FILED

DALLAS COUNTY
6/29/2015 2:59:17 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK

3 CIT/ ESERVE
DC-15-07323
CAUSE N O . - - - - - - MARK A. TICER d/b/a
LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER,
Plaintiff
vs.

Gay Smith

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

_ _ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

SHANE RANGANI, CHUCK TEDDER

Ai~AT&T,INC.

Defendants

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Mark A Ticer d/b/a Law Office of Mark A Ticer, (hereinafter
"LOMAT"), Plaintiff herein, and files this Plaintiff's Original Petition complaining of
Shane Rangani ("Rangani"), Chuck Tedder ("Tedder"), and AT&T, Inc. ("AT&T)
(collectively "Defendants"), Defendants herein, and for cause of action would show unto
the Court the following:

I.
DISCOVERY LEVEL
This is a Level 2 case pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190.3.
II.
PARTIES

LOMAT is a resident of Texas and does business in Dallas County, Texas.

Rangani is an individual who may be served with process at his place of business,
AT&T, Inc., 311 S. Akard, 17th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202.
Tedder is an individual who may be served with process at his place of business,
AT&T, Inc., 311 S. Akard, 17thFloor, Dallas, Texas 75202.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION (WITH ATI'ACHED DISCOVERY)

Page 1

AT&T, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

Dallas, Texas who may be served with process by serving its agent for services of
process, CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 752014234.

III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The amount in controversy is over $100,000 but less than $200,000 pursuant to
Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Ultimately, the fact finder will decide the
amount of damages to be awarded.
Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to Section 15.002 of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code because Dallas County is where all or a substantial part of
the events and/or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Alternatively, one or more
of the Defendants reside in Dallas County or has a principal office in Dallas County.
IV.
BACKGROUND
Rangani, an authorized AT&T representative, approached LOMAT about
purchasing a ''better'' and more effective internet service. LOMAT was already using an
internet service from AT&T. Rangani, as a representative of AT&T, individually and
along with others, advised LOMAT that the AT&T optic fiber internet service would
provide better and faster service for LOMAT's law practice.
LOMAT is a law firm who has a litigation practice.

As part of LOMAT's

litigation practice, LOMAT must e-file documents with Texas courts and email large
attachments to others including lawyers involved in various litigation matters. Rangani
represented that the optic fiber service would allow faster and more efficient filing

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION (WITH ATTACHED DISCOVERY)

Page2

including uploading documents for filing.

However, Rangani and Tedder knew the

service was not efficient, would not perform properly at LOMAT's office, and could not
deliver the service performance represented.
In reliance on Rangani' s representations and promises, LOMAT purchased the

new fiber optic internet service and AT&T installed same. The result was disaster.
Shortly after the new service was installed, LOMAT was required to file a
response to a legally dispositive motion by a specific deadline. The motion included
voluminous documents that had to be e-filed and also forwarded to opposing counsel.
For nearly four (4) hours, LOMAT attempted to upload the motion response without
success. The upload speed was so poor and unresponsive that the filing could not be
accomplished by the deadline. Despite the efforts of two (2) attorneys and a legal
assistant, no timely filing could be made.
Ultimately, the motion had to bee-filed by another law firm. The opposing party
in the litigation attempted to have the response struck because the deadline was missed.
However, LOMAT incurred even more substantial time and expense because of
additional filings that had to be made, a hearing that was required, and more briefing was
made necessary. Plaintiff also incurred well over $2,000 in fees from Plaintiffs IT
consultant.
LOMAT has complied with all conditions precedent and provided necessary
notice. Alternatively, such notice has been waived.

v.
FRAUD

The conduct of the Defendants constitutes fraud. The Defendants made material
representations about the internet service which they knew were false or were made

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION (WITH ATTACHED DISCOVERY)

Page3

recklessly.

The Defendants intended for LOMAT to rely on their representations.

LOMAT reasonably relied on these representations to its detriment, causing it damages.

VI.
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
Alternatively, the Defendants' conduct was negligent. Defendants made false
representations negligently which were reasonably relied on by LOMAT to its detriment,
causing damages.

VII.
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
The conduct of the Defendants, singularly or in combination, violates the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), Sections 17.46 and 17.50 in one or more of the
following particulars:
1.

passing off goods or services as those of another (Rangani and Tedder);

2.

causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, approval, or

certification of goods and services (Rangani and Tedder);

3.

representing that goods or services have approval, characteristics, uses,

benefits, or qualities which they do not have (Rangini and Tedder);

4.

representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or

grade (Rangani and Tedder);

5.

failing to disclose information concerning the goods or services which was

known at the time of the transaction where such failure to disclose was intended to induce
LOMAT into a transaction which LOMAT would not have entered had the information
been disclosed (Rangani and Tedder);
6.

breach of an express or implied warranty (all Defendants); and

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION (WITH ATTACHED DISCOVERY)

Page 4

7.

engaging in an unconscionable course of action (AT&T).

The conduct above singularly or in combination was a producing cause of

LOMAT's damages. The conduct of the Defendants was committed knowingly or
intentionally entitling LOMAT to additional damages.
VIII.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
The conduct of Rangani and Tedder was done in the course of their employment
and/or agency with AT&T thereby imputing liability to AT&T.
IX.

DAMAGES
As a result of Defendants' conduct, LOMAT suffered actual damages. LOMAT
is entitled to additional damages and pre- and post-judgment interest.

x.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
LOMAT is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees to prosecute its interests.

XI.
JURY TRIAL
LOMAT requests trial by jury.

XII.
DISCOVERY ATTACHED
LOMAT has attached the following:
1.

Plaintifrs Requests for Disclosure to the Defendants;

2.

Plaintiff's First Request for Production to Defendants;

3.

Notice Oflntent To Take The Deposition Of Shane Rangani;

4.

Notice Of Intent To Take The Deposition Of Chuck Tedder; and

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION (WITH ATTACHED DISCOVERY)

Pages

5.

Notice Of Intent to Take Deposition of The Organizational Representative

of AT&T.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, LOMAT prays that the Defendants

be compelled to answer and, upon trial, LOMAT be awarded judgment in its favor as
follows:
1.

judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally;

2.

additional damages under the DTPA;

3.

reasonable attorney's fees;

4.

all pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

5.

LOMAT be awarded such other and further relief, both general and

special, at law or in equity, to which he may show himself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER

ls/Mark. A. Ticer
Mark A. Ticer
State Bar #20018900
mticer@ticerlaw.com
Jennifer Weber Johnson
State Bar #24060029
jjohnson@ticerlaw.com
4144 N. Central Expressway
Suite 1255
Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 219-4220
(214) 219-4218 (FAX)
By

A TTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION (WITH ATTACHED DISCOVERY)

Page6

CAUSE NO. - - - - - - -

LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER,

Plaintiff

vs.

SHANE RANGANI, CHUCK TEDDER

AND AT&T, INC.

Defendants

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

_ _ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE TO ALL DEFENDANTS

TO:

Defendant AT&T, Inc. is a telephone and communications company that does

business in the State of Texas. Defendant AT&T, Inc. has designated CT
Corporations System as its agent upon who may be served with process at 350 N.
St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234. Defendant AT&T, Inc. may
thus be served with process by serving CT Corporations System as its agent. CT
Corporations System may then forward process to Defendant AT&T, Inc. at its
designated person and address:

TO:

CHUCK TEDDER, employee of AT&T, c/o AT&T, Inc., 311 S. Akard, 17th Floor,
Dallas, Texas 75202.

TO:

Defendant Shane Rangani is an employee of AT&T, Inc. that does business in the
State of Texas. Shane Rangani may be served at his place of employment at
AT&T, Inc., 311 S. Akard, 17th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202.

PURSUANT TO RULE 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs

request that Defendant AT&T, Inc. in this matter disclose, within fifty (50) days of
service, the information and material described in TEX. R. CIV. PROC. 194.2(a) through
194.2(k).

PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE TO DEFENDANT

PAGE

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER

By:

Isl Mark A. Ticer

Mark A. Ticer
State Bar #20018900
mticer@ticerlaw.com
Jennifer W. Johnson
jjohnson@ticerlaw.com
State Bar #24060029
4144 N. Central Expressway
Suite 1255
Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 219-4220
(214) 219-4218 (FAX)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE TO DEFENDANT

PAGE2

CAUSE NO. - - - - - - - -

LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER,

Plaintiff

vs.
SHANE RANGANI, CHUCK TEDDER
AND AT&T, INC.
Defendants

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

_ _ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODU CT ION TO D EFENDANTS

TO:

Defendant Shane Rangani is an individual who may be served with process at

his place of business, AT&T, Inc., 311 S. Akard, 17th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202.

TO:

AT&T, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas,
Texas who may be served with process by serving its agent for services of process, CT
Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.

TO:

Chuck Tedder, employee of AT&T, c/o AT &T, Inc., 3 11 S. Akard, 17th Floor, Dallas,
Texas 75202.

Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request that
Defendant Shane Rangani produce for inspection and copying all documents falling
within the categories listed below and in the possession, custody, and/ or control of
Defendants in this action, your agents, representatives, and/ or attorneys.
Production is requested at the Law Office of Mark A. Ticer, 4144 N. Central
Expressway, Suite 1255, Dallas, Texas 75204. Responses to this Request for Production
are requested within fifty (50) days of service.

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

PAGEl

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER

By: : /sf Mark. A. Ticer

Mark A. Ticer
State Bar #20018900
mticer@ticerlaw.com
Jennifer W. Johnson
State Bar #24060029
jjohnson@ticerlaw.com
4144 N. Central Expressway
Suite 1255
Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 219-4220
(214) 219-4218 (FAX)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

PAGEl

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

1.

A true and correct copy of each tangible item, however denominated, and/ or
electronic data in its original native format, which shows and/ or reflects any
correspondence, communication, email, and/ or contact with and/ or between
any of the parties to this action and which relates to the claims made the basis of
this lawsuit, any representations made to Plaintiff relating to the internet service,
and any defenses asserted by any Defendant, the facts, circumstances, and/ or
subject matter of this lawsuit, and/ or Plaintiffs' claims made the basis of this
lawsuit.

2.

A true and correct copy of each tangible item and/ or electronic data in its
original native format showing the names, addresses, and/ or telephone numbers
of all persons who were employed and/ or retained by you, your agents,
servants, and/ or employees to conduct an investigation into the facts and/ or
circumstances of this case, Plaintiffs, and/ or the subject claims made the basis of
this lawsuit. This includes any persons who in any way participated in the
marketing, sale, and installation of the internet service made the basis of this
lawsuit;

3.

A true and correct copy of each tangible item and/ or electronic data in its
original native format showing the names, addresses, and/ or telephone numbers
of all persons contacted by any investigator hired by you, your agents,
employees, and/ or servants to conduct an investigation into the facts and/ or
circumstances of this case, any representations and/ or promises made to
Plaintiff, and any persons who in any way participated in the marketing, sale,
and installation of the internet service the subject of this lawsuit;

4.

A true and correct copy of each tangible item reflecting the performance of the
internet service at Plaintiff's office including maximum distances, standards
(both industry and company), limitations, performance results, and upload
speeds;

5.

A true and correct copy of all policies of liability insurance including, but not
limited to, all primary, excess, and umbrella policies to provide coverage
covering any Defendant for liability arising from the allegations and/ or claims
made the basis of this lawsuit;

6.

A true and correct copy of all documents, however denominated, which show or
reflect any correspondence, communications, or contact with or between any of
the parties to this action and directly relating to the facts or circumstances of this
lawsuit;

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

PAGEJ

7.

A true and correct copy of all documents which show, reveal, and/ or refer to
Plaintiff and/ or any Defendant and relate to the facts or circumstances of this
lawsuit;

8.

A true and correct copy of any documents showing the name, address, or
telephone number of any person who was employed by or retained by you, your
agents, servants, or employees to conduct an investigation into the facts and
circumstances giving rise to this case or any party's claim and/ or defenses
asserted by any party;;

9.

A true and correct copy of all documents showing the names, addresses, or
telephone numbers of all persons contacted by any investigator hired by you,
your agents, employees, or servants and relating to the facts, circumstances,
and/ or allegations of this lawsuit;

10.

A true and correct copy of all statements, whether recorded, transcribed, and/ or
written, made and/ or obtained from anyone regarding any aspect of the facts
related to any party's claims and/ or defenses;

11.

A true and correct copy of any and all tangible items relating to the internet
service at issue ,the alleged agreement between the parties, and/ or Plaintiff's
allegations in this lawsuit including damages;

12.

A true and correct copy of any and all charts, drawings, photographs, pictures,
slides, movies and/ or videos relating the internet service at issue and/ or the
contents therein made the basis of Plaintiff's claims and allegations, or relating to
any investigation conducted by any party regarding the internet service at issue;

13.

A true and correct copy of all checks, vouchers, or other methods of payment,
receipts or cancelled checks made to Plaintiff by any Defendant or to any
Defendant by Plaintiff;

14.

A true and correct copy of any tangible items relating to any communications
with any experts or consultants employed by, retained by, or consulted by you
related to Plaintiff's claims, the investigation of Plaintiff's claims, and/ or the
facts, allegations and circumstances at issue in this lawsuit that would not be
subject to disclosure under any response to request for disclosure;

15.

A true and correct copy of any notes relating to any inspection of the internet
service at issue and/ or the contents therein at issue in this lawsuit;

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

PAGE4

16.

A true and correct copy of any inspection reports, investigations, invoices,

contracts, repair work, or restoration work relating to the internet service at
issue, Plaintiff's claims and/ or allegations made the basis of this lawsuit, and/ or
any defenses to such claims;

17.

A true and correct copy of any research, notes, emails, phone records,
memoranda, messages, text messages, SMS, MMS, correspondence or other items
relating to any instances where Plaintiff (or its agents and/ or representatives)
communicated with any Defendant or Defendant' s representatives and/ or
agents relating to the facts, circumstances, and/ or allegations surrounding this
lawsuit;

18.

A true and correct copy of any recorded statements of Plaintiff and/ or Plaintiff's
representatives or any Defendant or any of any Defendant's representatives;

19.

Any tangible item reflecting that any Defendant misrepresented the internet
service at issue;

20.

Any tangible items reflecting misrepresentation of the internet service at issue;

21.

Any tangible items reflecting any breach of contract, fraud, and/ or negligent
misrepresentation by any party to this lawsuit dealing with the internet service at
issue;

25.

Any fee agreements between you and your attorney as well as all billing
statements and/ or invoices;

26.

A true and correct copy of any lawsuits, claims, complaints, and/ or presuit
notice relating to the internet service sold to Plaintiff from any customers from
2010 to the present relating to nonperformance, malfunctions, and slow response
and upload speeds; and

27.

A true and correct copy of any guidelines, training materials, performance

standards, videos, online programs, and bonus and remuneration programs from
2010 relating to the sale, marketing, and installation of the internet service sold to
Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

PAGES

LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER,

Plaintiff

vs.
SHANE RANGANI, CHUCK TEDDER
AND AT&T, INC.
Defendants

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

_ _ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE ORAL DEPOSITION

OF SHANE RANGANI, CHUCK TEDDER, AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF AT&T, INC.

TO:

SHANE RANGANI, employee of AT&T, c/o AT&T, Inc., 311 S. Akard, 17th Floor,
Dallas, Texas 75202.

TO:

Defendant AT&T, Inc. is a telephone and communications company that d oes

business in the State of Texas. Defendant AT&T, Inc. has designated the CT
Corporations System as its true and lawful attorney upon who may be served
with process. Defendant AT&T, Inc. may thus be served with process by serving
the Ct Corporations System, as its agent at 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas,
Texas 75201-4234. CT Corporations System may then forward process to
Defendant AT&T, Inc. at its designated person and address:

TO:

CHUCK TEDDER, employee of AT&T, c/o AT&T, Inc., 311 S. Akard, 17th Floor,
Dallas, Texas 75202.

In accordance with Rule 199 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, please take
notice that the deposition of the Shane Rangani, the Corporate Representative of AT&T,
Inc., and Chuck Tedder will be taken on August 5, 2015, beginning at 10:00 a.m. at the
Law Office of Mark A. Ticer, 4144 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1255, Dallas, TX 75204:
1.

Shane Rangani-10:00 a.m.;

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE ORAL DEPOSITfON OF DEFENDANTS

PAGE I

2.

Chuck Tedder - 11:30 a.m.; and

3.

Organizational Representative of AT&T, Inc. - 1:30 p.m.

Each deposition shall immediately follow the other.

The areas of inquiry for the Organizational Representative of AT&T, Inc. shall
include:

1.

The allegations and facts regarding Plaintiffs' claims made the basis of this
lawsuit;

2.

The factual bases for any defenses asserted by any Defendant in this
lawsuit;

3.

The identity of all persons directly involved in the marketing, sale, and
installation of the internet service to Plaintiff which is the subject of this
lawsuit;

4.

Any investigation conducted by any Defendant or any of Defendants'

respective agents and/ or representatives regarding Plaintiffs' claims and
allegation made the basis of this lawsuit;

5.

Communications with Plaintiffs relating to the internet service made the

basis of this lawsuit;

6.

The training for the marketing, sales, and installation of the internet
service employed by AT&T, Inc. which was sold to Plaintiff and which is
made the basis of this lawsuit; and

7.

From 2010 to the present in Texas, the number of, the identity of, and the
basis of all lawsuits, complaints, demands, and presuit notice relating to
the internet service made the basis of this lawsuit;

The depositions will continue from day to day until completed. Said depositions
will be taken in the presence of a Certified Court Reporter and may be taken by
nonstenographic means, to wit: videographer.

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS

PAGE :2

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER

By: ls/Mark A. Ticer

Mark A. Ticer
State Bar #20018900

mticer@ticerlaw.com
Jennifer W. Johnson
State Bar #24060029
jjohnson@ticerlaw.com
4144 N. Central Expressway
Suite 1255
Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 219-4220
(214) 219-4218 (FAX)
AITORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT IO TAKE THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS

PAGE J