Sienna/Johnson Development Sued for Fraud, Deceptive Trade & Harassment!!!--Just In!!!
From FortBendNow.com:
Activist Slaps Back In Countersuit Against Sienna Plantation Developer
by Bob Dunn, Feb 13, 11:03 am
Countering the defamation lawsuit filed against him by Sienna/Johnson Development, community activist Chris Calvin now accuses the developer of fraud and negligence in selling him a lot in the Sienna Plantation neighborhood.
Also named in the counterclaim, filed last week by attorney Jeffrey Singer, is Sienna/Johnson Senior Vice President Douglas Goff and three other related business entities: Sienna/Johnson North, LP; Sienna/Johnson North GP, L.L.C.; and Sienna/Johnson Development GP, L.L.C.
In the counterclaim, Calvin also accuses the defendants of deceptive trade practices and of filing a groundless lawsuit against him.
Calvin states in the claim that he and his wife bought a lot in Sienna Plantation in November of 2002, in part based on “certain representations” that included “the extent to which certain portions of the community would be used for recreational purposes. In fact, one or more of the Sienna entities have now abandoned the plan for certain recreational areas and has designated such sites for other purposes, including construction of multi-family dwellings.”
Calvin began objecting to Sienna Plantation plans for building apartments, both publicly (in Missouri City Council meetings) and on web site discussion forums. This objection, he states in his counterclaim “resulted in the filing of the plaintiff’s petition in this case against him.”
Sienna/Johnson and Goff filed suit against Calvin and an associated organization, the Committee for Responsible Development, in December, accusing him of defamation, business disparagement, public nuisance and “tortuous interference with prospective contract.”
The suit also seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Calvin and his organization “from making any statements under any pseudonyms” regarding the developers or their affiliates.
Calvin has characterized Sienna/Johnson’s actions as typical of a SLAPP suit strategy – a legal tactic in which a business entity tries to blunt criticism by burdening opponents with the cost of a legal defense.
Sienna/Johnson attorney John Keville, however, has said the developer tried to settle its dispute with Calvin without filing suit. It’s main complaint was that he had been making comments on web forums under several different aliases. So many, Keville said, that Calvin made it appear a large number of people supported his critical views of Sienna/Johnson, when that wasn’t really the case.
Calvin has said he believes what he posted on web sites “is protected free speech and we do have the right to disagree publicly (anonymously or not) with public figures. They don’t have to like what we are saying. I’m, however, not responsible for any unintended consequences regarding their corporate interests or profits as a result of this public debate and poor public relations management.”
In his counterclaim, Calvin says Johnson/Sienna filed their suit against him”in bad faith and/or for the purpose of harassment.” He therefore seeks unspecified sanctions against the defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Prior to the lawsuit, Sienna/Johnson filed a petition in district court seeking to depose Calvin and Matthew Feinberg, operator of the web sites on which Calvin posted. The depositions proceeded, despite protestation and legal appeals by Feinberg’s attorneys, which included representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.
Late last month, the Texas Supreme Court denied a petition by Feinberg seeking to have his deposition sealed to protect the identities of his web posters.
“The question Mr. Feinberg wishes to raise is whether he can be required to disclose the identity of anonymous web site users in a pre-suit deposition,” Sienna/Johnson noted in its response to Feinberg’s Supreme Court petition. “That question is moot because Mr. Feinberg appeared at his deposition and answered questions (and revealed only that he did not know any such identities).”
The high court apparently agreed.
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Monday, February 13, 2006
11 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JK here's one:
On CNN: The outlook for the economy is so bad that the mob in New Jersey just laid off 3 judges.
Ck this out from: http://exposingnewhomebuilders.typepad.com/newhomebuildersnewsblog/current_affairs/
Exposing New Home Builders
February 09, 2006
State agency making changes; But consumer groups contend panel protects home builders
Houston, TX. - "Duane Waddill was head of the Texas Residential Construction Commission just four days when he learned the state agency often criticized by consumer groups was about to be audited. But Waddill said he was already implementing changes that addressed some of the state comptroller's questions—changes he believed would quell consumer concerns that the agency doesn't do enough to protect homeowners...But consumer groups remain skeptical, saying the agency was created in 2003 at the behest of builders to reduce litigation by forcing consumers into a state-run dispute resolution process. Ultimately, the commission, which is mainly funded by fees it collects from builders, has created another hurdle for consumers who want their day in court, consumer advocates say...The agency has filed six cases with the State Office of Administrative Hearings against builders, ranging from failing to register with the commission to fraudulently applying for registration, according to the commission...Some 20 more cases could be brought next month, including those to enforce payment of civil judgments homeowners have gotten in court on their own, according to the agency...But consumer groups have criticized the agency's inability to force a company to make the repairs it recommends...The agency has received 1,406 complaints since its inception in the fall of 2003. As of late November, 297 have gone through the agency's dispute resolution process. The agency found construction defects in 195 of those cases, no defect in 16, and continues to work on the remaining cases...Last year, fees for consumers to request the resolution process were also dropped to a flat $250, replacing the previous system that charged the homeowner up to $650. And the builder registration fee was also increased to $500 from $125...Alex Winslow, director of consumer group Texas Watch, said homeowners shouldn't have to pay for the dispute process at all. He's also critical of the agency's governor-appointed board, which has many industry representatives on it — including John Krugh, who works as general counsel for Houston builder Bob Perry's company and helped craft the legislation that created the construction commission. 'I think the makeup of the board speaks for itself,' Winslow said. 'It's dominated by industry insiders, with Bob Perry's lawyer as one of the original appointees. I think that speaks to the agency's leanings.'...Janet Ahmad, president of Homeowners for Better Building, said no matter what changes the commission makes, the dispute resolution process still takes up to 150 days and remains a hurdle for consumers to pass before they can finally go to court. 'The whole premise of this is to wear down the homebuyer,' said Ahmad, who has been pushing for a home lemon law, similar to the one for cars."...
Jan. 8, 2006, 10:41AM
. . . waving at you JK! . . ;-)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
For JK:
What's In A Name?
-------------------------------------------
I guess we should have seen this one coming. After all, Minnesota based Hormel Foods has produced the luncheon meat SPAM for decades. And quite naturally, they hold a trademark for the name.
So in a move that shouldn't really surprise any of us, Hormel has a message for a Seattle software company: Stop, in the name of Spam!
The canned-meat company has filed two legal challenges with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to try to stop SpamArrest from using the decades-old name Spam.
SpamArrest, which specializes in blocking junk e-mail or "spam," filed papers to trademark its corporate name early this year. Hormel then sent the company a warning to drop the word "Spam." SpamArrest refused.
So who has the rights to spam - and who hasn't? It looks like the Trademark Trial and Appeals Court in Washington, D.C. will hear the case sometime in 2004.
SpamArrest's chief executive maintains that his company's use of the word has nothing to do with Hormel's product, first produced in 1937. Hormel officials disagree, arguing that the company has carefully protected and invested in the brand name.
In their legal challenges, Hormel defends the SPAM name and contends that the public could confuse the meat product with the technology company. It filed its challenges in late June.
Hormel acknowledges that its brand name has taken on new meaning, and it outlines on its Web site what it considers acceptable uses of the word.
It says it doesn't object when "spam" is used to describe unsolicited commercial e-mail, but it does object when pictures of its product are used in association with the e-mail term.
So until this case is settled one way or another, here's a tip: don't eat junk email and don't email luncheon meat - or something like that.
Source: AP, "Hormel Fights to Defend Spam Name," July 30, 2003.
. . . waving at you JK! . . ;-)
ugg boots
coach outlet
louboutin shoes
nhl jerseys
coach outlet online
nike shoes
oakley sunglasses
miami heat jersey
ugg outlet
bengals jersey
2017.7.26
www0606
ralph lauren pas cher
prada outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
oakley sunglasses
swarovski outlet
ray ban sunglasses
jimmy choo sunglasses
cheap jordans
givenchy jewelry
zzzzz2018.10.11
ferragamo shoes
true religion jeans
ugg outlet boots
giuseppe zanotti
fitflops clearance
adidas shoes
ferragamo belt
fitflops clearance
nike blazers
michael kors outlet
Calvin has characterized Sienna/Johnson’s actions as typical of a SLAPP suit strategy – a legal tactic in which a business entity tries to blunt criticism by burdening opponents with the cost of a legal defense.
plain black salwar kameez for ladies ,
plain black salwar kameez womens ,
Post a Comment
<< Home