Defendant is to produce the following
`78.
`<35\\.‘
`documents on theffwe that your response is due at the offices of the undersigned counsel of record.
`c{'§\>
`These requestW)nclude electronic data and records.
`
`(8)
`
`(9)
`
`

`

`XVII.
`
`w
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSJDERED, Plaintiff MNJ Group,
`
`Inc.
`
`respectfully
`
`requests that Defendants Car Stereo of Texas, Inc; Texas Electronics & Car Sales, Inc; Nabeel
`
`Arafat; Adam Alafat; Kelly Arafat; Omars Financial Services,
`
`Inc, Qiifirs Financial
`(Z4
`Consultants, Inc; and, Omar Omar each be cited to appear and answer herein and that Plaintiff
`4':\,‘7
`J
`MN] have judgment against these Defendants, jointly and severally, agsfiellows:
`.’I)<:‘\
`film"
`
`c.
`
`a. $750,000, representing the amount paid forthgmn’i—emstent inventory;
`b.
`$130,.»1 1, representing the equipment repalycost
`CKQ
`$20,341, representing 3 months’ sto/agqtfost of assets MN] did not purchase;
`\I
`d. Treble / multiple damages undeEthejDTPA;
`(\AQ)
`e. Exemplary damages; U
`f. Mental anguish damagesa:\\
`2.6/26
`g. Attorneys’ fees andcosts of litigation,
`3%
`h. Prej udgment an: lost-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law; and,
`L \\\\\
`i. Alll other legal:and equitable relief to which the Honorable Court deems MN]
`entitled/F :3.)
`x“\\J'1
`
`16
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ALI S. AHNIED, P.C.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Salar Ali Ahmed
`Salar Ali Ahmed
`
`$1.:
`State Bar No. 24000342
`5; “$3
`One Arena Place
`7322 Southwest Freew§§$uite 1920
`Houston, Texas 770,;4‘8’
`Telephone: 713- 331300
`Facsimile: 713-2255550013
`aahmedlaw@g§l§1.com
`Attorneyfifééi‘vf’laintiff,
`MNJ (31.157131), Inc.
`«N»\\“~,
`-'I’ .\
`.1} 0-;
`
`‘
`
`
`
`l7
`
`

`

`2/8/2017 4:05:22 AM
`Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
`Envelope No. 15189903
`By: CaIia Carrillo
`Filed: 2/8/2017 4:05:22 AM
`
`20i6§82i$721
`§
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`215m JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
`
`HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`MNJ GROUP, INC.
`
`v.
`
`.
`
`'
`
`CAR STEREO or TEXAS, lNC.ET-AL
`
`
`TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SAID COURT:
`Vic}
`:Agg‘fi
`COMES NOW DEFENDANT Omar‘5 Financial SerVIce§:}nc Omar'5 financial
`(\LZD’)
`consultants, Inc. and Omar Omar and file Defendant’zs@igmal Answer
`I/Zr‘
`Affirmative Defence and Request for DIsclosure, @5113states as follows:
`\>L(g/
`|. GENERALQENIAL
`1. Pursuant to TEX. R. ClV. P. 92, Deifidant asserts a general denial and
`fix
`requests that Plaintiff be requzlrgd to prove the charges and allegations
`against Defendant by a(teponderance of the evidence.
`
`,5(<3
`
`09
`
`fiAFFIRMATlVE DEFENSES
`
`HI\\2
`2. Defendant asse sjgstatute oflimitations. TEX. R. ClV. P. 94.
`\>
`3. DefendantasSérts estoppel and/or estoppel by contract. TEX. R. ClV. P. 94.
`(2,2,<.\‘\~/'
`(Z)\
`4. Defendant alleges that the actions and omissions of the Plaintiff and/or
`
`\VI/
`
`other various third parties were the sole proximate cause of the alleged
`
`injuries and damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff.
`
`

`

`5. Defendant asserts that the plaintiff was not a person for whose use the
`
`representation was intended.
`
`III REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO PLAINTIFF
`
`6. Defendants serve this Defendant’s Request for Disclosure to fillgjntiffs
`pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.
`5?”
`IV. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`av(5\\7
`. w
`t,,\\\;\_)
`
`tenders the jury fee
`
`[\‘\s
`
`V. PRAYER ‘
`
`Q 7.53
`\ 4"
`
`WHEREFORE Defendant prays that upon figfil hearing that Plaintiff take
`
`nothing by its claims; that Defendant recogeefgéfilis costs and reasonable and
`\‘>
`.
`.
`
`necessary attorneys’ fees from Plaintiktfihahd for such other and further relief to
`
`which he may be justly entitled. 0%.
`
`size
`Respectfully submittedQ
`.6;
`{2 3;”
`fig“
`géIQI’
`l‘\ 9
`<:
`fiffiw
`<Q\
`‘ 5‘9
`
`By:
`
`(SZDiogu Kalu Diogu |lI LL.M.
`Diogu Kalu Diogu n, LL.M.
`Texas bar No: 24000340
`diogu.diogu.Iaw.firm@gmail.com
`P. O. Box 994. 'Fulshear, Texas 77441
`Tel. (713) 791 3225
`Fax. (832) 408-7611
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on February 08th, 2017 a true and correct copy of the
`
`Defendant’s Original answer, affirmative defense and request for disclosure were
`
`

`

`served on attorneys of record in this case by electronically through the electronic
`
`filing manager.
`
`gsgDiogu Ka/u Diogu III LL. M.
`
`Diogu Kalu Diogu II, LLM.
`
`
`
`

`

`4/21/2017 12:32:29 PM
`Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
`Envelope No. 16593348
`By: JEANETTA SPENCER
`Filed: 4/21/2017 12:32:29 PM
`
`CAUSE N0. 2016-84872 ,
`
`
`MNJ GROUP, INC '
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`v.
`
`_
`
`’
`
`§
`§
`
`§
`.§
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`215TH JUDICIAL DIS‘ERICT
`
`
`
`- U)
`§.
`CAR STEREO OF TEXAS, lNC.;
`0F HARRISC§UNTY, TEXAS
`§
`DEFENDANTS
`l
`.
`:?\)v,
`fl
`@5/
`
`MOTION FOR SANCTION\\\\>
`,..\/
`°'\
`
`x§
`9/0
`TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
`Ox?)
`NOW COMES defendants Omar's Fmarhal Services, Inc.; Omar'5 Financial
`Consultants, Inc.; and, OmarOmar (”Ornaxhetal”) through their attorney, DIOGU KALU
`DIOGU ll, LL. M, and ask the Courtmgégt their motion and"Impose sever monetary
`Ag}
`and/or appropriate deterrent san ‘hs against MNJ Group Inc., and his attorney Mr.
`Salar Ali Ahmed fOr filing and mQtaInmg
`q\
`a. Groundless pleadI. >Ir‘l violation of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13,
`b. Frivolous pleadICgTIn violation of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code,
`Section 10.OOkand Texas Civil Practice & Remedi