Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

p.

1
ul26 12 02:51p Law Offica Arthur G. Vaga
(210) 225-7751
CAUSE NO.
GILBERT RODRIGUEZ, ANTONIO G. MORALES AND
PAUL HERRERA,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
AMERICAN GI FORUM OFTHE UNITED
STATES, INC.,
Defendant.



IN THE DISTRICT
COURT
OF TRAVIS COUNTY,
TEXAS
126th JUDICIAL
DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BY NON
PARTY MOVANTS, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY,
MOTION TO SHOW AUTHORITY TO ACT AND PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiffs Gilbert Rodriguez, Antonio G. Morales and Paul Herrera (hereinafter
"Plaintiffs") and Defendant American GI Forum of the United States, Inc. (hereinafter "AGIF
US") and file their joint response to the Motion for New Trial (hereinafter "the Motion") filed in
this cause by Francisco Ivarra, Rebecca Lugo, Juan Villareal, Neal Zabicki, Anahli Vasquez,
Willie Galvan, Helen Galvan, and Lee Rivas (hereinafter "Movants'), Motion to Disqualify,
Motion to Show Authority to Act and Plea to the Jurisdiction.
I. Parties
1. Plaintiffs are Gilbert Rodriquez, Antonio G. Morales and Paul Herrera.
2. Defendant is American GI Forum of the United States, Inc. and has been served and
entered an appearance in this cause.
3. Movants are Francisco Ivarra, Rebecca Lugo, Juan Villareal, Neal Zabicki, Anahli
Vasquez, Willie Galvan. Helen Galvan, and Lee Rivas. Movants are not parties to this cause.
II. Background
p.2
Jul 26 12 02:52p
Law Office Arthur G. Vega
(210) 225-7751
4. Plaintiffs/Defendant ask the court to take jUdicial notice of the papers on file and
incorporates them by reference.
5. Plaintiffs filed an Original Petition in this cause and sued AGIF-US for damages
resulting from breaches of the AGIF-US constitution which governs its affairs and procedures for
admission and expulsion of members.
6. AGIF-US filed an Original Answer, by and through its attorney Lucile Jones Guajardo
generally denying the claims alleged by Plaintiffs.
7. The parties to this suit then filed an Agreed Final Judgment disposing of the claims and
issues before the court Which was signed by the attorneys of record, the Plaintiffs and Alberto
Gonzales on behalf of AGIF-US as its National Commander.
8. After entry of the Agreed Final Judgment, Movants filed their Motion for New Trial
generally complaining that Alberto Gonzales and Lucile Jones Guajardo did not have authority
to enter into the Agreed Final Judgment on behalf of AGIF-US and by extension Plaintiffs'
attorney Virginia Hermosa is guilty of conspiracy with them to enter the Agreed Final Judgment
without their knOWledge or consent.
III. Facts
9. The affidaVit of Alberto Gonzales, National Commander of AGIF-US, is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference to provide facts not apparent from the record.
10. The business records affidavit of John Navarrette, National Secretary of AGIF-US, along
with documents of AGIF-US to provides facts not apparent from the record and such documents
can be produced.
11. The AGIF-US constitution allows for the National Board of Directors to make
administrative decisions without Naitonal Conference approval. AGIF-US Constitution Article III,
Section 3 (D). The powers not reserved to the National Board are those which make
fundamental change or affect basic policy of the AGIF-US and such changes must be made as
recommendations to the National Conference. Id.
12. Alberto Gonzales, as National Commander, was given authority by the National Board to
oversee and manage all legal matters pending involving AGIF-US on or about March 10'"
through 12"', 2011 AGIF-US National Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico on or about July
13
th
through July 17'h, 2011 and since ratified at the National Conference on July 19'h 2012.
13. There are currently 27 members of the National Board of Directors and of those 23 are
in good standing.
Jul 26 12 02:52p Law Office Arthur G. Vega
(210) 225-7751
p.;j
14. Of the Movants in this case. Rebecca Lugo, Neal Zabicki and Anahli Vasquez are in
good standing with AGIF-US.
15. Of the Movants in this case, Willie Galvan, Francisco F. Ivarra and Helen Galvan did not
vote/attend in the last meeting of the National Board of Directors.
16. Of the Movants in this case, Francisco F. Ivarra, Lee Rivas and Juan Villarreal are not in
good standing with AGIF-US.
IV. Response to Motion
17. The delegation of the authority te act on behalf of the AGIF-US organization in a legal
matter such as this is not only reasonable, but likely necessary. To require National Conference
approval of the settlement of a legal suit would unnecessarily delay and possibly jeopardize the
ability to compromise and settle legal claims without trial.
18. To the extent necessary, Plaintiffs and AGIF-US h3ve shown that Alberto Gonzales,
National Commander of AGIF-US, had been granted the authority he exercised in executing the
Agreed Final Judgment. Failing that, the actions of Alberto Gonzales in entering into the Agreed
Final judgment on behalf of AGIFUS were ratified at the recent National Conference. In no
way can Movants claim any harm in light of these facts. In fact, the procedural errors or
omissions of which Movants complain have been rendered moot by the recent ratification of the
actions taken by Commander Gonzales with respect to this lawsuit.
19. The record is devoid of evidence showing or purporting to show that Movants have been
granted authority to seek redress in this court by AGIF-US nor even the National Board of
Directors. It is ironic that Movants complain of a lack of authority to act on behalf of AGIF-US,
when they have distinctly failed to do 50 for themselves. They do not file the motion on behalf of
AGIF-US but on their own behalf as only several members of the National Board of Directors.
And several of the Movants are either not in good standing (5), failed to vote at the most recent
meeting of the National Board (4), or are unable to vote (1). Regardless of their alleged claims
of harm, they should at least be required to show they have the authority to act when they are
not parties to the suit and they are essentially challenging the AGIF-US National Commander
and an attorney acting on his behalf to prove they are. At a minimum, as the highest ranking
official with AGIF-US, Commander Gonzales at least has apparent authority to act in this case.
Movants have no such claim to any such authority, apparent or otherwise.
20. The record is similarly devoid of evidence showing or purporting to show that Movants
were entitled to be given notice of any issues related to the instant lawsuit and that such notice,
if given, would have resulted in action to prevent the entry of the Agreed Final Judgment. In
p.4
Jul 26 12 02:53p Law Office Arthur G. Vaga
(210) 225-7751
fact, the opposite is true. In the recent National Conference, the actions of Commander
Gonzales and attorney Lucile Guajardo in relaHon to this case were fully ratified, again,
rendering their claims of harm moot
21. In paragraph 30 of the Motion, Movants claim that the Agreed Final Judgment was
obtained by "misrepresentations to the Court". In support of this claim, in paragraph 28,
Movants generally complain that no evidence was submitted to support Plaintiffs' claims prior to
entry of the Agreed Final Judgment. What Movants fail to describe is how or why. if necessary,
the court entered the judgment without the purported requisite evidence. The fact is that
supporting evidence in an agreed case does not need to be entered into the record to support
the entry of an agreed judgment. When all parties agree to the judgment, there is nothing to
appeal nor any right to do so.
V, Motion to Disqualify
22. Plaintiffs and AGIF-US move to disqualify attorney Arthur G. Vega. A party must
authorize an attomey to bring suit on its behalf. Tex. R. Civ. P. 12; Vela v. Vela, 763 S.W.2d
601, 602 (Tex. App. - San Antonio, writ denied).
23. Plaintiffs and AGIF-US herein allege the preceding paragraphs as if fUlly set out herein.
24. It is clear that the Motion, while at times claiming to seek relief on behalf of Movants
personally, is also purportedly filed on behalf of AGIF-US and the National Board of Directors
collectively.' See Motion paragraphs 36, 37,39. To the extent that the Motion is filed on behalf
of AGIF-US or it National Board of Directors, AGIFUS, through its board, must have authorized
the hiring of attorney Arthur G. Vega. See Square 67 Dflv. Corp. v. Red Oak State Bank, 559
S.W.2d 136, 138 (Tex. App. - Waco 1977, writ refd. n.r.e.).
25. As shown herein, Commander Gonzales was previously given authority to conduct the
legal affairs of AGIF-US. Because Movants have not shown, nor can they show, that they have
been given authority to act for the full Board or AGIF-US, attorney Arthur G. Vega can likewise
not show the authority to act as purported in the Motion.
26. When a party alleges an attorney is prosecuting or defending a suit on behalf of another
party without authority, the challenged attorney must appear before the court to show his or her
authority to act. Tex. R. Cjv, P, 12.
, It should be noted, that Movants' have not presented any basis for lhe proposition that any alleged
wrongfUl act on behalf of Plaintiffs or AGIF-US have or could affect them personally as they purportediy
actin filing their molion on behalf of the Board and AGIF-US as a whole,
Jul 26 12 02:56p Law Office Althur G, Vega
(210) 225-7751
p,1
27. Under Rule 12, the court should cite Arthur G. Vega and require him to appear befDre
the CDurt fDr a hearing to shDw his authDrity to prDsecute Dn behalf Df AGIF-US Dr its National
Board of Directors and after such hearing Drder that Arthur G. Vega no longer be allowed to
appear in this case on behalf of AGIF-US or its National BDard of Directors.
VI. Motion to Show AuthDrity to Act
28. Plaintiffs and AGIF-US move to have Movants cited and require them to collectively or'
individually show their authority to act in this case by filing their MotiDn for New Trial.
29. Plaintiffs and AGIF-US herein allege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.
30. As shown herein, Commander Gonzales was previously given authority to conduct the
legal affairs of AGIF-US. Movants have not shown, nor can they show, that they have been
given authority to act for the full Board or AGIF-US.
31. Therefore, the court should cite Movants and require that they appear before the court
for a hearing to show their authority to prosecute the Motion on behalf of AGIF-US or its
NatiDnal BDard Df DirectDrs and upDn such hearing and determinatiDn that nD such authority
exists, strike their pleadings.
VII. Plea to the JurisdictiDn
32. Plaintiffs and AGIF-US ask the court to dismiss any claim of Movants in this suit because
of lack of jurisdictiDn, A plea tD the jurisdiction is a proper method to challenge a party's lack Df
standing. See M.D, Anderson CancerClr. v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704, 710-711 (Tex. 2001).
33, Plaintiffs and AGIF-US herein allege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.
34. A party lacks standing when it lacks a justiciable interest in the suit and can claim a
distinct injury. Brown v. Todd, 53 S,W.3d 171. 178-179 (Tex. 2001); \Nilson v, Andrews, 10
S.W.3d 663, 669 (Tex, 1999).
35. As stated in Paragraph 19 above. the record before the CDUrt is devoid of evidence
showing or purpDrting to show that Movants have been granted authority to seek redress in this
court by AGIF-US nor ellen the National Board of Directors. Movants have shown the CDurt nD
ellidence that they have any standing whatsoever to seek any redress on behalf of AGI F-US in
this cause of action. Additionally, based Dn the conduct alleged by Movants, any harm that
would be the consequence of such conduct would be bome by AGIF-US and not Movants
personally.
p.2
Jul 26 12 02:56p Law Office Arthur G. Vega
(210) 225-7751
36. Therefore. Plaintiffs and AGIF-US respectfully ask that this court dismiss any claim
made by Movants herein for lack of standing to involve themselves in this cause in the capacity
in which they purport to be acting.
VI II. Prayer
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs and Defendant AGIF-US ask that
this court cite Movants and attomey Arthur G. Vega to appear and show their authority to act in
this case, grant their plea to the jurisdiction for lack of standing and deny Movants' Motion for
New Trial for the reasons stated herein that the Agreed Final JUdgment entered in this case was
executed with duly granted authority, that Movants have not and cannot show standing or
authority to make their appearance and file the Motion for New Trial in this case, and that any
such appearance, if proper is rendered moot by the actions of AGIF-US to ratify the Agreed
Final Judgment entered in this cause, deny Movants' request for attorney's fees and court costs,
and lift the abatement on the Judgment entered on July 12, 2012.
Respectfully Submitted,
GUAJARDO & GUAJARDO
1504 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Tel. (512) 474-9585
Fax. (512) 474-9507
LUCie GuaJard
Texas Bar No. 50511558
HERMOSA LAW FIRM
503 West 17th St., Suite 200
Austin, TX 78701
Tel. (512) 225-5887
Fax. (512)225-5884
p.3
Jul 26 12 02:56p Law Office Arthur G. Vega
(210) 225-7751
-ZH+
By: \ : : : : : : : ) - " " - - = - ~ -
Virginia I. Hermosa
Texas Bar No. 24002264
p.4
Jul 26 12 02:57p
Law Office Arthur G, Vega
(210) 225-7751
VF;RJI"CATlON
," I'"
,
,.
" , J.-, (rill') '2.'?" G J
;J'I b/" \
Bctvn: me, ulldersigned. IllHnry. on thb Wly pcrwrtllliy appeared _._'_'J. __.,__ (lIt;
tlffiarll. u WM!!.c iUL"':t1ity \!\ \mhwn \(1 me. A('.cr \ ill) U\liODl.
, , filbert' Ie) , _ _ ,_' _
"Yfy flume .__.._" I. am Gllfl3blc ot ttU:l lJc.rltlcallOfI. 1 rcaLl lht:
foregoing. PLAINTIFFS' A"lO RJ:,SPONSE ro MOTiON FOR NSW TRfAL I3Y
NON-PARTY MOVANTS AND PLEA TO THE JUE.HSDlen01'!. The fBet::; ,;tat>;:d ill it ilIe wi1hin my
llcrsomll knnwlcoJge amI lrue Gnd camel'
A '
>1 ' / /v. r 'I- /'.,.., I A ,..
/'f
1
v - I t5- .....
.._----------
[Nmm: 111'u.t'Ihlll)
---" c::::;o ------\
...';>,. co L:?J,
NOI::l:J'Y Pllb!ic; in and for
LIte Slate C{ltO i'"'C<.d-o
DIANN,\ C,
I _NOTARY P1l8l'C
OF COW1A:)O
My Corrml!;Sion Expires 0310712016