jbla~i

,JERRY non S nmJ TO)IHI1:N I

Flied

09 June 3 P6:31 Gary Fitzsimmons Dlstrlct Oen. Dallas District

lliTElftNHTA JEFFEitSON

NO. DC- 09- 07064

PLAINTIFFS' OIUGINAL 1'l!:'flTlQN

COME NOW J'LAINTIFFS, JERRY HOBBS and TO:-"f HENRY, and file their Original

Petition, complaining of Defendants, ALLAN CLARK, FiNANCIAL RISK SPECIALISTS, INC.>

ALl.AN CLARK d/b/a Fl~ANC]AL RISK SPECIALlSTS, INC., JOSEPH E. ASHMORE, JR., Dud

JACK WILEMON and fm cause uf actiun respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

llJSCOVEB.Y COI'iTROL PLAN' LEVEL

1. Plainti fls intend thct discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 3,

PARTIES •• JURISDICTION ,\ND VRNUE

2. Plaintiff, Jerry Hobbs (hereinafter referred to as "J. Hobbs") is it resident of Tarrnnt

§ ~ § §

§ Al,LAN CLAltK, § FlNAI'\CIAT.. RISK SPECIALISTS, INC" §

ALLA..'1 CLARK d'hJII §

FINANCIAL lUS){ SPECIALISTS, INC §

,JOSEPH E. ,\SHMORE. JR., nud ~

JACK WILEMON §

§ §

VS.

TO TAR HONORABLE JUDGE 01" TlIE COURT:

County. Texas.

3.

IN THE OISTRICT COUnT

M-29BTtfUDICIAL OTSTRTCT

UAl..Ll\S COUNTY, TEXAS

Plaintiff Tom Henry (hereinafter referred to as "f. Henry") is a resident uf

lebanon, Wilson County, Tennessee. . , I

4. Deferulunt Allan Cla,k is an individual urid It resident ofTc xa s and 100)" be served! d

PLAINTrrFS' ORIG1NAI. rr.TITJO="

with process at 52] 5 North O'Connor Blvd., Suite 200t Irving, Texas 750J9.

5. Financial Risk Specialists, lnc., is a Delav ... -are corporution nul authorised to do

business in the State of'Texas. Allan Clark holds hims~1 r~" president of'Finaneial Risk Specialists,

. .' ~ t 1 ~. ~

Inc., and as such Alhm Clark may be served with process a.-; President, ngcnt nnd/or representative

of'Financiul Risk Specialists, Inc., by service with precess at 5215 North O'Connor Blvd., Suite 200,

Irving, Texas 75039.

6. Allan Clark JIb/u Financial Risk Specialists, lnc., is a d/b/a. is an entity owned and

operated hy Anan Clark and is a Delaware corporation. Allan Clark holds himself as President., and

as such Allan Clark may be served with process as President. agent and/or representative uf Allan

Clark <lIb/n Financial Risk Specialists, Inc., by service with process at 5215 North O'Connor Illvd.,

Suite 200, Irving, Texas 750.19. Defendants Allan Clark, financial Risk Specialists, Inc., Allan

Clark d/b/a Financial Risk Specialists, Inc .• will he hereinafter jointly be referred to as "Defendant

Clark" or U.A. Clark".

; .

7. Joseph E. Ashmore, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Ashmore" or "J.

Ashmore") is an individual and a resident ofthe snuc of Texas and who may be served with process

by service at 363<i Maple Avenue, DaUBS, Texas 752l9-390R.

H. Jack Wilemon [hcreinalte» referred to as "Defendant Wilcrnc)O" ur ".I. Wilemon")

is au individual and Q resident of the stale of Texas and who Inay be served with process b)' service

at 4720 Westlake Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76132.

9. This COHn bas jurisdiction over the Defendants, because tbo said Defendants arc

residents of Texas, as staled above.

10. Venue is permissible in Dallas County because part (IT all of the fictions. the subject

•• ~ ,,' I •

PLAr"'TJFrS' ORIGINAL J'l::l'ITION

JtLAINTIFFS' OTllCINAL l'I::TlTIO:-l

Itagt' 3

of this suH occurred in Dallas County, Texas.

11. All conditions preceden; have been performed or have occurred.

FACTS

12. Plaintiffs Jerry lIobbs and Tom Henry were informed uf a business opportunity

by Gordon Bf(JWTJ. This business opportunity as represented hyreasnn ol'its structure was to provide a ten to one return within thirtydays. The names ol'individuals involved in this business opportunity were .. \Uan Clark, Jack Wilemon anti Joseph Ashmore, a retired Judge in the Dallas county, Texas

13. Before making their commitment to participate in the business opportunity, Plaintiffs

were assured thai their monies paid into the business opportunity would never leave the bank where the monies were placed. Plaintifls were further informed thnt their monies paid into the husine ... s opportunity \ .... ould 00 wrapped in an insurance policy by Allan Clark and his company Financial Risk Specialists, Inc. Plaintiffs were further told that J. Ashmore was an IHlditionul measure of insurance due to hit; reputation, high visibility and prior position us a Judge. Thus, bused on the "quick turnaround' that was promised, the rate of return and , v ith J. Ashmore's involvement and the representations made, Plainhffs decided to pnnicipatc-in.thcbusincss opportunity.

14. More specifically, Tom Henry delivered the sum or S 150.000.00 to participate in

the business opponuuity, Although he did nol huve his money readily avnilnble, he borrowed S J 50,000.00 from a relative, whn was then approximately 88 years of ngc. Likewise, based UIl the representations Ill' the parties involved and wiih the belief that his participation in this business opportunity would yield the rate of return and quick returns as promised, J. Hobbs delivered the sum of $130,000.00 of his money . .T. Hubbs used the equity ill his home, 10 acquire the S 130,000.00 lie

delivered to Defendants.

IS. At (he Defendants' direction, Tom Henry transferred S25,OOO.00 of his money 10

"Joseph E. Ashmore, Jr.Zl'rustec Account" III J.P.Mmg.ull Chase Hank. DIlUl1S, Texas on or about June 3.2005. Thereafter, nt the direction ul" the Defendants, Mr. Henry transferred an udditionul sum Ilf$125.00().OO to Joseph E. Ashmore, Jr.Trustcc Account at lP.Morgan Chase Bunk, Dalles, Texas on or about June 7, 2005. In fact, prior to each time Tom Henly wired the funds, Defendant J. Wilemon would cull Tom Henry on a daily basis to verily if and when the funds would he wired, He also Mated that the Defendants were saving a Spilt loi- Tom Henry and needed assurance lhal Tum Hem), was interested and thus requested $25,ooo.00<\s "assurance money", which W',l.S wired by Tom Henry, as slated above.

16. Similarly, at the direction of the Defendants and in reliance upon Defendants'

representations, Jerry Hobbs trnnsferrcd S130,OUO.00 of his money to the Joseph E. Ashmore, Jr.ZIrustee Account nt lP .Morgan Chase Bank, Dallas, Texas on or about November I ~ 2005.

17. After Plaintilfs delivery of their monies as stated hereinabove mHI contrary to

Defendants' representations, Plainnffs did not receive the return as promised 011 their monies placed with the Defendants in this business opportunity and Plaintiffs' monies delivered to Defendants has been converted. Thirty days carne and went, story after story was offered as tn whut was happening. usually pertaining tn Rank documents and minor ·isslJCS interfering with monies being paid to Plaintiffs as promised. Plnintiffsrcpeatcdlyrcqucsted meetings with the Defcndauts at various rimes, bul aU Defendants did not meet with 1M Plaintiffs collectively as was intended by the Defendants. On the rare occasion that the Defendants did meet with any of the Plaintiffs, primarily the: Plaintiffs met with Defendants A. Clark aud J. Wilemon, Defendant Ashrnnre intentionally did not meet with

PI.ATNTrfFS1 OlUCINAL I'ETITION

the PlaintifT., and the other Defeudnnts collectively ....

18. After Plaintiffs delivered their monies to the Defendants and utter Pluintiifs did not

receive their monies [IS promised, PI nimitfs communicated at least weekly with Defendants and were always promised that they would receive their moner tomorrow, next week, things me about to move, the money is in the hank, need clearance from fund controllers "the Judge sent Allan Clark to Geneva to gd the money, the Judge has an account there" etc. Further, in spite of Plaintiffs' repeated demands. Defendants did not provide documcmation and information regarding their monies delivered to the Defendants for their participation in tho business opportunity. Tn fact, Plaintiffs have been provided with no documentation or verification by the Defendants 11131 i"uintitr~' monie ..... ire on deposit in the above-referenced brink account of Defendant J. Ashmore or if their monies hnve been transferred or where the monies were transfem .. ~.

19. Further, sometime during the spring 01'20118, PIDinlifl:' mel Defendunts J. Wilt-mon

and Defendant A Clark at Jerry Hobbs' home reganlin!; theirrnunies. Plnimifis were ngnin assured that there WOL1ltl he :J puy out within ?O days nnd everything was ready to fund. Plaintiffs were 11150 told that they would receive in writing the reason for delay and wh .... t had happened to their monies, However, again Defendants failed to provide the information and funds us promised. Plaintiffs believed Defendants and relied upnn their representations amI believed that Plaintiffs would receive their money within 90 days from their meeting with Defendants 1. Wilemon and A. Clark. in me spring of 2008.

20. Further, under this scheme orchestrated by the Defendants, in addition to the

Plaintiffs, Defendanls also enticed other persons to deliver monies to the Defendants based on similar false representations by the Defendants and those persons have not received their payout un

l'LAJ~TIFI'S' OIUGJNAl PF.TITIO:'Il

_,. \

their m(ln~}' as promised by the Defendants and their money has also been converted. In fact, Plaintiffs later discovered thai previously in 2005, an individual by the IWllC of Stanley Leitner was indicted and ill June 2007 was found guilty of numerous counts relating to a Ponz! scheme and sentenced 10 prison. Defendant Allan Clark was 'involved with the Leitner lawsuit ami/or itl\'c.~igalion and in fact wns sued by a Court Appointed Receiver fbr fraudulently transferred investor funds that were received by Defendant Clark. Further, during the litigation of that lawsuit. Defend lint A. Clark was also questioned about his relationship with Defendants 1. Ashmore and J. Wilemon.

2 J. Thus, virtually every representation made to Plaintiffs about the nature and terms (If

the business opportunity was false and/or fabricated. As stated above, in ... tead of it high return 011 their money, Plaintiffs only were made empty promises and their monies were taken by the Defendants Lind were not accounted for by the Defendants as \\lIS requested by the Plaintiffs,

CAUSES OF ACTION FR,\Un; ·i.·

22, Plaintiffs reallege and inc o r]l ora It: h)' reference ull the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs hereinabove, as if fuJiy set forth herein

23. As previously stated herein, Defendants mode material representations of'fact tu the

Plaintifls. Said representations of fact were false when made and Defendants, their agents, employees. servants or representatives knew them to be Ialse UJ made them recklessly as a positive assertion without any knowledge of their truth, with the intention that Plaintiffs would act upon them.

24. Plaintiffs believed, relied and acted upon S<lid representations off net and were thereby

PLt\ INTIrFS' OnIGI~A 1. rF.TITION

induced to enter into these above-referenced agreements,

25. Plaintiffs would nut have invested their monies, but for the misrcprescntaricns of fact

mnde by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, servants or representatives, Il'Plalntilfs had known the true quality and nature of the business opportunity, they would nul have delivered their monies tn the Defendants.

26. Further, or inthc alternative, any representations made by the Defendants and/or their

agents, employees. servuntx or representatives which were literally true were used tt) create impressions substantially lithe.

21. Pleading further, or ill the alternative, uny rcprcsentatiuns made by the Defendants

and/or their agents, employees, SCI\,ruUS or representutives eupable or ""'0 interpretations, one of which the Defendants ondlor their agents, employees, servants or representatives knew 10 be false and the other true, were fraudulent in that they were ninde:

u. \Vilh the intention thnt the representations be understood in a sense in which they were false. or

b. Without any belief nr expectation ,IS to how the representation would he un ders ((1C)d, or

c With reckless indiffcrcncc ' as to-how the representaricns would be II nderstood.

28. Pleading further in the ullernative, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants and/or their

agents, employees, servants ur representatives me guilty of fraud in the inducement,

29. Plaintiffs further allege the facts smtcd above constitute common law fraud. Further,

the facts constitute the breach of legal or equitable duties which, irrespective of moral guilt, the law

J'lAIt\'TlfFS' OIUGrl\'Al. rF.TITIO;'i

,_ .. ,"

declares fiaud\llcnt because of its tendency to deceive others, and to violate confidence, Or to injure

the public interest.

30. Funhcr, because the acts of Defendants and/or their agems, employees or servants

were commlrtcd willfully, maliciously, wantonly, knowingly and intentionally, Plainutfs are alsu

entitled 10 recover exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of tact.

) I. Additionally, although Defendnnt J. Ashmore was not as directly involved with the

Plnintiffs was were the other Defendants, Defendant 1. Ashmore was awure that his name was being

used to "market" Defendants' business opportunity in an effort to make the business opportunity

more legitimate, and that Plaintiffs and other panicipants were directed to wire their monies tn

Joseph E.Aslun<lrt!, Jr.fT rustee Account. Defendants knew thai Plaintiffs were not knowledgeable

of the details ol'the business opportunity 3Hd that Plaintiffs did nul have on cqunl opportunity to

discover the truth, Defendant J. Ashmore deliberately remained silent nnd did not disclose the true

nature of thc business opportunity, whkh in realily was u bogus scheme and thus by deliberately

remaining silent, Defendant J. Ashmore intended for Plaintiffs to net and deliver their monies to the

bank account us referred above,

32. Pluintiffs relied on Defendant J. Ashmore's silence and believed that this business

opportunity was n legitimate business opportunity, because of Defendant 1. Ashmore's invol vernent

and based on the representations of the Defendants. Thus, by deliberately remaining silent,

Defendant J. Ashmore directly find proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs which resulted in

tlumuges thut nrc within jurisdictional limits of this 'Court,' including exemplary damages which

resulted from Defendanls' actual frnud or malice, which cmirlcs Plaintiffs to exemplary dnmagcs

under Texas Civil Practice nnd Remedies Code, Section 4 1.0 03 (a).

}ll.o\IN·rIFt·s' [)UlGIL'IIAL PE.TlTION

33. Additionally, Dcfendams fraudulently concealed their wrongful conduct from the

Plaintiffs and gave them false and misleading il.~sum{~ccs that they would receive their monies as promised. Defendants had actual knowledge thai Plaintiffs would never receive their monies as

prnmised, as Defendants' entire business opportunity was a bogus business opportunity and

Defendants concealed this fact from the Plaintiffs by making continuous and repeated representations

that Plaintiffs would receive their monies. Further, Defendant J. Ashmore further fraudulently

concealed this fact by remaining silent, when he had a duty to speak, ill thnt, he received Plaintiffs'

monies in the Juseph E. Ashmore, Jr.Zf rustce account and was awcrc that Plaintiffs' WI!!'C relying

on the fad that he was associated with this business venture when Plaintiffs decided to deliver their

monies to the Defendants. Further, Defendants had u fixed pUTo~t! to conceal the true facts, ill that

they did not want Plaintiffs to be aware that their business opportunity was U bogus opportunity and

thus made repeated misrepresentations regarding the promised Pllyment of monies 10 Pluiutiffs. With

Defendant J. Ashmore being associated with the business opportunity, Plaintiffs reasonably relied

upon the representations of the Defcudnnts.

UUEAClI OF COi'l'J'RACT

34, Plaintiffs reallege Bud Incorporate till the allegations set forth in the paragraphs

hereinabove, us if fully set forth herein.

35. Defendants have failed 10 honor their obligations as referenced hereinabove. All

conditions precedent to Plnintiffs' claim for relief have heen performed or have occurred.

36. As a proximate and foreseeable result of the breaches of contract OIS previously stilted,

Pluintin~ have been damaged in an umount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court for which

sum Plaintiffs hereby sue,

PLAI:-JTfrFS' onrcrxu, rr.TrTtO~

rtAI:-fTlfFS' OlUGINAL l'I::nTlON

PU!!!: 10

37. As a result of'Defendunrs' breach, Plaintiffs have incurred reasonable attorney's fees

and Plaintiff s an: entiiled to recover reasonable attorney's fees. Pluintiffs have sustained damages as a result uf Defendants' breach which are within the jurisdictional limits of the court.

CONVF.J!ST ON

38. Plaintiffs reallege and incnrporale ;in the allegations :-et lonh in the paragraphs

hereinabove, as if fully set forth herein.

39. Ali slated above. Plaintiffs delivered their monies 10 the Defendants based upon the

Defendants' representations with the expectation that they would receive the quick turnaround of 'en 10 one 011 their monies within thirty days, Plaintiffs have not received monies as was promised by the Defendants and thus Defendants unlawfully and without authority assumed dominion and control over Plaintiffs: monies tu the exclusion of Plaintiffs' rights in said monies, Further, Defendants \\T(mgfully excised dominion und control over Plaintiffs' monies by using it in a way that depurted from the conditions under which it was received.

40. Defendants' conversion of'the property as alleged above was aggravated by that kind

of willfulness, wantonness, und malice for which the Inw allows the imposition of exemplary damages. Defendants acted with evil intent to harm Plaintiffs. Defendants' conversion of property was intentional, willful, wanton and without justification or excuse, und was done with gross indifference 10 the rights ul'Pluintilfs. In this connection, Plaintiffs, will show that as a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs, have suffered losses of time and other expenses, including .1ltomc)':i· lees incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this action.

41. The value of the monies converted by these Defendants at the time and place of

conversion are within the jurisdictional limits of the COlin for which sum Plaintiffs hereby sue.

------------------.

PLi\lNTlHS· URIGU~,\L I'r.Tl'fJON

Pal,!l! II

NEGLIGENT i"HSREPRESENTATION

42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all the a llcgations sel forth in the

purngrnphs hereinabove, 11~ if fully :id lorth herein.

43. Pleading further and/or pleading in the altemative, the facts alleged above establish

that Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the Defendants representations in the above-described uansacrions,

44. Further, Pluinti nil would show that Defendants, including A. Clark and J. Wilemon

mode misrepresentations to (he PtClinliff.c; in the course of the Dcfendunt, ... • business or in the transactions in \ v ·hieh the Defendants, including A. Clark and 1. Wilemon. had an interest with (he PlaintiHs and further ihaubcsc Defendants, supplied false inlormution and promises for the guidance of'others nnd furtherthat the Defendants' ncgligcm misrepresentations, inclusive of'thosc of A. Clark and 1. Wilemon, proximately caused the Plaintiffs' injury'.

45. Defendants' representations were made negligernly and as a result of these negligent

misreprcscmations, Plaintiffs were dan-wgt"u. The damage suffered by the Plaintiffs wa. .. reasonably foreseeable by the Defendants and 1he Defendants art! liable to the Plaintiffs for their actual, incidental, and consequential damages rCSlllring born such conduct, ill an amount within the jurisdictional limits or the Court fur which sum Plaintiffs hereby sue.

MONEY HAD & REeF-lVEn

46. Plainti ITs reallege and incorpornte by reference all the allegations SCI forth in the

paragraphs hereinabove, as if fully set forth herein.

47. As stated herein above, Plaintiffs delivered their monies ill the sum 01'$280,000.00

to the Defendants. Defendants hoJd monies that, in equity urn! good couscicucc, belong to Plaintiffs.

l'lAINTWPS' OJm;INAL 1~£TlTJON

The sum or $2HO.OOO.OO belonged to the Plaintiffs which was delivered to the Defendants, based upun the representations of the Defendants.

4~. Thus, Plaintiffs seek damages which IU'C within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

Further. Plaintiffs injury resulted from Defendants' malice or actual fraud, which entitles Plaintiffs to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 41.003(a).

JjkCACH OF :nDUCIAR Y DUTY

49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs hereinabove. (IS if fully set forth herein.

50. Plaintiffs believed the representations of the Defendants and additionally by reason

of Defendant J. Ashmore's involvement with this business opportunity, Plaintiffs delivered their monies 10 the Defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs had-a-high degree of trust and confidence in the Defendants und their decision to deliver their monies to the De fendnnts was based upon the fuct that among others, IXfcudant Ashmore \"1\5 involved. Defendants breached their fiduciary duty in that did not fulfill their promises and Plaintills did nut receive monies :1. .. initially promised and thus Plainli r& were injured.

51. Accordingly.Plaintiffs seek damages within the jnrisdictinnnl limits of this Court.

Further, Plaintiffs injury resulted from Defendants' malice or actual fraud. which entitles Plaintiffs to exemplary damages under Texas Ci\11 Practice ami Remedies Code, Section 41.00J(a).

UNJUST t;:NIUCUI\lENT

52. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all the allcgutions set forth in the

paragraphs hereinabove, as if fully set fortJl herei». -, ,;~« ..

53. .4\5 stated herein above, Defendurus made promises to lI1C Plaintiffs, including but nol

.. L-\[".,.Il'fS' ORIGJ~AL pF.nTI()~

limited to the fact that Pleintiffs would receive a payout of len lu tine within thirty days of their delivery of lheir monies to tile Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs were assured that their monies would never leave the hank. Plainti Ifs were further assured thnt their monies delivered to lhe Defendants would he wrapped in an insurance policy by A. Clark and his company Financial Risk Specialists, Inc. Plaintiffs were further told that J. Ashmore's involvement WIIS on additional measure or insurance. Plaintiffs reasonably and substantially relied upun lhe promises 10 their detriment. TIle Plaintiffs' reliance was foreseeable by the Defendants. To permit the Defeudunts to retain the Pluinti Ils' monies, would cause a grave injustice and injury to the Plaintiffs and accordingly, Plaimiffs seck damages within the jurisdictionul limits ut' this Court

CUNSl'UtACY

54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all the nllcgruions set forth in the

paragraphs hereinabove, as if fully set forth herein,

55. Defendants A. Clark, J. Wilemon and :J.~·A~hmOTe orchestrated a bogus business

opportunity which enticed Plaintiffs 10 deliver their monies to the Defendunts and were falsely promised a high rate ofretum within 30 days, Defendants knew thnt their agreed acts would result ill harm 10 the Plaintiffs in thnt the Plaintiffs wuuld nul receive monies ns promised by the Defendants and Defendants would convert Ihe monies delivered to the Delendunt: s by Plaintiffs. To accomplish the object of their b0!:Cus business opportunity and to defraud Plaintifls, Defendants promised a quick turneround of ten to one within thirty days of the delivery of Plaintiffs' monies in cnnjunctiun with the involvement of 1. Ashmore. Defendants' .u:l ... proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs in that Plaintifls did not receive a return what \\l1S promised by the Defernhmts and the Defendants have converted the Phlinti1r,,' rnoniex and thus Plaintiffs have suffered damages within

Pl.A(NTIJlfS' ORlC 11\.·\1.. l'I:TllIO~

Pagr 14

the jurisdictional limits III' this Court which Plaintiffs hereby sue. Plaintiffs arc further entitled to

exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies C~xk fur the fraud committed by the

Defendants as stated herein above.

DAMAGES

56. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference 1111 the allegations .~1 forth in the

purugraphs hereinabove, as if fully set forth herein

57. Plaintiffs sustained the following economic and actual damuges as a result of the

actions and/or omissions of the Defendants described herein above:

(3) actual damages for fraud and/or constructive fraud, fraudulent inducement Dud fraud by nondisclosure

(b) actual damages fur breach of contract;

(c) actual dnmnges for conversion;

(d) acrunl damapcs for negligent misrepresentution

(c) actual damages for rnnney hat! und money received:

(1) actual damage .. HIT hreach of fiduciary duty;

(g) actual damages for unjust enrichment;

(h) actual damages for conspiracy;

0) reasonable attorneys' tees;

(j) Cf)!.1S ur court;

(k) pre-judgment interest on applicable actual damages 0.1 the highest rate allowed by law; and

(I) post-judgment interest on applicable actual damages at the highes! rule allowed b)' law.

58. Plaintiffs \ .... ould further show that the acts and omissions ol' the Defendant s

PLAII\'TIHS' ORIGINAL ]rF:TJTlOI\'

I'agr 1~

complainedofherein were: comrniued knowingly, \ ... ·i II fully, intentionally, with actual awareness, and

with the specific and predetermined intention or enriching said Defendants 1I1 the expense nf

Plaintiffs. In order to punish said Defendants for such unconscionable overreaching and to deter

such actions and/or omissions in the future. Plaintiffs also seek recovery (rum Defendants exemplary

damages as provided by Section 41.mlJ( I) of the Texas Civil Practice and Rcm~uit!s Code as

follows:

(a) exemplary damages for conversinn (If Pluiniiffs' personal property as sea forth hereinabove;

(b) exemplary oamLlgm: fur fraud, constructive fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraud by nondisclosure:

(e) exemplary dumages for money 11.1d and money received;

(d) exemplary dumoges fur conspiracy;

(c) exemplary damages ftlT negligent misrepresentation;

(f) exemplary damages for breach of fiduciary duty;

(g) for any other CdlLC,C or action pled by Plaintiffs to which the Court may award exemplary damages.

.TImv DE:\1ANU

59, Plaintiffs demand a jury trial and tender the appropriate fee with (his petition.

HEQlJEST FOR PISCLOSURE

60. Under TRCP I CJ4, Plaintiffs request that Defendants disclose within 50 days of the

SCJ\'i<.:e of this request, the information or mntcrials described in Rule 194.2.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, I)H.EMISES CONSIDER EDt Pluintilf) s • pray that citation issue and be

served on Defendants to appear and answer herein; that upon consideration hereof by the CUUTt or

rL.\J~TIFFS' ORIGINAL PtTll'IOf'

r~e 16

the jury, Plaintiffs have:

(a) nctual damages fur hreuch or contract;

(b) actual and exemplary damages for (mud: constructive fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraud by nondisclosure:

(c) actual and exemplary damages for conversion nf Plaintiffs' personal property as set

forth bereinabove;

(d) actual and exernplary damages lor money had and mont)' received;

(e) actual and exemplary damages lor conspiracy;

(I) actual and exemplary damages for negligent misrepresentation:

(g) actual and exemplary damages for breach of fiduciary duly;

(h) actual damages for unjll.~l enrichment;

(i) reasonable attorneys' fees;

(j) COS1S of court;

(k) pre-judgment interest on applicable actual damages at the highest rate allowed by law;

(I) post-judgment interest on applicable actual damages (It the higbest rate allowed by

law; and

(m) lor such other and further relief, both general and special, at law find in equity, to

which Ph .. intiffs' are justly entitled.

~-----------------------------------------------------

,--.

:~II~'UhOlilled' • . n It

1tmcs-M, Suggs: Jr. fr ~~~~' No. 19465400

EmAil: iilJ)\Ig!J';:{jsullg~.l;lwticm,c(lm Meghana Wadhwani

Stale Bar No, 24034728

Emilil : m~!!"')~(')sm;l!sl{lwfirnJ.(,;c)ln Lisa Gavin

State Bnr No, 240652H3

Email: llh-u-:ia®sllgl!sluwlimu:llIn SUGGS LAW FIRM. r.c.

I 522 W~,..t Airport Fwy., Suite 200 Irving, Texas 75062

(972) 253-9200 Telephone (972) 253-5104 Fax Attorneys for Plaintiffs

, ',' l',:'·,

I'lAINl'JFFS' ORlcm41. PETITlO~

RUIIt 0 AiCIWWI My CCllfirail!lan ~~a oe1ob1r 21. 2D12

"I

STATEOPTEXAS ~

§

COUNTYOF~§

BEFORE ME, the undersigned NDtazy Public, on this (}!J.y person EUy appeared Jro-y Hchb9,

who belng by me duly swam on oath deposed and !~d tiJ.1t he Is one of the Piclndfi"!I in &he abU~

entitled Md numbered ca lise; end he has t(ati the above and foregoiDg Petition; I1nd e"r'UJ stQtC$n~

cochunc:d therein.is within his perseaal kDowll."l1gc and is

1'1_~

SUESClUBED AND SWORN TO nI!FORE ME en Urls _....;-~>::.:- dny of .f1lDC,

2009.

-

~ .• ~ r- ! ." .

. ,. _. ....

J

S' rATE OF TENNEs'fEE l COUNTY OF ..{.uU;SbN §

: .

DEfORE ME. tho undersigned Nowy l'ublio, 011 litis dllY pemmally app

who being by me dul)'r'Om on oath dtpo!l!d and said thUI he Is one OftJ.l~ PWn ffR in ~t!ded and num bet'~dc..'\us~j and he MUead the above and ftJJcgolng Petition: nn Ie \'C

conteined therein is w thin hili pCIsonnl knowledge and ill true end correct.

20[)9,

~oliuy PU rc 111 ISIId for The Stale of Tc1ltll!t&OO

. • t' # • re i' .I

nbo .... ~

SUGGS

LAW FIRM, P.C. Att·:llq)'iS & COtH'tS'!OO

.:~

"4'¥', ,..I,~ ~ ...

15n ' .... est AirvA Frti;'''W Sut~ 200

Itn:~, Ta~ 750)2

O~:;a (~72) 253-0200 M.:w (&on) ~'-'l700 F". (972} 253-51M

GN~;8T>.,l 1n~.wgvst.?.r..nnC'Ofti

\'/ctt"Jl: w,ut'.!IJgQ.s.'ai'ilm com

JiJ.'1I~S it. SIl9!1S, Jr. ~·"':"I!.l·GlTlAU

;'~~Q n ~ C:t"'JI ~ It.l ~ti'oi 3u

T(I": ~.l>llll·"'.e 1I:o;l.lf ;Ir.lT~.j nw;] ';;:.~

"''<11 ;:2'tiT •• ~~ ~~t.rA B:~b' ·)::0:'11>' rree nil)

Ms.wfis.?a 'Nat'/i"ji,'S ~?irtiT6{;3

ll$.:] G"I<3 SIJ:e I.'lr ;lla..n

Rob~rl H. 1.f.;Kt:nlic·Sm.i"l), I/A'. Ct II

S~!11 e". 01 -~

ILED

June 3, 2009

Dallas County District Clerk George J... Allen Sf. Courts Rldg. 60U Commerce Street. Suite 103 Dallns, Texas 75202

Yia £- t'iIi .. ~

RE: Cause No. DC-09-07064-M Hobbs e. a! .. \'. Allun Clar]: et ul

Dear Clerk:

Enclosed for filing, please find the Plaintiffs' Original Petition in the abovereferenced matter.

Please then issue citations on ull Defendants named in the enclosed Petition.

The addresses for the Defendants may be found in the Petition; however, the names and the Defendants' addresses nre stilled hereinbelow for your convenience:

I.

Allnn Clark

Service on: Allan Clink ill 52} 5 North O'Connor Blvd., Suite 200, lrving, Texas 75039.

2_

financial Risk Specialists, Inc,

Service on : Prcsitkllll agent Allan Clurk ill 5215 North 0' Connor Illvd., Suife 200, Irving, Texas 15039.

3_

Allan Clark d/b/a Financial ni~k Specialists, Inc.

Service on : Allan Clark Dr 5215 North O'Connor Blvd .• Suite 20n, Irving, Texas 75039.

4,

Joseph E_ Ashmore, Jr.

SCTvil.'C on : Joseph E. Ashmore, Jr .• at 3636 Maple Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219-3908

5.

Jack Wilemon ... :: ''''.',

Service on: JackWilemon at 4720 Westlake Drive: Fort Worth, Texas 761-l2.

Please thcn have these citations ready for pick up and we will have our private process server pick the citations from the clerk's office for service on these on the Defendants.

Please abo note that the filing fees. citation fees and the jury fec associated

with this case have been paid online via the e-filing service.

Thank you for your assistance in this mancr.-Should you have any questions, please UO not hesitate 10 contact us.

Clerk

June J, 2009 Page 2

JMS/mw encl.

cc: Jerry Hobbs (w/encl., via US Mail) Tom Henry (w/cncl., via email)

. . ~

.--. ,

('. Vclf truly yours, I

lc:/~l(_kt).~ .

( J~mcs M. Suggs, .Tr?t .

_ •. -$UG(iS LAW fJlllV], . C.

• ~:' . ,'\ I e ; i-