You are on page 1of 14


CAUSE NO. DC Jeffery S. Mayes, Justine Ingels, § Estate of Justin Clapp, Ricardo Donato, § Cystal Dopkins, and Cynthia Karle § Plaintiffs
§ § § § § § §

l~ -OL{q =tJ
! ' ~

3 PH~: 11f
L hw


.:'.- S·-_ Be.dc..._OfPIJTY
~. .


G;.,H Y F ITZSIr:MOHS :::51 R~CT CLERK l"f] - :: X ~, c:. ./t'l-l..r' . .J J .• I ...

.. "'4

Dawn Wilcox, Brian Cox, Justin Foster, and Aftermath Inc. Defendants





to as Plaintiffs, complaining referred

of PAWN WILCOX; BRIAN COX, JUSTIN FOSTER ANP referred to as Defendant, and would respectfully show

AFTERMATH INC. hereinafter
the Court as follows:

A. Discovery-Control
1. Plaintiffs Procedure intend to conduct discovery under

Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil


to Rule 190.1 and 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

B. Parties
2. Plaintiffs, representative Jeffery S. Mayes, individually; Justine Ingels, individually and as

of the Estate

of Justin Clapp; Crystal Dopkins, individually;




Donato, individually; and Cynthia Karle, individually all of which can be contacted through the undersigned counsel of record. 3. Defendant, Dawn Wilcox, an individual. may be served with process at Defendant's __., usual place of abode, at 9355 Pinyon Tree Ln, #241, Dallas, TX,75243. 4. Defendant, Brian Cox, an individual, may be served with process at Defendant's usual place of abode, at 11201 Foothill Dr., Venus TX,7~084.

5. Defendant, Justin Foster, an individual, may be served with process at Defendant's usual place of abode, at 4~19 Ashcrest St., Mesquite, TX 75159_: 6. Defendant, Aftermath Inc., a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois whose principal office is located at 10200 S Mandel st. Plainfield, II 60544 is authorized to do business in Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, National Registered Agents, Inc. at 16055 Space Center, Suite 235 Houston, TX 77062.
C. Jurisdiction

7. This court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the amount in controversy exceeds this court's minimum jurisdictional requirements. 8. This court has in personam nonresident, jurisdiction over Defendant, Aftermath Inc. a

because Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privileges and

benefits of conducting business in Texas by engaging in contracts with Texas residents; recruiting Texas residents for employment; and furthermore has committed torts in


Texas, which are, in part, the subject of this suit.

9. Venue is proper in Dallas County under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 15.002 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the conspiracy occurred in Dallas County, and because one or more Defendants, natural persons, reside in Dallas County. E. Facts 10. This lawsuit involves a conspiracy to commit a fraud by Defendants Brian Cox, Dawn Wilcox, and Justin Foster ("Conspirators")(and most likely others whose names are not known at this time) individually. All causes of action stem from this conspiracy. 11. The Conspirators' scheme targets Texas residents whose loved ones die in such a way that bio-hazardous cleanup is needed to clean up the human remains. All Plaintiffs fit this profile. For example, Jeffery Mayes's, Ricardo Donato's and Cynthia Karle's respective loved ones died as the result of self-inflicted gunshots (suicide or accidental). Justine Ingels' and Crystal Dopkins' respective loved ones were discovered several days after death during the initial stages of decomposition. 12. The Conspirators' scheme involves three distinct phases, referred to (below) under the headings Phase I, Phase Il, and Phase III in the sequence of events. Phase I 13. In the phase I. Conspirators' Cox, Wilcox, and Foster (and likely others)--acting


presumably outside the course and scope of their employment--devised

a scheme to

fraudulently obtain increased wages, favor, and eventual promotion through a series of repeated acts of fraud targeting vulnerable individuals shortly after the discovery of their loved ones in traumatizing and debasing conditions. 14. Knowing that the targeted individuals would be susceptible to being taken advantage of, Conspirators'. Cox,Wilcox, and Foster intentionally deceived their victims concerning the pricing, scope of work, and collection practices of their employer Aftermath Inc. 15. Over the course of several months as the conspiracy unfolded, the deceptive statements and other fraudulent acts repeated again and again with victim after victim in similar and consistent fashion. A consistent pattern spans dates from at least (on or about) Mar.1, 2011 to (on or about) Feb.6, 2012. However, on information and reasonable belief, Plaintiffs suspect the span of time in which the conspiracy unfolded may be much longer. 16. In each instance, the fraudulent representations and acts were made with the common

intent that the targeted group would sign a contract with Conspirators' employer, Aftermath Inc. Phase II

17. After relying on the tell-tail representations that are false and signing a contract with Aftermath Inc. each Plaintiff was again victimized in the second phase of the Conspirators' fraudulent scheme.


18. In this phase, Conspirators (and likely other employees) performed the contract in such a way that they would charge for an hour of work for every 15 minutes of actual work done. Conspirators had a pattern of working for 15 minutes and taking breaks for 45 minutes. Conspirators then consistently reported to Aftermath Inc. the false amount of hours actually worked. 19. Conspirators also reported to Aftermath Inc. false charges for supplies. which were not in fact used. 20. The fraudulent pattern of the Phase II acts, again. are repetitive and distinct and were experienced by each Plaintiff in similar fashion. Phase III 21. After the Conspirators performance of the contract was complete, Plaintiffs were each sent similar bills by Aftermath Inc.--as a direct result of the Conspirators' intentional plan--which claimed charges that were between 300% and 1000% more than what Conspirators had led the victim Plaintiffs to believe the charges would be before the contracts were entered into. 22. Each victim of the Conspirators' scheme, shortly after receiving the bill,

complained to Aftermath Inc. about the deception and false representations committed by the Conspirators. 23. In response to each victim. Aftermath Inc. has denied the allegations of misrepresentation and ignored their pleas. This has been Aftermath Inc.'s unwavering



response in spite of the repetitive and identifiable markings of the Conspirators' scheme. 24. Moreover, rather than firing the Conspiring employees (and other employees involved) who committed the fraudulent acts, Aftermath Inc. has rewarded them. Notably, Brian Coxwas recently promoted to the position of regional supervisor within Aftermath Inc., in spite of his recent and ongoing fraudulent Aftermath Inc. was aware before it promoted him. 25. Furthermore, Aftermath Inc. has pressured each Plaintiff to make claims to their respective insurance companies for the fraudulent charges resulting from the conduct of which

Conspirators' scheme. 26. In each case, when insurance companies have refused to pay the fraudulent bills-often stating the charges were unreasonable and excessive--Aftermath Inc. has

repetitively insisted Plaintiffs' contact their insurance companies to squeeze them for every fraudulent dollar possible. In fact, in some of the victims' cases, Aftermath Inc. has even sent them forms to file a complaint with the Texas Department of Insurance so that Aftermath Inc. can collect the fraudulent charges. 27. Aftermath Inc. has even executed (or has threatened to execute) fraudulent liens on the victims' respective properties (or the properties of their loved ones). For

example, Aftermath Inc. has executed a lien on Cynthia Karle's home, Jeffery Mayes' deceased father's home, and Justine Ingels' deceased brother's home in order to collect the Conspirators' fraudulent charges. Victims Ricardo Donato and Crystal Dopkins have


experienced threats of this action. 28. Additionally. each of the Plaintiffs have been threatened with legal action by Aftermath Inc. for failure to pay the excessive charges.

The Ongoing Su(foring

29. Each victimized Plaintiff. in addition to the economic loss and fear of further economic loss, has suffered substantial mental anguish as a direct result of both the Conspirators' fraudulent scheme and Aftermath lnc.'s negligence (and gross negligence) in continuing to retain the Conspirators after being given notice of their scheme. F. Causes of Action Count 1. Ciyil Cons.oiraO'uParticipatory Wilcox. and lustin Foster. 30. Plaintiffs' incorporate all the facts set forth in section E. 31. The facts show that outside the course and scope of their employment, Defendant Brian Cox, in combination with Dawn Wilcox and Justin Foster, conspired to increase their wages, obtain favor. and promotion by agreeing to commit a series of repeated acts of fraud and possibly other underlying intentional torts. 32. Defendants' Brian Cox, Dawn Wilcox, and Justin Foster acted with the specific intent to harm Plaintiffs (and those who would be similarly situated) and had Liability of Conspirators Brian Cox. Dawn



knowledge of the harm that could be caused by their wrongful acts at the inception of their conspiracy. Specifically, Cox, Wilcox, and Foster targeted the Plaintiffs because their loved ones' remains were found in debasing and mortifying conditions, and Defendants' knew Plaintiffs would be emotionally weak and susceptible to deception. 33. The repetitive nature and similarity of the fraudulent acts committed over the course of many months reveal the scheme followed the same pattern victim after victim. This tacitly (if not directly) supports a finding that there was an understanding or agreement between Cox,Wilcox, Foster, (and possibly other unknown persons) to be a part of the scheme, 34. Additionally, to accomplish the object of their agreement, Defendants' Brian Cox, Dawn Wilcox, and Justin Foster repeatedly committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy over the course of many months as described in section E. 35. The fraudulent acts committed by Defendants' Brian Cox, Dawn Wilcox, Justin Foster (and likely others) were a proximate cause of the injury to the Plaintiffs in each case. Count 2. Aiding and Abetting Fraud (Assisting. Encourqging or Participating)-Alternative Particjpatory Liability olBrian Cox,Dawn Wilcox, and lustin Foster 36. Plaintiffs' incorporate all the facts set forth in section E. 37, Alternatively, Defendants Brian Cox, Dawn Wilcox, and/or Justin Foster knew that the primary actor's conduct (assuming one of the three of them was the primary


actor) constituted a wrongful act against the Plaintiffs' on one or more occasions as the scheme unfolded. 38. With the intent to assist Brian Cox, Dawn Wilcox, and/or Justin Foster (which ever was the primary actor) in the wrongful acts, the remaining two encouraged, or participated in the primary actor's scheme to defraud the Plaintiffs. This assistance, encouragement, or participation was a substantial factor in helping the primary actor accomplish the scheme.
Count 3. Fraud

(To be clear, the underlying intentional tort for Plaintiffs' conspiracy claim is the tort of common law fraud. Plaintiffs are electing to sue for fraud rather than under a breach of contract theory, which Plaintiffs may elect to do even though the fraud was committed to procure a contract. See Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 304-06 (Tex. 2006).) 39. Plaintiffs' incorporate all the facts set forth in section E. 40. Conspirators Cox, Wilcox, and Foster had a common law duty not to fraudulently procure a contract. Conspirators representations breached this duty when they made material

that were false, in uniform fashion to each Plaintiff, concerning the

pricing, scope of work, and collection practices of their employer Aftermath Inc. 41. Conspirators' representations were material because a reasonable person would attach importance to issues of price, scope of work, and the collection practices, particularly if the remains of their loved ones were at issue. 42. Conspirators' representations were false statements of fact, and Conspirators'

knew the Plaintiffs' would justifiably rely on the false statements.



43. Conspirators' made the false representations knowing they were false. 44. Conspirators' intended Plaintiffs' to rely on, and had reason to expect Plaintiffs' would act in reliance on their false representations, especially considering their

Conspirators' position of special knowledge over the Plaintiffs. 45. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the Conspirators' false representations when they entered into their respective contracts for the bio-hazardous cleanup of their loved ones with Aftermath Inc. 46. Conspirators' false representations directly and proximately caused injury to

each Plaintiff, which resulted in economic loss, past mental anguish, and future mental anguish damages. 47. Furthermore, because Plaintiffs' damages were the result of Conspirators' actual fraud or malice, Plaintiffs' are entitled to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a). 48. Plaintiffs seek the maximum amount of unliquidated jurisdictional limits ofthis court.
Count 4. Ne.gUgent Retention--Aftermath Erop/qyees Inc. 's Direct Liability For the Fraud

damages within the

Q/ Its

49. Plaintiffs' incorporate all the facts set forth in section E. SO. Defendant Aftermath Inc., as an employer in Texas, had a legal duty to Plaintiffs and the public at large to retain only competent employees for the sensitive task of

working with clients who would likely have experienced circumstance immediately prior to contracting

emotionally traumatic

for their services. This duty is

heightened by the standard of care required of companies who knowingly seek out cliental who face emotionally sensitive situations, such as Aftermath Inc. does. 51. Aftermath Inc. breached its duty when it negligently retained Conspirators' Brian Cox, Dawn Wilcox, and Justin Foster when it was aware of repeated complaints of their fraudulent conduct. In March of 2011 (and most likely before), Aftermath Inc. became aware of the fraudulent scheme being committed by its employees Brian Cox, Dawn Wilcox, and Justin Foster (and likely others), and knew that if it chose to continue to retain them it would be creating an unreasonable risk of harm to its future cliental. 52. Aftermath Inc. not only chose to retain the employees involved in the fraudulent scheme, but moreover, it even promoted one of them--Brian Cox--who was recently promoted to the position of regional supervisor. 53. Aftermath's breach of its duty was a proximate cause of each Plaintiffs' damages. 54. Plaintiffs' damages include economic loss, past mental anguish, and future mental anguish damages. 55. Furthermore, because Plaintiffs' damages were the result of Defendant Aftermath Inc.'s gross negligence, Plaintiffs' are entitled to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a). 56. Plaintiffs seek the maximum amount of unliquidated damages within the



jurisdictional limits of this court. Count 5. CPRC12.002--ExecuUng a Fraudulent Lien With Intent To Ddraud 57. Plaintiffs' incorporate aUthe facts set forth in section E.

58. Defendant Aftermath Inc. has also executed fraudulent liens in violation of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 12.002. 59. Aftermath Inc. executed liens on the properties of Plaintiffs Cynthia Karle and Justine Ingels (the representative of the Estate of Justin Clapp), with knowledge that the liens were based on fraudulent charges. 60. Aftermath Inc. intended that the liens be given legal effect. 61. Aftermath Inc. also intended to cause physical injury, financial injury, or mental anguish or emotional distress to Cynthia Karle or Justine Ingels by executing the liens. 62. Aftermath acted with the requisite intent to defraud. 63. Plaintiffs' Cynthia Karle and Justine Ingels seek actual damages caused by Aftermath Inc.'s violation, which include past and future mental anguish, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and exemplary damages in an amount determined by the court. G. Conditions Precedent


64. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs' claims for relief have been performed or have occurred. H. Request for Disclosure 65. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that Defendants disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2.
I. Prayer

66. For these reasons, Plaintiffs asks that the court issue citation for Defendants to appear and answer, and that Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment against Defendants' for the following: a. b. c. d. e.

Economic damages; Actual damages, including past mental anguish and future mental anguish; Exemplary damages; Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; Court costs; Attorney fees; All other relief to which plaintiff is entitled.




Respectfully submitted,



State Bar No. 24079640 18601 LBJ Freeway, Suite 525 Mesquite, Texas 75150 Phone (972) 279-6571 Fax (972) 279-3021