IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION LEAGUE OF UNITED

LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, INC. (LULAC) Plaintiff, § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

v.

Civil Number EP:12-cv-0296-FM ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

TEXAS LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, LINDA CHAVEZ, Individually, BEA MARTINEZ, Individually, and JOEY CARDENAS, Individually Defendants,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION COMES NOW DEFENDANTS FLORINDA CHAVEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, BEATRICE MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND JOE CARDENAS, III INDIVIDUALLY, by and through their undersigned attorneys of record, and, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, 60, and 65 file this, their Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Relief From Judgment and Preliminary Injunction. following: I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The underlying dispute involved federal and state law trademark claims made by For cause of action, Defendants would show unto the Court the

the Plaintiff against Defendants. Plaintiff’s basic claim was that Defendants had created a separate entity (“Texas League of United Latin American Citizens”) that allegedly caused a likelihood of confusion with Plaintiff.

2.

On or about December 19, 2012, the Parties entered into an Agreed Judgment in

which Defendants agreed to abandon the use of the defunct non-profit corporation, abandon any fundraising efforts on behalf of the defunct non-profit corporation, and abandon identifying themselves as officers of the defunct non-profit corporation. In all respects, Defendants

maintained the good-faith belief that their dispute with Plaintiff had been resolved without any lingering disagreements or controversies. 3. On or about March 2, 2013 and after the underlying dispute was ostensibly

resolved, Florinda Chavez declared her candidacy for State Director of LULAC. For the next three months, Florinda Chavez electioneered her candidacy through an extensive e-mail and public relations campaign to other members of LULAC. At no point during her candidacy did anyone advise or inform Florinda Chavez that she was, in any way, ineligible to serve as an officer for LULAC. 4. On or about June 2, 2013 at the Texas State LULAC Convention and at the very

moment that LULAC membership were set to vote for the State Director, Ms. Chavez was declared to be ineligible for State Director by Mr. Roger Rocha, the National Treasurer of LULAC. Before an auditorium full of LULAC convention delegates, Mr. Rocha stated that the Honorable Frank Montalvo had rendered a Final Judgment declaring that Ms. Chavez was disqualified from holding any elected office within the LULAC organization.1 The LULAC Legal Advisor, Miguel Ortiz, also used this Court’s Final Judgment to wrongly exclude Ms. Chavez from seeking or holding elected office.

See Exhibit 1, CD containing video segment of Ms. Chavez’s disqualification at the LULAC convention, dated June 2, 2013.

1

2

5.

Upon information and belief, Luis Vera, Esq., General Counsel for LULAC and

Plaintiff’s counsel, aided and abetted Mr. Rocha’s and Mr. Ortiz’s fraudulent misrepresentation by urging and/or soliciting the wrongful disqualification of Ms. Chavez’s candidacy. 6. Defendants Beatrice Martinez and Joe Cardenas have also been prejudiced in that,

through the fraudulent misrepresentations and improper use of the Final Judgment, they were denied the opportunity to support and cast ballots in favor of Ms. Chavez, the candidate of their choice. Mr. Cardenas and Ms. Martinez are also, according to the misuse of the Final Judgment, barred from office. II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES A. 7. Request for Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to Rule 57 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, Defendants contend that a

substantial controversy exists between the Parties herein and that said Parties maintain adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.2 The Fifth Circuit has held that a court may issue a declaratory judgment to establish the existing rights, status, or other legal relationships of parties.3 This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the existing right of the Parties because it entered the Final Judgment that is currently being misconstrued by Plaintiff’s agents and representatives. 8. In the present dispute, Defendants aver that Plaintiff, through its agents and

representatives, are distorting the Final Judgment rendered by this Court for an improper purpose. More specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiff, through its agents and

representatives, has, in the past and in the present, wrongly claimed that this Court disqualified
2
3

See FED. R. CIV. P. 57; see also Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969). See Brister v. Faulkner, 214 F.3d 675, 68 (5th Cir. 2000).

3

Ms. Chavez from declaring her candidacy or holding elected office within the LULAC organization. 9. Defendants seek a speedy hearing on their request for declaratory relief.

Defendants seek reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and taxable costs of court as provided by Rule 57 and the Declaratory Judgment Act. B. 10. Request for Relief From Judgment Pleading in the main and in the alternative, Defendants submit their Motion for

Relief From Judgment pursuant to Rule 60.4 Rule 60 allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order based upon, inter alia, fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct; or a satisfied, released, or discharged judgment; because applying a judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; or for any other reason that justifies relief. Defendants aver that Plaintiff has engaged in fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct by misusing the Final Judgment for an improper purpose for which Defendants never agreed. Defendants further aver that the they have complied with all the terms and conditions of the Final Judgment and that it has been satisfied, released and/or discharged such that it cannot be used for any further purpose including to disqualify Defendants from actively participating in LULAC elections either as a candidate or a voter. Defendants aver that application of the Final Judgment for any future purpose is no longer equitable. Finally, as Defendants contend that their predicament justifies relief. C. 11. Request for Preliminary Injunction Due to the actions of Plaintiff, Defendants request that the Court issue a

Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 to prevent Plaintiff from disqualifying the Defendants for an elected office or position within LULAC.
4

See FED. R. CIV. P. 60; see Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 215 (1997).

4

Defendants have annexed to this motion their sworn affidavits and other evidence showing by clear and convincing evidence that they have suffered immediate prejudice because of Plaintiff’s actions. These Affidavits are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.5 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS FLORINDA CHAVEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, BEATRICE MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY and JOE CARDENAS, III INDIVIDUALLY, respectfully pray that the Court grant their requested relief, either at law or in equity, to which they may show themselves to be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, GALE, WILSON & SÁNCHEZ, P.L.L.C. ROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ. MARK ANTHONY SÁNCHEZ, ESQ. 115 East Travis Street, 19th Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: (210) 222-8899 Telecopier: (210) 222-9256 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS By: /s/ ROBERT W. WILSON ROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ. TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 00794868 MARK ANTHONY SÁNCHEZ, ESQ. TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 00795857

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that he has electronically submitted for filing a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing in accordance with the Electronic Case Files System of the Western District of Texas on the 7th day of June, 2013.

By: /S/ ROBERT W. WILSON ROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ.
5

See Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Florinda Chavez, dated June 6, 2013; See Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Beatrice Martinez, dated June 6, 2013; and Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Joe Cardenas, III, dated June 7, 2013.

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been provided to counsel for Plaintiffs on this the 7th day of June, 2013, as follows: Mr. Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. The Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. 111 Soledad, Suite 1325 San Antonio, Texas 78205 lrvlaw@sbcglobal.net Mr. Ray Velarde Attorney at Law 1216 Montana Ave. El Paso, Texas 79902 rayvelarde2003@yahoo.com Mr. Manuel G. Escobar, Jr. Attorney at Law 201 West Poplar San Antonio, Texas 78212 escobarm1@aol.com [ ] First Class Mail [ XX ] Facsimile; 210-225-2060 [ ] CM,RRR [ XX ] E-Mail Transmission

[ ] First Class Mail [ XX ] Facsimile; 915-542-2341 [ ] CM,RRR [ XX ] E-Mail Transmission

[ ] First Class Mail [ XX ] Facsimile; 210-212-5653 [ ] CM,RRR [ XX ] E-Mail Transmission

By: /S/ ROBERT W. WILSON ROBERT S. WILSON

G:\My Files\1-Sanchez\Texas LULAC\LULAC v. TXLULAC\Pleadings\Motion - Reconsideration.doc

6

** The actual CD will be filed with the Court.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful