Legal Document: EDD RD RV Park LLC vs. CITY OF WILMER, TEXAS, et al

On September 29, 2022 a MOTION EXCLUDE/PLTF-AMD EXCLUDE TESTIMONY PATRICK BALDSARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND - MOTION - EXCLUDE was filed involving a dispute between Edd Rd Rv Park Llc, and City Of Wilmer, Texas, Petta, Sheila, Petty, Sheila, for OTHER (CIVIL) in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
12/1/2023 3:29 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Treva Parker-Ayodele DEPUTY

NO. DC-22-13732

EDD RD RV PARK LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CITY OF WILMER, TEXAS; and §
MAYOR SHEILA PETTA, in her §
official capacity, §
§
Defendants. § 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND1

Plaintiff EDD RD RV Park LLC (“Plaintiff”) files this Motion to Exclude the expert

testimony of Defendants City of Wilmer, Texas and Mayor Sheila Petta’s (collectively, the

“Defendants”) designated experts Patrick Baldasaro and Dwayne Copeland, and respectfully

shows as follows:

I.
INTRODUCTION

This case requires: (1) the Court—not an expert surveyor—to determine which version of

a certain annexation ordinance was the version approved by Defendant City of Wilmer, Texas

(“City”) on April 3, 2008 or (2) whether the Plaintiff’s property was included in the recorded

version of the annexation ordinance. Although Plaintiff brings multiple claims requiring the

interpretation of the different versions of the City’s annexation ordinance, the paramount issue in

this case involves the determination of which version of the annexation ordinance is valid and

should be applied to the facts at issue. In major part, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the version

1
Plaintiff is filing this Amended Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Patrick Baldasaro and Dwayne Copeland
simply to remove the Certificate of Conference what was accidently included in the original motion. The amended
motion includes no other changes from the original motion.

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 1
of the annexation ordinance the City recorded in Dallas County’s deed records in 2010 (“2010

Version”) is null and void and, instead, the version of the annexation ordinance certified by the

City in 2009 (“2009 Version”) is the correct version of the annexation ordinance. As such, if the

Court finds the 2009 Version of the Ordinance to be the correct version of the Annexation

Ordinance, the Court should exclude the expert testimony of Defendants’ designated experts

because their opinions are irrelevant to the facts before the Court. Next, if the Court does not

determine that the 2009 Version is the correct version of the annexation ordinance, Defendants’

testimony from its expert surveyors is unwarranted because Plaintiff’s claims do not involve issues

beyond the Court’s common understanding. They simply require the Court to interpret the

ordinance and determine what properties the City intended to include within the annexation

ordinance. Finally, the Court should exclude the purported testimony of Defendants’ experts

because they are unreliable. Plaintiff requests that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion and exclude

the expert testimony of Defendants’ expert surveyors, Patrick Baldasaro and Dwayne Copeland.2

III.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

1. Mr. Baldasaro and Mr. Copeland’s expert opinions are irrelevant if the Court finds
the 2009 Version to be the correct version of the annexation ordinance.

The party offering the expert testimony bears the burden of showing that the testimony is

admissible. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex. 1995). An

expert may testify about scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge only if (1) the expert

is qualified, (2) the probative value of the testimony is not outweighed by the prejudice, and (3)

the opinion is relevant and based on a reliable foundation. See Tex. R. Evid. 401 to 403, 702;

2
If the Court determines that testimony from any expert surveyor is unwarranted under Rule 702 of the Texas Rules
of Evidence, Plaintiff will not call its designated expert surveyor to testify at trial. However, if the Court believes that
expert surveyors are warranted, Plaintiff intends to call its expert surveyor, Wayne Terry, to testify at trial.

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 2
Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump, 330 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2010). For the testimony to be relevant,

the testimony must be “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case so that it will assist the fact finder

in resolving a factual dispute. Innovative Block v. Valley Builders Sup., 603 S.W.3d 409, 422 (Tex.

2020). Testimony that has no link to the issues in the case is irrelevant and does not satisfy Texas

Rule of Evidence 702’s requirement that the testimony help the fact finder. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d

at 556.

For good reason, Plaintiff asserts in its previously filed Motion for Traditional Partial

Summary Judgment that the 2009 Version is the ordinance actually adopted by the City in 2008.

If the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s position, then the opinions of Defendants’ experts are irrelevant

and must be excluded. Defendants have consistently ignored the 2009 Version of the Ordinance

and pretended that it does not even exist. In doing so, Defendants’ experts do not analyze the 2009

Version or opine on whether this version annexes Plaintiff’s property. Accordingly, if the Court

determines that the 2009 Version is the correct version of the annexation ordinance, the Court must

exclude Mr. Baldasaro’s and Mr. Copeland’s testimony because their opinions are irrelevant to the

issues before the Court.

2. The subject of Mr. Baldasaro’s and Mr. Copeland’s expert opinions do not involve
specialized knowledge.

Even if the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s position that the 2009 Version is the appropriate

version of the annexation ordinance, the Court should still exclude the testimony of Defendants’

expert because it does not involve specialized knowledge.

In relevant part, Texas Rule of Evidence 702 provides, “[a] witness who is qualified as an

expert . . . may testify . . . if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will

help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Tex. R. Evid. 702.

A court must exclude the opinion testimony of an expert witness whose testimony does not involve

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 3
“scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” See Tex. R. Evid. 702; see, e.g., GTE Sw.,

Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 619–20 (Tex. 1999). Expert testimony is necessary only “when an

issue involves matters beyond [the factfinders’] common understanding.” Mack Trucks, Inc. v.

Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 583 (Tex. 2006). The threshold issue in determining the admissibility of

an expert’s testimony is whether such testimony is even warranted by the dispute at hand. See GTE

Sw. Inc. v. Bruce, 956 S.W.2d 636, 640 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997) aff’d 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.

1999). Where the application of specialized knowledge is not required and the factfinder is equally

competent to form an opinion regarding ultimate fact issues, the expert’s testimony as to those

issues may be excluded. See GTE Sw., 998 S.W.2d at 620; see also Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P.

v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580, 614 (Tex. 2016); Story Servs., Inc. v. Ramirez, 863 S.W.2d 491, 499

(Tex. App.—El Paso 1993, writ denied). Courts find it “error to admit opinion evidence on an

issue where no specialized or technical knowledge is necessary.” GTE Sw., 956 S.W.2d at 64;

Story Servs., 863 S.W.2d at 499.

No matter how you look at it, this case requires the Court to interpret the annexation

ordinance and determine what properties the City intended to include within the annexation

ordinance. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law and a court’s objective in construing a statute

is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent as expressed in the language of the statute.

Youngkin v. Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. 2018). Courts construe statutory terms “according

to their plain and common meaning, unless a contrary intention is apparent from the context, or

unless such a construction leads to absurd results.” Id. Likewise, under the Code Construction Act,

an ordinance should be construed holistically with all provisions of the ordinance taken into

consideration. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.001 et seq. Section 311.023 of the Texas Government

Code lays out what matters a court may consider, which includes “object sought to be attained,

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 4
circumstances under which the statute was enacted, legislative history, common law or former

statutory provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects, consequences of a particular

construction, administrative construction of the statute; and title (caption), preamble, and

emergency provision.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023. According to Section 311.021, “a just and

reasonable result is intended.”

Because the Court is in fact more competent to read the annexation ordinance and

determine whether the ordinance in fact annexes a certain property, Defendants’ purported

testimony from its expert surveyors is unwarranted. Mr. Baldasaro’s and Mr. Copeland’s opinions

involve zero scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Essentially, they created their

opinions from reading the face of the 2010 Version of the annexation ordinance and subjectively

deciding that the City annexed the property at issue. No specialized or technical knowledge is

necessary to decide whether the City intended to annex the property at issue in 2008. Further,

neither expert has the specialized knowledge to interpret an ordinance and discern legislative

intent.

Because Defendants cannot provide any person with personal knowledge of the creation

and adoption of the annexation ordinance, Defendants cannot attempt to provide the City’s

supposed intent through unspecialized and nontechnical expert testimony. The Court is equally—

if not more—competent to form an opinion on whether the annexation ordinance previously

annexed Plaintiff’s property; therefore, aid from any surveyor is unwarranted.

2. Based on Mr. Baldasaro’s and Mr. Copeland’s previous testimony, both of their
expert opinions are unreliable.

A court must exclude the opinion testimony of an expert if it is not reliable. Whirlpool

Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631, 637 (Tex. 2009); Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557. Unreliable

evidence does not assist the trier of fact and is therefore inadmissible under Texas Rule of Evidence

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 5
702. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. 2006); Robinson, 923

S.W.2d at 557. In determining whether expert testimony is reliable, a court should consider the

Daubert-Robinson factors and whether the analytical gap between the expert’s methodology and

the opinion offered is too great. Transcon., 330 S.W.3d at 215–16; see Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–94 (1993); Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Sols., Inc., 464 S.W.3d

338, 349 (Tex. 2015); Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713, 727 (Tex. 1998);

Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557.

The Daubert-Robinson factors include the following: (1) the extent to which the expert’s

theory has been or can be tested, (2) the technique’s potential rate of error, (3) whether the theory

has been subjected to peer review or publication, (4) whether the underlying theory or technique

has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community, (5) the extent to which

the technique relies on the expert’s subjective interpretation, and (6) the nonjudicial uses of the

theory or technique. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593–94; Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557. Courts find

these factors to be nonexclusive and may not be applicable to all expert testimony. Cooper Tire,

204 S.W.3d at 801.

As evidenced from their prior testimony, neither Mr. Baldasaro’s nor Mr. Copeland’s

opinions are reliable: they are solely based on the experts’ subjective interpretation, were generated

solely for the purpose of this litigation, and have not and cannot be properly tested.

Here, both Mr. Baldasaro’s and Mr. Copeland’s testimony are not grounded “in the

methods and procedures of science, and amount to no more than a subjective belief of unsupported

speculation.” Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797, 800 (Tex. 2006). In fact,

Mr. Copeland admitted, “there’s a lot of room for guessing here.”3 Both experts jump to the

3
See excerpts from Dwayne Copeland’s deposition attached hereto as Exhibit A, 23:2-10.

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 6
conclusion that the property at issue was annexed without applying any scientific methodologies

or usual practices for surveyors in reaching that conclusion. While Mr. Copeland’s survey report

provides a list of what he reviewed in creating his report, his survey report is devoid of any standard

or test that he applied to reach the conclusion that the subject property was included in the

annexation ordinance.4 Further, as pointed out during Mr. Copeland’s deposition, Mr. Copeland

did not consider why the City included DCAD sheets and deeds for some tracts and only deeds for

others and why some of the tracts contained within the addresses identified in the annexation

ordinance were annexed and others were not.5 Mr. Baldasaro unequivocally refused to examine

the deeds or DCAD sheets for any tracts other than the property at issue.6 Accordingly, their

opinions are based only on their subjective interpretation of the ordinance.

There is also no non-judicial application of the theory or techniques Mr. Baldasaro and Mr.

Copeland apply in creating their opinions in this case. There is no evidence that—outside this one

time for purposes of this litigation—experts in the surveying community analyze annexation

ordinances in the manner in which Mr. Baldasaro and Mr. Copeland analyze the annexation

ordinance in this case.7 In fact, Mr. Copeland testified that they have very limited experience with

analyzing annexation ordinances.8 Because Defendants’ expert opinions are subjective,

unsupported by testing, and there is no proof that their interpretational techniques are generally

accepted in the surveyor community as a valid methodology of determining a City’s intent to annex

4
See Mr. Copeland’s affidavit and Survey Report attached as Exhibit A-1 and A-2 to Defendants’ First Amended Plea
to the Jurisdiction (filed on 3/23/23). Plaintiff attaches the survey report hereto as Exhibit B for easy reference.
5
Ex. A, at p.78-81.
6
See excerpts from Patrick Baldasaro’s deposition attached hereto as Exhibit C, at p. 45.
7
Ex. A, 15:2-4.
8
Id.

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 7
certain properties, Mr. Baldasaro’s and Mr. Copeland’s opinions are fundamentally flawed and of

no assistance to the Court.

Finally, Defendants’ experts’ opinion on the annexation ordinance is not reliable because

the “analytical gap” between the data relied on by the experts and the testimony offered is too

great. In assessing the analytical gap, the court should consider whether (1) the expert’s field of

expertise is legitimate, (2) the subject matter of the testimony is within the scope of the expert’s

field of expertise, (3) the testimony properly relies on principles involved in the expert’s field of

expertise, and (4) the expert showed a connection between the data relied on and the opinion

offered. See Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699, 717 (Tex. 2016).

Simply put, the subject matter of the experts’ opinions is not within the scope of an expert

surveyor’s field of expertise, and both experts cannot show a connection between what they relied

on and the opinion they offer. Again, because Defendants cannot—or refuse to—identify a single

representative with knowledge of the creation of the annexation ordinance and the City’s intent in

selecting the tracts to be included in the annexation, Defendants attempt to get this testimony in

through an expert. But a surveyor’s expertise is not analyzing and interpreting city ordinances to

determine a city’s intent in creating the ordinance. Their expertise is determining the boundary of

the corporate limits based on the metes and bounds descriptions contained within the ordinance.

In fact, Mr. Copeland testified that he had never seen an annexation like 2010 Version of the

annexation ordinance and that most annexations he has seen contain a description as to what is

within the annexation, not just DCAD summary sheets.9 Both experts are in agreement that this

annexation ordinance is unique and unlike other annexation ordinances. An annexation ordinance

such as the one in this case is not within the scope of either experts’ field of expertise. And for the

9
Ex. A, 23:11-24:10.

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 8
reasons addressed above, both experts cannot show a connection between what they relied on and

the opinions they offer. They simply reach the subjective conclusions that are favorable to their

client without showing the connection of how they get there.

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Baldasaro’s and Mr. Copeland’s expert opinions are

unreliable and their testimony should be excluded at trial.

IV.
PRAYER

Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Patrick Baldasaro and Dwayne Copeland.

Plaintiff also requests such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which it is justly

entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew K. Joeckel
Arthur J. Anderson SBN 01165957
aanderson@winstead.com
Matthew K. Joeckel SBN 24110052
mjoeckel@winstead.com

WINSTEAD PC
500 Winstead Building
2728 N. Harwood Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 745-5400
(214) 745-5390 (Fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of December 2023, I served a true and correct copy of
this document upon all counsel of record using the Court's efiling system.

/s/ Matthew K. Joeckel
Matthew K. Joeckel

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF PATRICK BALDASARO AND DWAYNE COPELAND – Page 9
EXHIBIT A
1 CAUSE NO. 22-13732
2 EDD RD RV PARK LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
3 Plaintiff §
§
4 v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
5 CITY OF WILMER, TEXAS; AND §
MAYOR SHEILA PETTA, in her §
6 official capacity, §
§
7 Defendants § 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
8 ------------------------------------------------------
9 ORAL DEPOSITION OF
DWAYNE H. COPELAND, RPLS
10 (Reported Remotely)
Volume 1 of 1
11 February 27, 2023
------------------------------------------------------
12
13 ORAL DEPOSITION OF DWAYNE H. COPELAND, RPLS,
14 produced as a witness at the instance of PLAINTIFF,
15 and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
16 numbered cause on February 27, 2023, from 10:28 a.m.
17 to 12:53 p.m., before Gloria Carlin, CSR No. 498 in
18 and for the State of Texas, reported by stenographic
19 method, Via Zoom, at the location of the witness in
20 Allen, Texas, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
21 Procedure, Notice, and any provisions stated on the
22 record.
23
24
25 Job No. 5781616

Page 1

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 Dallas.

2 Q. Have you ever created a legal description

3 for an annexation ordinance?

4 A. Not for an annexation ordinance, but I have

5 for an interlocal agreement out of Lake Ray Hubbard

6 between City of Rowlett, City of Garland, City of

7 Dallas and City of Heath.

8 Q. That's the legal description you prepared by

9 metes and bounds?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. And are there ways to identify a tract of

12 land from a general survey standpoint other than by

13 metes and bounds?

14 A. Yes, sir. If you follow the adjoining --

15 the adjoining owners. Some of the older City of

16 Dallas annexations will go along a course in rough

17 distance along a property adjoiner or they cite the

18 ownership for it.

19 Q. Any other ways?

20 A. Not that I know of.

21 Q. So, generally, the -- the goal of

22 identifying a tract of land boundaries is to ensure

23 that you're able to review a document and can locate

24 where the property is. Is that fair?

25 A. Correct. Yes, sir.

Page 15

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 the -- the ordinance.

2 Q. When you say you had not seen an annexation

3 ordinance like this with DCAD sheets, what did you

4 mean?

5 A. Okay, example, the Exhibit 1 shows a metes

6 and bounds description of what's actually being

7 annexed. Typically, most annexations I've ever seen

8 all have a description as to what's within, not just a

9 DCAD summary sheet that kind of -- I mean, there's a

10 lot of room for guessing here.

11 Q. What do you mean, there's a lot of room for

12 guessing?

13 A. Well, there's the -- the map that's included

14 in this ordinance is very vague. I mean, most of

15 the -- most of the time it's a lot -- there's a lot

16 more detail to it than this. This just shows an

17 outside boundary with a -- with some lines inside of

18 it. I don't know what the lines -- I don't know

19 what -- what those are for. I'm just not really --

20 not really sure how to explain it any better than

21 that.

22 Q. Well, do you know what the -- or have an

23 opinion as to the reason that the DCAD sheets were

24 included in the ordinance?

25 A. No, no. Like I said, this is the first one

Page 23

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 I've ever seen written like this. I don't know how

2 this was written or who it was written -- I think I

3 have a pretty good knowledge of what they were -- what

4 the intent was. And, I mean, basically, the intent --

5 my understanding of the intent in this thing is to

6 annex all the owners that are within that document.

7 There's no save and excepts out of it.

8 Q. And when you say "that document," what do

9 you mean?

10 A. I mean the -- the 2008 annexation ordinance.

11 Q. And, again, so let's kind of broaden this a

12 little bit. So there are a large number of DCAD

13 sheets in the ordinance; correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And with the DCAD sheet you can identify the

16 property by, well, the description on the DCAD sheet

17 and you can go onto the DCAD website and determine the

18 boundaries of the tract; correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. And DCAD, for the record, is the Dallas

21 Central Appraisal District. Do you utilize the DCAD

22 information when you basically have other assignments

23 that require you to identify boundary locations?

24 A. Yes, sir. It's a tool.

25 Q. And how important is it as a tool to your

Page 24

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 CAUSE NO. DC-22-13732
2 EDD RD RV PARK LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
3 Plaintiff §
§
4 v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
5 CITY OF WILMER, TEXAS; AND §
MAYOR SHEILA PETTA, in her §
6 official capacity, §
§
7 Defendants § 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
8
------------------------------------------------------
9
10 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
DEPOSITION OF
11 DWAYNE H. COPELAND, RPLS
(Reported Remotely)
12 Volume 1 of 1
February 27, 2023
13
14 -----------------------------------------------------
15 I, Gloria Carlin, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
16 and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the
17 following:
18 That the witness, DWAYNE H. COPELAND, RPLS, was
19 duly sworn by the officer and that the transcript of
20 the oral deposition is a true record of the testimony
21 given by the witness;
22 That the deposition transcript was submitted on
23 ________________ to the witness or to the attorney for
24 the witness for examination, signature and return to
25 Veritext Legal Solutions by _______________;

Page 87

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 That the amount of time used by each party at the
2 deposition is as follows:
3 Arthur J. Anderson - 02:09:51
Michael B. Halla - 00:00:00;
4
5 That pursuant to information given to the
6 deposition officer at the time said testimony was
7 taken, the following includes counsel for all parties
8 of record:
9 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
10 Arthur J. Anderson, Esq.
WINSTEAD PC
11 2728 N. Harwood Street, 500 Winstead Bldg.
Dallas, Texas 75201
12 214.745.5400
aanderson@winstead.com
13
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
14
Michael B. Halla, Esq.
15 THE HALLA LAW FIRM PLLC
187 Rolling Court
16 Lancaster, Texas 75146
512.626.2749
17 mhalla@hallalawfirm.com
18 I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
19 related to, nor employed by any of the parties or
20 attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was
21 taken, and further that I am not financially or
22 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
23 Further certification requirements pursuant to
24 Rule 203 of TRCP will be certified to after they have
25 occurred.

Page 88

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 Certified to by me on March 6, 2023.
2
3
<%12549,Signature%>
4 Gloria Carlin, CSR No. 498
Expiration Date: 04/30/25
5 VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS
Veritext Registration No. 571
6 300 Throckmorton Street
Suite 1600
7 Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Job No. 5781616 (817) 336-3042 (800) 336-4000
8 - - -
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 89

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
EXHIBIT B
CAUSE NO. DC-22-13732

EDD RD RV PARK LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CITY OF WILMER,TEXAS and §
SHEILA PETTA,MAYOR,in her §
official capacity, §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY,TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared, Dwayne H.
Copeland, who being by me duly sworn and did state as follows:
"l. My name is Dwayne H. Copeland, and I have personal knowledge of the facts set
out in this Affidavit. I am making this affidavit in support of my report attached to this affidavit
as Exhibit "A" in Cause No. DC-22-13732, currently pending in the 192nd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, in which I have been retained.
2. This is a matter involving whether a tract of land belonging to Plaintiff is within
the City Limits of the City of Wilmer, Texas and having an address of 920 E. Belt Line Rd,
Wilmer, Texas.
3. I made this report attached as Exhibit "A" at the request of Defendant, specifically
for the property out of the Roger H. Tresp., Jr. Survey, Volume 94146, Page 2467, Dallas
County Records.
4. The property has been in the City of Wilmer, Texas since the adoption of Ordinance
No. 08-0403A, adopted in April, 2008 and was recorded two (2) years later.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAVETH NOT"

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this 2Gth day of October 2022, to certify
which witness my hand and official seal of office.
1

JOSH NOTTINGHAM No
Notary ID #130295312 The State of Texas
My Commission Expires
July 15, 2023 My Commission Expires: 1·· 0- 2--o-Z-3

Exhibit A-1
SURVEY REPORT
920 E. Belt Line Road – Dallas County, Texas
PREPARED BY PJB SURVEYING, LLC

Background – PJB Surveying LLC (PJB) was initially contacted by Ms. Cherrell Charles, Director of Planning,
City of Wilmer, on September 8, 2022. Ms. Charles indicated the City of Wilmer required Professional
Survey Services in determining if the tract of land located at 920 E. Belt Line Road (subject tract) was
situated within the City of Wilmer City Limits or in the city’s ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction).

After a brief review of the location of the property and follow up discussion with Ms. Charles, the City of
Wilmer authorized PJB via email on September 14, 2022, to proceed with the Survey Services to conduct
research, review and analyzation of subject property to determine location in regard to the City Limits and
ETJ.

Review Services – PJB initially reviewed the location of the subject tract as reflected on the Dallas County
Appraisal District (DCAD) website maps and the City of Wilmer GIS Mapping located on the City of Wilmer
website. Cursory review of these maps indicated the subject property was located outside the City of
Wilmer city limits and within their ETJ.

Initial Services – PJB Surveying began office services on September 15, 2022. Initial office services included
the acquisition of affected instruments, which included City of Wilmer Annexation Ordinances and are as
follows:

- Ordinance No. 08-0403A, Annexation dated April 3, 2008. (No recording information stated)
- Ordinance No. 10-0218A, Disannexation dated Feb. 18, 2010, recorded Instrument Number
201000048954, Official Public Records, Dallas County, Texas (O.P.R.D.C.T.)
- Ordinance No. 10-0506, Disannexation dated May 6, 2010, recorded in Instrument Number
201000126810, O.P.R.D.C.T.
- Ordinance No. 10-1007, Annexation dated October 7, 2010, recorded in Instrument Number
201000274560, O.P.R.D.C.T.
- Ordinance No. 11-0901, Disannexation dated September 1, 2011, recorded in Instrument
Number 201100304513, O.P.R.D.C.T.
- Ordinance No. 1022A, Annexation dated October 22, 2018. (No recording information stated)
- Ordinance No. 2021-0617A, Annexation dated June 17, 2021. (No recording information
stated)

Additionally, the City of Wilmer was contacted to request any additional Ordinances that may have not
been recorded into Dallas County Courthouse Records. At the time of this report, no additional Ordinances
have been identified.

Other documents obtained and utilized included:

- Abstract maps for Jefferson Weatherford, Abstract No. 1536 and Charles A. Warfield, Abstract
No. 1612.

The aforementioned documents were used to construct a “working sketch” of the area. Survey work was
prepared under 22 TAC §663.21 & §138.95, does not reflect the results of an on the ground survey, and
is not to be used to convey or establish interests in real property except those rights and interests implied
or established by the creation or reconfiguration of the boundary of the political subdivision for which it
was prepared."

Exhibit A-2
SURVEY REPORT
920 E. Belt Line Road – Dallas County, Texas
PREPARED BY PJB SURVEYING, LLC

Further research through Deed Records of Dallas County, Texas shows that Ordinance No. 08-0403A was
recorded two (2) years after it was passed and was recorded of record in Instrument No. 201000009306,
O.P.R.D.C.T., Ordinance No. 08-0403A was written to take in multiple tracts of land within one document.
It encompasses twenty-six (26) tracts of land, (the Pedro Guerro tracts are listed more than once) and are
listed within the ordinance by address, owner and filing information and are as follows:

1. 809 E. Beltline Rd. – Richard Respess – Volume 95091, Page 7298, Deed Records, Dallas
County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.)
2. 817 E. Beltline Rd. – Carl & Tonya Gosnay – Instrument No. 20070041157, O.P.R.D.C.T.
3. 1200 E. Beltline Rd. – Pedro Guerro – Volume 2001252, Page 11374, D.R.D.C.T.
4. 1200 Cottonwood Valley Rd. – REC Partners Ltd. – Volume 2001052, Page 6553, D.R.D.C.T.
5. 1236 E. Beltline Rd. – Pedro Guerro – Volume 2001252, Page 11374, D.R.D.C.T.
6. 1318 E. Beltline Rd. – Ellen R. Neagle – Volume 2000177, Page 521, D.R.D.C.T.
7. 1320 E. Beltline Rd. – Ellen R. Neagle – Volume 2000177, Page 521, D.R.D.C.T.
8. 1326 E. Beltline Rd. – Razi Abdullah S. Vidhani – Volume 2003202, Page 11358, D.R.D.C.T.
9. 1601 E. Beltline Rd. – REC Partners Ltd. – Volume 2001052, Page 6552, D.R.D.C.T.
10. 1651 E. Beltline Rd. – Maria M. Caballero – Volume 98047, Page 4647, D.R.D.C.T.
11. 1701 E. Beltline Rd. – Carroll T. Estes – Instrument No. 20080000729, O.P.R.D.C.T.
12. 100 Cottonwood Valley Rd. – Stella Mitchell – Volume 679, Page 1933, D.R.D.C.T.
13. 115 Goode Rd. – J.A. Barton – No deed cited - (Volume 82067, Page 811, D.R.D.C.T.)
14. 800 Mars Rd. – Texas Utilities Elec. Co. – No deed cited – Note: current acreage for this
address, two (2) tracts; 6.679 acres and 0.121 acres do not match acreage cited in ordinance,
1.722 acres.
15. 502 E. Beltline Rd. – Trigaz – Volume 2004103, Page 5660, D.R.D.C.T.
16. 510 E. Beltline Rd. – Clyde L. Hargrove – Volume 2003162, Page 17237, D.R.D.C.T.
17. 641 E. Beltline Rd. – Alberto Garcia – Instrument No. 20070258569, O.P.R.D.C.T.
18. 649 E. Beltline Rd. – Perry Allen Barton – Volume 93007, Page 1962, D.R.D.C.T.
19. 920 E. Beltline Rd. – Roger H. Tresp, Jr. – Volume 94146, Page 2467, D.R.D.C.T.
20. 1200 E. Beltline Rd. – Pedro Guerro – Volume 2001252, Page 11374, D.R.D.C.T.
21. 1250 E. Beltline Rd. – Pedro Guerro – Volume 2001252, Page 11374, D.R.D.C.T.
22. 1236 E. Beltline Rd. – Pedro Guerro – Volume 2001252, Page 11374, D.R.D.C.T.
23. 121 Driftwood Dr. – Med O Ridge LP – Volume 2004218, Page 7884, D.R.D.C.T.
24. 125 Driftwood Dr. – Med O Ridge LP – Volume 2004218, Page 7884, D.R.D.C.T.
25. 129 Driftwood Dr. – Salvador & Jennifer Franco – Instrument No. 20070365210, O.P.R.D.C.T.
26. 1236 E. Beltline Rd. – Pedro Guerro – Volume 2001252, Page 11374, D.R.D.C.T.

Findings – In reviewing the drawing delineating the boundary on page four (4) of the Ordinance No. 08-
0403A, it is crude at best, does not include locative elements and doesn’t accurately depict the boundary
of all the tracts within the ordinance. The subject tract of this report, 920 E. Beltline Rd., is currently owned
by Edd Rd. RV. Park, LLC, Instrument No. 202200061335, O.P.R.D.C.T. This tract is 13.4 acres (Tract 1-1.0
acre and Tract 2-12.4 acres) and is a portion of a 58 acre tract of land into Roger Tresp (Sr.) by deed
recorded in Volume 3747, Page 361, Deed Records of Dallas County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.). Chain of title from
Roger Tresp is as follows:
SURVEY REPORT
920 E. Belt Line Road – Dallas County, Texas
PREPARED BY PJB SURVEYING, LLC

- Division of Carrie W. Tresp Estate – 94-1390-P/2 Probate Court No. 2
o Norma Jean Landrum - Volume 94146, Page 2471, D.R.D.C.T.
o Roger H. Tresp, Jr. - Volume 94146, 2467, D.R.D.C.T.
- James & Maureen Hutchinson – Instrument No. 201300266281, O.P.R.D.C.T.
- Edd Rd. RV Park, LLC – Instrument No. 202200061335, O.P.R.D.C.T.

The locations of the remainder of the Ordinances cited above are as follows:

- Ordinance No. 10-2018A is a Disannexation of the area covered in items six (6) and seven (7)
above as 1318 & 1320 E. Beltline Rd. and is northeast of the subject tract. Note: Metes and
Bounds description calls for this tract to be North 30°00’ West, 630 feet and North 60°00’ East,
4114 feet from the southwest corner of the said Warfield Survey which would fall slightly
within the subject tract. Locative calls within the description “center of a country road, in the
center of a bridge in said road” would put this deed and disannexation northwest by over
1500 feet and would fit the location of both “running stream” and “dry ravine” and would
place this disannexation outside the subject tract.
- Ordinance No. 10-0506 is a Disannexation of the area covered in item eleven (11) above as
1701 E. Beltline Rd. and is north of the subject tract.
- Ordinance No. 10-1007 is an Annexation of streets not within the area of the subject tract.
- Ordinance No. 11-0901 is a Disannexation of area covered in item sixteen (16) above as 510
E. Beltline Rd. and is southwest of the subject tract. Area disannexed is larger than originally
annexed by item sixteen (16).
- Ordinance No. 1022A is an Annexation of the area within the location of Ordinance No. 11-
0901 and is not within the area of the subject tract.
- Ordinance No. 2021-0617A is an Annexation of the area adjacent to and adjoining the subject
tract on its east boundary. Dallas Central Appraisal District currently has this tract also
addressed as 920 E. Beltline Rd.

Summary – Based on the information recovered and reviewed, the subject tract located at 920 E. Beltline
Rd. owned by Edd Rd. RV Park, LLC is within the City Limits of the City of Wilmer since April 2008 and has
not been disannexed.
EXHIBIT C
1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
2 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
3 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
4 ________________________________
5 EDD RD RV PARK, LLC,
6 Plaintiff,
7 v. Case No.
8 CITY OF WILMER, TEXAS; AND DC-22-13732
9 MAYOR SHEILA PETTA, IN HER
10 OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
11 Defendants.
12 ________________________________
13 VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
14 PATRICK BALDASARO
15 DATE: Tuesday, May 2, 2023
16 TIME: 10:05 a.m.
17 LOCATION: Remote Proceeding
18 200 West Belmont Drive, Suite D
19 Allen, TX 75013
20 REPORTED BY: Steve Owen, Notary Public
21 JOB NO.: 5893498
22
23
24
25

Page 1

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 my response is that I cannot look at just one -- one
2 deed in a vacuum.
3 Q Okay. So let's back up. You did just a
4 cursory review of the rest of the ordinance. Correct?
5 A Oh, yeah. Because I, you know, I didn't go
6 through, you know, all the other tracts that were
7 involved in that because it didn't -- didn't seem like
8 they were all in dispute.
9 Q And so the Tresp deed, the metes and bounds
10 descriptions of Tracts 1 and 2, both of those close.
11 Correct?
12 A Yes. Within -- yeah. It did well.
13 Q And there's no real question about where
14 those two tracts, the boundaries are located.
15 Correct?
16 A Correct.
17 Q And the boundaries of Tract 1 and 2 are
18 consistent with the way DCAD identifies them.
19 Correct?
20 A As far as DCAD can. Yeah. I would agree
21 with that.
22 Q That's not the, you know, question. I said
23 the DCAD tracts that are shown on their system, the
24 boundary descriptions or the locations are consistent
25 with the deed. Correct?

Page 45

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION OFFICER
2 I, STEVE OWEN, the officer before whom the
3 foregoing proceedings were taken, do hereby certify
4 that any witness(es) in the foregoing proceedings,
5 prior to testifying, were duly sworn; that the
6 proceedings were recorded by me and thereafter reduced
7 to typewriting by a qualified transcriptionist; that
8 said digital audio recording of said proceedings are a
9 true and accurate record to the best of my knowledge,
10 skills, and ability; that I am neither counsel for,
11 related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the
12 action in which this was taken; and, further, that I
13 am not a relative or employee of any counsel or
14 attorney employed by the parties hereto, nor
15 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of
16 this action.
17 May 16, 2023 <%25591,Signature%>
18 STEVE OWEN
19 Notary Public in and for the
20 State of Texas
21 [X] Review of the transcript was requested.
22
23
24
25

Page 69

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER

2 I, KATIE SCOTT, do hereby certify that this

3 transcript was prepared from the digital audio

4 recording of the foregoing proceeding, that said

5 transcript is a true and accurate record of the

6 proceedings to the best of my knowledge, skills, and

7 ability; that I am neither counsel for, related to,

8 nor employed by any of the parties to the action in

9 which this was taken; and, further, that I am not a

10 relative or employee of any counsel or attorney

11 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or

12 otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.

13 May 16, 2023

14 <%27249,Signature%>

15 KATIE SCOTT

Page 70

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 FURTHER CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 203 TRCP
2 I, STEVE OWEN, the officer before whom the
3 foregoing proceedings were taken, do hereby certify:
4 That the deposition transcript was submitted
5 to the witness or to the attorney for the witness for
6 examination and signature on ____________________; or
7 [ ]examination and signature was waived;
8 That the transcript [ ]was/[ ]was not
9 returned by the witness, and if so, on
10 ____________________;
11 That, if returned, the attached Changes and
12 Signature page contains any changes and the reasons
13 therefor;
14 That the transcript was delivered in
15 accordance with Rule 203.3;
16 That the amount of time used by each party
17 at the deposition is as follows:
18 Mr. Anderson - 01 HRS: 18 MIN
19 Mr. Halla - 00 HRS: 00 MIN
20 That $ _______________ is the deposition
21 officer's charges to the Plaintiff for preparing
22 the original deposition transcript and any copies of
23 exhibits;
24 That a copy of the certificate was served on
25 all parties on ____________________, and filed with

Page 71

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-336-4000
1 the Clerk.

2 Certified this _____ day of _______________,

3 202___.

6 <%25591,Signature%>

7 STEVE OWEN

8 Notary Public in and for the

9 State of Texas

10 Veritext Firm Registration No. 571

Case Info

Judge

ACEVES, MARIA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

December 01, 2023

Case Filing Date

September 29, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for EDD RD RV Park LLC vs. CITY OF WILMER, TEXAS, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties