Plaintiff's response to ntpsa , larry hall and robert malphurs motion to protect

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order 1

CAUSE NO. DC-15-05418

DAVID and MARLITT GRAY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Pro se § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § 14th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § NORTH TEXAS PRIEMER, § SOCCER ASSOCIATION, INC., § and PREMIER PARK, INC. § § Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, DAVID and MARLITT GRAY individually, and as next friend of

CAMILA and MARISA GRAY (hereafter referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs,” but,

where context requires, referred to individually by name) and file this their Response to

Defendants, North Texas Primer Soccer Association, Inc. (individually the “NTPSA”)

and Premier Park, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), Motion for Protective Order, and

would show unto the Court as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Understandably, Defendants would like to prevent the discovery of evidence that

casts Defendants in a bad light. Unfortunately for Defendants, Texas law grants Plaintiffs

wide latitude in discovery—permitting the Plaintiffs the opportunity to request any

information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

FILEDDALLAS COUNTY

3/22/2016 6:26:04 PMFELICIA PITRE

DISTRICT CLERK


Plaintiffs seek information regarding the Defendant NTPSA’s financials, which are made

relevant by Plaintiffs’ claim for gross negligence.

2. At the outset, Plaintiffs would like to address the alleged threats of criminal

prosecution and media attention. Plaintiffs, through their counsel, provided Defendants

an opportunity to explain what the evidence overwhelming suggests is an improper use of

the funds of a non-profit, charitable organization. Moreover, even if those statements

could be interpreted as threatening (which Plaintiffs maintain they were not), there was

no threat of criminal prosecution.

3. The Texas Attorney General has the authority to represent the public interest in

issues involving charitable, non-profit organization. See Webpage of the Attorney

General of Texas, Consumer Protection Division, Charities and Nonprofits Section

available at https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/cpd/charities-and-nonprofits-complaints-

and-enforcement (“The Office of the Attorney General represents the public interest in

charity and acts to protect that interest.”). The Attorney General carries out its duty

through its Charitable Trusts Section, who regularly employ non-criminal remedies to

preserve charitable, non-profit organization from mismanagement and abuse. See Susan

K. Staricka, The Attorney General’s Authority Over Charitable Nonprofit Corporations,

State Bar of Texas CLE, GOVERNANCE OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS COURSE, 1

(August 14-15, 2008), attached here as “Exhibit A.” Moreover, Plaintiffs lack standing

to complain about the management and corporate structure of the Defendants. See Tran v.

Hoang, No. 01-14-00973-CV, 2015 WL 6935543, at *3 (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2015)

(holding that “members of a nonprofit organization are not shareholders, and thus lack

derivative standing.”). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ only recourse to address the improprieties of


Defendants was to invite the scrutiny of the Attorney General and the local media. See

TEX. DISCIPLINARY RULES PROF’L CONDUCT R. 3.07 (allowing lawyers to make an

extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by

means of public communication when there exists a likelihood of substantial harm to an

individual or the public interest). Simply put, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not, and would not,

threaten criminal prosecution or media scrutiny for the purposes of advancing Plaintiffs’

civil case.

ARGUMENT

4. Plaintiffs discovery seeks information regarding the Defendants’ financial records

because: (1) it is highly relevant to Plaintiffs claim for exemplary damages, and (2)

Defendant NTPSA, through its directors and/or officers, claimed that budget constraints

prevented it from repairing the dangerous condition at the premises made the basis of this

suit, Premier Park. Moreover, Plaintiffs are lawfully entitled to the information as

members of the public. Defendants’ motion is nothing more than an attempt to misdirect

the Court’s attention from the obvious wrongdoing of the Defendants’ principals.

A. The Financial Records of the Defendants are Subject to Disclosure and Relevant to Plaintiffs’ Claim for Gross Negligence. 5. As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable corporation organized under the Texas

Business Organizations Code, the NTPSA has no expectation of privacy regarding its

financial records. See TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE ANN. § 22.353 (West) (“The corporation

shall make the records, books, and reports available to the public for inspection and

copying at the corporation's registered or principal office during regular business

hours.”). The information requested by Plaintiffs is available to any current member of

the corporation. See id. at § 22.351 (“A member of a corporation, on written demand


stating the purpose of the demand, is entitled to examine and copy at the member's

expense, in person or by agent, accountant, or attorney, at any reasonable time and for a

proper purpose, the books and records of the corporation relevant to that purpose.”).

Plaintiffs are simply requesting that information which Defendant NTPSA is required to

maintain for public inspection, nothing more.

6. It can hardly be argued that the financial situation of the Defendants is not

relevant. See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1998)

(holding that evidence of defendant’s net worth and profits relates to the situation of the

parties as explained in Alamo Nat. Bank v. Kraus, 616 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tex. 1981)); see

also Transmission Exch. Inc. v. Long, 821 S.W.2d 265, 273 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 1991), writ denied (July 1, 1992) (“The financial ability of the defendant is relevant

and may be considered by a jury in its determination of the amount of punitive damages

to be awarded.”); K-Mart Corp. v. Pearson on Behalf of Ramos, 818 S.W.2d 410, 417

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) (“Because exemplary damages are awarded both

to punish the defendant and to set an example that will deter the defendant and others

from engaging in the proscribed conduct, the net worth of the defendant is relevant in

making this award.”); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 41.0115 (West)

(permitting plaintiffs the opportunity to discover and admit evidence related to the

Defendant’s net worth). Plaintiff are entitled to the information they seek, and Defendants

have made it relevant by their claims of financial inability. Moreover, the overwhelming

evidence suggests that the Defendants have raised ample funds to provide a reasonably

safe playing surface at Premier Park.


B. The NTPSA and the Development of Premier Park.1

7. The NTPSA is a non-profit, charitable organization comprised of male, amateur

soccer players. The NTPSA brings together these soccer enthusiasts from Dallas, and the

surrounding seven counties, by organizing leagues and games for its members. The

NTPSA was established in 1974. Today, the organization has over five thousand (5,000)

members organized into four different age groupings. This significant membership allows

the NTPSA to collect over seven hundred thousand dollars ($750,000) in yearly

membership dues, by collecting eighty-five dollars ($85) from each of its members twice

a year. This was not always the case, however.

8. In or about 2000 or 2001, the NTPSA began to raise league dues under the

auspice that the organization was going to construct its own soccer fields, for the benefit

of its members. See Affidavit of Anthony Welch, ¶ 8, attached here as “Exhibit B.” To

fund the purchase, the NTPSA increased the dues of every player from $50 to $75 per

season for a net increase of fifty dollars ($50) per year. Id. The NTPSA raised the dues

once more to $85, in or about 2008, for a total net increase, since 2001, of seventy dollars

($70) per year. Id. These incremental increases allowed the NTPSA to raise,

approximately, four million dollars ($4,000,000) in additional contributions from 2000 to

2013 to pay for the development of their own soccer facilities. See Affidavit of David

Gray, ¶ 4, attached here as “Exhibit C.”

9. The Defendants also raised money in other ways. The NTPSA purchased the

property that is now known as Premier Park in December of the year 2000. See December

1 The following information about the NTPSA is either available on its website, located at http://www.ntpsa.org/index.asp, or was obtained from testimony of current or former members of the NTPSA, including Mr. Gray.


15, 2000 Warranty Deed, attached here as “Exhibit D.” It acquired Premier Park, then an

empty lot, for one-hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars ($182,000). Id. In 2007, the

NTPSA transferred ownership of Premier Park to Premier Park, Inc. See September 25,

2007 General Warranty Deed attached here as “Exhibit E.” Almost immediately after the

transfer, Premier Park, Inc. borrowed one million dollars ($1,000,000), using the Deed to

Premier Park to secure the loan. See September 25, 2007 Deed of Trust (with Security

Agreement and Assignment of Rents) attached here as “Exhibit F.” In 2006, the NTPSA

also sold a portion of the acreage acquired in 2000 to an unrelated party for

approximately forty thousand dollars ($40,000). See September 18 2006 General

Warranty Deed, and corresponding HUD-1 Statement, which are attached collectively as

“Exhibit G.” In sum, by the time Mr. Gray was injured, the NTPSA had raised

approximately five million dollars ($5,000,000) to pay for the development and

maintenance of Premier Park.

10. Still more concerning is that at the time Mr. Gray was injured, the Defendants had

only spent approximately one and a half million dollars ($1,500,000) purchasing and

developing Premier Park, but had raised approximately four million dollars ($4,000,000)

from it’s members for that purpose, and borrowed another million dollars ($1,000,000).

See Exhibit C, at ¶ 4. This figure does not include the original one hundred dollars

($100) paid by each member, which equates to roughly five hundred thousand dollars

($500,000) a year, or approximately six million two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars

($6,250,000) during the same time period. Id.

11. However, the operating expenses of the NTPSA cannot account for the money

that has been raised by the NTPSA. The NTPSA has no salaried employees. See Exhibit


C, at ¶ 6. It rents a small office in Richardson, Texas. Id. At ¶ 5. Presumably, its most

significant budget item is field rentals, which account for, at most, one hundred thousand

dollars ($100,000) a year. Id. At ¶¶ 5-7. Taking into consideration the amount of money

raised by the NTPSA, the amount expended in acquiring and developing Premier Park,

and the relatively low operating expenses of the NTPSA, the clandestine nature of

Premier Park, Inc. is far more troubling.

C. The Secrecy of Premier Park, Inc.

12. During his six-year stint as a member of the NTPSA, Mr. Gray never once heard

the name Premier Park, Inc. See Exhibit C, at ¶ 9. After deciding to pursue this litigation,

Mr. Gray discovered that Premier Park, Inc., a for profit corporation, holds the Deed to

Premier Park. See Exhibit E. A review of the NTPSA’s franchise tax reports dating back

to 2003 reflects that the NTPSA never disclosed its alleged ownership of Premier Park,

Inc. to the State of Texas. See Public Information Reports of the NTPSA from 2003 –

2013, attached as a single exhibit labelled “Exhibit H.”

13. Mr. Gray has, since discovering this information, asked several current and

former members, about the existence of Premier Park, Inc., and not one of those

individuals has, or had, ever heard of Premier Park, Inc. See Exhibit C, at ¶ 9. Roy

Ramos, NTPSA Secretary and Director in 2003, when Premier Park, Inc. was formed,

had never heard of Premier Park, Inc. and was unaware that the NTPSA had already

purchased the land that would later become Premier Park. Id. Similarly, Horst Poethke,

NTPSA Secretary and Director from 2005-2009, was unaware and “surprised” to hear

that the soccer complex had been transferred to another entity in 2007, and also had never

heard of Premier Park, Inc. Id. Despite this overwhelming evidence which suggests, at a


minimum, gross mismanagement, Defendants maintain that the relationship is legitimate

because of a stock certificate—issued four years prior to the Premier Park transfer—

identifies the NTPSA as the owner of all the stock of Premier Park, Inc. See Exhibit A of

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order. However, this ownership interest is not

disclosed in the Articles of Incorporation. See Articles of Incorporation of Premier Park,

Inc., attached here as “Exhibit I.”

14. Regardless, the reasons provided by Defendants for the existence of Premier Park,

Inc. and the transfer of ownership of Premier park itself make little sense when compared

to the evidence obtained by Plaintiffs. Initially, the Defendants misrepresented the

purpose of this unique relationship. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested the information

informally from opposing counsel, and was informed that the City of Balch Springs

required the NTPSA to transfer ownership of Premier Park to a for profit entity to obtain

a special use permit. See Email from Randall Miller explaining purpose of Premier Park,

Inc., attached here as “Exhibit J.” However, Balch Springs ordinance no. 02-535-Z,

which granted the NTPSA a Special Use Permit for purposes of building a soccer

complex at Premier Park, was passed and issued by the Balch Springs City Council in

2002, five years before the transfer of Premier Park to Premier Park, Inc. Ordinance

No. 02-535-Z, Special Use Permit, attached here as “Exhibit K.”

15. Plaintiffs provided counsel for the Defendants another opportunity to explain the

relationship. See Exhibits B and C of Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order. Faced

with evidence that completely discredited their prior position, Defendants gave a different

explanation for the transfer. See Email from Scott Self, attached as “Exhibit L.” The new

reason given for the transfer, which Corporate Defendants continue to advance, is that the


City of Balch Springs required the transfer so that the City of Balch Springs could collect

property taxes, as a non profit entity would be exempt.

16. This explanation is equally troublesome on its face. The tax records of Dallas

County reveal that the NTPSA never received a charitable exemption even while it

owned the property, paying property taxes the entire time. See Exhibit C, at ¶ 8. Plaintiffs

have also obtained the records of the City Council of Balch Springs during the relevant

time period, and those records also contradict Defendants’ explanation, as there is no

mention of the NTPSA. See Affidavit of Cindy Gross, Custodian of Records for the City

of Balch Springs, containing 61 pages of City Council Records, attached here as “Exhibit

M.” The publicly available evidence alone demonstrates that this explanation is

nonsensical. Facing overwhelming evidence that suggests an improper use of the funds of

the NTPSA and the impact that such information might have on this suit, Defendants,

through their motion, seek a shield from discovery from this Court that is in direct

violation of Texas law.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order should, in all things, be DENIED, and

Plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed with discovery regarding the issues raised in

Defendants’ Motion. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs ask and pray that this Court

DENY Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order.


Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF RAMON RODRIGUEZ Herald Hall 1620 E. Belt Line Rd., Suite 201 Carrollton, Texas 75006 Telephone: (972) 242-8887 Telecopier: (972) 446-7976 [email protected] By: /s/Ramon de Jesus Rodriguez

Ramon de Jesus Rodriguez State Bar No. 24088319

And 4038 Lemmon Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Edward Gray State Bar No. 08316200 Telephone: 214-734-2524 Brian Gray State Bar No. 24002173 Telephone: 214-207-6460 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on opposing counsel in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this 21st day of March, 2016.

/s/ Ramon de Jesus Rodriguez__________ Ramon de Jesus Rodriguez

Exhibit A

Exhibit B


DAVID and MARLITT GRAY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT§

Plaintiffs, §V. §

§ 14th JUDICIAL DISTRICTNORTH TEXAS PREMIER SOCCER §ASSOCIATION, INC., and PREMIER §PARK, INC. §

§§

Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY WELCH

Having been duly sworn, Anthony Welch testifies as follows:

1. I am over 18 years ofage, suffer from no known disability, and I am capable of makingthis affidavit. The statements in this affidavit are based on my own personal knowledge.

2. I have played soccer my whole life and I have played in the North Texas Premier SoccerAssociation for 25 years. In the Fall of 2012 and Spring of 2013,1 played for Inferno Black indivision 40F with David Gray. David was the best player on the team, and led the team inscoring both seasons that we played together. David was probably the most physically fit playeron the team and often played the whole game without substitution, and he never missed a gameto my recollection.

3. My position on the team was goalkeeper. I was in goal for the division playoff game onMay 19,2013. In the second half, shortly after David scored the only goal of the game,advancing us to the division final, I kicked the ball to him on a goal kick, and I was watching theball as it arrived 2 seconds later. David was all by himself, and there was no pressure. He justheaded the ball forward and collapsed. Play was stopped. David got up and slowly walked tothe sideline leaving the game. After the game, a few of us including David, looked at the fieldwhere he fell, and it was right on the sloping transition to a hump.

4. The Premier Park fields have humps running across the fields about every 10 yards thatare several inches high, sometimes maybe as high as 8 or 10 inches when they are swollen upduring the rainy season. I have had punts bounce back toward me after landing on one of thehumps, balls always take crazy bounces, and it is not uncommon for players to just fall downwhile running, as happened to Brett Moore in the same game. Running on to a lead pass, Bretthad the other team's defense beat, and he just did a face-plant on one of the humps. Everybodyremembers it because it probably cost us a goal.

AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY WELCH PAGE 1

5. I have played an estimated 40 games at Premier Park because I played in the summerleague from 2009 to 2012. In those 40 games I have seen, at least, 12 or 15 guys hobble off orbe hauled off the fields with knees or ankles blovm up in non-contact injuries, and most of themon the middle fields. I have probably played 1000 outdoor soccer games in my life and I amcertain that I have not witnessed half as many non-contact leg injuries in all of them combined.

6. The Premier Park fields are by far the most dangerous fields I have ever played on, andthe league has known it for years. Nobody likes to play there and everybody has complained,but NTPSA continues hosting the championship tournament there anyway. I have heard leagueofficials address members about their concerns over the humps several times since theyappeared, and promise to repair them, but I have never seen any repairs or improvements. Infact, the conditions have worsened. I have never heard the league discuss the injuries that werehappening, nor have I been warned about how dangerous the fields are. I have only played acouple of games there since 2013, because I have not played in the summer league since 2012.So most, if not all of the injuries I have witnessed happened prior to David's injury.

8. I have never heard of Premier Park, Inc., or known that the league transferred the fields toa for-profit corporation or subsidiary, or that they borrowed money to build Premier Park. Theyraised our dues $50 per year in 2000 or 2001, and raised them another $40 per year in 2008. Ithought we bought and built our fields with those extra dues. Since the Premier Park fields wentbad, they have said they didn't have the money to fix them, yet we continue to pay the increaseddues. Typically, privately owned fields are better than public fields, but Premier Park is adisgrace, and I don't want to see anybody else get hurt.

7. I have spoken to the league's attorney, Mr. Miller, and told him the same thing, and Ilook forward to testifying in court.

I affirm under penalty of perjury that the statements made above are true and correct.

/-zyAnthony Welch Date

Z5

The foregoing affidavit was signed to and subscribed before me this ^ day ofDecember, 2015.

(Notary-Public)>


JASON PHAMNotary Public

STATE OFTEXAS

My Comm. E*p. 03-25-^^

PAGE 2

OfiduS vibjoM

8«gT=!03TATef, Br-ss.Eo.qjs.niffjjo.^M

Exhibit C

Exhibit C1


DAVID and MARLITT GRAY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT§

Plaintiffs, §V. §

§ 14th JUDICIAL DISTRICTNORTH TEXAS PREMIER SOCCER §ASSOCIATION, INC., and PREMIER §PARK, INC. §

§§

Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS


Having been duly sworn, Anthony Welch testifies as follows:

1. I am over 18 years ofage, suffer from no known disability, and I am capable of makingthis affidavit. The statements in this affidavit are based on my own personal knowledge.

2. I have played soccer my whole life and I have played in the North Texas Premier SoccerAssociation for 25 years. In the Fall of 2012 and Spring of 2013,1 played for Inferno Black indivision 40F with David Gray. David was the best player on the team, and led the team inscoring both seasons that we played together. David was probably the most physically fit playeron the team and often played the whole game without substitution, and he never missed a gameto my recollection.

3. My position on the team was goalkeeper. I was in goal for the division playoff game onMay 19,2013. In the second half, shortly after David scored the only goal of the game,advancing us to the division final, I kicked the ball to him on a goal kick, and I was watching theball as it arrived 2 seconds later. David was all by himself, and there was no pressure. He justheaded the ball forward and collapsed. Play was stopped. David got up and slowly walked tothe sideline leaving the game. After the game, a few of us including David, looked at the fieldwhere he fell, and it was right on the sloping transition to a hump.

4. The Premier Park fields have humps running across the fields about every 10 yards thatare several inches high, sometimes maybe as high as 8 or 10 inches when they are swollen upduring the rainy season. I have had punts bounce back toward me after landing on one of thehumps, balls always take crazy bounces, and it is not uncommon for players to just fall downwhile running, as happened to Brett Moore in the same game. Running on to a lead pass, Bretthad the other team's defense beat, and he just did a face-plant on one of the humps. Everybodyremembers it because it probably cost us a goal.

AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY WELCH PAGE 1

5. I have played an estimated 40 games at Premier Park because I played in the summerleague from 2009 to 2012. In those 40 games I have seen, at least, 12 or 15 guys hobble off orbe hauled off the fields with knees or ankles blovm up in non-contact injuries, and most of themon the middle fields. I have probably played 1000 outdoor soccer games in my life and I amcertain that I have not witnessed half as many non-contact leg injuries in all of them combined.

6. The Premier Park fields are by far the most dangerous fields I have ever played on, andthe league has known it for years. Nobody likes to play there and everybody has complained,but NTPSA continues hosting the championship tournament there anyway. I have heard leagueofficials address members about their concerns over the humps several times since theyappeared, and promise to repair them, but I have never seen any repairs or improvements. Infact, the conditions have worsened. I have never heard the league discuss the injuries that werehappening, nor have I been warned about how dangerous the fields are. I have only played acouple of games there since 2013, because I have not played in the summer league since 2012.So most, if not all of the injuries I have witnessed happened prior to David's injury.

8. I have never heard of Premier Park, Inc., or known that the league transferred the fields toa for-profit corporation or subsidiary, or that they borrowed money to build Premier Park. Theyraised our dues $50 per year in 2000 or 2001, and raised them another $40 per year in 2008. Ithought we bought and built our fields with those extra dues. Since the Premier Park fields wentbad, they have said they didn't have the money to fix them, yet we continue to pay the increaseddues. Typically, privately owned fields are better than public fields, but Premier Park is adisgrace, and I don't want to see anybody else get hurt.

7. I have spoken to the league's attorney, Mr. Miller, and told him the same thing, and Ilook forward to testifying in court.

I affirm under penalty of perjury that the statements made above are true and correct.

/-zyAnthony Welch Date

Z5

The foregoing affidavit was signed to and subscribed before me this ^ day ofDecember, 2015.

(Notary-Public)>


JASON PHAMNotary Public

STATE OFTEXAS

My Comm. E*p. 03-25-^^

PAGE 2

OfiduS vibjoM

8«gT=!03TATef, Br-ss.Eo.qjs.niffjjo.^M

Exhibit C2

Exhibit C3

Exhibit C4

Exhibit C5

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

Exhibit I

Exhibit J

Exhibit K

Exhibit L

Ramon Rodriguez <[email protected]>

Gray v. NTPSA and Premier Park, Inc.2 messages

Scott W. Self <[email protected]> Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:48 AMTo: Ramon Rodriguez <[email protected]>Cc: "Thomas W. Fee" <[email protected]>, "Randall W. Miller" <[email protected]>, "Stephanie L. Lowe"<[email protected]>

Ray:

Please accept this correspondence in follow-up to our recent telephone conversations regarding the above-referenced matter.

1. Ownership of Premier Park, Inc.

As I stated during our most recent conversation, we have confirmed that NTPSA is the sole shareholder ofPremier Park, Inc. Attached is a copy of the stock certificate confirming same.

2. Defamation by Mr. Gray

As we also discussed during our most recent conversation, it has come to our attention that Mr. Gray haspublic defamed our client contacts Larry and Andrea Hall, particularly among members of the NTPSA and thelocal soccer community, alleging, e.g., that Mr. and Mrs. Hall own Premier Park, Inc.; have engaged inself-dealing regarding their management of the NTPSA and/or Premier Park; etc.

As the attached stock certificate confirms, Mr. Gray’s allegations are false. Moreover, they constitutedefamation per se, as they injure the Halls’ office, profession, or occupation and falsely charge them withcommission of a crime. We would therefore demand that Mr. Gray cease and desist from making any furthersuch allegations, as they are actionable under Texas law and could form the basis for a lawsuit against him.

3. Entry by Mr. Gray and/or his agents onto Premier Park, Inc. premises

It has likewise come to our attention that Mr. Gray and/or his agents have entered the premises of PremierPark on multiple occasions, in unauthorized fashion, without knowledge of or permission from our clients,

Law Offices of Ramon Rodriguez Mail - Gray v. NTPSA and P... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=7560698b4f&view...

1 of 3 3/22/16, 2:31 PM

apparently for the purposes of prosecuting their lawsuit and fomenting further litigation against our clients.

a. It is apparent from the affidavit of your clients’ expert Charles Wheeler that he (and perhapsothers) entered the premises of Premier Park for the purpose of conducting discovery in thismatter. It is undisputed and inarguable, however, that neither your office, your clients, noranyone else notified our clients that Mr. Wheeler planned to enter the premises or requestedpermission for Mr. Wheeler to enter the premises. This unauthorized entry constitutes bothtrespassing and a violation of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

b. Our clients have become aware that Mr. Gray himself has entered the premises of PremierPark for the purpose of conducting discovery in this matter. It is undisputed and inarguable,however, that neither your office, your clients, nor anyone else notified our clients that Mr. Grayplanned to enter the premises or requested permission for Mr. Gray to enter the premises. Thisunauthorized entry likewise constitutes trespassing and a violation of the Texas Rules of CivilProcedure.

We would therefore insist that Mr. Gray and his agents—including, but not limited to, Mr. Wheeler—cease anddesist from any further entry onto any premises owned or operated by our clients—including, but not limitedto, Premier Park—without first notifying our office of their intent to enter the premises and requestingpermission from our office to enter the premises.

4. Motion for Protective Order

Lastly, as we discussed during our most recent telephone conversation, our clients intend to file a Motion forProtective Order, seeking the Court’s assistance in addressing and rectifying the issues discussed herein. Incompliance with the Dallas County Local Rules, please advise whether you are opposed or unopposed to ourclients’ Motion.

Thank you for your consideration of these issues. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if youwould like to discuss these or any other issues pertaining to this matter.

Scott

Premier Park Certificate.pdf196K

Law Offices of Ramon Rodriguez Mail - Gray v. NTPSA and P... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=7560698b4f&view...

2 of 3 3/22/16, 2:31 PM

Exhibit M