Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 43

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

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

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. Plaintiffs 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

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 43

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. As the Court is aware, there was a dispute regarding the ability of Florinda

Chavez, Joe Cardenas, III, and Beatrice Martinezs ability to run for a State elected office and for a National Office within National LULAC. This Court ruled on August 9, 2013, Document 45, that the Agreed Judgment that was entered on December 20, 2013, Document 26, does not preclude Defendants from seeking or holding elected State office or for a National Office within National LULAC organization. 4. After this ruling by the Honorable Court, National LULAC convened a hearing on

October 5, 2013 in Washington D.C. to hear a complaint against the Defendants based upon the Judgment that was entered in this case. This hearing was to determine on whether the

Defendants should be removed or impeached based upon the same facts as alleged in the Complaint in this litigation and because of National LULAC prevailing in this litigation.1 National LULAC was once again attempting to prevent these Defendants from continuing their membership within National LULAC based upon this Judgment entered by the Court. 5. Defendant Joe Cardenas, III has been expelled as a member of National LULAC

based upon the Judgment that was entered. This Judgment did not allow National LULAC to expel him from their membership. There are no words, phrases, or language contained in this

See the attached Declarations of Joe Cardenas, III as Exhibit 1, Florinda Chavez as Exhibit 2, and Beatrice Martinez as Exhibit 3, wherein the basis of the facts for the hearing to remove or impeach these three were: Linda Chavez who was removed from the office of State Director by the Board on June 30, 2012, convened an emergency State meeting of some Texas LULAC Councils on July 21, 2012, with the support and acquiescence of the other two individuals, i.e. Joe Cardenas, III and Beatrice Martinez. The intent of this meeting was to start another organization named Texas State LULAC. Thereafter, National LULAC filed judicial action against the three individuals and prevailed.)

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 3 of 43

Judgment that would allow National LULAC to expel Joe Cardenas, III from their membership. Defendants Florinda Chavez and Beatrice Martinez were not expelled at the National LULAC meeting but based upon the action taken by the Texas State Legal Advisor at a State LULAC board meeting believe they have been expelled. The Defendants have been prejudiced in that, through the fraudulent misrepresentations and improper use of the Final Judgment, they have been removed from National LULAC or in the alternative there has been an attempt to have them removed and/or expelled from National LULAC. II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES A. 6. 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 Plaintiffs agents and representatives. 7. 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 they are to be removed

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).

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 4 of 43

and/or expelled from National LULAC on the basis of the underlying facts of this litigation and the Judgment that was entered in this cause. 8. Defendants seek a speedy hearing on their request for declaratory relief.

Defendants seek reasonable and necessary attorneys fees and taxable costs of court as provided by Rule 57 and the Declaratory Judgment Act. B. 9. 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 expel the Defendants as members of National LULAC. 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. 10. 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 expelling the Defendants as members of LULAC. In the alternative, Defendants request the court issue an order voiding any
4

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

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 5 of 43

action taken by National LULAC to expel and/or to remove these Defendants as members of National LULAC 11. Defendants have annexed to this motion their sworn declarations and other

evidence showing by clear and convincing evidence that they have suffered immediate prejudice because of Plaintiffs actions. These Declarations 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 & SNCHEZ, P.L.L.C. ROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ. MARK ANTHONY SNCHEZ, 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 SNCHEZ, ESQ. TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 00795857

See Exhibit 1, Declaration of Joe Cardenas, III, dated December 27, 2013; See Exhibit 2, Declaration of Florinda Chavez, dated December 27, 2013; and See Exhibit 3, Declaration of Beatrice Martinez, dated December 27, 2013.

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 6 of 43

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 14th day of January, 2014. By: /S/ ROBERT W. WILSON ROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been provided to counsel for Plaintiff on this the 14th day of January, 2014, 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 [ [ [ [ XX [ [ [ [ XX [ [ [ [ XX ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] First Class Mail Facsimile; 210-225-2060 CM,RRR E-Mail Transmission First Class Mail Facsimile; 1-(915)-542-2341 CM,RRR E-Mail Transmission First Class Mail Facsimile; 210-212-5653 CM,RRR E-Mail Transmission

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

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 7 of 43

EXHIBIT "1"

000096

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 8 of 43

EXHIBIT "1"

000097

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 9 of 43

EXHIBIT "1"

000098

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 10 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000099

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 11 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000100

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 12 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000101

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 13 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000102

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 14 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000103

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 15 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000104

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 16 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000105

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 17 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000106

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 18 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000107

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 19 of 43

EXHIBIT "C"

000108

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 20 of 43

EXHIBIT "2"

000109

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 21 of 43

EXHIBIT "2"

000110

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 22 of 43

EXHIBIT "2"

000111

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 23 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000112

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 24 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000113

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 25 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000114

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 26 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000115

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 27 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000116

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 28 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000117

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 29 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000118

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 30 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000119

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 31 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000120

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 32 of 43

EXHIBIT "3"

000121

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 33 of 43

EXHIBIT "3"

000122

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 34 of 43

EXHIBIT "3"

000123

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 35 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000124

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 36 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000125

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 37 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000126

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 38 of 43

EXHIBIT "A"

000127

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 39 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000128

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 40 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000129

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 41 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000130

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 42 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000131

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 43 of 43

EXHIBIT "B"

000132