Preview
Electronically Submitted
3/5/2024 4:57 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
CAUSE NO. CL-23-5109-F
Maria E. Longoria ¨ IN THE COUNTY COURT
¨
¨
V. ¨ AT LAW NO. 6
¨
Richard Villarreal and Hidalgo Roofing ¨
& Remodeling LLC ¨ HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE AND
ALTERNATIVE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO TRCP 91a
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
The Defendants Richard Villarreal (“Villarreal”) and Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling
LLC (“Hidalgo Roofing”) timely file this request to strike Plaintiff’s response and their
alternative reply in support of their motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure 91a.
Background
1. On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff sued Defendants for breach of contract,
fraudulent inducement, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and the Texas Theft Liability
Act. Plaintiff then untimely filed Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss on March
1, 20241.
2. Plaintiff, as per Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, now alleges
that she entered into a written contract with Defendant Richard Villarreal “individually
and as an Officer of Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC 2.”
1 Plaintiff’s response was untimely filed as 7 days prior to the hearing was February 29, 2024. See TRCP 91a4.
2 See Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Section 10, p. 2
Electronically Submitted
3/5/2024 4:57 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
3. Plaintiff also alleged that after experiencing property damage to her
house located at 8500 Brazos Avenue in Mission, Texas, she engaged the Defendants
to complete repairs to her house and another building.3
4. Plaintiff further alleged Richard Villarreal “interceded with Allstate on
behalf of Plaintiff,” and after an appraisal award, the check was “intercepted by
Defendant Richard Villarreal who used the check to pay for his roofing and remodeling
services.” Plaintiff has now alleged Defendant Villarreal “acted without authority of the
LLC 4.” A certified public record on file supports Villarreal’s authority.
5. Plaintiff asserted that “Richard Villarreal did not distribute the balance of
the proceeds to Plaintiff and although Plaintiff has demanded the distribution,
Defendant Richard Villarreal has refused and continues to fail and refuse, to distribute
to Plaintiff the proceeds of the appraisal check.5 ”
6. Despite her amended pleading, Plaintiff had already produced the written
contract that is unambiguous in stating Villarreal had no obligations, contractual or
otherwise, to Plaintiff as he was the “Company Representative,” and “acting on behalf”
of the company. Plaintiff cannot now attempt to put the genie back in the bottle
without filing fraudulent pleadings. The actions of Plaintiff are subject to the Court’s
action under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 13 6 and Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, Chapter 107.
3
See Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Section 10, p. 2
4 See Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Section 10, p. 3
5
See Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Section 10, p. 3
6 If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice
and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction available under Rule 215-2b, upon the person who signed it, a represented
party, or both.
7 As allowed under §10.004, a Court that determines that a pleading or motion was signed in violation of Section 10 may impose a
sanction on the person, a party represented by the person, or both.
Electronically Submitted
3/5/2024 4:57 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
7. Despite her amended pleading, Plaintiff also disclosed checks signed and
issued by Plaintiff to Defendant Hidalgo Roofing indicating on the check memos that it
was for house repairs.
8. Indeed, despite her amended pleading, Plaintiff again does not include
any statements, representations, or misrepresentations allegedly made by Defendants
to support her claims of breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and the Texas Theft Liability Act.
Legal Authorities
TRCP 91a - Burden of Proof
9. A party may move for dismissal on the grounds that there is no basis in
law, fact, or both. TRCP 91a.1. A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations,
taken as true, together with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the
claimant to the relief sought. TRCP 91a.1. A cause of action has no basis in fact if no
reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded. TRCP 91a.1. A response to a
motion to dismiss must be filed no later than 7 days before the date of the hearing.
TRCP 91a.4.
Breach of Contract
10. The elements of a breach-of-contract claim are (1) the existence of a valid
contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach by the
defendant; and (4) damages as a result of breach. Bank of Tex. v. VR Elec., Inc., 276
S.W.3d 671, 677 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). In construing a
contract, the primary concern is to ascertain and give effect to the parties' intentions.
Frost Nat'l Bank v. L & F Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 311–12 (Tex. 2005).
Electronically Submitted
3/5/2024 4:57 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
11. If after the rules of construction are applied, the contract can be given a
definite or certain legal meaning, it is unambiguous, and must be construed by the trial
court as a matter of law. See MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Tex. Utils. Elec. Co., 995
S.W.2d 647, 650–51 (Tex.1999); Frost Nat'l Bank, 165 S.W.3d at 312. A trial court errs
when it does not construe an unambiguous contract as a matter of law and instead
submits the issue to a fact finder. Lambrecht & Assocs., Inc. v. State Farm Lloyds, 119
S.W.3d 16, 21 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2003, no pet.).
Negligent Misrepresentation
12. To succeed on a negligent misrepresentation claim, a Plaintiff must prove
each of the following elements: (a) the defendant made a representation to the plaintiff
in the course of defendant’s business or a transaction in which defendant had a
pecuniary interest; (b) defendant supplied false information for guidance; (c) defendant
did not use reasonable care in communicating information; (d) plaintiff justifiably relied
on the representation; and (e) defendant’s negligent misrepresentation proximately
caused plaintiff’s injury. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Orca Assets G.P., LLC, 546 S.W.3d
648, 653-654 (Tex. 2018).
Fraud
13. To prevail in an action for fraud, the plaintiff must establish that the
defendant made a materially false representation to plaintiff directly or indirectly that
was not vague or imprecise. Samson Lone Star, L.P. v. Hooks, 497 S.W.3d 1, 14
(Tex.App-Houston[1st Dist] 2016, pet denied.
Electronically Submitted
3/5/2024 4:57 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
Fraudulent Inducement
14. To succeed in an action of fraudulent inducement, the plaintiff must prove
that (a) the defendant made a material misrepresentation; (b) knowing that the
misrepresentation was false or asserted without knowledge of its truth; (c) with the
intention that the plaintiff should rely on or act upon the misrepresentation; (d) the
plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation without contradiction in any agreement; and (e)
plaintiff’s reliance on the misrepresentation caused injury. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v.
Carduco, Inc., 583 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. 2019).
Texas Theft Liability Act
15. To satisfy the statutory elements of a Texas Theft Liability Claim, a
plaintiff shall prove: (a) an unlawful theft appropriating property or services; and (b)
damages sustained resulting from the theft. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§§134.002-134.003.
Analysis
No Basis In Fact and/or Law as to Liability of Villarreal
16. Despite her amended pleading, Plaintiff has produced a written
agreement that unambiguously contradicts any alleged facts plead and asserted by
Plaintiff that Villarreal acted independently from the company. Villarreal had no
obligations, contractual or otherwise, to Plaintiff as he was the “Company
Representative,” and “acting on behalf” of the company. The factual assertion that
Villarreal somehow “intercepted” insurance proceeds is also contradicted by the
personal checks that were attached to Plaintiff’s petition that were issued directly by
Plaintiff to Hidalgo Roofing. Clearly, Villarreal could not intercept proceeds as Plaintiff
Electronically Submitted
3/5/2024 4:57 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
received, endorsed, deposited, and then issued payment to Defendant Hidalgo
Roofing. Plaintiff did not plead any statements, representations, or misrepresentations
allegedly made by Defendants to support her claims. Any claims against Villarreal are
baseless.
17. Plaintiff’s amended pleading cannot include assertions that are
contradicted by evidence without violating either Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 13,
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 10, or both. Neither the facts nor the
law imposes any liability on defendant Villarreal. As a result, all causes of action against
Defendant Villarreal shall be dismissed. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carduco, Inc.,
583 S.W.3d at 555; MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Tex. Utils. Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d at 650–
51; JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Orca Assets G.P., LLC, 546 S.W.3d at 653-654; Samson
Lone Star, L.P. v. Hooks, 497 S.W.3d at 14; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§§134.002-134.003.
No Basis In Fact and/or Law as to Liability of Hidalgo Roofing LLC
18. The factual allegations contained within Plaintiff’s petition that assert that
Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC “intercepted” insurance proceeds are
directly and expressly contradicted by Plaintiff’s very own evidence. Indeed, Plaintiff’s
Original Petition included attached checks signed and issued by Plaintiff to Hidalgo
Roofing indicating on the check’s memo that it was for “House Repairs.” Clearly,
Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC could not intercept any checks issued
by Allstate as Plaintiff received, endorsed, deposited, and then issued payment directly
to Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC. Plaintiff did not plead or reference
any term or provision in the written contract that Defendant breached much less how
Electronically Submitted
3/5/2024 4:57 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
an act of theft was committed. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and the Texas
Theft Liability Act are baseless in fact and law and shall be dismissed. Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC v. Carduco, Inc., 583 S.W.3d at 555; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§§134.002-134.003.
19. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC
for fraudulent inducement, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation are similarly
baseless. These causes of action are premised on false representations that were
allegedly relied upon resulting in Plaintiff’s damages. However, Plaintiff’s amended
petition does not include any statements, representations, or misrepresentations by
Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC or its representative. These claims are
all baseless in fact and law and shall be dismissed.
20. There are no genuine issues of material fact that prevent the granting of
this motion pursuant to TRCP 91a in favor of the Defendants.
21. Defendants further request that the Plaintiff’s untimely response be
struck. See TRCP 91.a4.
Electronically Submitted
3/5/2024 4:57 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
For Justice,
The Pruneda Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
P.O. Box 1664
Pharr, Texas 78577
956.702.9675 Tel.
956.702.9659 Fax
Email: michael@michaelpruneda.com
By: _________________________
Michael Pruneda
Texas Bar No. 24025601
U.S. Fed. I.D. No. 25659
New York State Reg. 5350897
Attorney for Defendants
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing has been forwarded to
opposing counsel of record as noted below via the electronic service system on the 5th
day of March 2024.
rcantu@cantulawfirm.com
Rolando Cantu
1111 W. Nolana Ave.
McAllen, Texas 78504
__________________
Michael Pruneda
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 85229730
Filing Code Description: Amended Filing
Filing Description: Defendants' Amended Motion to Strike and Alternate
Reply to Plaintiff's Response to TRCP 91a Motion to Dismiss
Status as of 3/6/2024 8:05 AM CST
Associated Case Party: MARIAE.LONGORIA
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
ROLANDO CANTU rcantu@cantulawfirm.com 3/5/2024 4:57:33 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: HIDALGO ROOFING & REMODELING, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Miguel (Michael) Pruneda michael@michaelpruneda.com 3/5/2024 4:57:33 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Rcantu @cantulawfirm.com Rcantu@cantulawfirm.com 3/5/2024 4:57:33 PM SENT
Preview
Electronically Submitted 3/5/2024 4:57 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores CAUSE NO. CL-23-5109-F Maria E. Longoria ¨ IN THE COUNTY COURT ¨ ¨ V. ¨ AT LAW NO. 6 ¨ Richard Villarreal and Hidalgo Roofing ¨ & Remodeling LLC ¨ HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE AND ALTERNATIVE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO TRCP 91a MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: The Defendants Richard Villarreal (“Villarreal”) and Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC (“Hidalgo Roofing”) timely file this request to strike Plaintiff’s response and their alternative reply in support of their motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 91a. Background 1. On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff sued Defendants for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and the Texas Theft Liability Act. Plaintiff then untimely filed Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss on March 1, 20241. 2. Plaintiff, as per Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, now alleges that she entered into a written contract with Defendant Richard Villarreal “individually and as an Officer of Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC 2.” 1 Plaintiff’s response was untimely filed as 7 days prior to the hearing was February 29, 2024. See TRCP 91a4. 2 See Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Section 10, p. 2 Electronically Submitted 3/5/2024 4:57 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores 3. Plaintiff also alleged that after experiencing property damage to her house located at 8500 Brazos Avenue in Mission, Texas, she engaged the Defendants to complete repairs to her house and another building.3 4. Plaintiff further alleged Richard Villarreal “interceded with Allstate on behalf of Plaintiff,” and after an appraisal award, the check was “intercepted by Defendant Richard Villarreal who used the check to pay for his roofing and remodeling services.” Plaintiff has now alleged Defendant Villarreal “acted without authority of the LLC 4.” A certified public record on file supports Villarreal’s authority. 5. Plaintiff asserted that “Richard Villarreal did not distribute the balance of the proceeds to Plaintiff and although Plaintiff has demanded the distribution, Defendant Richard Villarreal has refused and continues to fail and refuse, to distribute to Plaintiff the proceeds of the appraisal check.5 ” 6. Despite her amended pleading, Plaintiff had already produced the written contract that is unambiguous in stating Villarreal had no obligations, contractual or otherwise, to Plaintiff as he was the “Company Representative,” and “acting on behalf” of the company. Plaintiff cannot now attempt to put the genie back in the bottle without filing fraudulent pleadings. The actions of Plaintiff are subject to the Court’s action under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 13 6 and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 107. 3 See Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Section 10, p. 2 4 See Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Section 10, p. 3 5 See Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Section 10, p. 3 6 If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction available under Rule 215-2b, upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both. 7 As allowed under §10.004, a Court that determines that a pleading or motion was signed in violation of Section 10 may impose a sanction on the person, a party represented by the person, or both. Electronically Submitted 3/5/2024 4:57 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores 7. Despite her amended pleading, Plaintiff also disclosed checks signed and issued by Plaintiff to Defendant Hidalgo Roofing indicating on the check memos that it was for house repairs. 8. Indeed, despite her amended pleading, Plaintiff again does not include any statements, representations, or misrepresentations allegedly made by Defendants to support her claims of breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and the Texas Theft Liability Act. Legal Authorities TRCP 91a - Burden of Proof 9. A party may move for dismissal on the grounds that there is no basis in law, fact, or both. TRCP 91a.1. A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought. TRCP 91a.1. A cause of action has no basis in fact if no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded. TRCP 91a.1. A response to a motion to dismiss must be filed no later than 7 days before the date of the hearing. TRCP 91a.4. Breach of Contract 10. The elements of a breach-of-contract claim are (1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach by the defendant; and (4) damages as a result of breach. Bank of Tex. v. VR Elec., Inc., 276 S.W.3d 671, 677 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). In construing a contract, the primary concern is to ascertain and give effect to the parties' intentions. Frost Nat'l Bank v. L & F Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 311–12 (Tex. 2005). Electronically Submitted 3/5/2024 4:57 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores 11. If after the rules of construction are applied, the contract can be given a definite or certain legal meaning, it is unambiguous, and must be construed by the trial court as a matter of law. See MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Tex. Utils. Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d 647, 650–51 (Tex.1999); Frost Nat'l Bank, 165 S.W.3d at 312. A trial court errs when it does not construe an unambiguous contract as a matter of law and instead submits the issue to a fact finder. Lambrecht & Assocs., Inc. v. State Farm Lloyds, 119 S.W.3d 16, 21 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2003, no pet.). Negligent Misrepresentation 12. To succeed on a negligent misrepresentation claim, a Plaintiff must prove each of the following elements: (a) the defendant made a representation to the plaintiff in the course of defendant’s business or a transaction in which defendant had a pecuniary interest; (b) defendant supplied false information for guidance; (c) defendant did not use reasonable care in communicating information; (d) plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation; and (e) defendant’s negligent misrepresentation proximately caused plaintiff’s injury. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Orca Assets G.P., LLC, 546 S.W.3d 648, 653-654 (Tex. 2018). Fraud 13. To prevail in an action for fraud, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant made a materially false representation to plaintiff directly or indirectly that was not vague or imprecise. Samson Lone Star, L.P. v. Hooks, 497 S.W.3d 1, 14 (Tex.App-Houston[1st Dist] 2016, pet denied. Electronically Submitted 3/5/2024 4:57 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores Fraudulent Inducement 14. To succeed in an action of fraudulent inducement, the plaintiff must prove that (a) the defendant made a material misrepresentation; (b) knowing that the misrepresentation was false or asserted without knowledge of its truth; (c) with the intention that the plaintiff should rely on or act upon the misrepresentation; (d) the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation without contradiction in any agreement; and (e) plaintiff’s reliance on the misrepresentation caused injury. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carduco, Inc., 583 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. 2019). Texas Theft Liability Act 15. To satisfy the statutory elements of a Texas Theft Liability Claim, a plaintiff shall prove: (a) an unlawful theft appropriating property or services; and (b) damages sustained resulting from the theft. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§134.002-134.003. Analysis No Basis In Fact and/or Law as to Liability of Villarreal 16. Despite her amended pleading, Plaintiff has produced a written agreement that unambiguously contradicts any alleged facts plead and asserted by Plaintiff that Villarreal acted independently from the company. Villarreal had no obligations, contractual or otherwise, to Plaintiff as he was the “Company Representative,” and “acting on behalf” of the company. The factual assertion that Villarreal somehow “intercepted” insurance proceeds is also contradicted by the personal checks that were attached to Plaintiff’s petition that were issued directly by Plaintiff to Hidalgo Roofing. Clearly, Villarreal could not intercept proceeds as Plaintiff Electronically Submitted 3/5/2024 4:57 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores received, endorsed, deposited, and then issued payment to Defendant Hidalgo Roofing. Plaintiff did not plead any statements, representations, or misrepresentations allegedly made by Defendants to support her claims. Any claims against Villarreal are baseless. 17. Plaintiff’s amended pleading cannot include assertions that are contradicted by evidence without violating either Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 13, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 10, or both. Neither the facts nor the law imposes any liability on defendant Villarreal. As a result, all causes of action against Defendant Villarreal shall be dismissed. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carduco, Inc., 583 S.W.3d at 555; MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Tex. Utils. Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d at 650– 51; JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Orca Assets G.P., LLC, 546 S.W.3d at 653-654; Samson Lone Star, L.P. v. Hooks, 497 S.W.3d at 14; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§134.002-134.003. No Basis In Fact and/or Law as to Liability of Hidalgo Roofing LLC 18. The factual allegations contained within Plaintiff’s petition that assert that Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC “intercepted” insurance proceeds are directly and expressly contradicted by Plaintiff’s very own evidence. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Original Petition included attached checks signed and issued by Plaintiff to Hidalgo Roofing indicating on the check’s memo that it was for “House Repairs.” Clearly, Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC could not intercept any checks issued by Allstate as Plaintiff received, endorsed, deposited, and then issued payment directly to Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC. Plaintiff did not plead or reference any term or provision in the written contract that Defendant breached much less how Electronically Submitted 3/5/2024 4:57 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores an act of theft was committed. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and the Texas Theft Liability Act are baseless in fact and law and shall be dismissed. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carduco, Inc., 583 S.W.3d at 555; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§134.002-134.003. 19. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC for fraudulent inducement, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation are similarly baseless. These causes of action are premised on false representations that were allegedly relied upon resulting in Plaintiff’s damages. However, Plaintiff’s amended petition does not include any statements, representations, or misrepresentations by Defendant Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling LLC or its representative. These claims are all baseless in fact and law and shall be dismissed. 20. There are no genuine issues of material fact that prevent the granting of this motion pursuant to TRCP 91a in favor of the Defendants. 21. Defendants further request that the Plaintiff’s untimely response be struck. See TRCP 91.a4. Electronically Submitted 3/5/2024 4:57 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores For Justice, The Pruneda Law Firm, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 1664 Pharr, Texas 78577 956.702.9675 Tel. 956.702.9659 Fax Email: michael@michaelpruneda.com By: _________________________ Michael Pruneda Texas Bar No. 24025601 U.S. Fed. I.D. No. 25659 New York State Reg. 5350897 Attorney for Defendants Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing has been forwarded to opposing counsel of record as noted below via the electronic service system on the 5th day of March 2024. rcantu@cantulawfirm.com Rolando Cantu 1111 W. Nolana Ave. McAllen, Texas 78504 __________________ Michael Pruneda Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Envelope ID: 85229730 Filing Code Description: Amended Filing Filing Description: Defendants' Amended Motion to Strike and Alternate Reply to Plaintiff's Response to TRCP 91a Motion to Dismiss Status as of 3/6/2024 8:05 AM CST Associated Case Party: MARIAE.LONGORIA Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status ROLANDO CANTU rcantu@cantulawfirm.com 3/5/2024 4:57:33 PM SENT Associated Case Party: HIDALGO ROOFING & REMODELING, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Miguel (Michael) Pruneda michael@michaelpruneda.com 3/5/2024 4:57:33 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Rcantu @cantulawfirm.com Rcantu@cantulawfirm.com 3/5/2024 4:57:33 PM SENT