Preview
Electronically Submitted
6/11/2020 4:49 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Ester Espinoza
CAUSE NO. CL-19-0528-G
MAXIMO RAMIREZ, IN THE COUNTY COURT
Plaintiff
VS.
@WWWWWWWWQW
AT LAW NO. SEVEN (7)
MCALLEN HOSPITALS, L.P. D/B/A
MCALLEN MEDICAL CENTER,
MCALLEN ASSOCIATES, and
MCALLEN DOCTORS CENTER,
Defendants HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, MCALLEN HOSPITALS, L.P. D/B/A
MCALLEN MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,
MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION TO DEPOSIT PLAINTIFF’S SETTLEMENT
FUNDS INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT AND
PLAINTIFF’S RES QUEST FOR COST FOR DEPOSITION AND ATTORNEY FEES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Maximo Ramirez, Movant herein, and files this his Response to Defendant’s
Motion for Sanctions for Frivolous and Groundless Pleadings, Motion to Dismiss and Motion t0
Deposit Plaintiffs Settlement Funds into the Registry of the Court.
EAC_'1‘S
l. On or about April 19, 2017, Maximo Ramirez entered upon said premises as an
invitee for the purpose ofpicking up his son at the daycare inside a building which exterior is labeled
“McAllen Doctors Center,” and which is control of all Defendants. Plaintiffwas not a patient ofany
ofthe Defendants and Defendants were not providing Plaintiffwith medical services. Upon entering
the building labeled “McAllen Doctors Center,” as Mr. Ramirez was walking towards the daycare
center, he slipped on the wet floor ofthe corridor leading to the daycare center. The floor appeared
to have been just mopped. No warning signs were in sight.
Page 1 of 8
Electronically Submitted
6/11/2020 4:49 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Ester Espinoza
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2. Written discovery has been substantially conducting in this cause. During discovery,
Defendant, McAllen Ho spitals, L.P. d/b/a McAllen Medical Center (hereinafter Defendant, McAllen
Hospitals, L.P.) provided two documents: a special warranty deed and a reciprocal use agreement
between Defendant McAllen Associates and Defendant McAllen Hospitals, L.P. (Please see Exhibits
“A” and “B”, respectively). The special warranty deeds purports to give Defendant, McAllen
Associates what we are to assume is the land and property located where Plaintiff was injured.
Three years later, both Defendants entered into a reciprocal use agreement that allows both
Defendants to make use ofthe property purportedly owned by Defendant, McAllen Associates and
previously transferred by Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P.
3. During mediation, Plaintiffs attorney sought clarification on these documents to
determine dominion and control ofthe premises in question and the one made the basis of this suit.
Since no answer or clarification was provided, a demand for settlement was proposed by Plaintiff.
Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. refused to participate in mediation and only showed up without
clarifying the documents nor making an offer to settle. After mediation, Defendant, McAllen
Hospitals, L.P.’s attorney, Brandon Holubar, sought to speak with Plaintiff’s attorney (Please see
Emails as Exhibit “0”). At all times, attorney Brandon Holubar has been the attorney handling this
case and was the sole attorney in contact with Plaintiff’s attorney throughout the case. Due to
scheduling issues, that call did not materialize until a week or so later. In the interim, Attorney
Edward Castillo, another attorney for Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P., sent a threating letter to
Plaintiff s lawyer demanding that Plaintiffdismiss the case against Defendant, McAllen Hospitals,
L.P. (Please see Exhibit “D”). After the letter, there were further attempts t0 confer with lead
counsel, Brandon Holubar on the matter (Please see Emails as Exhibit “E”). Once Plaintiff s counsel
Page 2 of 8
Electronically Submitted
6/11/2020 4:49 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Ester Espinoza
and attorney Brandon Holubar spoke, it was determined that more information was going to be
sought to clarify the documents. Notwithstanding that agreement with attorney Brandon Holubar,
attorney Edward Castillo proceeded to follow through on his threats and filed the motion for which
we hereby respond.
4. At this point, Defendant McAllen Hospitals, L.P. is talking from both sides 0f their
mouth by using two attorneys saying different things on their behalf. It is with malicious intent that
attorney Edward Castillo files Defendant’s motion, it does not honor the agreement made between
his associate lead attorney and Plaintiff and seeks to hold up the settlement proceeds had from the
mediation. His conduct has made it necessary to conduct additional discovery to clarify the
documents received through discovery.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
5. A paper is considered groundless only if it has no basis in law or fact and is not
warranted by a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal ofexisting law. Tex.
R. Civ. P. 13; see, e.g., Robson v. Gilbreath, 267 S.W.3d 401, 406 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet.
denied) (groundless pleading); In re A.CB., 103 S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003,
no pet.) (groundless paper). The standard for reviewing whether a paper is groundless is objective:
did the party and the attorney make a reasonable inquiry into the legal and factual basis ofthe claim?
The reasonableness of the inquiry is judged by the facts available and the circumstances present
when the party filed the paper. Tarant Cnty v. Chancey, 942 S.W.2d 151, 155 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 1997, no writ).
6. A paper is considered to be brought in bad-faith only when the signer consciously
acted with a dishonest, discriminatory, or malicious purpose. Parker v. Walton, 233 S.W.3d 53S, 540
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] 2007, no pet); Campos v. Ysleta Gen. Hosp, Ina, 879 S.W.2d 67,
Page 3 of 8
Electronically Submitted
6/11/2020 4:49 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Ester Espinoza
71 (Tex. App.——El Paso 1994, writ denied). A paper is brought to harass when the signer means to
annoy, alarm, and abuse another person. Parker, 233 S.W.3d at 540.
7. In determining whether a paper violates Rule 13, the court must start with the
presumption that the party and the attorney filed the paper in good faith. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 13; GTE
Commc ’ns Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725, 731 (Tex. 1993); Emmons v. Purser, 973 S.W.2d
696, 700 (Tex. App.—Austin' 1998, no pet.) The party seeking sanctions must overcome this
presumption and show that the acts or omissions 0fthe party or attorney—not the legal merits ofthe
paper—support a finding of good cause for imposing sanctions. See Emmons, 973 S.W.2d at 700.
For example, an opposing party is not entitled to Rule 13 sanctions simply because the party filed a
motion that the court denies. Id.
8. A pleading or motion is not signed in violation 0f section 10.001 if each allegation or
factual contention has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code §10.001(3).
Plaintiff’s motion was not signed in violation of section 10.001 as it was signed was a reasonable
understanding of Defendant’s proprietary interest in the building in question and was thus further
cemented by the documents previously mentioned and provided by Defendant themselves. Thus, the
Court should deny Defendant’s motion for sanctions.
9. Quite the contrary, Defendant McAllen Hospitals L.P. has been uncooperative and
has filed their motion to harass and in bad faith and as such, Defendant is the one signing pleadings
when Defendant knows they are doing so in bad faith and without merit. As such, Defendant
McAllen Hospitals L.P. is proj ecting unto Plaintiff what they are themselves doing and should be
themselves sanctions for such conduct.
Page 4 of 8
Electronically Submitted
6/11/2020 4:49 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Ester Espinoza
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES & EXPENSES
10. As it is apparent that further discovery will be needed to determine the involvement
of Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. Plaintiff will respectfully request that Defendant, McAllen
Hospitals, L.P. pay for the cost of the deposition and the Plaintiff’ s attorney for his time in
conducting the deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative to clarify the documents
exchanged during discovery. Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P., through attorney Edward
Castillo, has filed an improper document seeking to withhold funds and sanction Plaintiff. It is
proper for Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. to be sanctioned. As a sanction under Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 13; Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 10.004(c)(3); Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code section 9.0 1 2(e)(3), a court can award to a party the reasonable expenses
incurred because ofthe filing ofan improper motion. Plaintiffs have incurred reasonable expenses
because of Defendant’s groundless filing of challenging motions, incurred delay in the pursuit ofthe
merits of Plaintiff” s claims against Defendant and have incurred attomey’s fees in the filing of this
motion.
11. A court can award to a party who prevails on a motion for sanctions under Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 10.002 the reasonable expense and attorney fees incurred in
presenting the motion. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §10.002(c). Plaintiffs have incurred reasonable
expenses in presenting this motion, including attorney fees.
12. A court can award to a party who prevails on a motion for sanctions under Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 10.002 all costs for inconvenience, harassment, and out-of-
pocket expenses incurred or caused by the underlying litigation ifthe party to be sanctioned has not
shown due diligence. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §10.002(c).
Page 5 of 8
Electronically Submitted
6/11/2020 4:49 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Ester Espinoza
13. Recognizing the Court’s broad authority to make such orders as are just, Plaintiff
respectfully submits that an appropriate sanction in this case would be to asses against Defendant,
McAllen Hospitals, L.P. a monetary sanction and enter such orders in regard to the Defendant’s
actions and failure as the Court deems just.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that:
1. the Court deny Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. motions in its totality;
2. Plaintiffbe granted reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses ofat least $4,000.00; and
3. Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief, special or general, legal, or
equitable, as may be shown that Plaintiff is justly entitled to receive.
Respectfully submitted,
Law Office of Rafil A. Guajardo, P.L.L.C.
706 E. University Drive
Edinburg, Texas 78539
1
; office@rau ; - t 'ardo.com
‘
r, r
By: .
Ram A.
G&gyflggmr/
Texas Bar No.
V
214
Attorney for Plaintiff
Pagé 6 of 8
Electronically Submitted
6/11/2020 4:49 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Ester Espinoza
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF HIDALGO §
BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, personally appeared Raul A. Guaj ardo who on
oath stated that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiff s Response To Defendant McAllen
Hospltals, L P D/B/A McAllen Medical Center’s Motion For Sanctions Motlon T0 Dlsmlss
Motlon To Depos1t Plaintiff’s Settlement Funds Into The Registry Of The Court and Plaintiff‘s
Request For Cost For Deposition and Attorney Fees are true and co
Raul
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the 11th day of June 2020 to
certify which witness my hand and seal of office
Page 7 of 8
Electronically Submitted
6/11/2020 4:49 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Ester Espinoza
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on 11th day of June 2020, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
instrument, Plaintiff’s Response To Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. D/B/A McAllen Medical
Center’s Motion For Sanctions, Motion To Dismiss, Motion To Deposit Plaintiff” s Settlement Funds
Into The Registry Of The Court and Plaintiff’s Request For Cost For Deposition and Attorney Fees
‘was served to:
Mr. Steven M. Gonzalez Via E-Fz'le Notification: law@vallevfirm. com
Mr. Edward J. Castillo
Mr. C. Brandon Holubar
Mr. Ezequiel “Zeke” Moya, Jr.
Mr. Eduardo Moya
GONZALEZ CASTILLO, LLP
13 17 E. Quebec Avenue
McAllen, Texas 78503
Mr. Anthony B. James Via E-Fz'le Notification: aiames@h0d2eiames. com
HODGE & JAMES, LLP & ssaucedo@hod2eiames.co
1617 E. Tyler Avenue, Suite A
Harlingen, Texas 78550
Rafil . o
Page 8 of 8
Preview
Electronically Submitted 6/11/2020 4:49 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Ester Espinoza CAUSE NO. CL-19-0528-G MAXIMO RAMIREZ, IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintiff VS. @WWWWWWWWQW AT LAW NO. SEVEN (7) MCALLEN HOSPITALS, L.P. D/B/A MCALLEN MEDICAL CENTER, MCALLEN ASSOCIATES, and MCALLEN DOCTORS CENTER, Defendants HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, MCALLEN HOSPITALS, L.P. D/B/A MCALLEN MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION TO DEPOSIT PLAINTIFF’S SETTLEMENT FUNDS INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT AND PLAINTIFF’S RES QUEST FOR COST FOR DEPOSITION AND ATTORNEY FEES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES Maximo Ramirez, Movant herein, and files this his Response to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for Frivolous and Groundless Pleadings, Motion to Dismiss and Motion t0 Deposit Plaintiffs Settlement Funds into the Registry of the Court. EAC_'1‘S l. On or about April 19, 2017, Maximo Ramirez entered upon said premises as an invitee for the purpose ofpicking up his son at the daycare inside a building which exterior is labeled “McAllen Doctors Center,” and which is control of all Defendants. Plaintiffwas not a patient ofany ofthe Defendants and Defendants were not providing Plaintiffwith medical services. Upon entering the building labeled “McAllen Doctors Center,” as Mr. Ramirez was walking towards the daycare center, he slipped on the wet floor ofthe corridor leading to the daycare center. The floor appeared to have been just mopped. No warning signs were in sight. Page 1 of 8 Electronically Submitted 6/11/2020 4:49 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Ester Espinoza PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2. Written discovery has been substantially conducting in this cause. During discovery, Defendant, McAllen Ho spitals, L.P. d/b/a McAllen Medical Center (hereinafter Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P.) provided two documents: a special warranty deed and a reciprocal use agreement between Defendant McAllen Associates and Defendant McAllen Hospitals, L.P. (Please see Exhibits “A” and “B”, respectively). The special warranty deeds purports to give Defendant, McAllen Associates what we are to assume is the land and property located where Plaintiff was injured. Three years later, both Defendants entered into a reciprocal use agreement that allows both Defendants to make use ofthe property purportedly owned by Defendant, McAllen Associates and previously transferred by Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. 3. During mediation, Plaintiffs attorney sought clarification on these documents to determine dominion and control ofthe premises in question and the one made the basis of this suit. Since no answer or clarification was provided, a demand for settlement was proposed by Plaintiff. Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. refused to participate in mediation and only showed up without clarifying the documents nor making an offer to settle. After mediation, Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P.’s attorney, Brandon Holubar, sought to speak with Plaintiff’s attorney (Please see Emails as Exhibit “0”). At all times, attorney Brandon Holubar has been the attorney handling this case and was the sole attorney in contact with Plaintiff’s attorney throughout the case. Due to scheduling issues, that call did not materialize until a week or so later. In the interim, Attorney Edward Castillo, another attorney for Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P., sent a threating letter to Plaintiff s lawyer demanding that Plaintiffdismiss the case against Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. (Please see Exhibit “D”). After the letter, there were further attempts t0 confer with lead counsel, Brandon Holubar on the matter (Please see Emails as Exhibit “E”). Once Plaintiff s counsel Page 2 of 8 Electronically Submitted 6/11/2020 4:49 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Ester Espinoza and attorney Brandon Holubar spoke, it was determined that more information was going to be sought to clarify the documents. Notwithstanding that agreement with attorney Brandon Holubar, attorney Edward Castillo proceeded to follow through on his threats and filed the motion for which we hereby respond. 4. At this point, Defendant McAllen Hospitals, L.P. is talking from both sides 0f their mouth by using two attorneys saying different things on their behalf. It is with malicious intent that attorney Edward Castillo files Defendant’s motion, it does not honor the agreement made between his associate lead attorney and Plaintiff and seeks to hold up the settlement proceeds had from the mediation. His conduct has made it necessary to conduct additional discovery to clarify the documents received through discovery. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 5. A paper is considered groundless only if it has no basis in law or fact and is not warranted by a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal ofexisting law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 13; see, e.g., Robson v. Gilbreath, 267 S.W.3d 401, 406 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. denied) (groundless pleading); In re A.CB., 103 S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (groundless paper). The standard for reviewing whether a paper is groundless is objective: did the party and the attorney make a reasonable inquiry into the legal and factual basis ofthe claim? The reasonableness of the inquiry is judged by the facts available and the circumstances present when the party filed the paper. Tarant Cnty v. Chancey, 942 S.W.2d 151, 155 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, no writ). 6. A paper is considered to be brought in bad-faith only when the signer consciously acted with a dishonest, discriminatory, or malicious purpose. Parker v. Walton, 233 S.W.3d 53S, 540 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] 2007, no pet); Campos v. Ysleta Gen. Hosp, Ina, 879 S.W.2d 67, Page 3 of 8 Electronically Submitted 6/11/2020 4:49 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Ester Espinoza 71 (Tex. App.——El Paso 1994, writ denied). A paper is brought to harass when the signer means to annoy, alarm, and abuse another person. Parker, 233 S.W.3d at 540. 7. In determining whether a paper violates Rule 13, the court must start with the presumption that the party and the attorney filed the paper in good faith. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 13; GTE Commc ’ns Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725, 731 (Tex. 1993); Emmons v. Purser, 973 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. App.—Austin' 1998, no pet.) The party seeking sanctions must overcome this presumption and show that the acts or omissions 0fthe party or attorney—not the legal merits ofthe paper—support a finding of good cause for imposing sanctions. See Emmons, 973 S.W.2d at 700. For example, an opposing party is not entitled to Rule 13 sanctions simply because the party filed a motion that the court denies. Id. 8. A pleading or motion is not signed in violation 0f section 10.001 if each allegation or factual contention has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code §10.001(3). Plaintiff’s motion was not signed in violation of section 10.001 as it was signed was a reasonable understanding of Defendant’s proprietary interest in the building in question and was thus further cemented by the documents previously mentioned and provided by Defendant themselves. Thus, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion for sanctions. 9. Quite the contrary, Defendant McAllen Hospitals L.P. has been uncooperative and has filed their motion to harass and in bad faith and as such, Defendant is the one signing pleadings when Defendant knows they are doing so in bad faith and without merit. As such, Defendant McAllen Hospitals L.P. is proj ecting unto Plaintiff what they are themselves doing and should be themselves sanctions for such conduct. Page 4 of 8 Electronically Submitted 6/11/2020 4:49 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Ester Espinoza REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES & EXPENSES 10. As it is apparent that further discovery will be needed to determine the involvement of Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. Plaintiff will respectfully request that Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. pay for the cost of the deposition and the Plaintiff’ s attorney for his time in conducting the deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative to clarify the documents exchanged during discovery. Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P., through attorney Edward Castillo, has filed an improper document seeking to withhold funds and sanction Plaintiff. It is proper for Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. to be sanctioned. As a sanction under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13; Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 10.004(c)(3); Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 9.0 1 2(e)(3), a court can award to a party the reasonable expenses incurred because ofthe filing ofan improper motion. Plaintiffs have incurred reasonable expenses because of Defendant’s groundless filing of challenging motions, incurred delay in the pursuit ofthe merits of Plaintiff” s claims against Defendant and have incurred attomey’s fees in the filing of this motion. 11. A court can award to a party who prevails on a motion for sanctions under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 10.002 the reasonable expense and attorney fees incurred in presenting the motion. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §10.002(c). Plaintiffs have incurred reasonable expenses in presenting this motion, including attorney fees. 12. A court can award to a party who prevails on a motion for sanctions under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 10.002 all costs for inconvenience, harassment, and out-of- pocket expenses incurred or caused by the underlying litigation ifthe party to be sanctioned has not shown due diligence. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §10.002(c). Page 5 of 8 Electronically Submitted 6/11/2020 4:49 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Ester Espinoza 13. Recognizing the Court’s broad authority to make such orders as are just, Plaintiff respectfully submits that an appropriate sanction in this case would be to asses against Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. a monetary sanction and enter such orders in regard to the Defendant’s actions and failure as the Court deems just. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that: 1. the Court deny Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. motions in its totality; 2. Plaintiffbe granted reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses ofat least $4,000.00; and 3. Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief, special or general, legal, or equitable, as may be shown that Plaintiff is justly entitled to receive. Respectfully submitted, Law Office of Rafil A. Guajardo, P.L.L.C. 706 E. University Drive Edinburg, Texas 78539 1 ; office@rau ; - t 'ardo.com ‘ r, r By: . Ram A. G&gyflggmr/ Texas Bar No. V 214 Attorney for Plaintiff Pagé 6 of 8 Electronically Submitted 6/11/2020 4:49 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Ester Espinoza VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF HIDALGO § BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, personally appeared Raul A. Guaj ardo who on oath stated that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiff s Response To Defendant McAllen Hospltals, L P D/B/A McAllen Medical Center’s Motion For Sanctions Motlon T0 Dlsmlss Motlon To Depos1t Plaintiff’s Settlement Funds Into The Registry Of The Court and Plaintiff‘s Request For Cost For Deposition and Attorney Fees are true and co Raul SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the 11th day of June 2020 to certify which witness my hand and seal of office Page 7 of 8 Electronically Submitted 6/11/2020 4:49 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Ester Espinoza CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 11th day of June 2020, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument, Plaintiff’s Response To Defendant, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. D/B/A McAllen Medical Center’s Motion For Sanctions, Motion To Dismiss, Motion To Deposit Plaintiff” s Settlement Funds Into The Registry Of The Court and Plaintiff’s Request For Cost For Deposition and Attorney Fees ‘was served to: Mr. Steven M. Gonzalez Via E-Fz'le Notification: law@vallevfirm. com Mr. Edward J. Castillo Mr. C. Brandon Holubar Mr. Ezequiel “Zeke” Moya, Jr. Mr. Eduardo Moya GONZALEZ CASTILLO, LLP 13 17 E. Quebec Avenue McAllen, Texas 78503 Mr. Anthony B. James Via E-Fz'le Notification: aiames@h0d2eiames. com HODGE & JAMES, LLP & ssaucedo@hod2eiames.co 1617 E. Tyler Avenue, Suite A Harlingen, Texas 78550 Rafil . o Page 8 of 8