CAUSE NO. C-2013-1082B MONIQUE RATHBUN, Plaintiff,
v
§
§ § §
§
DAVID MISCA VIGE, RELIGIOUS
§
TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
§
CHURCH
OF
SCIENTOLOGY
§
INTERNATIONAL, STEVEN
§
GREGORY SLOAT, MONTY DRAKE,
§
DA
VE LUBOW and ED BRYAN,
§
DefundantL
§
IN
THE
DISTRICT COURT 207™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT MONTY DRAKE'S MOTION
TO
TRANSFER VENUE, ORIGINAL ANSWER, AND MOTION
TO
DESIGN A
TE
RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
TO
THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Pursuant to Texas Rule
of
Civil Procedure 86, before filing any answer
or
other pleading in this action, Defendant Monty Drake ( Defendant Drake ) files this Motion to Transfer Venue,
Original Answer and Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party
in
response to the Plaintiff's
First Amended Petition and, subject to
hi
s Motion to Transfer Venue, would show the Court:
MOTION
TO
TRANSFER VENUE
I
Defendant Drake is a resident
of
the State
of
Texas and is domiciled
in
Hood
o
unty, Texas. Defendant Steven Gregory Sloat
is
a resident
of
the State
of
Texas and is domicil
ed
in
Harris County, Texas. 2.
The
primary and principal purpose of, and primary and principal rel
ief
sought by,
Plaintiff's First Amended P
et
ition is injunctive relie
f
3. Pursuant to Section 65.023
of
the Texas Civil
Pra
cti
ce
Remedies Code, mandatory venue
of
this lawsuit is
in
Hood County, Texas, where Defendant Drake is domiciled,
or
in
Harris County, Texas, where Defendant Sloat is domiciled.
Defendant Monty Drake's Motion to
Tran
sfer Venue, Original
An
swer,
and
Motion to Designate Responsible
Third
Party Page 1
MR707
4.
Pur
suant to Section 15.016
of
the
Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code, the
mandatory venue required
by
Section 65.023 prevails over
all
mandatory
and
permissive
venu
e provisions
of
Chapter I 5
of
the
Texas C
ivil
Practice Remedies Code.
5.
Defendant Drake denies that Comal
Cou
nty
is
a county
of
proper
venue.
Defendant Drake denies that a substantial part
of
the events or omissions giving
ri
se
to Plaintiff's
purported claims occurred and are s
till
occurring
in
Co
mal
County.
6.
Pursua
nt
to Texas Rules
of
Civil Procedure 86-89 and Sect
ion 65
.023
of
the Te
xas
C
ivil
Practice Remedies
Co
de, Defendant Drake objects to venue
of
this action
in
Comal Cou
n
ty
asserts that venue
in
Comal County is improper, and seeks transfer
of
t
hi
s case to a
Di
strict Court
in
Ho
od Co
unty, Texas
or
alternatively,
in
Harris County, Texas. WHEREFORE,
PREMISES
CONSIDERED, Defendant Drake pra
ys
that this Court, after notice and hearing, grant
thi
s Motion to Transfer Venue, transferring this action
to
a District Court in
Ho
od County, Texa
s
or
alternatively,
in
Harri
s County, Texas, tax
all
costs against the Plaintiff,
and
grant Defendant Drake such other and further relief,
both
at
law
and
in
equity, to which he
may
be justly entitled.
DEFENDANT MONTY DRAKE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER
Subject
to and
without waiving the foregoing Motion to Transfer Venue, which
may be
hereafter amended, Defendant Drake
submit
s the following Original Answer
in
re
spon
se
to Plaintiffs pleadings and
would
s
how
the Court the following:
I. GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant
to
Texas
Rule
of Civil Procedure 92, Defendant Drake denies generally each
and every material allegation of Plaintiff's pleadings
and
demands that each
and
every material allegation be proved
by
a preponderance
of
the competent evidence
at
the trial
of
hi
s case.
Defendant Monty Drake's Motion to
ransfer
Venue, Original Answer, and Motion to Designate Responsible
hird
Party Page 2
MR708
II.
DEFENSES
Pursuant to Texas Ru
le
of
Civ
il
Procedure 94, Defendant Drake asserts the
fo
ll
ow
i
ng
defenses to Plaintiffs
pl
eadings: 1. Plainti
ffs
purported causes
of
acti
on for int
entional infliction
of
emo
ti
onal
di
st
re
ss,
tortious
in
terference
with
her employment contract,
in
vasion
of
privacy
fo
r intrusion on
sec
lusi
on,
and inv
asion
of
pr
iv
acy
by publi
c
di
sc
lo
s
ure
of
private
fac
ts
fai
l to es
tabl
ish
that Pla
int
iff
ha
s no adequate
remed
y at l
aw,
th
at
there
is
a s
ub
stantial r
is
k
of
imminent
harm
to Pla
in
tiff, that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury
in
the absence
of
injunct
ive
relief, that Plaintiff
has
a
su
b
st
antial like
lih
ood
of
pr
evailing
on
her cla
im
s
at
trial,
and
otherw
ise
fai
l to estab
li
sh her r
ight
to i
nju
nctive relief.
2.
As
alleged
in
Defendant Chur
ch
of
Scientology Internatio
nal
s
An
swer, Plaintiff
has violated Church
of
Sci
entolo
gy
International
t
he "Church") trademarks,
ha
s infringed
th
e
Chu
rch
s
copyr
ig
ht
s,
has
co
nspi
red
with her
hu
s
band
, Mark "
Ma
rty" Rathb
un
, to
do
so,
ha
s aided a
nd
abetted
him
in
doing
so,
h
as
encouraged
th
e theft
of
the
Chu
rch
s
property, h
as pr
o
fit
ed
from
such violat
io
n
s,
infringements and thefts, h
as
aided
an
d abetted her husba
nd
to violate
his
contractual and
fidu
cia
ry
ob
li
ga
tion
s
to
the Church,
an
d
ha
s aided
and
abetted
him in
vio
lat
in
g the Church
s
attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.
As
a
re
sult, Pla
in
ti
ff has unclean
hand
s that prevent
her
fr
om recovering any type
of
equitable relief.
3.
As
judicially admitted in
her
Fi
rst Amended Petit
io
n and
in
Paragraph 4
of
Plaintiff's swo
rn
affidavit to
thi
s
Cou
rt, s
he
has allegedly been harassed
for
four
years.
While
Defendant Drake denies
th
at
any
of
the
all
eged condu
ct is
vio
lative
of
any
of
Plaintiff's right
s,
any complaint about
it
at this late time is n
ow
barred
by
the doctrine
of
aches. 4. Plaintiffs asserted causes
of
ac
ti
on,
if
any, are barred
by
Se
ct
ions
16
.002 and
Defendant Monty Drake's Motion to
Tran
sfer Venue,
Original
An
swer,
and
Motion to
De
signate Responsible
Third
Party Pag
e3
MR709