Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
HDNet v. WILLIAM HAMBRECHT

HDNet v. WILLIAM HAMBRECHT

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,768 |Likes:
Published by Robert Wilonsky
Mark Cuban sues over United Football League loan
Mark Cuban sues over United Football League loan

More info:

Published by: Robert Wilonsky on Jan 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/12/2011

pdf

text

original

 
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONHDNET, LLC,Plaintiff,v.WILLIAM HAMBRECHT AND THEHAMBRECHT 1980 REVOCABLETRUST,Defendants.CASE NO. 3:11-cv-61PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff HDNet, LLC (“Plaintiff”), files its Complaint against William Hambrecht andThe Hambrecht 1980 Revocable Trust (collectively “Defendants”) and respectfully shows theCourt and Jury as follows:
I.JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
 
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 because this action is between citizens of different States and the amount in controversyexceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.2.
 
Because Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in this state, which has been regular and systematic, and because Defendantscommitted many of the wrongful acts alleged in this Complaint within this judicial district,Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.3.
 
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because asubstantial part of the events giving rise to these claims occurred in this judicial district, and theinjurious consequences of Defendants’ acts occurred in this judicial district.
Case 3:11-cv-00061-O Document 1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1
 
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – Page 2
4.
 
Venue is also proper in this Court because Defendants agreed to venue in DallasCounty pursuant to a written agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants.
II.PARTIES
5.
 
Plaintiff HDNet, LLC, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of  business in Dallas County, Texas.6.
 
Defendant William Hambrecht is an individual residing in San Francisco,California.7.
 
On information and belief, Defendant The Hambrecht 1980 Revocable Trust is atrust organized under the laws of California.
III.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8.
 
On or about April 7, 2010, UFL Management, LLC executed and delivered toPlaintiff a promissory note dated April 7, 2010 whereby UFL Management, LLC promised to pay to the order of plaintiff the sum of $5,000,000.00 due and payable on October 6, 2010, withinterest at the rate of one percent (1%) per annum (the “UFL Note”). A true copy of the UFL Note is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference. Plaintiff is the legal owner andholder of the note.9.
 
As part of the same transaction, on or about April 7, 2010 for consideration madeand delivered, Defendants executed an agreement by the terms of which Defendants absolutelyand unconditionally guaranteed prompt payment of the UFL Note, together with reasonableattorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. A true copy of the agreement (with personal financialinformation removed) is attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference.
Case 3:11-cv-00061-O Document 1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2
 
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – Page 3
10.
 
Despite Plaintiff's demand for payment from UFL Management LLC after thenote became due and payable, no part of the note has been paid.11.
 
On or about October 19, 2010, Plaintiff, Defendants and UFL Management LLCentered into a forbearance agreement, under which Plaintiff agreed to forbear its rights under theUFL Note and guaranty until December 1, 2010. Under this forbearance agreement, the partiesagreed that interest accruing on the principal amount of the UFL Note after October 6, 2010,would accrue at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per annum.12.
 
On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff demanded that Defendants fulfill theterms of Defendants’ guaranty, and pay the debt owed to Plaintiff in accordance with thatguaranty, but no part of the debt has been paid. Accordingly, there is now due, owing, andunpaid from Defendants to Plaintiff on the note the sum of $5,000,000.00 principal, and intereston this sum at the rate of one percent (1%) per annum calculated from April 7, 2010 to October 6, 2010, and at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per annum calculated from October 7, 2010.
IV.CLAIMS FOR RELIEFA. Breach of Contract
13.
 
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the facts contained in the preceding paragraphs andincorporate them fully herein.
 
14.
 
HDNet and Defendants have a valid, enforceable contract by which Defendantsguaranteed payment of principal and interest under the UFL Note.15.
 
HDNet has fully performed its obligations under the contract.
 
16.
 
Defendants have breached the contract by failing to tender prompt payment of the principal and interest due under the UFL Note.
 
Case 3:11-cv-00061-O Document 1 Filed 01/10/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->