Linda Chavez Motion for Declaratory Injunction

7/28/2019 Linda Chavez Motion for Declaratory Injunction

1/17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN

CITIZENS, INC. (LULAC) Plaintiff,

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

TEXAS LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, LINDA CHAVEZ, Individually, BEA MARTINEZ, Individually,

and JOEY CARDENAS, Individually Defendants,

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. For cause of action, Defendants would show unto the Court the

following:

I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The underlying dispute involved federal and state law trademark claims made by

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.

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 28 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 6


2/17

2

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

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. On or about March 2, 2013 and after the underlying dispute was ostensibly

resolved, Florinda Chavez declared her candidacy for State Director of LULAC. For the next

three months, Florinda Chavez electioneered her candidacy through an extensive e-mail andpublic relations campaign to other members of LULAC. At no point during her candidacy did

anyone advise or inform Florinda Chavez that she was, in any way, ineligible to serve as an

officer for LULAC.

4. On or about June 2, 2013 at the Texas State LULAC Convention and at the very

moment that LULAC membership were set to vote for the State Director, Ms. Chavez was

declared to be ineligible for State Director by Mr. Roger Rocha, the National Treasurer of

LULAC. Before an auditorium full of LULAC convention delegates, Mr. Rocha stated that the

Honorable Frank Montalvo had rendered a Final Judgment declaring that Ms. Chavez was

disqualified from holding any elected office within the LULAC organization.1 The LULAC

Legal Advisor, Miguel Ortiz, also used this Courts Final Judgment to wrongly exclude Ms.

Chavez from seeking or holding elected office.

1See Exhibit 1, CD containing video segment of Ms. Chavezs disqualification at the LULAC convention, datedJune 2, 2013.



3/17

3

5. Upon information and belief, Luis Vera, Esq., General Counsel for LULAC and

Plaintiffs counsel, aided and abetted Mr. Rochas and Mr. Ortizs fraudulent misrepresentation

by urging and/or soliciting the wrongful disqualification of Ms. Chavezs candidacy.

6. Defendants Beatrice Martinez and Joe Cardenas have also been prejudiced in that,

through the fraudulent misrepresentations and improper use of the Final Judgment, they were

denied the opportunity to support and cast ballots in favor of Ms. Chavez, the candidate of their

choice. Mr. Cardenas and Ms. Martinez are also, according to the misuse of the Final Judgment,

barred from office.

II.ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

A. Request for Declaratory Judgment7. 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.

8. 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 this Court disqualified

2See FED.R.CIV.P. 57; see also Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969).3 See Brister v. Faulkner, 214 F.3d 675, 68 (5th Cir. 2000).



4/17

4

Ms. Chavez from declaring her candidacy or holding elected office within the LULAC

organization.

9. 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. Request for Relief From Judgment10. 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 asatisfied, 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

disqualify Defendants from actively participating in LULAC elections either as a candidate or a

voter. 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. Request for Preliminary Injunction

11. Due to the actions of Plaintiff, Defendants request that the Court issue a

Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 to prevent Plaintiff from disqualifying the Defendants

for an elected office or position within LULAC.

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



5/17

5

Defendants have annexed to this motion their sworn affidavits and other evidence

showing by clear and convincing evidence that they have suffered immediate prejudice because

of Plaintiffs actions. These Affidavits 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 FloorSan Antonio, Texas 78205Telephone: (210) 222-8899Telecopier: (210) 222-9256ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

By: /s/ ROBERT W.WILSONROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ.TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 00794868MARK ANTHONY SNCHEZ, ESQ.TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 00795857

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that he has electronically submitted for filing atrue and correct copy of the above and foregoing in accordance with the Electronic Case FilesSystem of the Western District of Texas on the 7th day of June, 2013.

By: /S/ROBERT W.WILSONROBERT W. WILSON, ESQ.

5See Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Florinda Chavez, dated June 6, 2013; See Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Beatrice Martinez,dated June 6, 2013; and Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Joe Cardenas, III, dated June 7, 2013.



6/17

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has beenprovided to counsel for Plaintiffs on this the 7th day of June, 2013, as follows:

Mr. Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. [ ] First Class MailThe Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. [ XX ] Facsimile; 210-225-2060111 Soledad, Suite 1325 [ ] CM,RRRSan Antonio, Texas 78205 [ XX ] E-Mail [email protected]

Mr. Ray Velarde [ ] First Class MailAttorney at Law [ XX ] Facsimile; 915-542-23411216 Montana Ave. [ ] CM,RRREl Paso, Texas 79902 [ XX ] E-Mail [email protected]

Mr. Manuel G. Escobar, Jr. [ ] First Class MailAttorney at Law [ XX ] Facsimile; 210-212-5653201 West Poplar [ ] CM,RRRSan Antonio, Texas 78212 [ XX ] E-Mail [email protected]

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

G:\My Files\1-Sanchez\Texas LULAC\LULAC v. TXLULAC\Pleadings\Motion - Reconsideration.doc



7/17

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 28-1 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 1

** The actual CD will be filed with the Court.


8/17



9/17



10/17



11/17



12/17



13/17



14/17



15/17



16/17



17/17


Linda Chavez Motion for Declaratory Injunction

Documents

Transcript of Linda Chavez Motion for Declaratory Injunction