On May 27, 2004, Mr.

Moses purchased his home from one of the Traton entities1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Traton").

1

Complaint and Answer, ¶ 24.

Mr. Moses' home is situated within the Lakefield Manor subdivision.2

2

Admitted by Defendant; see, Complaint and Answer, ¶ 28, Exhibits B and C. See, also, Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions and Defendant's Response to First Request for Admissions (collectively "Traton's First Admissions"), ¶ 2, Exhibits D and E.

Traton Corp. has indicated that it is the developer for the Lakefield Manor subdivision.3

Admitted by Defendant, Plaintiff's Second Request for Admissions to Defendant Traton Corp. and Traton Corp.'s Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Second Request for Admissions (collectively "Traton's Second Admissions"), ¶ 17, Exhibits F and G. See, also, Video Footage of Board of Zoning Appeals, April 13, 2005 (Traton agent represents to Cobb County governmental body that it is responsible for the development of the Lakefield Manor subdivision), available for viewing at <http://www.cobbcommunications.org/tv23vod/bza2005/04/133.asx>.

3

Subsequent to Mr. Moses' purchase of his home, contractors delivered additional materials to construction sites within the Lakefield Manor subdivision.4

4

Admitted by Defendant, Traton's First Admissions, ¶ 5.

Given the ongoing construction within the Lakefield Manor subdivision, Traton also functions as the Home Owners' Association (HOA).5

Traton's Second Admissions, ¶ 60. See, also, Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Lakefield Manor Subdivision ("Covenant") (stating that the Declarant is Poston Properties, Inc., which is an affiliate of Traton Corp), Exhibit H.

5

During that construction process, construction trucks repeatedly drove over Mr. Moses' yard, thereby damaging the yard.6

6

Admitted by Defendant, Traton's Second Admissions, ¶¶ 95 through 103.

Mr. Moses complained to Traton about damage to his yard,7 and requested Traton to discontinue driving over Mr. Moses' property.8

7 8

Admitted by Defendant, Traton's Second Admissions, ¶ 24. Admitted by Defendant, Traton's First Admissions, ¶ 15.

In fact, Mr. Moses called Traton on more than one occasion,9 but Traton did not return Mr. Moses' phone calls.10

9

Admitted by Defendant, Traton's First Admissions, ¶ 18. Admitted by Defendant, Traton's First Admissions, ¶ 19.

10

Since Traton did not return Mr. Moses' phone calls,11 Mr. Moses filed a grievance against Traton, using Traton's Internet form.12

11 12

Admitted by Defendant, Traton's First Admissions, ¶ 19.

Admitted by Defendant, Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions to Defendant Rick Foster and Defendant Rick Foster's Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions (collectively, "Foster's First Admissions"), ¶ 15, Exhibits I and J.

On behalf of Traton, Mr. Rick Foster replied by email13 and copied one or more officers of Traton in his reply.14

13 14

Admitted by Defendant, Foster's First Admissions, ¶ 20. Admitted by Defendant, Foster's First Admissions, ¶ 21.

In that email, Mr. Foster expressly stated that Traton would not fix the yard.15

15

Admitted by Defendant, Foster's First Admissions, ¶ 22.