Guzman v. Cascade Process Controls, Inc.

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00162

Defendant's Original ANSWER to {{1}} Complaint. Attorney B. Blaze Taylor added to party Cascade Process Controls, Inc.(pty:dft) by Cascade Process Controls, Inc.(Taylor, B.)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS – SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DANIEL GUZMAN Plaintiff V. CASCADE PROCESS CONTROLS, INC. Defendant DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER CHARLES MOSTER, ESQ. B. BLAZE TAYLOR, ESQ. THE MOSTER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4920 S. LOOP 289, STE. 101 LUBBOCK, TX 79414 Counsel for Defendant CASE NO. 1:19-CV-00176-LY DANIEL GUZMAN § PLAINTIFF § § V. § UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT § WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CASCADE PROCESS CONTROLS, INC. § SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DEFENDANT § § DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW, Cascade Process Controls, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant") by and through its respective counsel of record, and files this Defendant's Original Answer in response to Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial as filed by Daniel Guzman (hereinafter "Plaintiff"). In support of this Answer Defendant would show this Honorable Court as follows: I. SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO VENUE AS IMPROPER 1. Plaintiff correctly brings to this Honorable Court's attention the proper residence of Defendant, to wit, Austin, TX.1 2. Plaintiff then goes on to improperly assert that the Western District of Texas – San Antonio Division is proper under federal statute.2 1 See Plaintiff's Orig. Pet., ¶ 2.2. 2 See Plaintiff's Orig. Pet., ¶ 3.2. 3. As such, under the guiding federal statute cited by Plaintiff, Defendant is not a resident of the area covered by the San Antonio Division, nor were the acts in question as pled allegedly undertaken in such district. 4. Therefore, because Defendant is a resident of Austin, TX, the proper Division for prosecution of this case is within the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas – Austin Division. II. SPECIFIC DENIALS 5. Appurtenant to FED. R. CIV. P. 8 et seq. Defendant hereby asserts the following various and specific denials and defenses to Plaintiff's various allegations of fact, legal causes of action, and damages thereto pertaining: 6. Defendant lacks the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation made manifest within Paragraphs 2.1 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 7. Defendant specifically denies Paragraph 1.2 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 8. Defendant does not dispute the allegations within Paragraph 2.2 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 9. As stated above, Defendant denies that venue is proper as stated within Paragraph 3.2 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. Defendant further understands that a motion to dismiss for improper venue must be brought prior to any responsive pleading as appurtenant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12, though in the interest of judicial economy and professional courtesy Defendant merely raises a special exception, and this denial, in this regard as this Honorable Court may still find such venue improper and have this case removed to be tried within the proper venue, to wit, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas – Austin Division. 10. Defendant lacks the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation made manifest within Paragraphs 4.1 through 4.2 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 11. Defendant specifically denies consecutively Paragraphs 4.3 through 4.6, each and every, all and singular, of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 12. Defendant lacks the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation made manifest within Paragraphs 5.1 through 5.3 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 13. Defendant specifically denies consecutively Paragraphs 5.4 through 5.6, each and every, all and singular, of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 14. Defendant further specifically denies consecutively Paragraphs 6.1 through 6.4, each and every, all and singular, of Plaintiff's Original Complaint II. PRAYER 15. Defendant incorporates by reference all of the statements and allegations as above set forth. 16. Defendant prays that this Honorable Court order as follows: A. That Plaintiff be made to show by preponderance of the evidence satisfaction in full of each element, law, and authority governing its various claims; B. Judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff for all causes of action pled by Plaintiff; C. Judgment against Plaintiff for attorney's fees incurred in this matter; D. Judgment against Plaintiff for all costs of court; and E. Such other and further relief to which Defendants may show himself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles A. Moster, Esq. /s/ B. Blaze Taylor, Esq. Charles A. Moster, Esq. B. Blaze Taylor, Esq. State Bar No. 00797782 State Bar No. 24106495 THE MOSTER LAW FIRM, P.C. THE MOSTER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4920 South Loop 289, Suite 101 4920 South Loop 289, Suite 101 Lubbock, TX 79414 Lubbock, TX 79414 cmoster@themosterlawfirm.com btaylor@themosterlawfirm.com Phone: (806) 778-6486 Phone: (806) 778-6486 Facsimile: (806) 302-7046 Facsimile: (866) 302-7046 Counsel for Defendant Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on March 20, 2019, Plaintiff was properly noticed and served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing document via the PACER-ECF federal courts electronic filing system. Respectfully submitted by, /s/ B. Blaze Taylor, Esq. B. Blaze Taylor, Esq.