Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.; AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR. Plaintiffs, vs. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAWRENCE MARSHALL; EVA JACKSON; AND RHJ-JOC, INC.

CASE NO. 4:10-cv-04872 JURY REQUESTED

DEFENDANT, HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO THE JUDGE OF THE HONORABLE COURT: Defendant Houston Independent School District (HISD) files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs Second Amended Original Complaint and Request for Permanent Injunction, and would show the Court as follows: I. ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b), Defendant denies each and every allegation

contained in Plaintiffs Second Amended Original Complaint and Request for Permanent Injunction except for those expressly admitted below. Defendant may not have personal

knowledge of the facts expressed in the Complaint and may have relied on individuals with knowledge of relevant facts in forming its answers. Plaintiffs First Amended Original

Complaint shall sometimes be referred to as Plaintiffs Complaint. 2. Defendant admits that the allegations in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

true to the best of its knowledge.

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 2 of 17

3.

Defendant admits that the allegations in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

true to the best of its knowledge. 4. president. Defendant denies that its president is Greg Meyers or that he can be served as Defendant admits that the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs

Complaint are true to the best of its knowledge. 5. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Complaint

regarding Larry Marshall (Marshall)s citizenship, current board membership and former board presidency. Defendant denies the remaining allegations, including denying that Marshall is liable in either his official or individual capacity. 6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 7. Defendant admits that the allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

true to the best of its knowledge. 8. Defendant admits that the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

true to the best of its knowledge. 9. Defendant admits that the allegations in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

true to the best of its knowledge. 10. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 11. Defendant admits that the allegations in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

true to the best of its knowledge. 12. Defendant admits that the allegations in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

true to the best of its knowledge.

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 3 of 17

13.

Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 14. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs complaint to any

extent that Defendant has an applicable immunity defense. Defendant incorporates its 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, as well as its affirmative defenses set forth below in paragraphs 160 165. Otherwise, Defendant admits to the subject allegations. 15. Regarding Paragraph 14, without making any admissions as to jurisdiction,

Defendant admits that, to any extent this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant, venue is proper in this Court. 16. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Complaint are true

to the best of its knowledge. 17. Defendant denies that an $800 million bond issue was conducted as set forth in

Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Complaint. HISD conducted a bond issue in the amount of $805 million. Otherwise, Defendant admits to the allegations in Paragraph 16. 18. Defendant denies that HISD adopted a preferred bidder system as set forth in

Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Rather, the district conducted a request for proposals to select Job Order Construction (JOC) contractors. Defendant further denies that the purpose of this bidding process was to fairly administer the bond money from the perspective of contractors. Under state law, HISD is required to ensure the best value for the school district. 19. 20. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 4 of 17

21.

Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs Complaint. In

light of the importance and complexity of the subject bid, the submitted documents should not be characterized as lengthy. 22. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 23. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Five

contractors were selected as contractors after the original bidding process, but with no regions assigned. 24. Regarding Paragraph 23, Defendant admits that Fort Bend Mechanical (FBM)

was selected as a JOC contractor after the 2008 bid process, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding who runs this company. Defendant admits that David Medford (Medford) is an owner of this company and participates in the operation of same. 25. Regarding Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that FBM

and GRG have both submitted bids in relation to construction work for HISD. Defendant denies that FBM has ever competed with the individual, Gil Ramirez (Ramirez) for work at HISD. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether FBM has ever competed for work with either Plaintiff outside of HISD. Defendant denies all other allegations in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 26. Regarding Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that GRG

was selected as a contractor in December 2008. Defendant denies that Ramirez, the individual plaintiff, was ever selected as a contractor.

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 5 of 17

27.

Regarding Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant denies the use of

anything called a bid book as part of the bid process. Under the bid process, each contractor is required to submit to HISD a proposed co-efficient based on RSMeans pricing. If the contractor and HISD agree on a co-efficient and the contractor is selected as a contractor, then the coefficient will define how much money the contractor is permitted to charge for specific tasks it performs for HISD. Regarding Plaintiffs allegation that three alternative proposals are

sometimes required, Defendant denies that any such alternative proposals are ever included as part of the bid process. Once the bid process is completed and certain contractors are selected, sometimes such alternative proposals are required for items not contained within RSMeans at the time a contractor submits a specific project proposal. However, these project proposals were not part of the bid process. Defendant denies that Ramirez ever individually submitted a bid to HISD. Defendant denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph 26. 28. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs

Complaint. Ramirez never submitted a bid individually. Defendant GRG only submitted a bid in order to be selected as a contractor. No additional bids were submitted after being selected as a contractor. GRG sometimes submitted specific project proposals. Defendant denies that the attached contract is a complete and accurate copy. 29. Regarding Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant denies that any

additional bids were submitted after JOC contractors were selected. Rather, after contractors were selected, contractors would merely submit project proposals for specific work that needed to be performed within the district. Defendant denies that Ramirez ever individually submitted a bid or prepared any specific project proposals. Defendant denies that there was a limitation on the number of JOC contractors permitted to submit proposals on the type of project referenced in

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 6 of 17

Paragraph 20. Defendants specifically deny that three contractors would always submit project proposals. The number could have been more or less. Defendant admits that JOCs would typically make site visits and prepare work proposals based on their agreed RS Means coefficient. Defendant denies all other allegations in Paragraph 28. 30. 31. 32. 33. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that Marshall

became chairman of the board in January 2009. Defendant denies that the attached contract is a complete and accurate copy. 34. Regarding Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that Eva

Jackson (Jackson) has made donations to Marshalls board campaigns. 35. Regarding Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that Medford

has made donations to Marshalls board campaigns. 36. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 37. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 38. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 39. Regarding Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that to the

best of its knowledge, Jackson is an owner of RHJ-JOC, Inc. (RHJ).

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 7 of 17

40.

Regarding Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that RHJ and

GRG have both submitted bids in relation to construction work for HISD. Defendant denies that RHJ has ever competed with Ramirez individually for work at HISD. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether RHJ has ever competed for work with either Plaintiff outside of HISD. Defendant denies all other allegations in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 41. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant has been unable to identify a person with the title Chief of Bidding.

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 8 of 17

54.

Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant has been unable to identify a person with the title Chief of Bidding. 55. 56. 57. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that four

contractors were selected under the second bidding process, included RHJ. Defendant denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs Complaint, including that Defendant denies that RHJ was selected at an earlier point than other contractors as a part of the second bid process. 58. Regarding Paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants admit that FBM like

many other bidding contractors, was eligible to submit a bid and receive consideration. All other allegations in this paragraph are denied. 59. 60. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that Joyce

Moss Clay (Clay) is Marshalls campaign treasurer. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations. 61. Regarding Paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that Clay

does business as JM Clay and Associates. 62. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 63. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 9 of 17

64.

Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 65. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 66. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 67. 68. 69. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 70. 71. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that GRG

was required to pay a 2% administrative fee for its revenues earned as an HISD JOC contractor. However, Defendant denies that this administrative fee constituted siphoning purpose specific bond money, as is suggested in Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant also denies that Ramirez was ever a JOC contractor for HISD, and he has never paid any 2% or other administrative fee to HISD. Defendant further denies that GRG has ever paid a 2% fee. 72. Regarding Paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that GRG

was required to pay a 2% administrative fee for its revenues earned as an HISD JOC contractor. However, Defendant denies that this administrative fee constituted siphoning purpose specific bond money, as is suggested in Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant also denies that Ramirez was ever a JOC contractor for HISD, and he has never paid any 2% or other administrative fee to HISD. Defendant further denies that GRG has ever paid a 2% fee.

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 10 of 17

73.

Regarding Paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant denies that GRG

ever paid a 2% fee. Regarding those JOC contractors that did pay a 2% fee, Defendant admits that such two percent fee was transferred to HISDs marketing and business development department. This departments proceeds are eventually transferred to the General Fund. The General Fund is used for various expenses, including operating expenses. 74. 75. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 74, Defendant admits that FBM has made 2% administrative

fee payments to HISD. 76. 77. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 75 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

Plaintiffs characterization of the law is overly generalized and ultimately inaccurate. 78. 79. 80. 81. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 77 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 80 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 82. 83. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 81 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 82 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all prior

admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 84. 85. 86. 87. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 84 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

10

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 11 of 17

88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 90 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 91 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all prior

admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 92 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 93 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 94 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 95 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 96 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 97 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 98 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 99 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 100 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 101 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 102 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 103 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 104 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 105 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 106 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 107 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 108 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

11

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 12 of 17

110. 111. 112. 113.

Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 109 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 110 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 111 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the damages sought in Paragraph

112 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 114. Regarding Paragraph 113 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all

prior admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 114 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 115 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 116 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 117 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 118 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 119 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 120 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all

prior admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 121 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 122 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 123 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 124 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 125 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 126 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 127 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

12

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 13 of 17

129.

Regarding Paragraph 128 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all

prior admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 130. Regarding Paragraph 129 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits that HISD

requested bids. Defendant denies that HISD ever failed to perform under any contract. HISD performed any contractual obligations, if any. Defendant denies that the attached contract is a complete and accurate copy, and denies all other allegations contained in this paragraph. 131. 132. 133. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 130 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 131 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 132 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all

prior admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 133 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 134 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 135 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 136 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 137 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all

prior admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 138 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 139 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 140 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 141 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 142 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 143 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all

prior admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs.

13

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 14 of 17

145. 146. 147.

Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 144 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 145 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 146 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all

prior admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 147 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 148 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 149 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 150 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 151 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Regarding Paragraph 152 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant incorporates all

prior admissions and denials in conjunction with the incorporated paragraphs. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 153 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 154 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 155 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 156 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 157 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 158 of Plaintiffs Complaint. II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 160. In asserting the following defenses, Defendant does not admit that the burden of

proving the allegations or denials contained in the defenses is upon the Defendant, but, to the contrary, asserts that the burden of proving the facts relevant to many of the defenses and the burden of proving the inverse of the allegations contained in many of the defenses is upon the Plaintiffs. Moreover, by asserting any defense the Defendant does not admit any liability, but, to
14

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 15 of 17

the contrary, specifically denies any and all allegations of liability in the Plaintiffs lawsuit. Without admitting liability as to any of the Plaintiffs causes of action, the Defendant asserts the following defenses: 161. HISD asserts that it is a political subdivision and independent school district

under Texas law. All Texas independent school districts are immune from liability for all tortbased acts of their officers, trustees or employees under the doctrine of governmental immunity, with the exception of injuries resulting from the operation of motor vehicles. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 101.051. Accordingly, the District asserts the defense of sovereign and

governmental immunity to any tort claims made against the District in the Plaintiffs' Complaint. 162. 163. 164. The Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of mistake. Plaintiffs failed to perform conditions precedent under the subject contract,

including but not limited to their failure to abide by the contracts dispute resolution process. 165. Because school districts only perform governmental functions and never perform

proprietary acts, school districts are never subject to estoppel claims. Dillard v. Austin Indp. Sch. Dist., 806 S.W.2d 589, 595 (Tex.App.Austin 1991, writ denied) (disagreed with on other grounds. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may not maintain an estoppel claim against HISD, an such claims should be dismissed. III. JURY DEMAND AND PRAYER 166. Defendant asserts its rights under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution and demand, in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 38, a trial by jury on all issues

15

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 16 of 17

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by their suit, that Defendant be discharged, and for such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Thompson & Horton LLP

By:

/s/ John Hopkins Arturo G. Michel State Bar No. 14009440 SDT No. 7960

3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77027 (713) 554-6766 Telephone (713) 583-9397 Facsimile amichel@thompsonhorton.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Of Counsel: John M. Hopkins State Bar No.24041127 SDT No. 705318 Thompson & Horton LLP 3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77027 (713) 554-6760 Telephone (713) 583-9928 - Facsimile CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on counsel of record in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the 22nd day of November 2011: Chad W. Dunn K. Scott Brazil BRAZIL & DUNN 4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530 Houston, Texas77068 Counsel for Plaintiffs
16

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 81

Filed in TXSD on 11/22/11 Page 17 of 17

Kelly Greenwood Prather THE GREENWOOD PRATHER LAW FIRM 1300 McGowen Street Houston, Texas 77004 Counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Stanley STANLEY, FRANK & ROSE, L.L.P. 7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259 Houston, Texas 77024 Counsel for Eva Jackson and RHJ-JOC, Inc. Jarvis V. Hollingsworth Richard F. Whiteley David W. Morris Melissa A. Mihalick BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002 Counsel for Lawrence Marshall Michael T. McGann 2211 Norfolk, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77098 Counsel for Fort Bend Mechanical

/s/ John Hopkins John Hopkins

502579

17