Preview
153-287316-16
EXHIBIT A
12/02/2016 FRE 27105 FAX 9173480406 Harrison Steck, FC oer 7922
CAUSE NO. 153-287316-16
SSCAM LTD., 1N THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
ve OF TARRANT COUNTY
DELISIAS BAZAAR, L.L.C.,
Defendant. 153°” JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT DELISIAS’ RESPONSES TO
PLAT DISCLOSURE
TO Plaintiff, JISCAM, LTD. by and through its counsol of record, Mr, Jason
Johns of JACKSON WALKER T. T. P , 1401 McKinney, Suite 1900, Houston,
TX 77010, (713) 752-4205.
Pursuant to the TEXAS RULES oF CiviL Procepurr, DELISLAS BAZAAR, L.L.C.
(“DELISTAS”), serves upon Plaintiff ISCAM, LTD. (“JSCAM”), this, its Responses to Plaintiff
JSCAM's Request for Disclosure.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES 10) PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE | OF 12
12/02/2016 PRI L706 FAX §173490406 Harrison Steck, PO , Boozsoaz
Respectfully submitted,
HARRISON ¢ STECK, P.C.
1100 Sinclair Building
512 Main Street
Fort Worth, ‘lexas 76102
Phone: (817) 348-0400
Fax: (817) 348-0406
By a an
‘Andrew B, Piel
Stule Bar Na, 90001830
jel harrisonsteck.com
Toby W. Burke
State Bur No, 00793431
thurke(@harrisonsteck.com
COUN SEL FOR DEFENDANT ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served in
accordance with the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE to the following:
VIA FACSIMILE to 13) 308-410 E-) IL to “jjohns@jw.com”
Mr. Jason Johns
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P
Counsel for JSCAM, Ltd.
1401 McKinney Suite 1900
touston, TX 77010
(713) 752-4205
DATED: NOVEMBER Q, 2016.
By:
Decernbeg”
Counsel [6r DEFENDAI
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES ion AINTIFE'S REQUESTS FOR DISUL OSURE PAGE 2 OF 12
12/02/2016 FRI 17:06 PAX 9173480406 Harrison Btock, FC gjoo3/o22
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
(Request 194,2(a): State the correct names of the parties of the lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
TDELISIAS believes the partics are named correctly.
Request 194,2(b); State the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties.
RESPONSE:
DELISIAS is nol aware of any additional partics.
Request 194.2(c): State the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases for your claims or
defenses.
RESPONSE:
@ DEFENSES AGAINST CLAIMS MADE BY JSCAM
Defendant DELISIAS denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained
in JSCAM’s pleadings in this case, and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the
credible evidence,
In accordance with Texas RULE OF CiviL PROCEDURE 54, DELISIAS pleads that JSCAM
has not performed all conditions precedent fo iis entitlement to recovery from DELISIAS.
Specifically: -
~JSCAM. failed to provide a property suitable for obtaining a (inal certificate of
occupancy from the City to Fort Worth,
-And/or ISCAM failed to provide a property suitable for the utilization by DELISIAS lor
the purposes indicated in the lease.
-And/or JSCAM, through lis agent, CLAIR RUALTY, L.L.C., failed to negotiate in good
faith, thus making the contract unconscionable,
-And/or, JSCAM, through its agent, CLAIR REALTY, 1.L.C., failed to allow DELISIAS
to conduct a proper inspection or evaluation of the property prior to the leasc being
executed,
-And/for JSCAM unilaterally took over responsibility for‘ the maintenance and/or
replacement of the HVAC system,
-And/or JSCAM failed (o maintain the property to the standards required by the lease.
In accordance with TEXAS RULE OF Civil. Procupure 94, DELISIAS pleuds the
following affirmative defenses:
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGES
OF 12
12/02/2016 PRI An 06 FAX 8173480406 Harvison Steck, PC Bjoosso22
-ailure to Satisfy Condition Precedent/Vailure of Consideration: ISCAM has not
performed all conditions precedent to its entitlement to any recovery for breach of
contract from DLLISIAS, nor have all condilions precedent occurred. ‘This includes, but
is not limited to, JSCAM’s fuilure to provide a property suitable for obtaining a final
certificate of oecupancy from the City to fort Worth.
-Failure to Mitigate: JSCAM failed to properly mitigato their damages as required by
Texas law. By the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, JSCAM could have avoided
all or some of the loss, cost, or expense of which SCAM now complains, Consequently,
JSCAM cannot recover damages for any sums that would have been prevented or
lessened by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
-Fraud/Fquitable Esloppel: JSCAM, through its leasing agent CLAIR REALTY, L.L.C.
(“CLAIR”), made a material misrepresentution or misrepresentations to DELISIAS that
was/were false by telling DELISIAS that the anchor building located at the Felix Square
Shopping Center in Tarrant County, ‘lexas (the “PROPERTY”) had characteristics it did
not, and/or by omitting certain information regarding the PROPLRI'Y that would have
caused DELISTAS to not lease the property. JSCAM, through its agent, CLAIR, know
when the misrepresentation(s) was/were made it/they were false, and/or JSCAM’s agent
CLAIR recklessly asserted the misrepresentation without any knowledge of its truth,
and/or JSCAM’s agent CLAIR knew the information it failed to provide DELISTAS was
material to its decision to lease or not lease the PROPERTY. JSCAM, through its agent,
CLAIR, made the false representation with the intent that it bc acted on by DELISIAS,
DULISIAS ‘acted in reliance on the misrcprescntation by leasing the properly, which
DELISIAS luter found to not be suitable for the purpose it infended to utilize the property
for. DELISIAS suffered injury as'a result.
-Offset: Due to JSCAM’s breach of its contract with DELISIAS, DELISTAS: was
required to incur additional costs, including, but not limited (0, additional gencral
conditions and/or was forced to forgo additional incomé sireamis in the form of additional
sub-tenants: DULISLAS is entitled to offset these additional costs against the amount
JSCAM claims it is owed.
-Discharge Through JSCAM's Prior Breach: DELISIAS was discharged and/or excused
from perfornting its payment obligations under the contract between tho pattics by
JSCAM'’s prior breach of its obligations to DELISIAS under the terms of the contract.
-Contractual Limitations; DELISIAS pleads that JSCAM is limited in its recovery by the
contractual limitations and restrictions contained in the contract belween the parties.
-Unconscionability/Ambiguity: DELISIAS also pleads that certain terms in the contract
between the parties ure unconscionable and/or ambiguous.
-Mutual take: ‘DELISIAS ploads the defense of mutual mistake,
-Imposs lity: DELISIAS pleads the defense of impossibility.
-Unconscionability: DELISTAS pleads the defense of unconscionability.
-Modification; DELTSIAS pleads the defonse of modification.
“Waiver: DELISIAS pleads the defense of Waiver
eee
DDHFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIT’S iaQuESTS FOR DRCLOSU PAGH 4 OF £2
12/92/2016 FRI 17:07 PAX 8173480406 Harxigon Steck, PC Moos/o22
@) COUNTER-CLAIMS AGAINST JSCAM
APPARENT AUTHORITY OF CLAIR, VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF JSCAM: SCAM
allirmatively held out CLAIR REALTY, L.L.C. (*CLALR”) as its agent having authority to act
on JSCAM’s behalf when it came lo the leasing of the Felix Square Shopping Center located al
2920 f/k/a 4812-A and/or 4820 South Freeway, Forl Worth, Texas (the “PROPERIY”). JSCAM
knowingly permitted CLAIR as its agent to hold itsclf ont as having authority or acted with such
a lack of ordinary care as to clothe CILAIR as its agent with the indicia of authority when it came
to the leasing of the PROPERTY. JSCAM's conduct caused DELISIAS to reasonably believe
that CLAIR as it agent had the authority to act on JSCAM's bohall, DELISIAS justifiably relied
on CLATR as having the audhoriiy to act as JSCAM’s agent, and/or to make representations
regarding the PROPERTY to DELISLAS. As a result, ISCAM is vicariously liable for the acts
and/or omissions of CLAIR outlined below that resulted in damage to DELISTAS
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMLNI/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL: CLAIR was the leasing agent for
JSCAM who owned the PROPERTY. CLAIR, on behalf of SCAM and acting in its capacity as
JSCAM’s agent, made a material misrepresentation or misrepresentations to DELISIAS that the
PROPERTY had characteristics it did not have. CLAIR, on behalf of SCAM and acting in its
capacity as ISCAM’s agent, knew this/these misrcprescntation(s) was/were [alse when it made
itvthem, or CLAIR made it/them vecklessly without any knowledge of its/their truth, and ‘asa
positive assertion or opinion based on a false slalement of fact, CLAIR, on behalf of JSCAM
and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s agent, made the misrepresentation(s) with the intent that
DELISIAS enter into a leaseagreement for the PROPERTY. DELISIAS acted in reliance on the
ioisrepresentation(s) by signing a lease agreement with the party represented by CLAIR,
JSCAM, DELISIAS suffered damage as a result of CLAIR’s misrepresentation(s) and because it
entered into a lease agreement i in ISCAM for the PROPURTY.
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BY OMISSION: In addition, and/or alternatively, CLAIR, on
behalf of SCAM and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s agent, [niled to disclose to DELISLAS a
material fact or lacis about the PROPERTY within the knewlcedgc of CLAIR. CLAIR knew that
DELISIAS was ignorant of the faci(s) and did not have an equal opportunity to discover'the truth
about the PROPERTY. CLAIR, on behalf of SCAM and ucting in its ‘capacity as JSCAM’s
agent, intended ta induce DELISIAS to enter into a icase for the PROPERTY with JSCAM by
failing to disclose the material fact or facts, DELISIAS suffered an injury as a rosull of acting
without knowledge of the undisclosed fact.
STATUTORY FRAUD UNDER SECTION 27.01, TEXAS BUSINESS & COMMERCE,
CODE: CLAIR, on behalf of JSCAM and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s agent, made a false
tepresentalion of a past or existing: material fact regarding the PROPERTY to DELISIAS. ‘the
false representation was made to DELISIAS for the purpose of inducing DELISTAS to.enter into
a'Jease contract with JSCAM for the PROPERTY and/or relied on by DELISIAS in-entering into
a lease contract with ISCAM. ‘As.such, JSCAM,-due to the acts of its agent, CLAIR, has
commitied fraud as defined by Section 27.01 of the TEXAS BUSINESS & COMMLRCL
CODE, and: is liable-to DELISIAS for actual damages. Further, and/or in the alternative,
CLAIR, on behalf of JSCAM and agting in its’ capacity as’ JSCAM’s agent, made ‘the false
representation or false promise to DELISIAS with actual awareness of the falsity thereof.
DEFENDANT'S. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGH
5 UH IZ
12/92/2016 FRI 17:08 FAX 9173480406 Harrison Steck, PO coe /o22
Therefore, JSCAM, due to the acts of its agent, CT.AIR, is liable to DELISIAS for exemplary
damages. CLAIR’s actuul awareness is inferred under the statute because objective
manifestations indicate that CLAIR acted with actual awareness. ‘Since JSCAM, due to the acts
of its agent, CLAIR, violated the provisions of Section 27.01 of the TEXAS BUSINESS &
COMMERCE COD, JSCAM is liable to DELISTAS for DELISLAS' reasonable and noccssary
attorney's fees, expert witness fees, costs for copics of depositions, and costs of court.
NEGLIGENT MISRLEPRESENTATION: CEATR, on behalf of JSCAM and acting in its
capacity as JSCAM’s' leasing agent, provided information to DILISLAS in the course of its
business and/or in a transaction in which it had a pecuniary interest. The information supplied
by CLAIR to DLLISIAS was false, CI-ATR, on behalf of ISCAM and acting in its capacity as
JSCAM’s agent, did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating
the information to DELISIAS. DLULISIAS justifiably relied on the information in entering into a
Iease for the PROPERTY with JSCAM. DELISIAS suffered damages proximatcly caused by
DELISTAS’ reliance on (he falsc information.
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS: JSCAM Icased the PROPERTY, which
was commercial property, {6 DELISIAS. ‘Thc PROPLRI'Y had a Intent physical or structural
defect at the timc of the lease’s inception. The defect was in an area vital to the intended
commercial purpose of the PROPERTY. The delect made the PROPERTY unsuitable for its
intended commercial putpose, and DELISLAS suffered injury as a result.
DLLISIAS has fully performed, or in the alternative, has substantially performed all conditions
precedent entitling it lo recovery against JSCAM forbreach of contract. DELISIAS is entitled to
recover iis contract damages from JSCAM, plus the dollar value of the investents DELISTAS
made into the property in reliance upon JSCAM’s misrepresentations and/or omissions, plus the
profits it would have made if it hud been wllowed to operate the Bazear for the entire Icase term,
plus’ other ‘damages to which it is entitled to under statutory or common law. DELISIAS is
entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate allowed pursuant to statute and as provided
by common law. DULISIAS is entitled to post-judgment interest as provided by statute, It has
been necessary for DELISIAS (o relain attorneys to represent it and pursue its claims.
DELISIAS is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees from JSCAM for
the preparation of trial of this matter.
(C) CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT CLAIR
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT: CLAIR was the Icasing agent for JSCAM, LID. (“SCAM”)
JSCAM owned the PROPERTY, CLAIR made a material “misrepresentation or
misrepresentations to DELISIAS that the PROPERTY had characteristics it did not ‘have.
CLAIR knew this/these misrepresentation(s) was/were falsc when it made ittthem, or CLAIR
made it/them recklessly without any knowledge of its/their truth, and as’a positive assertion or
opinion based on a false statement of fact. CLAIR made the misrepresentation(s) with the intent
that DELISLAS enter into a lease agreement for the PROPERTY. DELISTAS acted ‘in reliance
on the misrepresentation(s) by signing a lease agreement with the party represented by CLAIR,
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES 70 PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 6 OF 12
12/02/2016 PRI 17:08 PAX 9173480406 Harrison Steck, PC Goorso22
JSCAM. DELISIAS suffered damage as a result of CLAIR’s misrepresentation(s) and because it
entercd into a lease agreement for ihe PROPERTY.
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMLINT BY OMISSION In addition, and/or alternatively, CLATR,
acting as a casing agent for JSCAM, failed to disclose to DELISJAS a material fact or facts
about the PROPERTY within the knowledge of CLAIR, CLAIR knew that DELISLAS was
ignorant of the fact(s) and did not have an equal opportunity to discover the truth about the
PROPERTY. CLAIR intended to induce DELISIAS to enter into a lease for the PROPERTY
with JSCAM by failing to disclose the material fact or facts, DELISIAS suffered an injury as a
result of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed fact.
STATUTORY FRAUD UNDER SLICTION 27.01 TEXAS BUSINESS & COMMERCE
CODE: CLAIR made a false representation of a past or cxisting material fact regarding the
PROPERTY to DELISIAS, The false representation was made to DELISTAS lor the purpose of
inducing DELISTAS to enter into a lease contract for the PROPERTY and/or relied on by
DELISIAS in entcring into that lease contract. As such, CLAIR has committed fraud as defined
by Scetion 27.01 of the Texas Business & Commerce Conn, and is Tiuble to DELISIAS for
actual damages. Further, and/or in the alternative, CIATR made the false representation or false
promise to DELISIAS with actual awareness of the falsity thereof. ‘Therefore, CLATR is liable to
DELISIAS for exemplary dumuges. €LAIR’s actual awareness is inferred under tho statute
because objective mumilestations indicate that CLAIR acted with actual awareness. Since
CLAIR violated the provisions of Section 27.01 af the Texas Business & Commerce Cone,
CLAIR is liable to DELISIAS for DELISIAS’ reasonable and necessary attorney's lees, export
witness fees, costs for copies of depositions, and costs of court.
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION: €LAIR, as {casing agent for JSCAM, provided
information to DLLISIAS in the course of its business and/or in a transaction in which it had a
peciiniary interest.: The information supplied by CLAIR t DELISIAS was false. CLAIR did
not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to
DELISIAS. DELISIAS justifiably: relied on the information in entering into « lease for the
PROPERTY with ISCAM. DELISLAS suffered damages proximately caused by DLULISIAS’
reliance on the false information.
DAMAGES: -DELISIAS is entitled to recover from CLAIR its damages, including, but not
limited to, its investment'in the property to operate jt as a Bazaar, which it made in reliance on
misrepresentalions ‘by CLAIR, as well as fost income it would have made if it had been allowed
(o operate until the end of the lease term.
INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FE - DELISIAS is entitled to pro-judgement interest us
provided by statule and/or common law. DELISIAS Is entitled to post-judgment interest as
provided by statute and/or common law. DELISIAS is entitled to recover ils reasonable and
necessary attomey's fees, expert witness foes, costs for copies of depositions, and costs of court
under Section 27. 01 of the TEXAS BUSINESS & ComMERCR CODE.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TU PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS TOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 7 OF 12
12/02/2016 PRI 17:09 FAX $173480506 Harrison Steck, PC @oosso22
Request 194,2(d): State the amount and any mothod of calculating economic darnages.
RESPONSE:
(A) $769,680,47 in direct damages.
8) $6,573,780.96 in consequential damages.
(©) Attomeys’ fees and expenses in the amounttof $36,000.00 as of the date of these
responses.
equest 194.2(¢): State the name, uddress, and telephone number of persons having of relevant
facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the casc.
RESPONSE
Andrew B. Piel
Toby Burke
HARRISON ¢ STECK, P.C.
1100 Sinclair Building
512 Main Street
Fort Worth, Texus 76102
(817) 348-0400 Phone
(817) 348-0406 Facsimile
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Sam Farah
Faisal Farah
Delisias Bazaar, L.1L.C.
c/o counsel for Plaintiff
Representatives of Defendant Delisias Bazaar
Yvette J. Kent
Jewell Management, L.L.C.
5725 E. Lancaster Ave. #200
Fort Worth, TX 76112
Plaintiff's Property Manager
Acthur Ligin
AF Elgin & Associates
816 April Sound Court, Suite 200
Fort Worth, 1X 76120
$17-929-2373
Arthur.elgin@afelgin.com
TBPR Firm Registration #F-7930
Engineer for Project
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFI’S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURH PAGE
8 OF 12
12/02/2016 FRI 17408 PAX G173480406 Harrigon Steck, PC Boog7oze
Lizbeth Camarena-Saracho
Silvia Camerena
Contact Only Through Counsel
Jason G. Johns
Jackson Walker, L.L.P.
1401 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
Houston, 1X 77010
713-752-4205
Representatives of. Maint ISCAM, Etd,
Gabriel Navarro
Navarro, L.L.C,
5918 Glen Lee Dr.
Humble, Texas 77396
Karen Clair
Bob Clair
Rob Clair
Clair Realty, T.1..C,
12514 Cutten Road, Suite C
Houston, TX 77066
281-583-2524
JSCA M's Leasing Agent
Jason. Johns
Jackson Walker, L.L.P.
1401 McKinney Strect, Suite 1900
Houston, 1X 77010
Counsel for Plaintiff JSCAM
Kevin Yarbrough
City of Kort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76012
817 392-8793
Evan Roberts,
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76012
Evan.roberts@fortworthtexas. gov
Ken McGowen’
Development Inspection Supervisor
Planning and Development Department
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFY'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 9 OF 12
12/92/2026 FRI iv op FAX 9173490406 Harrison Steck, PC @ore/o22
Field Operations Division
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76012
817-392-7834 olfice
817-223-1841 mobile
817-392-8116 fox
Kenneth.megowen@fortworthtexas.gov
Chris Valtierta
Senior Sign Inspector
Planning and Development Department
Held Qperations Division
1000 Throckmorton St., Room 203
817-392-7848 office
817-944-3697 mobile
817-392-8016 fax
Chris.valticrra@fortworthtexas.gov
Tim McVay .
Electrical inspector
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, ‘I'X 76012
817-372-1627
Jimmy Newland
Plumbing Inspector
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76012
817-851-4909
Tommy Loc
Commercial Building inspector
City of Port Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, I'X 76012
817-201 -6026
Sam Caricato
Commercial Building Inspector
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76012
817-209-5483
DBYRNDAN1"S RHSPONSES TOPLATNTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR:DISCLOSURE PAGE 1) OF 12
12/02/2016 PRE 17110 PAX 9173480406 Harriaon Steck, PC wo11s022,
John A. Coxsey
Development Inspection Specialist - Mechanical
Planning and Developinent Department
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, ‘IX 76102
817-392-7599 allice
817-944-4703 mobile
John.coxsey@fortworthiexas.gov
Kevin Bacon
Ulectrical inspector
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Kort Worth, TX 76012
817-584-1512
Ron Villeau
Backtlow
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76012
817-392-8375 °
817-392-6370
Richard Munoz,
Backflow
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St
Fort Worth, TX 76012
817-392-7273
Cody Hughes
Senior Plans Exuminer
Planning & Development
City of fort Worth
1060 Throckmorton St., lower level
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817-392-2867
Cody. hughes@fortworthiexas.gov
Allison Gray
Asst, Director of Development
City of Fort Worth
1000 Thrackmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817-392-8038
‘
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TOTLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGH 1 QF 12
12/92/2016 PRI ATs 10 FAX 8173490406_ Harrison Steck, PC woizso22
lidward Fisher
Plans Examiner Supervisor
Planning and Development Department
Plans Lixam Division
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fart Worth, ‘1X 76102
817-392-7825 Office
817-392-8105 fax
Edward. fisher@fortworthlexus.gov
Rhonda Threatt
Senior Account Technician
Water Departmont-Water-Dcvelopment Section
City of Fort Worth
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817-392-8250 office
817-392-2706 direct
817-392-8703 fax
Rhonda. threatt(@ fortworthtexas.nov
John H. Chung
Q Shopping Mall
5406 Ridgestone Dr
Fort Worth, TX 76132
All the City Officials listed in Exhibit “A” Lo these rosponscs,
All the Delisias Bazaar tenants listed in Lixhibit “RB” to these responses.
All persons identified by Plaintill'and Defendants in their discovery responses, including,
but nat limited 10 those persons and companies identified on any documents produced in
response to discovery requests.
‘
Request 194:2(0: Forany testifying expert, state:
wm the expert's name, address, and telephone number;
Q) the subjectmatter on which the expert will tostit'y;
@) the general substance of the cxpert’s mental impressions und opinions and a bricf
summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PCAINTIFG'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 12 OF 12
12/02/2016 PRE 17:10 FAX 8173480406 Harxison Bteck, PC o137022
otherwise subject to the control of the responding purty, documents reflecting
such information;
@) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the
responding party;
(A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that
have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in
anticipation of the expert's lestimony; and
@) the expert’s current resume and bibliography.
RESPONSE:
4 ANDREW RB, PIEL
qd) ANDREW B. PTET.
Harrison ¢ Steck, P.C.
$12 Main Street, Suite 1100
Fort Worth, TX 76102
(817) 348-0400
@) Mr. Piel is expected to testify as to his qualilications, the work performed by
allorneys and paralegals on behalf of DELISIAS in connection with the claims
asserted in the Suit and the underlying lawsuits, the hours spent providing such
work, the reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, puralegal’s fees und costs
charged for such services, and those alleged to have been incurred by the
remaining parties in the Suit.
3) Mr. Piel is expected to testify that the hourly rates charged by altorneys for
DELISTAS generally reflect their level of expericnce and particular expertisa in
cortain specialized arcas of the law. They are expected to testify that in their
Opinions, the rates charged by the Harrison Steck, P.C. attorneys und by the Coats
Rose, P.C. allomeys working on this case, which vary between $250.00 and
$400.00 per hour, arc reasonable and customary in this type of litigation for
attomeys in Harris, Tarrant, and Dallas Counties with the sume or similar level of
experience: and expertise. Mr, Piel is further expected to testily that in their
opinions, the rate of $85.00 to $125.00 per hour charged by tho paralcgals
employed by Warrison Steck, P.C. working ‘on this case are reasonable and
customary in this type of litigation for a paralegal in Harris, Tarrant, and Dullas
Counties, with the same or similar level of expcricnce and expertise. They arc
also oxpected to testify as to the work the attorneys performed on behalf of
DELISIAS in connection with the claims asserted in the Suit, which work is
detailed: in billing statements from Harrison Steck, P.C, Mr, Piel is also expected
to testify to the reasonableness and necessity of attorneys’ and paralegal fees
alleged by opposing parties in the Suit. Mr. Picl will testify based upon his
ene te en
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIVE’S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 13 OF 12
22/02/2016 PRI 17til PAX 9173480406 Harrison Steck, PC Qorasoaz
educational background and work experience and his testimony is expected to
include a deseription of such educational backgrounds and work experience. Mr.
Piel will also provide testimony regarding the amount and propricty of the
attorncy’s fees claimed by counscl for Defendants,
@ A copy of the Engagement Agreements between DELISTAS and Coats Rose, P.C.
and between DELISIAS and Harrison Steck, P.C. have becn produced. Redacted
copies of the billing statements of Harrison Steck, P.C, and Coats Rose, T.C. will
be available for copying and inspection at the offices of Harrison Steck, P.C. upon
reasonable advance request. In preparation for his testimony Mr. Piel is expected
to review the billing statements from Plaintifl and Defendant’s counsel. The most
curtent résumé for Mr, Piel can be found on-line at www. harrisonstcck.com
u. TOBY W, BURKE
ay TORY W. BURKE
Harrison ¢ Steck, P.C.
512 Main Street, Suite 1100
Fort Worth, TX 76102
(817) 348-0400
(2) Mr. Burke is expected to testify as to his qualifications, the work performed by
allomeys and paralegals on behalf’ of DELISJAS in conmection with the claims
asserted in the Suit and the underlying lawsuits, the hours spent providing such
work, the reasonable and necessary attornuys’ fees, paralcgal’s fees and costs
charged for such: services, and those alleged to have been incurred by the
remaining parties in the Suit:
Q) Mr. Burke is oxpected to testify that the hourly ratcs charged by attorneys for
DELISIAS generally reflect their level of experience and particular expertise in
certain specialized ureas of the law. ‘They are expecied to testily that in their
opinions, the rates charged by the Iarrison Sleck, P.C. attorncys and by the Coats
Rose, P.C. attorneys working on this case, which vary between $250.00 and
$400.00 per hour, are reasonable and customary in this type of liligation for
attorneys in Harris, Tarrant, and Dallas Counties with the same or similar level of
experiance and expertise. Mr. Burke is further expected to testify that in their
opinions,.the rate of $85.00 to $125.00 per hour charged by the paralegals
employed by. Harrison Steck, B.C, working’ on this case are reasonable and
customary in this type of litigation for a paralegal in Harris, Tarrant, and Dallas
Counties, with the same or similar level of experience and expertise. They are
also expected to testify as to the work the attorneys performed on behalf of
DELISIAS in connection with the claims asserted in the Suit, which work is
detailed in billing statements from Harrison Steck, P.C. Mr. Burke is also
expected to testify to the reasonableness and necessity of attorncys” and paralegal
focs alleged by opposing parties in the Suit. Mr. Burke will testify based upon his
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOK.DISCLOSURE PAGE 14 OF [2
12/02/2016 PRE 17:11 PAX 8173460406 Harrison Steck, PC @ors/o022
educational background and work experience and his testimony is expected to
include a description of such educational backgrounds and work experience, Mr,
Burke will also provide Leslitnony regarding the amount and propriety of the
attorncy’s fees claimed by counsel for Defendants.
4 A copy of the Engagement Agreements between DELISIAS and Coats Rose, P.C.
and between DELISIAS and Harrison Steck, P.C. have been produced. Redacted
copies of the billing statements of [arrison Steck, P.C, and Conts Rose, P.C, will
be available for copying and inspection at the officcs of Harrison Steck, P.C. upon
reasonable advance’ request. In preparation for his testimony Mr. Burke is
expected to review the billing statements from Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel
The most current résumé for Mr. Burke can be found on-line at
www.harrisonsteck.com.
(4) Mr. Burke's most current C/V can be found at http://www.harrisonsteck.com.
ID. EXPERTS DESIGNATED BY OTHERS
In addition to the foregoing expert witnesies specifically designaled’ by
DELISIAS, DELISIAS may rely upon some, but not all, of the opinions expressed by the
individuals identified as potential testifying expert witnesses by the other parties to the
Suit, DELISTAS, therefore, hereby designates as adverse expert witnesses all expert
witnesses designated by the other parties 10 the Suit (hercinafter, the “Adverse Experts”).
DELISLAS reserves the right to rely upon or to offer, by direct examination or cross-
examination, testimony obtained from the Adverse Experts und rebuttal experts, if any,
designated by the other parties to the Suil. Tn the evertt that any parly to the Suit has
designated any cxperts but is subscquently dismissed for any reason or fails to call any
such expert at the time of trial, DILISLAS specifically reserves the right to call any such
Adverse Experts previously designated by that party. While DELISTAS designates that it
may elicit opinion testimony [rom the Adverse Experts, DELISIAS does not exercise
control over, has not rotaincd, and docs not necessarily. endorse the opinions of such
witnesses, unless such endorsement is expressly undertaken. By this disclosure,
DELISIAS does nol necessarily agree wilh, nor vouch for, the credibility of any such
witnesses or their opinions, or the reliability, materiality, or admissibility of information
and/or tangible things produced by these individuals in general; instead DULISIAS is
simply reserving the opportunity to rely upon or elicit certain opinions and/or evidence
from these witnesses to the extent thal ii deems it in ils interest to do so.
VI. NON-RETAINED EXPERTS
‘fo the extent necessary, reasonable, usvel and/or customary construction costs arc
considered to be “expert testiniony” then the employees of the following companies are
designated as experts in thal regard:
DEISENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLATN’ '§ REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE
15 OF 12
12/02/2016 PRI AT42) FAX §173490606 Horrison Bteok, ee Gore so2z
Y¥velte J. Kent
Jewell Management, L.L.C.
5725 1. Lancaster Ave, #200
Fort Worth, TX 76112
Plaintiff's Property Manager
The individuals listed above were involved in various aspects of the PROJECT. Other
DELISIAS employees tracked costs and expenses which were incurred during the
PROJLCT. The individuul listed above and employees of DELISIAS will testify as to
the reasonableness and necessity of the costs and expenses incurred by DELISIAS which
were a direct result of JSCAM’s Breach of Contract und Fraud. DELISIAS employees
are generally familiar with the customary and usual charges for the construction
performed by DELISIAS in the ‘Tarrant County ares.
Request_194.2(¢): Produce any indemnity and insuring agreements as described in Rule
192.3(6).
RESPONSE:
PLAINTIFF is not aware of any applicable indemnity and insuring agreements.
Request 194.2(h): Produce any seitlement agreements as described
in Rule 192.3¢0).
RESPONSE:
PLAINTIFF ie not aware ofany documents Tesponsive to this request.
Request 194.2(i): Produce any discoverable witness statements as described in Rule 192.3(h).
RESPONSE:
PLAINTIFF is not aware of any documents responsive to this request.
Request 194.2): If this is a-suit alleging physical or mental injury, and damages from the
oceutrence that is the subject of the casc, produce all medical records and bills that arc
reasonably related to the ‘injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization
permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills.
RESPONSE:
Not applicable.
DHFHNDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEATS FOR DISCLOSURE, PAGE EG OF 12
22/02/2016 PRI 17:12 _ PAX 9173480606 Harrison Steck, Fc (gor7/022
Request 194.20): I this is a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the
occurrence that is the subject of the case, produce all medical records and bills obtained by you
by virtue of an authorization furnished by Plaintiff,
.
RESPONSE:
Not applicable.
Request _194.2(1): Produce the name, address, and telephone number of any person who may
designated as a responsible third party.
RESPONSE:
PLAINTIFF is not aware of any such party,
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO [LAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE I
12/02/2016 PRI 17112 PAR §173480406 Harrison Steck,
FC Qjo1s/o22
DELINAS BAZAAR LLC
4820 3, FREEWAY
FORT WORTH, TX 75715
Tx 76012
For
“tar oe
TX 78012 soe 1 no
os
—
Kerf Mistiower
Fort ee
‘oniica 81
| Fax 817-902-8010 ‘one wna cloabd
In|
~ ne “ah7-372-1877_ Bisotrical
4900 Thvoekmenon ee wee ee -
ee
com
—
-
ae
sone A.
aa eee ia 017-046-4703 Cloked ina F down 127252010
Preview
153-287316-16 EXHIBIT A 12/02/2016 FRE 27105 FAX 9173480406 Harrison Steck, FC oer 7922 CAUSE NO. 153-287316-16 SSCAM LTD., 1N THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, ve OF TARRANT COUNTY DELISIAS BAZAAR, L.L.C., Defendant. 153°” JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT DELISIAS’ RESPONSES TO PLAT DISCLOSURE TO Plaintiff, JISCAM, LTD. by and through its counsol of record, Mr, Jason Johns of JACKSON WALKER T. T. P , 1401 McKinney, Suite 1900, Houston, TX 77010, (713) 752-4205. Pursuant to the TEXAS RULES oF CiviL Procepurr, DELISLAS BAZAAR, L.L.C. (“DELISTAS”), serves upon Plaintiff ISCAM, LTD. (“JSCAM”), this, its Responses to Plaintiff JSCAM's Request for Disclosure. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES 10) PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE | OF 12 12/02/2016 PRI L706 FAX §173490406 Harrison Steck, PO , Boozsoaz Respectfully submitted, HARRISON ¢ STECK, P.C. 1100 Sinclair Building 512 Main Street Fort Worth, ‘lexas 76102 Phone: (817) 348-0400 Fax: (817) 348-0406 By a an ‘Andrew B, Piel Stule Bar Na, 90001830 jel harrisonsteck.com Toby W. Burke State Bur No, 00793431 thurke(@harrisonsteck.com COUN SEL FOR DEFENDANT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served in accordance with the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE to the following: VIA FACSIMILE to 13) 308-410 E-) IL to “jjohns@jw.com” Mr. Jason Johns JACKSON WALKER L.L.P Counsel for JSCAM, Ltd. 1401 McKinney Suite 1900 touston, TX 77010 (713) 752-4205 DATED: NOVEMBER Q, 2016. By: Decernbeg” Counsel [6r DEFENDAI DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES ion AINTIFE'S REQUESTS FOR DISUL OSURE PAGE 2 OF 12 12/02/2016 FRI 17:06 PAX 9173480406 Harrison Btock, FC gjoo3/o22 REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE (Request 194,2(a): State the correct names of the parties of the lawsuit. RESPONSE: TDELISIAS believes the partics are named correctly. Request 194,2(b); State the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties. RESPONSE: DELISIAS is nol aware of any additional partics. Request 194.2(c): State the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases for your claims or defenses. RESPONSE: @ DEFENSES AGAINST CLAIMS MADE BY JSCAM Defendant DELISIAS denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained in JSCAM’s pleadings in this case, and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the credible evidence, In accordance with Texas RULE OF CiviL PROCEDURE 54, DELISIAS pleads that JSCAM has not performed all conditions precedent fo iis entitlement to recovery from DELISIAS. Specifically: - ~JSCAM. failed to provide a property suitable for obtaining a (inal certificate of occupancy from the City to Fort Worth, -And/or ISCAM failed to provide a property suitable for the utilization by DELISIAS lor the purposes indicated in the lease. -And/or JSCAM, through lis agent, CLAIR RUALTY, L.L.C., failed to negotiate in good faith, thus making the contract unconscionable, -And/or, JSCAM, through its agent, CLAIR REALTY, 1.L.C., failed to allow DELISIAS to conduct a proper inspection or evaluation of the property prior to the leasc being executed, -And/for JSCAM unilaterally took over responsibility for‘ the maintenance and/or replacement of the HVAC system, -And/or JSCAM failed (o maintain the property to the standards required by the lease. In accordance with TEXAS RULE OF Civil. Procupure 94, DELISIAS pleuds the following affirmative defenses: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGES OF 12 12/02/2016 PRI An 06 FAX 8173480406 Harvison Steck, PC Bjoosso22 -ailure to Satisfy Condition Precedent/Vailure of Consideration: ISCAM has not performed all conditions precedent to its entitlement to any recovery for breach of contract from DLLISIAS, nor have all condilions precedent occurred. ‘This includes, but is not limited to, JSCAM’s fuilure to provide a property suitable for obtaining a final certificate of oecupancy from the City to fort Worth. -Failure to Mitigate: JSCAM failed to properly mitigato their damages as required by Texas law. By the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, JSCAM could have avoided all or some of the loss, cost, or expense of which SCAM now complains, Consequently, JSCAM cannot recover damages for any sums that would have been prevented or lessened by the exercise of reasonable diligence. -Fraud/Fquitable Esloppel: JSCAM, through its leasing agent CLAIR REALTY, L.L.C. (“CLAIR”), made a material misrepresentution or misrepresentations to DELISIAS that was/were false by telling DELISIAS that the anchor building located at the Felix Square Shopping Center in Tarrant County, ‘lexas (the “PROPERTY”) had characteristics it did not, and/or by omitting certain information regarding the PROPLRI'Y that would have caused DELISTAS to not lease the property. JSCAM, through its agent, CLAIR, know when the misrepresentation(s) was/were made it/they were false, and/or JSCAM’s agent CLAIR recklessly asserted the misrepresentation without any knowledge of its truth, and/or JSCAM’s agent CLAIR knew the information it failed to provide DELISTAS was material to its decision to lease or not lease the PROPERTY. JSCAM, through its agent, CLAIR, made the false representation with the intent that it bc acted on by DELISIAS, DULISIAS ‘acted in reliance on the misrcprescntation by leasing the properly, which DELISIAS luter found to not be suitable for the purpose it infended to utilize the property for. DELISIAS suffered injury as'a result. -Offset: Due to JSCAM’s breach of its contract with DELISIAS, DELISTAS: was required to incur additional costs, including, but not limited (0, additional gencral conditions and/or was forced to forgo additional incomé sireamis in the form of additional sub-tenants: DULISLAS is entitled to offset these additional costs against the amount JSCAM claims it is owed. -Discharge Through JSCAM's Prior Breach: DELISIAS was discharged and/or excused from perfornting its payment obligations under the contract between tho pattics by JSCAM'’s prior breach of its obligations to DELISIAS under the terms of the contract. -Contractual Limitations; DELISIAS pleads that JSCAM is limited in its recovery by the contractual limitations and restrictions contained in the contract belween the parties. -Unconscionability/Ambiguity: DELISIAS also pleads that certain terms in the contract between the parties ure unconscionable and/or ambiguous. -Mutual take: ‘DELISIAS ploads the defense of mutual mistake, -Imposs lity: DELISIAS pleads the defense of impossibility. -Unconscionability: DELISTAS pleads the defense of unconscionability. -Modification; DELTSIAS pleads the defonse of modification. “Waiver: DELISIAS pleads the defense of Waiver eee DDHFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIT’S iaQuESTS FOR DRCLOSU PAGH 4 OF £2 12/92/2016 FRI 17:07 PAX 8173480406 Harxigon Steck, PC Moos/o22 @) COUNTER-CLAIMS AGAINST JSCAM APPARENT AUTHORITY OF CLAIR, VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF JSCAM: SCAM allirmatively held out CLAIR REALTY, L.L.C. (*CLALR”) as its agent having authority to act on JSCAM’s behalf when it came lo the leasing of the Felix Square Shopping Center located al 2920 f/k/a 4812-A and/or 4820 South Freeway, Forl Worth, Texas (the “PROPERIY”). JSCAM knowingly permitted CLAIR as its agent to hold itsclf ont as having authority or acted with such a lack of ordinary care as to clothe CILAIR as its agent with the indicia of authority when it came to the leasing of the PROPERTY. JSCAM's conduct caused DELISIAS to reasonably believe that CLAIR as it agent had the authority to act on JSCAM's bohall, DELISIAS justifiably relied on CLATR as having the audhoriiy to act as JSCAM’s agent, and/or to make representations regarding the PROPERTY to DELISLAS. As a result, ISCAM is vicariously liable for the acts and/or omissions of CLAIR outlined below that resulted in damage to DELISTAS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMLNI/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL: CLAIR was the leasing agent for JSCAM who owned the PROPERTY. CLAIR, on behalf of SCAM and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s agent, made a material misrepresentation or misrepresentations to DELISIAS that the PROPERTY had characteristics it did not have. CLAIR, on behalf of SCAM and acting in its capacity as ISCAM’s agent, knew this/these misrcprescntation(s) was/were [alse when it made itvthem, or CLAIR made it/them vecklessly without any knowledge of its/their truth, and ‘asa positive assertion or opinion based on a false slalement of fact, CLAIR, on behalf of JSCAM and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s agent, made the misrepresentation(s) with the intent that DELISIAS enter into a leaseagreement for the PROPERTY. DELISIAS acted in reliance on the ioisrepresentation(s) by signing a lease agreement with the party represented by CLAIR, JSCAM, DELISIAS suffered damage as a result of CLAIR’s misrepresentation(s) and because it entered into a lease agreement i in ISCAM for the PROPURTY. FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BY OMISSION: In addition, and/or alternatively, CLAIR, on behalf of SCAM and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s agent, [niled to disclose to DELISLAS a material fact or lacis about the PROPERTY within the knewlcedgc of CLAIR. CLAIR knew that DELISIAS was ignorant of the faci(s) and did not have an equal opportunity to discover'the truth about the PROPERTY. CLAIR, on behalf of SCAM and ucting in its ‘capacity as JSCAM’s agent, intended ta induce DELISIAS to enter into a icase for the PROPERTY with JSCAM by failing to disclose the material fact or facts, DELISIAS suffered an injury as a rosull of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed fact. STATUTORY FRAUD UNDER SECTION 27.01, TEXAS BUSINESS & COMMERCE, CODE: CLAIR, on behalf of JSCAM and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s agent, made a false tepresentalion of a past or existing: material fact regarding the PROPERTY to DELISIAS. ‘the false representation was made to DELISIAS for the purpose of inducing DELISTAS to.enter into a'Jease contract with JSCAM for the PROPERTY and/or relied on by DELISIAS in-entering into a lease contract with ISCAM. ‘As.such, JSCAM,-due to the acts of its agent, CLAIR, has commitied fraud as defined by Section 27.01 of the TEXAS BUSINESS & COMMLRCL CODE, and: is liable-to DELISIAS for actual damages. Further, and/or in the alternative, CLAIR, on behalf of JSCAM and agting in its’ capacity as’ JSCAM’s agent, made ‘the false representation or false promise to DELISIAS with actual awareness of the falsity thereof. DEFENDANT'S. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGH 5 UH IZ 12/92/2016 FRI 17:08 FAX 9173480406 Harrison Steck, PO coe /o22 Therefore, JSCAM, due to the acts of its agent, CT.AIR, is liable to DELISIAS for exemplary damages. CLAIR’s actuul awareness is inferred under the statute because objective manifestations indicate that CLAIR acted with actual awareness. ‘Since JSCAM, due to the acts of its agent, CLAIR, violated the provisions of Section 27.01 of the TEXAS BUSINESS & COMMERCE COD, JSCAM is liable to DELISTAS for DELISLAS' reasonable and noccssary attorney's fees, expert witness fees, costs for copics of depositions, and costs of court. NEGLIGENT MISRLEPRESENTATION: CEATR, on behalf of JSCAM and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s' leasing agent, provided information to DILISLAS in the course of its business and/or in a transaction in which it had a pecuniary interest. The information supplied by CLAIR to DLLISIAS was false, CI-ATR, on behalf of ISCAM and acting in its capacity as JSCAM’s agent, did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to DELISIAS. DLULISIAS justifiably relied on the information in entering into a Iease for the PROPERTY with JSCAM. DELISIAS suffered damages proximatcly caused by DELISTAS’ reliance on (he falsc information. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS: JSCAM Icased the PROPERTY, which was commercial property, {6 DELISIAS. ‘Thc PROPLRI'Y had a Intent physical or structural defect at the timc of the lease’s inception. The defect was in an area vital to the intended commercial purpose of the PROPERTY. The delect made the PROPERTY unsuitable for its intended commercial putpose, and DELISLAS suffered injury as a result. DLLISIAS has fully performed, or in the alternative, has substantially performed all conditions precedent entitling it lo recovery against JSCAM forbreach of contract. DELISIAS is entitled to recover iis contract damages from JSCAM, plus the dollar value of the investents DELISTAS made into the property in reliance upon JSCAM’s misrepresentations and/or omissions, plus the profits it would have made if it hud been wllowed to operate the Bazear for the entire Icase term, plus’ other ‘damages to which it is entitled to under statutory or common law. DELISIAS is entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate allowed pursuant to statute and as provided by common law. DULISIAS is entitled to post-judgment interest as provided by statute, It has been necessary for DELISIAS (o relain attorneys to represent it and pursue its claims. DELISIAS is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees from JSCAM for the preparation of trial of this matter. (C) CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT CLAIR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT: CLAIR was the Icasing agent for JSCAM, LID. (“SCAM”) JSCAM owned the PROPERTY, CLAIR made a material “misrepresentation or misrepresentations to DELISIAS that the PROPERTY had characteristics it did not ‘have. CLAIR knew this/these misrepresentation(s) was/were falsc when it made ittthem, or CLAIR made it/them recklessly without any knowledge of its/their truth, and as’a positive assertion or opinion based on a false statement of fact. CLAIR made the misrepresentation(s) with the intent that DELISLAS enter into a lease agreement for the PROPERTY. DELISTAS acted ‘in reliance on the misrepresentation(s) by signing a lease agreement with the party represented by CLAIR, DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES 70 PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 6 OF 12 12/02/2016 PRI 17:08 PAX 9173480406 Harrison Steck, PC Goorso22 JSCAM. DELISIAS suffered damage as a result of CLAIR’s misrepresentation(s) and because it entercd into a lease agreement for ihe PROPERTY. FRAUDULENT INDUCEMLINT BY OMISSION In addition, and/or alternatively, CLATR, acting as a casing agent for JSCAM, failed to disclose to DELISJAS a material fact or facts about the PROPERTY within the knowledge of CLAIR, CLAIR knew that DELISLAS was ignorant of the fact(s) and did not have an equal opportunity to discover the truth about the PROPERTY. CLAIR intended to induce DELISIAS to enter into a lease for the PROPERTY with JSCAM by failing to disclose the material fact or facts, DELISIAS suffered an injury as a result of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed fact. STATUTORY FRAUD UNDER SLICTION 27.01 TEXAS BUSINESS & COMMERCE CODE: CLAIR made a false representation of a past or cxisting material fact regarding the PROPERTY to DELISIAS, The false representation was made to DELISTAS lor the purpose of inducing DELISTAS to enter into a lease contract for the PROPERTY and/or relied on by DELISIAS in entcring into that lease contract. As such, CLAIR has committed fraud as defined by Scetion 27.01 of the Texas Business & Commerce Conn, and is Tiuble to DELISIAS for actual damages. Further, and/or in the alternative, CIATR made the false representation or false promise to DELISIAS with actual awareness of the falsity thereof. ‘Therefore, CLATR is liable to DELISIAS for exemplary dumuges. €LAIR’s actual awareness is inferred under tho statute because objective mumilestations indicate that CLAIR acted with actual awareness. Since CLAIR violated the provisions of Section 27.01 af the Texas Business & Commerce Cone, CLAIR is liable to DELISIAS for DELISIAS’ reasonable and necessary attorney's lees, export witness fees, costs for copies of depositions, and costs of court. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION: €LAIR, as {casing agent for JSCAM, provided information to DLLISIAS in the course of its business and/or in a transaction in which it had a peciiniary interest.: The information supplied by CLAIR t DELISIAS was false. CLAIR did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to DELISIAS. DELISIAS justifiably: relied on the information in entering into « lease for the PROPERTY with ISCAM. DELISLAS suffered damages proximately caused by DLULISIAS’ reliance on the false information. DAMAGES: -DELISIAS is entitled to recover from CLAIR its damages, including, but not limited to, its investment'in the property to operate jt as a Bazaar, which it made in reliance on misrepresentalions ‘by CLAIR, as well as fost income it would have made if it had been allowed (o operate until the end of the lease term. INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FE - DELISIAS is entitled to pro-judgement interest us provided by statule and/or common law. DELISIAS Is entitled to post-judgment interest as provided by statute and/or common law. DELISIAS is entitled to recover ils reasonable and necessary attomey's fees, expert witness foes, costs for copies of depositions, and costs of court under Section 27. 01 of the TEXAS BUSINESS & ComMERCR CODE. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TU PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS TOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 7 OF 12 12/02/2016 PRI 17:09 FAX $173480506 Harrison Steck, PC @oosso22 Request 194,2(d): State the amount and any mothod of calculating economic darnages. RESPONSE: (A) $769,680,47 in direct damages. 8) $6,573,780.96 in consequential damages. (©) Attomeys’ fees and expenses in the amounttof $36,000.00 as of the date of these responses. equest 194.2(¢): State the name, uddress, and telephone number of persons having of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the casc. RESPONSE Andrew B. Piel Toby Burke HARRISON ¢ STECK, P.C. 1100 Sinclair Building 512 Main Street Fort Worth, Texus 76102 (817) 348-0400 Phone (817) 348-0406 Facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiff Sam Farah Faisal Farah Delisias Bazaar, L.1L.C. c/o counsel for Plaintiff Representatives of Defendant Delisias Bazaar Yvette J. Kent Jewell Management, L.L.C. 5725 E. Lancaster Ave. #200 Fort Worth, TX 76112 Plaintiff's Property Manager Acthur Ligin AF Elgin & Associates 816 April Sound Court, Suite 200 Fort Worth, 1X 76120 $17-929-2373 Arthur.elgin@afelgin.com TBPR Firm Registration #F-7930 Engineer for Project DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFI’S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURH PAGE 8 OF 12 12/02/2016 FRI 17408 PAX G173480406 Harrigon Steck, PC Boog7oze Lizbeth Camarena-Saracho Silvia Camerena Contact Only Through Counsel Jason G. Johns Jackson Walker, L.L.P. 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 1900 Houston, 1X 77010 713-752-4205 Representatives of. Maint ISCAM, Etd, Gabriel Navarro Navarro, L.L.C, 5918 Glen Lee Dr. Humble, Texas 77396 Karen Clair Bob Clair Rob Clair Clair Realty, T.1..C, 12514 Cutten Road, Suite C Houston, TX 77066 281-583-2524 JSCA M's Leasing Agent Jason. Johns Jackson Walker, L.L.P. 1401 McKinney Strect, Suite 1900 Houston, 1X 77010 Counsel for Plaintiff JSCAM Kevin Yarbrough City of Kort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, TX 76012 817 392-8793 Evan Roberts, City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, TX 76012 Evan.roberts@fortworthtexas. gov Ken McGowen’ Development Inspection Supervisor Planning and Development Department DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFY'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 9 OF 12 12/92/2026 FRI iv op FAX 9173490406 Harrison Steck, PC @ore/o22 Field Operations Division 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, TX 76012 817-392-7834 olfice 817-223-1841 mobile 817-392-8116 fox Kenneth.megowen@fortworthtexas.gov Chris Valtierta Senior Sign Inspector Planning and Development Department Held Qperations Division 1000 Throckmorton St., Room 203 817-392-7848 office 817-944-3697 mobile 817-392-8016 fax Chris.valticrra@fortworthtexas.gov Tim McVay . Electrical inspector City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, ‘I'X 76012 817-372-1627 Jimmy Newland Plumbing Inspector City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, TX 76012 817-851-4909 Tommy Loc Commercial Building inspector City of Port Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, I'X 76012 817-201 -6026 Sam Caricato Commercial Building Inspector City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, TX 76012 817-209-5483 DBYRNDAN1"S RHSPONSES TOPLATNTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR:DISCLOSURE PAGE 1) OF 12 12/02/2016 PRE 17110 PAX 9173480406 Harriaon Steck, PC wo11s022, John A. Coxsey Development Inspection Specialist - Mechanical Planning and Developinent Department 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, ‘IX 76102 817-392-7599 allice 817-944-4703 mobile John.coxsey@fortworthiexas.gov Kevin Bacon Ulectrical inspector City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Kort Worth, TX 76012 817-584-1512 Ron Villeau Backtlow City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, TX 76012 817-392-8375 ° 817-392-6370 Richard Munoz, Backflow City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St Fort Worth, TX 76012 817-392-7273 Cody Hughes Senior Plans Exuminer Planning & Development City of fort Worth 1060 Throckmorton St., lower level Fort Worth, TX 76102 817-392-2867 Cody. hughes@fortworthiexas.gov Allison Gray Asst, Director of Development City of Fort Worth 1000 Thrackmorton St. Fort Worth, TX 76102 817-392-8038 ‘ DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TOTLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGH 1 QF 12 12/92/2016 PRI ATs 10 FAX 8173490406_ Harrison Steck, PC woizso22 lidward Fisher Plans Examiner Supervisor Planning and Development Department Plans Lixam Division City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fart Worth, ‘1X 76102 817-392-7825 Office 817-392-8105 fax Edward. fisher@fortworthlexus.gov Rhonda Threatt Senior Account Technician Water Departmont-Water-Dcvelopment Section City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton St. Fort Worth, TX 76102 817-392-8250 office 817-392-2706 direct 817-392-8703 fax Rhonda. threatt(@ fortworthtexas.nov John H. Chung Q Shopping Mall 5406 Ridgestone Dr Fort Worth, TX 76132 All the City Officials listed in Exhibit “A” Lo these rosponscs, All the Delisias Bazaar tenants listed in Lixhibit “RB” to these responses. All persons identified by Plaintill'and Defendants in their discovery responses, including, but nat limited 10 those persons and companies identified on any documents produced in response to discovery requests. ‘ Request 194:2(0: Forany testifying expert, state: wm the expert's name, address, and telephone number; Q) the subjectmatter on which the expert will tostit'y; @) the general substance of the cxpert’s mental impressions und opinions and a bricf summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PCAINTIFG'S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 12 OF 12 12/02/2016 PRE 17:10 FAX 8173480406 Harxison Bteck, PC o137022 otherwise subject to the control of the responding purty, documents reflecting such information; @) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party; (A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's lestimony; and @) the expert’s current resume and bibliography. RESPONSE: 4 ANDREW RB, PIEL qd) ANDREW B. PTET. Harrison ¢ Steck, P.C. $12 Main Street, Suite 1100 Fort Worth, TX 76102 (817) 348-0400 @) Mr. Piel is expected to testify as to his qualilications, the work performed by allorneys and paralegals on behalf of DELISIAS in connection with the claims asserted in the Suit and the underlying lawsuits, the hours spent providing such work, the reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, puralegal’s fees und costs charged for such services, and those alleged to have been incurred by the remaining parties in the Suit. 3) Mr. Piel is expected to testify that the hourly rates charged by altorneys for DELISTAS generally reflect their level of expericnce and particular expertisa in cortain specialized arcas of the law. They are expected to testify that in their Opinions, the rates charged by the Harrison Steck, P.C. attorneys und by the Coats Rose, P.C. allomeys working on this case, which vary between $250.00 and $400.00 per hour, arc reasonable and customary in this type of litigation for attomeys in Harris, Tarrant, and Dallas Counties with the sume or similar level of experience: and expertise. Mr, Piel is further expected to testily that in their opinions, the rate of $85.00 to $125.00 per hour charged by tho paralcgals employed by Warrison Steck, P.C. working ‘on this case are reasonable and customary in this type of litigation for a paralegal in Harris, Tarrant, and Dullas Counties, with the same or similar level of expcricnce and expertise. They arc also oxpected to testify as to the work the attorneys performed on behalf of DELISIAS in connection with the claims asserted in the Suit, which work is detailed: in billing statements from Harrison Steck, P.C, Mr, Piel is also expected to testify to the reasonableness and necessity of attorneys’ and paralegal fees alleged by opposing parties in the Suit. Mr. Picl will testify based upon his ene te en DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIVE’S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 13 OF 12 22/02/2016 PRI 17til PAX 9173480406 Harrison Steck, PC Qorasoaz educational background and work experience and his testimony is expected to include a deseription of such educational backgrounds and work experience. Mr. Piel will also provide testimony regarding the amount and propricty of the attorncy’s fees claimed by counscl for Defendants, @ A copy of the Engagement Agreements between DELISTAS and Coats Rose, P.C. and between DELISIAS and Harrison Steck, P.C. have becn produced. Redacted copies of the billing statements of Harrison Steck, P.C, and Coats Rose, T.C. will be available for copying and inspection at the offices of Harrison Steck, P.C. upon reasonable advance request. In preparation for his testimony Mr. Piel is expected to review the billing statements from Plaintifl and Defendant’s counsel. The most curtent résumé for Mr, Piel can be found on-line at www. harrisonstcck.com u. TOBY W, BURKE ay TORY W. BURKE Harrison ¢ Steck, P.C. 512 Main Street, Suite 1100 Fort Worth, TX 76102 (817) 348-0400 (2) Mr. Burke is expected to testify as to his qualifications, the work performed by allomeys and paralegals on behalf’ of DELISJAS in conmection with the claims asserted in the Suit and the underlying lawsuits, the hours spent providing such work, the reasonable and necessary attornuys’ fees, paralcgal’s fees and costs charged for such: services, and those alleged to have been incurred by the remaining parties in the Suit: Q) Mr. Burke is oxpected to testify that the hourly ratcs charged by attorneys for DELISIAS generally reflect their level of experience and particular expertise in certain specialized ureas of the law. ‘They are expecied to testily that in their opinions, the rates charged by the Iarrison Sleck, P.C. attorncys and by the Coats Rose, P.C. attorneys working on this case, which vary between $250.00 and $400.00 per hour, are reasonable and customary in this type of liligation for attorneys in Harris, Tarrant, and Dallas Counties with the same or similar level of experiance and expertise. Mr. Burke is further expected to testify that in their opinions,.the rate of $85.00 to $125.00 per hour charged by the paralegals employed by. Harrison Steck, B.C, working’ on this case are reasonable and customary in this type of litigation for a paralegal in Harris, Tarrant, and Dallas Counties, with the same or similar level of experience and expertise. They are also expected to testify as to the work the attorneys performed on behalf of DELISIAS in connection with the claims asserted in the Suit, which work is detailed in billing statements from Harrison Steck, P.C. Mr. Burke is also expected to testify to the reasonableness and necessity of attorncys” and paralegal focs alleged by opposing parties in the Suit. Mr. Burke will testify based upon his DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOK.DISCLOSURE PAGE 14 OF [2 12/02/2016 PRE 17:11 PAX 8173460406 Harrison Steck, PC @ors/o022 educational background and work experience and his testimony is expected to include a description of such educational backgrounds and work experience, Mr, Burke will also provide Leslitnony regarding the amount and propriety of the attorncy’s fees claimed by counsel for Defendants. 4 A copy of the Engagement Agreements between DELISIAS and Coats Rose, P.C. and between DELISIAS and Harrison Steck, P.C. have been produced. Redacted copies of the billing statements of [arrison Steck, P.C, and Conts Rose, P.C, will be available for copying and inspection at the officcs of Harrison Steck, P.C. upon reasonable advance’ request. In preparation for his testimony Mr. Burke is expected to review the billing statements from Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel The most current résumé for Mr. Burke can be found on-line at www.harrisonsteck.com. (4) Mr. Burke's most current C/V can be found at http://www.harrisonsteck.com. ID. EXPERTS DESIGNATED BY OTHERS In addition to the foregoing expert witnesies specifically designaled’ by DELISIAS, DELISIAS may rely upon some, but not all, of the opinions expressed by the individuals identified as potential testifying expert witnesses by the other parties to the Suit, DELISTAS, therefore, hereby designates as adverse expert witnesses all expert witnesses designated by the other parties 10 the Suit (hercinafter, the “Adverse Experts”). DELISLAS reserves the right to rely upon or to offer, by direct examination or cross- examination, testimony obtained from the Adverse Experts und rebuttal experts, if any, designated by the other parties to the Suil. Tn the evertt that any parly to the Suit has designated any cxperts but is subscquently dismissed for any reason or fails to call any such expert at the time of trial, DILISLAS specifically reserves the right to call any such Adverse Experts previously designated by that party. While DELISTAS designates that it may elicit opinion testimony [rom the Adverse Experts, DELISIAS does not exercise control over, has not rotaincd, and docs not necessarily. endorse the opinions of such witnesses, unless such endorsement is expressly undertaken. By this disclosure, DELISIAS does nol necessarily agree wilh, nor vouch for, the credibility of any such witnesses or their opinions, or the reliability, materiality, or admissibility of information and/or tangible things produced by these individuals in general; instead DULISIAS is simply reserving the opportunity to rely upon or elicit certain opinions and/or evidence from these witnesses to the extent thal ii deems it in ils interest to do so. VI. NON-RETAINED EXPERTS ‘fo the extent necessary, reasonable, usvel and/or customary construction costs arc considered to be “expert testiniony” then the employees of the following companies are designated as experts in thal regard: DEISENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLATN’ '§ REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 15 OF 12 12/02/2016 PRI AT42) FAX §173490606 Horrison Bteok, ee Gore so2z Y¥velte J. Kent Jewell Management, L.L.C. 5725 1. Lancaster Ave, #200 Fort Worth, TX 76112 Plaintiff's Property Manager The individuals listed above were involved in various aspects of the PROJECT. Other DELISIAS employees tracked costs and expenses which were incurred during the PROJLCT. The individuul listed above and employees of DELISIAS will testify as to the reasonableness and necessity of the costs and expenses incurred by DELISIAS which were a direct result of JSCAM’s Breach of Contract und Fraud. DELISIAS employees are generally familiar with the customary and usual charges for the construction performed by DELISIAS in the ‘Tarrant County ares. Request_194.2(¢): Produce any indemnity and insuring agreements as described in Rule 192.3(6). RESPONSE: PLAINTIFF is not aware of any applicable indemnity and insuring agreements. Request 194.2(h): Produce any seitlement agreements as described in Rule 192.3¢0). RESPONSE: PLAINTIFF ie not aware ofany documents Tesponsive to this request. Request 194.2(i): Produce any discoverable witness statements as described in Rule 192.3(h). RESPONSE: PLAINTIFF is not aware of any documents responsive to this request. Request 194.2): If this is a-suit alleging physical or mental injury, and damages from the oceutrence that is the subject of the casc, produce all medical records and bills that arc reasonably related to the ‘injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills. RESPONSE: Not applicable. DHFHNDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEATS FOR DISCLOSURE, PAGE EG OF 12 22/02/2016 PRI 17:12 _ PAX 9173480606 Harrison Steck, Fc (gor7/022 Request 194.20): I this is a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, produce all medical records and bills obtained by you by virtue of an authorization furnished by Plaintiff, . RESPONSE: Not applicable. Request _194.2(1): Produce the name, address, and telephone number of any person who may designated as a responsible third party. RESPONSE: PLAINTIFF is not aware of any such party, DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO [LAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE I 12/02/2016 PRI 17112 PAR §173480406 Harrison Steck, FC Qjo1s/o22 DELINAS BAZAAR LLC 4820 3, FREEWAY FORT WORTH, TX 75715 Tx 76012 For “tar oe TX 78012 soe 1 no os — Kerf Mistiower Fort ee ‘oniica 81 | Fax 817-902-8010 ‘one wna cloabd In| ~ ne “ah7-372-1877_ Bisotrical 4900 Thvoekmenon ee wee ee - ee com — - ae sone A. aa eee ia 017-046-4703 Cloked ina F down 127252010