Sam's Club Injunction Filings

8/12/2019 Sam's Club Injunction Filings

1/70

DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR A TI - Page 1

NO. DC-14-07239

EAST VILLAGE ASSOCIATION IN THE DISTRICT COURTPlaintiff,

162nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

V.

CITY OF DALLAS, et al.,

Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

CITY OF DALLAS AND BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS

RESPONSE AND BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS APLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Defendants the City of Dallas (Dallas) and Larry Holmes, the Chief Building Official

for the City of Dallas (the CBO) (collectively the City) file this their response and brief in

opposition to the request for a temporary injunction (TI) made by Plaintiff East Village

Association (Plaintiff or East Village), contained in Plaintiffs First Amended Petition and

Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary and Permanent Injunction Relief

(Petition), and respectfully shows the following:

FACTS

The owner of approximately 26 acres of land near the intersection of North Central

Expressway and North Haskell Avenue (the Property) submitted an application for the

rezoning of the Property as a planned development district (PD) for mixed use district 3 or

MU-3 uses. The PD that was eventually approved for the Property was designated PD 889. A

PD permits flexibility in that conditions and uses can be added or removed from the base zoning

that forms the basis of the PD. In PD 889 the base zoning district that the owner sought was the

Kimberly F

DALLAS

7/24/2014 1:

GARY FITZS

DISTRI


2/70


Mixed Use District 3 or MU-3 District. One of the main uses permitted in the MU-3 District is a

general merchandise or food store containing more than 100,000 square feet (GM/FS). The

GM/FS under the MU 3 District requires as a condition that a specific use permit (SUP) be

obtained. An SUP is a type of zoning revision that permits the Dallas City Council to consider

certain factors before the approval of that use. In PD 889, the owner sought the removal of the

SUP condition.

Notices of the rezoning were sent both before the public hearings of the Citys Plan

Commission (the CPC) and the Dallas City Council to the owners of property within 200 feet

of the Property as required by state law and also to owners of an additional 300 feet beyond that

which is not required by state law but which the City sends out in zoning cases that seek a PD.

Both notices are attached hereto as Exhibit A. The notices stated that the owner sought to

rezone the Property as a PD for MU-3 uses, that the PD was to accommodate a retail

development with design standards. The notice contained a map showing the location of the

rezoning, advised property owners that a different use could be approved, advised the property

owner that another public hearing might be held by the City Council and gave the phone number

of the City planner working on the rezoning in the event the property owner had any questions.

Notices of the public hearings were also posted on the Citys website, published in the

newspaper, posted at City Hall and signs were posted on the Property advising members of the

public that there was a zoning case pending for the Property.

After its public hearing, the CPC recommended approval of PD 889 with one of the

conditions being the removal of the SUP condition. Several property owners sent the City letters

in favor of and in opposition to PD 889. After its public hearing, the Dallas City Council

adopted Ordinance No. 29019 which ordinance rezoned the Property as PD 889.


3/70


ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. In General

In Midway Protective League v. City of Dallas, 552 S.W.2d 170, 175 (Tex.

App.Texarkana 1977, writ refd n.r.e.), the court examined an almost identical case as this

one. In Midway, an association of homeowners sought to overturn PD zoning for a retail

development because of lack of notice. In rejecting the homeowners claims noting that while

general, the notice was sufficient because it advised property owners that a planned development

district for a shopping center was under consideration, the court held:

The requisite details of notice of hearing are not specified by statute. The generalrule is that the notice is sufficient if it reasonably apprises those for whom it wasintended of the nature of the pending proposal to the extent that they can

determine whether they should be present at the hearing. The content of the

notice should be sufficiently specific to warn the recipient that he may be affectedby the contemplated action While the notice need not be complete and perfect

in every respect, it must be such as will afford the recipient an opportunity tooppose the measure if he desires. Deviation of an ordinance from the descriptions

of the notice and the discussions at the statutory hearing is permissible unless thechanges become so substantial that the proposal made can said to be a new one.

(emphasis added)

Id.

Compliance with notice requirements is a question of law to be determined by the Court.

See, Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 510 (Tex. 1993);Mickens v.

Longhorn DFW Moving, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex. App.Dallas 2008, pet. denied). The

right to have notice and appear before a zoning commission is a statutory right, not a due-process

requirement,Murmur Corp. v. Board of Adjustment of City of Dallas, 718 S.W.2d 790, 793 (Tex.

App.Dallas 1986, writ refd n.r.e.); Eudaly v. City of Colleyville, 642 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex.

App.Fort Worth 1982, writ refd n.r.e.), because a citys adoption and amendment of a zoning


4/70


ordinance is an exercise of its legislative power. Thompson v. City of Palestine, 510 S.W.2d 579,

581 (Tex. 1974).

Only owners of property within 200 feet of a zoning request are entitled to receive

written notice of a zoning change, Kinkaid School, Inc. v. McCarthy, 833 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Tex.

App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.)and a subsequent owner has no standing to challenge

the lack of notice to a prior owner. Murmur Corp. 718 S.W.2d at 793; Leach v. City of North

Richland Hills, 627 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Tex. App.Fort Worth 1982, no writ). An association of

homeowners who own lots adjoining property that is the subject of a rezoning request does not

have standing to challenge a zoning ordinance on notice grounds when it doesnt own property

within 200 feet of the zoning request because it is not entitled to statutory notice. McCarthy, 833

S.W.2d at 229.

A planned development district is unique in that it permits changes to the zoning

requirements that are not permitted if an owner seeks to rezone property to a district other than a

planned development district. In Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 931 (Tex.

1998), the Texas Supreme Court noted:

A planned development is not a typical request for a zoning change; the density,

type, and location of particular uses in a development are left to the planning

process and are determined through negotiations between the developer and town.

Id.

Furthermore, the court in Mayhew added: Zoning decisions are vested in the discretion of

municipal authorities; courts should not assume the role of a super zoning board. Mayhew, 964

S.W.2d at 933; Burns v. City of Des Peres, 534 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir.), cert denied, 429 U.S.

861 (1976).


5/70


A city ordinance is presumed to be valid, and this presumption applies to amendatory

zoning ordinances as well as original comprehensive zoning ordinances, Hunt v. City of San

Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Tex. 1971), and [a]n extraordinary burden rests on one

attacking the ordinance to show that no conclusive or even controversial issuable facts or

conditions exist which would authorize the governing board of the municipality to exercise the

discretion confided to it. Id. This query presents a question of law, not a question of fact.

Id.; City of Waxahachie v. Watkins, 154 Tex. 206, 275 S.W.2d 477 (1955).

B. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because Plaintiff does not have standing to

bring this claim.

Standing is a necessary component of subject-matter jurisdiction and is, therefore, a

threshold issue. Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex., Inc ., 971 S.W.2d 439,

442 (Tex. 1998); Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925

S.W.2d 618, 626 (Tex. 1996). As a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, standing is never

presumed, cannot be waived, and can be raised for the first time on appeal. Tex. Assn of Bus.,

852 S.W.2d at 443-44. Standing is a question of law. Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964

S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998). Courts apply the same standard of review to determine standing

as they do to determine subject-matter jurisdiction generally. Tex. Assn of Bus.,852 S.W.2d at

446.

The doctrine of standing identifies suits appropriate for judicial determination. Brown v.

Todd, 53 S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tex. 2001). The Association alleges its standing is granted by

statute. (Petition at 13 [citing Tex. Bus. Org. Code 252.007].) When standing is conferred by

statute, the common-law rules of standing do not apply. See, e.g., Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323,

324 (Tex. 1984); Mazon Assocs., Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 195 S.W.3d 800, 803 (Tex. App.

Dallas 2006, no pet). When standing has been statutorily conferred, the statute itself serves as


6/70


the proper framework for a standing analysis. Everitt v. TK-Taito, L.L.C., 178 S.W.3d 844, 851

(Tex. App.Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); Mazon Assocs., 195 S.W.3d at 803. The plaintiff must

allege and show how he has been injured or wronged within the parameters of the language used

in the statute. Mazon Assocs., 195 S.W.3d at 803; see also Tex. Dept of Protective &

Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2001) (determining whether a putative

father had standing to maintain a suit affecting the parent-child relationship based solely on a

construction of the statutory standing provision).

The Association claims to be an unincorporated nonprofit association under section

252.001 et seq. of the Texas Business Organization Code (the TBOC). (Petition at 2.) It

asserts that, as a nonprofit association, it has members that have standing to seek declaratory and

injunctive relief by owning property within 200 feet of the property subject to the zoning change.

(Petition at 13-14.) The Association asserts that the relief sought is germane to its purpose.

(Petition at 13.) The purpose of the association is stated in the agreement as:

The purpose of the Association is advancement of the interests of the East Village

Residents, specifically but not limited to advocacy on East Village land use and

zoning issues for the benefit of East Village Residents, and to engage in any andall activities necessary or incidental thereto as permitted by the TBOC [Texas

Business Organization Code]. The Association shall have all the powers to carry

out the purpose for which it was formed, including the powers granted by the

TBOC.

For the Association to have standing as alleged, it first must be a nonprofit association

under the code. Just calling itself a nonprofit is not sufficient. The Association does not meet the

criteria to be a nonprofit association. A nonprofit association is governed by the provisions of

chapters 1 and 4 of the TBOC. Tex. Bus. Org. Code 252.017. Chapter 1 provides that a

nonprofit association is a nonprofit entity that is organized solely for specified purposes in the

code. Id. 1.002(60) (Nonprofit entity means an entity that is a nonprofit corporation,


7/70


nonprofit association, or other entity that is organized solely for one or more of the purposes

specified by Section 2.002.). The only purposes allowed by the statute are (1) serving

charitable, benevolent, religious, eleemosynary, patriotic, civic, missionary, educational,

scientific, social, fraternal, athletic, aesthetic, agricultural, and horticultural purposes; (2)

operating or managing a professional, commercial, or trade association or labor union; (3)

providing animal husbandry; or (4) operating on a nonprofit cooperative basis for the benefit of

its members. Id. 2.002. None of these allowed purposes encompasses a private interest

purpose that the Association has for a specific set of residents. Thus, the Association is not a

nonprofit association that can benefit from the statutory provisions.

Moreover, the statute does not even provide a nonprofit association with authority to seek

injunctive and declaratory relief to invalidate a zoning ordinance. The statute only provides that

an association is a legal entity for the purposes of determining and enforcing rights, duties and

liabilities in contract and tort. Tex. Bus. Org. Code 252.006;MT Falkin Investments, L.L.C. v.

Chisholm Trail Elks Lodge No. 2659, 400 S.W.3d 658, 665 (Tex. App.Austin 2013, pet.

denied). The Associations action has nothing to do with torts or contracts. Thus, the TBOC

does not authorize the Association to bring the action against the City. Because the Association

is not a nonprofit association under the code and is not bringing a contract or tort claim, the

Association does not have standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate a

zoning ordinance or to enjoin the City from taking ministerial actions in connection with

development of property within the City.

Finally, only owners of property within 200 feet of the rezoning request are entitled to

receive written notice of a zoning change and to challenge the zoning based on improper notice.

Kinkaid School, Inc. v. McCarthy, 833 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,


8/70


no pet.) An association of homeowners who own lots adjoining property that is the subject of a

rezoning request does not have standing to challenge a zoning ordinance on notice grounds when

it doesnt own property within 200 feet of the zoning request because it is not entitled to

statutory notice. Id. Plaintiff did not own property within 200 feet of the zoning change at the

time of the written notice in 2013. Since it did not own property within 200 feet, it does not have

standing to challenge the notice of the zoning change. While a nonprofit association may

participate in a judicial proceeding pursuant to section 252.007(a) of the TBOC on behalf of its

members, that participation may only occur if neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested

requires the participation of a member. 252.007(b)(3). McCarthyrequires the participation of

people owning real property within 200 feet of the zoning change in a lawsuit challenging the

notice.

C. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because it cannot show a wrongful act or

a probable right of relief.

1. Wrongful act.

The Court should deny a request for a request for injunctive relief when the plaintiff does

not show the existence of a wrongful act. See Priest v. Texas Animal Health Commn, 780

S.W.2d 874, 875 (Tex. App.Dallas 1989, no writ). For an act to be wrongful, the right

threatened and sought to be protected by injunctive relief must be an existing one vested in the

applicant. See, e.g., Garland v. Shephard, 445 S.W.2d 602, 604-05 (Tex. Civ. App.Dallas

1969, no writ); City of San Antonio v.Bee-Jay Enters., Inc., 626 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. Civ.

App.San Antonio 1981, no writ). As noted in section B above, Plaintiff has no right to recover

because it lacks standing to bring this claim. Furthermore, there has been no wrongful act

committed by the City. The City sent notices of the rezoning of the Property in strict

conformance with the state law andMidway Protective Leagueand Plaintiff has raised no issues


9/70


with respect to ordinance No. 29019 other than the notice to the property owners was

insufficient.

Plaintiff cannot show that the City committed a wrongful act.

2. Probable right of relief

The Court should deny a request for a temporary injunction when the plaintiff does not

show that it has a probable right to the relief it seeks on final hearing. See Butnaru,84 S.W.3d at

204. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its

lawsuit. See DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 686 (Tex. 1990). A probable right

of relief is proven by alleging a cause of action and presenting evidence which tends to sustain it.

Miller Paper Co. v. Roberts Paper Co., 901 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tex. App.Amarillo 1995, no

writ).

Plaintiff cannot show a probable right of relief in this case. In addition to the fact that it

lacks standing, the notices for the zoning case that is the subject of this case strictly comply with

state law andMidway Protective League. The notices apprised property owners of the nature of

the pending proposal and was sufficiently specific to warn the recipient that he may be

affected by the contemplated action. Midway Protective League, 552 S.W.2d at 175.

Ordinance No, 29019 is deemed valid and Plaintiff has not shown that it is not.

Plaintiff cannot show that it has a probable right of relief.


10/70


D. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief for other reasons.

1. Probable injury. The Court should deny a request for injunctive relief when theplaintiff does not plead and show it will suffer a probable injury. See Butnaru v. Ford Motor

Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). Probable injury requires the plaintiff to show that the

harm is imminent, the injury would be irreparable, and the plaintiff has no other adequate legal

remedy. See Harbor Perfusion, Inc. v. Floyd, 45 S.W.3d 713, 716 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi

2001, no pet.);Henderson v. KRTS, Inc., 822 S.W.2d 769, 773 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.]

1992, no writ).

a.

Imminent harm. The Court should deny a request for injunctive relief

when the plaintiff does not plead the harm is imminent. See Operation RescueNatl v. Planned

Parenthood, 975 S.W.2d 546, 554 (Tex. 1998); Bell v. Texas Workers Comp. Commn, 102

S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tex. AppAustin 2003, no pet.); Tex. R. Civ. P. 680. The Court should

deny injunctive relief unless the plaintiff shows that the defendant will otherwise engage in the

activity enjoined. State v. Morales, 869 S.W.2d 941, 946-47 (Tex. 1994). A plaintiffs fear or

apprehension of the possibility of injury is not sufficient; the plaintiff must show that the

defendant has attempted or intends to harm the plaintiff. See Spears v. City of South Houston,

150 S.W.2d 74, 77-78 (Tex. 1941);Jones v. Jefferson County, 15 S.W.3d 206, 213 (Tex. App.

Texarkana 2000, pet. denied). Similarly, the threat of harm must not be merely speculative.

Camarena v. Tex. Employment Commn, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988).

There is no imminent harm to Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff cannot show how it will

suffer imminent harm if a GM/FS is developed on the Property as opposed to other retail space

that could be developed on the Property.


11/70


b. Irreparable harm. The Court should deny a request for injunctive reliefwhen the plaintiff does not show that it will suffer irreparable harm if the request for injunctive

relief is not issued. The plaintiff must plead that, if the injunctive relief is not issued, the harm

that will occur is irreparable. See Town of Palm Valley v. Johnson, 87 S.W.3d 110, 11 (Tex.

2001);Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Tex. R. Civ. P. 680. An injury is irreparable if the plaintiff

could not be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any

certain pecuniary standard. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; see also Wright v. Sport Sup., 137

S.W.3d 289, 294 (Tex. App.Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (plaintiff pleaded irreparable injury

because it showed its damages were not presently ascertainable or easily calculated). Costs and

delay alone are not irreparable injuries. Reynolds, Shannon, Miller, Blinn, White & Cook v.

Flanary, 872 S.W.2d 248, 252 (Tex. App.Dallas 1993, no writ).

There is no irreparable harm to Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff cannot show how it will

suffer irreparable harm if a GM/FS is developed on the Property as opposed to other retail space

that could be developed on the Property.

c. No adequate remedy at law. The Court should deny a request forinjunctive relief when the plaintiff does not plead and show that it has no adequate remedy at

law for prevention or redress of wrongs and grievance of which complaint is made.Hancock v.

Bradshaw, 350 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. Civ. App.Amarillo 1961, no writ); see also McGlothlin

v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1984); Synergy Ctr., Ltd. v. Lone Star Franchising Inc.,

63 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Tex. App.Austin 2001, no pet.). The plaintiff must show that no other

remedy, such as a specific statutory or administrative remedy, is available to fully compensate

him for his injury. See, e.g., El Paso Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Commn, 727 S.W.2d 283, 286-287

(Tex. App.Austin 1987, no writ). For purposes of injunctive relief, there is no adequate


12/70


remedy at law if: (1) damages cannot be calculated, or (2) the defendant will be unable to pay

damages. See Texas Indus. Gas v. Phoenix Metallurgical Corp., 828 S.W.2d 529, 533 Tex.

App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ); cf. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. A plaintiff should

pursue a legal remedy, not an injunctive relief, if pecuniary damages can be ascertained. Garland

Grain Co. v. D-C Homeowners Improvement Assn, 393 S.W.2d 635, 643 (Tex. Civ. App.

Tyler, 1965, writ refd n.r.e.); see also Hancock, 350 S.W.2d at 957.

2. Laches and other delay in seeking request for injunctive relief. The Court shoulddeny a request for a request for injunctive relief if the plaintiff is guilty of laches. Landry's

Seafood Inn & Oyster Bar-Kemah, Inc. v. Wiggins, 919 S.W.2d 924, 927 (Tex. App.Houston

[14th Dist.] 1996, no writ). A party asserting the defense of laches must show both an

unreasonable delay by the other party in asserting its rights and harm resulting to the party

asserting laches because of the delay. Rogers v. Ricane Enters. Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Tex.

1989). However, even short of laches, delay or lack of diligence in seeking a request for

injunctive relief is grounds for denial of relief, because [e]quity aids the vigilant, not those who

slumber on their rights. Bartlett v. Terrell, 292 S.W. 273, 280 (Tex. Civ. App.San Antonio

1927, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citation omitted); see American Red Cross v. Longley, 165 S.W.2d 233,

237 (Tex. Civ. App.Fort Worth 1942, writ refd w.o.m.);Donovan v. Young, 127 S.W.2d 517,

520 (Tex. Civ. App.Beaumont 1939, writ refd); Ricketts v. Ferguson, 64 S.W.2d 416, 417

(Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1933, writ refused); O'Brien v. Perkins, 276 S.W. 308, 312-13 (Tex. Civ.

App.Amarillo 1925), aff'd, 285 S.W. 260 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1926). and not those who

slumber on their rights. See Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993)

(orig.proceeding).


13/70


A plaintiff who does not act promptly to enforce his rights is not entitled to injunctive

relief. See, e.g.,Morris v. Edwards, 62 Tex. 205, 205 (Tex. 1884); Davis v. Carothers, 335

S.W.2d 631, 64041 (Tex. Civ. App.Waco 1960, writ dism'd by agr.) (when equities were

balanced, injunction requiring removal of gas station was inequitable, oppressive, harsh and

unconscionable because residents of area did not act while station was being built); Gillingham

v. Timmins, 104 S.W.2d 115, 119 (Tex. Civ. App.Galveston 1937, writ dism'd) (property

owners lost right to enjoin construction of garage-house because they did not act until the

construction was nearly completed). Because equity aids the diligent, American Red Cross v.

Longley, 165 S.W.2d at 237; Donovan v. Young, 127 S.W.2d at 520; Ricketts v. Ferguson, 64

S.W.2d at 417; O'Brien v. Perkins, 276 S.W. at 312-13, it will refuse relief to those wanting in

diligence in prosecuting their claim. Frost v. Wolf, 14 S.W. 440, 463-64 (Tex. 1890);Ricketts v.

Ferguson, 64 S.W.2d at 417; Bartlett v. Terrell, 292 S.W. at 280. A person who would have

equity must do equity. Tex. R. Civ. P. 693; Riley v. Davidson, 196 S.W.2d 557, 559 (Tex. Civ.

App.Galveston 1946, writ refd n.r.e); Smith v. Switzer, 293 S.W. 850, 851 (Tex. Civ. App.

San Antonio 1927), affd, 300 S.W. 31 (Tex. Commn App. 1927, judgmt adopted).

3. Balancing the equities. The Court should deny a request for a request forinjunctive relief sought under equitable grounds when the equities tilt against the plaintiff. See

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 65.001; Tex. R. Civ. P. 693; Landry's Seafood Inn & Oyster Bar-

Kemah, Inc. v. Wiggins, 919 S.W.2d 924, 927 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ)

(citing Weinberger v. RomeroBarcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)). The Court should weigh any

possible injury to the defendant and to the public against the injury the plaintiff would sustain if

the relief is not granted. Storey v. Cent. Hide & Rendering Co., 226 S.W.2d 615, 61819 (Tex.

1950).
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1890000182&pubNum=0000712&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1890000182&pubNum=0000712&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1933128451&pubNum=0000713&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1933128451&pubNum=0000713&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1933128451&pubNum=0000713&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1933128451&pubNum=0000713&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1933128451&pubNum=0000713&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1933128451&pubNum=0000713&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1933128451&pubNum=0000713&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1890000182&pubNum=0000712&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Recommended%29


14/70


WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the City respectfully prays that the Court:

(1) deny all relief requested by Plaintiff; and (2) award the City all further relief, at law or in

equity, to which it may show itself to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

WARREN M. S. ERNST

Dallas City Attorney

s/ Christopher J. Caso

Christopher J. CasoTexas Bar No. 03969230

[email protected]

Christopher D. BowersTexas Bar No. 02731300

[email protected]

Assistant City Attorneys

City Attorneys Office

1500 Marilla Street, Room 7D NorthDallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: 214-670-3519

Telecopier: 214-670-0622

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this the 24th day of July, 2014, a true and correct copy of theabove and foregoing was served in accordance with the Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure, upon all counsel of record.

s/ Christopher J. Caso

Christopher J. Caso


15/70

CITY PLAN COMMISSION HEARING DATE R PLY CASE NO:May 2, 2013 FORM Z112 265 (MW)CITY OF DALLASThis notice has been sent to you because your property (or properties) is in or near the area of a proposed zoning changAs a property owner, you can support or oppose this request. To be counted, this form must be received before noon on thbusiness day before the City Plan Commission hearing date.Only the original of this reply form or a written reply that complies with Dallas Development Code Section 51A-4.701 may beused. Faxes or ; hotoco1;1ies of this re ; ly form will not be acce1;1ted.- - - ,I For information contact Megan Wimer atI I (214)670-4131 [email protected] I Si desea informacion en espanol, favor deI lamar a Olga Torres-Holyoak al teletono (214L 670-4525.-- - - - -@ii l:tli I am authorized to sign this form because I am... Check only one box.)

Individual Business/Organization Condominium0 Property owner 0 PresidenWice President D Governing body*0 Authorized by a power of attorney D General Partner D Individual owner **0 Representing a majority of property owners D Attorney in fact

* I am authorized to sign by the governing body of the condominium in accordance with its bylaws.**A condominium unit owner must enclose a copy of the legal document that gives the individual owner the right to actseparately from the governing body.

@ i i l i l ~ List the street address es) of your property i f different than the address on the label aboveDo not l ist a P .0. Box.) If you own multiple properties under different appraisal districaccount names, you may receive multiple forms; please return all of the forms.

Street Address es :

@ii lill Indicate your support or opposition to the proposed zoning change request:D Support D OpposedComments:

@ii lill Sign below. For this form to be valid 1 the date and t ime you signed must be Qrovided. Fold thform as indicated on the reverse side and return it by mail or hand delivery. To be counted 1 this form must breceived before noon on the business day before the City Plan Commission hearing date.

Signature (and Title if applicable) Signature (and Title if applicable) DEFENDANTI EABITDate and Time (both must be provided) Date and Time (both must be provided)It is a crime to knowingly submit a false zoning reply form. (Texas Penal Code 37 .10) Revised: December 2008


16/70

Z112-265 MW)

Second- fold here)

City of DallasDept of Sustainable Development Construction1500 Marilla StreetRoom 5 B North - City HallDallas, Texas 752 1

CITY OF DALLAS OFFICIAL REPLY

First- fold here)

r ~ ~ ~ t 1i Class i

Postage J


17/70

CITY OF D LL SNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING CHANGE REQUESTTHURSDAY, M Y 2, 2013CASE NO. Z112-265 MW)

Dear Property Owner:You are hereby notified that the Dallas City Plan Commission will consider the following request:

Z112-265 MW) An application for 1) a Planned Development District for MU-3 Mixed UseDistrict uses on property zoned a GO(A) General Office District, an MU-3 (SAH) Mixed UseDistrict (Affordable) and a portion o Subdistrict E in POD No. 305, Cityplace, on thenortheast corner o North Central Expressway and North Carroll Avenue and for 2) a newsubdistrict within Planned Development District No. 305 on property zoned Subdistrict Ewithin the POD on the northeast corner of North Central Expressway and North HaskellAvenueA Planned Development District is proposed on a 16.158-acre portion o the request site toaccommodate a retail development with design standards. A new subdistrict within POD No.305 is proposed on a 1 0.596-acre portion of the request site to create a data center useand associated parking ratio. This will allow existing office buildings to be utilized for thatpurpose.

Please refer to the opposite side of this notice for a general location of the subject property. The shadedarea is the property included in this request. Your property is not a part of this application if it is outside ofthe shaded area. If your property is outside the shaded area, you received a notice o the hearing becauseyour property is within the area o notification as required by law.The City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this zoning request at 1 30 p.m., Thursday,May 2, 2013, in the City Council Chambers on the sixth floor of Dallas City Hall, which faces Young Streetbetween Akard Street and Ervay Street.The City Plan Commission may approve a different zoning district than the one requested, except that thedifferent district may not (1) have a maximum structure height, floor area ratio, or density that is higher thanthe one requested; or (2) be nonresidential when the one requested is for residential uses or vice versa.A second public hearing may be held by the City Council at which time a final decision will be made on thezoning matter. If the application is recommended for approval, you will be mailed a notice of the hearingbefore City Council. If the application is recommended for denial, the applicant has ten 1 0) days in which tosend a letter o appeal. If the case is appealed, you will be mailed a notice of the hearing before CityCouncil.Please contact Megan Wimer in the Department of Sustainable Development and Construction at (214) 670-4131 for additional information on this request. Si desea informacion en espaiiol, favor de llamar a OlgaTorres-Holyoak al (214) 670-4525.Sincerely,

Megan Wim , AICPSenior Planner


18/70

hearea of request is hatched [ ] Notification is sent to allproperty owners within the notification buffer area {shown by the dashedcircle . Your property is not being rezoned if you are outside of hehatched area. If your properly is not within the hatched area, you arereceiving this notice only to let you know of the request

@ NOTIFICATIONI soo AREA o NOTIFICATIONr.;:;;74 NUMBER OF PROPERTY1:4 800 L. .: ....J OWNERS NOTIFIED

Case no: _1.....:1.....:2:....; 2:::.6.::.5.::..4 18 2013D a te


19/70

CITY O DALLASAVISO DE LA AUDIENCIA PUBLICA PARA UN CAMBIO DE ZONAJUEVES, MAY 2 2013NO. DEL CASO. Z112-265 (MW)

Estimado Duena de Propiedad:Por este media se le notifica que Ia Comision de Planificacion de Ia Ciudad de Dallas considerara Iasiguiente peticion:

Z112-265 (MW)- Una peticioh para 1) un Distrito Planeado de Desarrollo para usos del MU-3Distrito de Usos Mixtos en propiedad con zona GO(A) Distrito de Oficinas Generales, un MU-3SAH) Distrito de Usos Mixtos (asequible) y una porcion del Subdistrito E dentro del DistritoPlaneado de Desarrollo No. 305, Cityplace, en Ia esquina noroeste de North CentralExpressway y North Carroll Avenue y para 2) un nuevo subdistrito dentro del Distrito Planeadode Desarrollo No. 305 en propiedad con zona Subdistrito E dentro del Distrito Planeado deDesarrollo en Ia esquina noroeste de North Central Expressway y North Haskell Avenue.El solicitante propane crear un Distrito Planeado de Desarrollo en una porcion de los16.158 acres para utilizar Ia propiedad para usos comerciales con estandares de diseno.Un nuevo subdistrito dentro del POD No. 305 ocupara una porcion de 10.596 acres delarea propuesta, para crear un usa para un "banco de datos" y estacionamiento para esteuso. La nueva zona va a permitir que los edificios existentes se manipulen para estepropos to .

. Par favor, refierase al otro ado de este aviso para una ubicacion general de Ia propiedad en cuestion.El area con rayas anchas es Ia propiedad que se incluye en esta peticion. Su propiedad noes parte deesta peticion si esta fuera de esta area. Si su propiedad esta fuera del area indicada con lineasgruesas. El area de notificaci n esta marcada con lineas cortas segmentadas. Usted recibi6 elaviso porque su propiedad esta dentro del area de notificaci6n como lo exige Ia ley.La Comision de Pianificacion de Ia Ciudad va a efectuar una audiencia publica sabre esta peticion dezonificacion a Ia 1:30 p.m., jueves, 2 de mayo del 2013, en el auditorio de Consejo de Ia Ciudad,sexto piso, Dallas City Hall, que enfrenta a Ia calle Young entre las calles Akard y Ervay.La Comision de Planificacion puede aprobar un distrito de zonificacion diferente del solicitado, exceptoque este nuevo distrito no puede (1) tener altura maxima, proporcion del area del edificio y el area delterrene, o densidad mayores a las solicitadas; (2) o ser 'no residencial" cuando el distrito solicitado espara usos residenciales y viceversa.Una segunda audiencia publica se puede efectuar por el Concilio de Ia Ciudad en cuya oportunidad sehara una decision final en el asunto de Ia zonificacion. Si Ia peticion se recomienda para suaprobacion, a usted se le enviara par correo un aviso de Ia audiencia ante el Concilio de Ia Ciudad. Sise recomienda su rechazo, el peticionario tiene diez (10) dfas para enviar una carta de apelacion. Si elcaso se apela, a usted se le avisara por correo del aviso de Ia audiencia ante el Concilio de Ia Ciudad.Para informacion en ingles, contacte a Megan Wimer al214-670-4131. Para informacion en espanol,contacte a Olga Torres-Holyoak en el Departamento de Desarrollo y Construccion Sostenible al (214)670-4525.

e g ~ ; ~ i ~ e rPlanificadora Principal


20/70

The area o request is hatched Zl Notification is sent to allp r ~ r t y owners within the notification buffer area shown y the dashedCircle). Your property is not being rezoned i you are outside o thehatched area. If your property is not within the hatched area, you arereceiving this notice only to let you know of the request.

1:4 800

NOTIFICATIONAREA OF NOTIFICATIONNUMBER OF PROPERTYOWNERS NOTIFIED

,,,,72

Case no: =Z:...:1_;1.=2:....:: 2=.:6::..:5=...__Date: _4_11_8_12_ _1_3


21/70

GENERAL INFORMATION ONCITY PLAN COMMISSIONPUBLIC HEARINGS

The City Plan Commission is a recommending body to the City Council on all zoning matters.The City Plan Commission forwards its recommendation to the City Council after conducting apublic hearing. The City Plan Commission may recommend, and the City Council mayapprove, a different zoning district than the one requested, provided the district does not havea maximum structure height, floor area ratio or density that is higher than the one requested; orbe nonresidential when the one requested has r e ~ i d e n t i l uses or vice versa.A second public hearing may be held by the City Council at which time a final decision will bemade on the zoning matter. If the application is recommended for approval, you will be maileda notice of the hearing before City Council. If the application is recommended for denial, theapplicant has ten 1 0) days in which to send a letter o appeal. If the case is appealed, you willbe mailed a notice o the hearing before City Council.ublic Input

You are encouraged to attend the public hearing to give your opinion on the zoning change. Atthe City Plan Commission public hearing, the applicant and those in favor o the zoningchange will be allotted 15 minutes to speak and those opposed to the zoning change will alsohave 15 minutes to speak. The Commission may set other time limits on speakers at thepublic hearings.Your written reply is also very important and may have a bearing on the vote required by theCity Council to grant the request at a later hearing. It is suggested that the enclosed reply formbe used to express your feelings on this matter prior to the hearing. Please return thecompleted reply form to the address shown on the form no later than noon on the Wednesdayprior to the hearing.Location and TimeAll public hearings are held in the City Council Chambers on the sixth floor o the Dallas CityHall, which faces Young Street between Akard Street and Ervay Street. (See map on the backfor location.) The City Plan Commission meetings are scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m.

For general questions, please contact the Department o Sustainable Development andConstruction at (214) 670-4209.Si desea information en espanol, favor de habla a Olga Torres Holyoak al teletono (214) 670-4525.


22/70

Location map for Dallas ity Hall

From East Dallas on 1-30Take the Ervay Exit 45 (from the left lane) and turn right at the second light on Ervay.From South Dallas on Northbound 1-45Take the exit for westbound 1-30 but take the Ervay Exit 45 before getting onto 1-30. Turn right onErvay at the second light.From Oak Cliff on 1-35Turn on East 1-30 but stay on the access road, marked Lamar and Griffin. Continue on the access roaduntil the second exit, which is the Cadiz exit. Go right on Cadiz and turn left on Akard.From North Dallas on Central Expressway, Hwy 75Take the exit 284a for westbound 1-30 but take the Ervay Exit 45 before getting onto 1-30. Turn righton Ervay at the second light.From Northwest Dallas on Southbound 1-35Take the exit for eastbound 1-30 but stay in the second lane from the left at the 1-30 exit. Exit onto theaccess road o 1-30 marked Lamar and Griffin to go to the Cadiz exit, (second exit). Go right on Cadizand turn left on Akard.From West Dallas on Eastbound 1-30As 1-30 merges with traffic from 1-35 take the access road of 1-30 marked Lamar and Griffin to go to theCadiz exit, (second exit). Go right on Cadiz and turn left on Akard.


23/70

JUNTA PUBLICA LA COMISIONDE PLANIFICACION2 de mayo del 2013 CITY OFDALLAS

REPLYFORMCASE NO:

Z112-265 MW)Esta notificaci6n se le ha enviado porque su propiedad o propiedades estan en el area o cerca del area en donde hanhecho una petici6n para un cambia de zona. Como dueiio de propiedad, usted puede estar a favor o en contra de estapetici6n. Para que su voto cuente, esta forma debe ser recibida antes de las doce del dfa anterior al dfa de Ia juntapublica Ia Comision de Planificaci6n.Solo el original de esta forma o una respuesta escrita que cumpla con los requisites del C6digo de Desarrollo de IaCiudad de Dallas, Secci6n 51 A-4. 701 puede ser usado. Fotocopias y facsimiles de esta forma no seran aceptadas.-----------------III

1 Para mas informacion contacte a OlgaTorres Holyoak al teletono 214) 670-4525 o1 [email protected]_ _________________

@iiiiiiYo estoy autorizado a) a firmar esta forma porque yo soy .. Marque solo un cuadro.)IndividualD Dueiio a) de PropiedadD Autorizado por poder de abogadoD Representando Ia mayorfa de losPropietarios

Negocio/Organ zaci6nD Presidente/VicepresidenteD Socia GeneralD Abogado ResponsableCondominiosD Administrador*D Propietario Unico **

*Yo estoy autorizado a) a firmar como representante de Ia asociaci6n de dueiios de Ia propiedad y de acuerdo a lasregulaciones del conjunto residencial.** El dueiio de un condominia debe incluir una copia del documento legal que le autoriza como propietario individualel derecho a actuar separadamente del grupo administrative de los condominios.@ii#11ndique Ia direcci6n o direcciones) de su propiedad si es diferente de Ia direcci6n en Ia etiqueta arriba.No indique un buz6n de correo por favor). Si usted es dueiio de varias propiedades; devuelva por favor todoslos impresos.Direcci6n de calle:

@iiifllndique si esta a favor o en contra de Ia petici6n de cambio de zona:D A Favor DEn ContraComentarios:

@iiit Firma abajo: Para que esta forma sea valida, Ia fecha y Ia hora en que usted firm6 debe ser incluida. Doble Iaforma como se indica en el reverso de esta hoja y envfela por correo o entreguela personalmente. Para que su votosea contado, esta forma debe ser recibida antes de las dace del dfa, el dfa anterior a Ia junta publica Ia Comision dePlanificaci6n.

Firma y titulo si es a plica) Firma y titulo si es aplica)

Fecha y hora debe proveer las dos) Fecha y hora debe proveer las dos)Es un crimen proveer informacion falsa en esta forma. Texas, C6digo Penal 37.1 0 Revised December 2008


24/70

Z112-265 MW)

Second - fold here)

City of DallasDept of Sustainable Development Construction1500 Marilla StreetRoom 5 B North - City HallDallas, Texas 75201

ITY OF DALLAS OFFICIAL REPLY

First - fold here)

r F ~ llass

1 Postage 1L J


25/70

CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE a REPLY CASE NO:May 22 2013 FORM Z112-265 MW)CITY OF DALLASThis notice has been sent to you because your property or properties) is in or near the area of a proposed zoning changs a property owner, you can support or oppose this request. To be counted, this form must be received before noon on thbusiness day before the City Council hearing date.Only the original of this reply form or a written reply that complies with Dallas Development Code Section 51A-4.701 may beused. Faxes or ~ h o t o c o ~ i e s of this reQIY form will not be a c c e ~ t e d

- - i For information contact Megan Wimer atI 214 )670-4131 orI [email protected] desea informacion en espaiiol, favor deI llamar a Olga Torres Holyoak al telefono 214670-4525.- - -

f ii hll I am authorized to sign this form because I am . Check only one box.)Individual Business/Organization CondominiumD Property owner D PresidenWice President D Governing body*D Authorized by a power of attorney D General Partner D Individual owner**D Representing a majority of property owners D Attorney in fact

* am authorized to sign by the governing body of the condominium in accordance with its bylaws.** A condominium unit owner must enclose a copy of the legal document that gives the individual owner the right to actseparately from the governing body.

f i i a i l ~ List the street address es) of your property i f different than the address on the label above.Do not list a P.0. Box.) If you own multiple properties under different appraisal districtaccount names, you may receive multiple forms; please return all of the forms.

Street Address:

f iia:tE Indicate your support or opposition to the proposed zoning change request:D Support D OpposedComments:

f iiaill Sign below. For this form to be valid 1 the date and time y:ou signed must be grovided. Fold thform as indicated on the reverse side and return it by mail or hand delivery. To be counted, this form must breceived before noon on the business day: before the City: Council hearing date.

Signature and Title if applicable) Signature and Title if applicable)

Date and Time both must be provided) Date and Time both must be provided)It is a crime to knowingly submit a false zoning reply form. Texas Penal Code 37.10 Revised: December 200


26/70

Z112-265 {MW

Second- fold here)

City of DallasDept of Sustainable Development & Construction1500 Marilla Street .Room 5 B North - City HallDallas, Texas 752 1


First- fold here)

:' '' ''' ' ''' ' ' ' ' ' '' \FirstClassPostage l


27/70

CITY O DALLAS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING O ZONING CHANGE REQUESTWEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013CASE NO. Z112-265 MW)Dear Property Owner:You are hereby notified that the Dallas Council will consider the following request:

Z112-265 MW) - An application for 1) a Planned Development District for MU-3 MixedUse District uses on property zoned a GO(A) General Office District, an MU-3 (SAH)Mixed Use District (Affordable) and a portion of Subdistrict E in POD No. 305, Cityplace,on the northeast corner o North Central Expressway and North Carroll Avenue and for2) a new subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 305 on property zonedSubdistrict E within the POD on the northeast corner of North Central Expressway andNorth Haskell AvenueA Planned Development District is proposed on a 16.158-acre portion of the requestsite to accommodate a retail development with design standards. A new subdistrictwithin POD No. 305 is proposed on a 10.596-acre portion of the request site to create adata center use and associated parking ratio. This will allow existing office buildings tobe utilized for that purpose.

Please refer to the opposite side of this notice for a general location of the subject property. Theshaded area is the property included in this request. Your property is not a part of this application if it isoutside o the shaded area. If your property is outside the shaded area, you received a notice of thehearing because your property is within the area of notification as required by law.The City Council will hold a public hearing on this zoning request at 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 22,2013, in the City Council Chambers on the sixth floor of Dallas City Hall, which faces Young Streetbetween Akard Street and Ervay Street.The City Council may approve a different zoning district than the one requested, except that thedifferent district may not ( 1) have a maximum structure height, floor area ratio, or density that is higherthan the one requested; or (2) be nonresidential when the one requested is for residential uses or viceversa.On May 2 2013, the City Plan Commission recommended approval of a new Planned DevelopmentDistrict or MU-3 Mixed Use District uses; subject to a conceptual plan and conditions and approval of anew subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 305 subject to conditions.Please contact Megan Wimer in the Department of Sustainable Development and Construction at (214)670-4131 for additional information on this request. Si desea informacion en espafiol, favor de llamar aOlga Torres-Holyoak al (214) 670-4525.Sincerely,

enior Planner


28/70

The area o request is hatched CZJ . Notification is sent to allproperty owners within the notification buffer area (shown by the dashedcircle). Your property is not being rezoned i you are outside o hehatched area. If your property is not within the hatched area, you arereceiving this notice only to let you know o the request.

1:4 800

The number 0 indicates City of Dallas Ownership

NOTIFICATIONAREA O NOTIFICATIONNUMBER OF PROPERTYOWNERS NOTIFIED

Case no: = Z = = 1 ~ 1 = 2 : : 2 = 6 = 5 =4/18/2013Date:


29/70

CITY OF DALLASAVISO E LA AUDIENCIA PUBLICA PARA UN CAMBIO E ZONAMIERCOLES, MAYO 22 DEL 2013NO. DEL CASO. Z112-265 MW)

Estimado Duefio de Propiedad:Por este media se le notifica que el Consejo de Ia Ciudad de Dallas considerara Ia siguiente peticion:

Z112-265 MW)- Una peticion para 1) un Distrito Planeado de Desarrollo para usos del MU-3Distrito de Usos Mixtos en propiedad con zona GO(A) Distrito de Oficinas Generales, un MU-3SAH) Distrito de Usos Mixtos (asequible) y una porcion del Subdistrito E dentro del DistritoPlaneado de Desarrollo No 305, Cityplace, en Ia esquina noroeste de North CentralExpressway y North Carroll Avenue y para 2) un nuevo subdistrito dentro del Distrito Planeadode Desarrollo No. 305 en propiedad con zona Subdistrito E dentro del Distrito Planeado deDesarrollo en Ia esquina noroeste de North Central Expressway y North Haskell Avenue.El solicitante propane crear un Distrito Planeado de Desarrollo en un area de 16.158 acrespara utilizar Ia propiedad para usos comerciales con estandares de disefio. El solicitantetambiem pro pone un nuevo subdistrito dentro del POD No 305 en una porcion de 10.596acres del area propuesta, para crear un uso para un "banco de datos" y estacionamiento paraeste uso. La nueva zona va a permitir que los edificios existentes se manipulen para esteproposito.

Por favor, refierase al otro lado de este aviso para una ubicacion general de Ia propiedad en cuestion.El area con rayas anchas es Ia propiedad que se incluye en esta petic on. Su propiedad no es parte deesta peticion si esta fuera de esta area. Si su propiedad esta fuera del area indicada con lineasgruesas. El area de notificaci6n esta marcada con lineas cortas segmentadas. Usted recibi6 elaviso porque su propiedad esta dentro del area de notificaci6n como lo exige Ia ley.El Consejo de Ia Ciudad va a efectuar una audiencia publica sabre esta peticion de zonificacion a Ia1:00 p.m., miercoles, 22 de mayo del 2013, en el auditorio de Consejo de Ia Ciudad, sexto piso,Dallas City Hall, que enfrenta a Ia calle Young entre las calles Akard y Ervay.El Consejo de Ia Ciudad puede aprobar un distrito de zonificacion diferente del solicitado, excepto queeste nuevo distrito no puede (1) tener altura maxima, proporcion del area del edificio y el area delterrene, o densidad mayores a las solicitadas; (2) o ser 'no residencial" cuando el distrito solicitado espara usos residenciales y viceversa.En mayo 2 del 2013, Ia Comision de Planificacion recomendo aprobacion de un nuevo DistritoPlaneado de Desarrollo para usos de un MU-3 Distrito de Uso Mixtos, sujeta a un plan conceptual ycondiciones y aprobacion de un nuevo subdistrito dentro del Distrito Planeado de Desarrollo No 305sujeto a condiciones.Para informacion en ingles, contacte a Megan Wimer al 214-670-4131. Para informacion en espafiol,contacte a Olga Torres-Holyoak en el Departamento de Desarrollo y Construccion Sostenible al (214)670-4525.


30/70

The area of request is hatched [ ] Notification is sent to allproJ?Srty owners within the notification buffer area {shown by the dashedCircle . Your property is not being rezoned if you are outside o hehatched area. If your property is not within the hatched area, you arereceiving this notice only to let you know of the request

1:4 800

NOTIFICATIONAREA O NOTIFICATIONNUMBER OF PROPERTYOWNERS NOTIFIED

Case no _ _ . : : : : Z : . . . . : 1 . . . : 1 = 2 ~ 2 : : . . : 6 : : . . . : 5 : : _ _ _4 18 2013Date


31/70

GENERAL INFORMATION OCITY COUNCIL MEETINGSPUBLIC HEARINGS

The City Council makes the final decision on zoning matters for the City of Dallas. TheCouncil reviews the City Planning Commission recommendations, staff recommendation, andthe merits o the case in determining their decision. The Council may recommend, and the CityCouncil may approve, a different zoning district than the one requested, provided the districtdoes not have a maximum structure height, floor area ratio or density that is higher than theone requested; or be nonresidential when the one requested has residential uses or viceversa.

Public InputYou are encouraged to attend the public hearing to give your opinion on the zoning change.The applicant and those in favor of the request and those opposed to the request will have 3minutes per person to present their arguments before the City Council. If a large group ispresent to oppose the request, it is suggested that one or two speakers be selected as arepresentative( s .Your written reply is also very important and may have a bearing on the vote required by theCity Council to grant the request. It is suggested that the enclosed reply form be used toexpress your feelings on this matter prior to the hearing. Please return the completed replyform to the address shown on the form no later than noon on the Tuesday prior to the hearing.

Location and TimeCity Council public hearings are held in the City Council Chambers on the sixth floor of theDallas City Hall, which faces Young Street between Akard Street and Ervay Street. See mapon back for location. The City Council public hearings are scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m.

For general questions, please contact the Department of Sustainable Development andConstruction at (214) 670-4209.Si desea informacion en espafiol, favor de Hamar a Olga Torres Holyoak al (214) 670-4525.


32/70

Location map for Dallas ity Hall

From East Dallas on 1-30Take the Ervay Exit 45 (from the left lane) and turn right at the second light on Ervay.From South Dallas on Northbound 1-45Take the exit for westbound 1-30 but take the Ervay Exit 45 before getting onto 1-30. Turn right onErvay at the second light.From Oak Cliff on 1-35Turn on East 1-30 but stay on the access road, marked Lamar and Griffin. Continue on the access roaduntil the second exit, which is the Cadiz exit. Go right on Cadiz and turn left on Akard.From North Dallas on Central Expressway, Hwy 75

Take the exit 284a for westbound 1-30 but take the Ervay Exit 45 before getting onto 1-30. Turn righton Ervay at the second light.From Northwest Dallas on Southbound 1-35Take the exit for eastbound 1-30 but stay in the second lane from the left at the 1-30 exit. Exit onto theaccess road of 1-30 marked Lamar and Griffin to go to the Cadiz exit, (second exit). Go right on Cadizand turn left on Akard.From West Dallas on Eastbound 1-30

As 1-30 merges with traffic from 1-35 take the access road of 1-30 marked Lamar and Griffin to go to theCadiz exit, (second exit). Go right on Cadiz and turn left on Akard.


33/70

JUNTA PUBLICA DEL CONSEJODE LACIUDAD22.de mayo del 2013 CITY OF DALLAS

REPLYFORMCASE NO:

Z112-265 MW)Esta notificaci6n se le ha enviado porque su propiedad o propiedades estan en el area o cerca del area en donde hahecho una petici6n para un cambia de zona. Como duefio de propiedad, usted puede estar a favor o en contra de estpetici6n. Para que su voto cuente, esta forma debe ser recibida antes de las dace del dfa anterior al dla de Ia junta publicdel Consejo de Ia Ciudad.

Solo el original de esta forma o una respuesta escrita que cumpla con los requisites del C6digo de Desarrollo de IaCiudad de Dallas, Secci6n 51A-4.701 puede ser usado. Fotocopias y facsimiles de esta forma no serari aceptadas.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1II

I Para mas informacion contacte a OlgaTorres Holyoak al t h ~ f o n o 214) 670-4525o [email protected] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - @ii3:111Yo estoy autorizado a) a firmar esta forma porque yo soy .. Marque solo un cuadro.)

IndividualD Duefio a) de PropiedadD Autorizado par poder de abogadoD Representando Ia mayorfa de losPropietarios

Negocio/OrganizacionD Presidente/VicepresidenteD Socia GeneralD Abogado ResponsableCondominiosD Administrador*D Propietario Unico **

*Yo estoy autorizado a) a firmar como representante de Ia asociaci6n de duefios de Ia propiedad y de acuerdo a lasregulaciones del conjunto residencial.** l duefio de un condominia debe incluir una copia del documento legal que le autoriza como propietario individualel derecho a actuar separadamente del grupo administrative de los condominios.

@ii3 11ndique Ia direccion (o direcciones) de su propiedad si es diferente de Ia direccion en Ia etiqueta arriba.(No indique un buzon de correo por favor). Si usted es dueno de varias propiedades; devuelva por favor todoslos impresos.Direcci6n:

@iiij:&lndique si esta a favor o en contra de Ia peticion de cambio de zona:D A Favor DEn ContraComentarios:

@ii3:111Firma abajo: Para que esta forma sea valida, Ia fecha y Ia hora en que usted firm6 debe ser incluida. Doble Iaforma como se indica en el reverse de esta hoja y envlela par correo o entn3guela personalmente. Para que su votosea contado, esta forma debe ser recibida antes de las dace del dla, el dla anterior a Ia junta publica del Consejo de IaCiudad.

Firma y titulo si es aplica) Firma y titulo si es aplica)

Fecha y hora debe pro veer las dos) Fecha y hora debe proveer las dos)

Es un crimen proveer informacion falsa en esta forma. Texas, C6digo Penal 37.10) Revisado Diciembre 2008


34/70

Z112-265 MW)

Second -fold here)

City of DallasDept of Sustainable Development &Construction1500 Marilla StreetRoom 5 B North - City HallDallas, Texas 752 1


First- fold here)

:''''' '''''''''' ''''''' '\

l First 11 Class i

PostageL J


35/70

CAUSE NO. 14-07239-1

EAST VILLAGE ASSOCIATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

PLAINTIFF

V.

THE CITY OF DALLAS, MICHAEL

ANGLIN, NEIL EMMONS, EMMA

RODGERS, BETTY CULBREATH,

TONY SHIDID, ANN BAGLEY,

JED ANANTASOMBOON, MYRTL M.

LAVALLAISAA, GLORIA TARPLEY,

JOHN SHELLENE, JAYNIE SCHULTZ,

COOKIE PEADON, MARGOT MURPHY,

PAUL E. RIDLEY, AND ROBERT

ABTAHI IN THEIR OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE

CITY PLAN COMMISSION; LARRY

HOLMES IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL; AND

TC CENTRAL ASSOCIATES, LLC

DEFENDANTS.

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

162nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT TC CENTRAL ASSOCIATES. LLC'S BRIEF IN

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Comes now TC Central Associates, LLC ("TC Central"), named as a Defendant herein,

and files this its Trial Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Application for Temporary Injunction

("Application"), and in support thereof respectfully shows as follows:

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff East Village Association ("EVA") filed its Application for

Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and for temporary and permanent injunctive relief,

DEFENDANT TC CENTRAL ASSOCIATES, LLC'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - Page 1 of 12

Kimberly F

DALLAS

7/24/2014 2:

GARY FITZS

DISTRI


36/70

seeking to effectively shut down TC Central's East Village Development (the "Development").

Plaintiffs contention was, and continues tobe, that Dallas City Ordinance 29019, approved by a

unanimous vote of the City Council action over one year ago, is void due to alleged defective

notices issued by the City prior to approval of the Ordinance. After a short hearing before

Associate Judge McFarlin, in which Defendant the City of Dallas ("City") urged its Plea to the

Jurisdiction, Judge McFarlin granted the Plea and held that Plaintiffs TRO Application was

premature. Because the activity that was sought tobe restrained (i.e., a hearing scheduledbefore

the City of Dallas City Plan Commission ("CPC") to approve the final site plan for the

Development) occurred the next day, Plaintiff filed an Amended Petition and sought a new TRO.

This time, Plaintiffs aim was directed at any discretionary act tobe taken by the City of Dallas

in furtherance of the construction of the Developmentbased on Ordinance 29019. On Friday,

July 11, 2014, Judge Emily Tobolowsky (sitting for the assigned Judge, Honorable Phyllis Lister

Brown) entered a TRO, restraining only the issuance of abuilding permit by the City of Dallas

pending hearing on Plaintiffs Application.

II.

BACKGROUND FACTS

EVA was formed, according to its governing documents, on July 8, 2014, the day before

its first TRO request. Plaintiff has declined to furnish the names of any of its members who

lived within the statutory notice area of the Development at the time the notices from the City in

this case were sent, other than member David Shaw.

Trammell Crow Company ("Crow") is a sixty-six year old real estate developer which is

considered iconic in Texas. Crow has been responsible for virtually "building the Dallas

skyline," in the words of a former Dallas mayor. Many of its achievements are of the skyscraper




37/70

variety (e.g., Chase Tower, Trammell Crow Center), while other developments, ranging from

multi-family structures to shopping centers, permeate the Dallas/Ft. Worth landscape. Crow has

represented and continues to represent the dynamism that exemplifies the growth and prosperity

of the greater Dallas area.

In keeping with its historical work, Crow envisioned a development opportunity in the

aging Xerox Corporation campus located near downtown Dallas near Cityplace, itself a well-

known Dallas landmark. The approximate 26.5 acre tract was incapable of acceptable

development due to its 3 different zoning districts: Go(A); Mu-3(SAH); and Subdistrict E ("East

Mixed Use"). Thus, no worthwhile development could be achieved unless and until a single

zoning district was achieved. Recognizing the potential for development, Crow (through its

subsidiary TC Central), approached Xerox Corporation, the tract owner, and negotiated a

purchase of the entire tract. Importantly, closing on the transaction was expressly conditioned on

a change in zoning to a unified Planned Development District ("PD"), which would by

definition give TC Central maximum flexibility in developing mixed-use district containing

retail use, multi-family uses and a merchandise or food store of 100,000 square foot or more.

An application for change of zoning was first made on behalf of Xerox in mid-June 2012.

The application was then amended, but in each instance, the application carried with it the

requirement that a general merchandise or food store of 100,000 square feet or more wouldbe an

integral part of the development. City staff undertook its study and after lengthy negotiations

between the City and TC Central (which included at least one public town hall meeting), the

CPC noticed apublic hearing and considered and approved the PD at apublic meeting on May 2,

2013. The CPC recommended approvalby the full City Council, which tookplace, after public

notice, at a regularly-scheduled public meeting held on May 22, 2013.




38/70

In reliance upon the lengthy process that led up to unanimous Council approval, TC

Central undertook to negotiate with potential anchor tenants, including food stores and other

general merchandise entities. It was in August 2013 that TC Central entered into apreliminary

agreement with Sam's Club to serve as the anchor tenant in the development. TC Central then

negotiated and obtained significant financing and let contracts for construction work including

grading, demolition, and asbestos abatement in existing buildings. Numerous other activities

inherent in a development of this size have already taken place in the 14 months since Council

approval of Ordinance 29019. Numerous commitments have been made, and TC Central is

poised to begin additional work, all of which is time-sensitive. All of these commitments, as

well as TC Central's investments, have been made in reliance upon the validity of Ordinance

29019.

III.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the City of Dallas (and, by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683

anyparty in active concert andparticipation therewith)based on its single claim:

"As set forth in detail, Plaintiff has established aprobable right to the relief they

seek upon final hearing. The current zoning for the Development is void and

has no force or effect because the notice of zoning use change did not disclose

that the change would permit a 100,000+ square foot merchandise store."

(First Amended Petition ("Petition"183.) (Emphasis added).

This portion of the Petition is found under the section denominated "Request for

Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief." Thus, it is the only basis assertedby the Plaintiff

for the issuance of an injunction.

Standards for the granting of an injunction are well-known and well-established in Texas.

A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and does not issue as a matter of right.




39/70

Butnaru v . FordMotor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002); Walling v . Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d

56, 57 (Tex. 1993). A party asking for a temporary injunction seeks extraordinary equitable

relief. WilsonN.JonesMem 'IHosp. v. Huff, 188 S.W.3d 215,218, Tex.App.-Dallas 2003,pet.

denied). Furthermore, extraordinary equitable relief of an injunction mustbe carefully regulated

and confined to proper cases. Associated Gen. Contractors of Tex. Inc. v . City ofElPaso, 932

S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1996, no pet.). To obtain a temporary injunction, the

applicant mustplead andprove: (1) a cause of action against the Defendant; (2) aprobable right

to the relief sought; and (3) aprobable, imminent and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru,

84 S.W.3d at 204; Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 57; Sun Oil Company v. Whitaker, 424 S.W.2d 216,

218 (Tex. 1968).

Thepurpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve thestatus quo of the subject matter

of a suit pending a trial on the merits. El TacasoInc. v .Jireh Star,Inc., 356 S.W.3d 740 (Tex.

App.-Dallas, 2011), no.pet.). The element relating to "probable injury" includes the elements

of imminent harm, irreparable injury, and no adequate remedy at law. Univ. of Tex.Med. Sch. v .

Than, 834 S.W.2d 425, 428 (Tex. App.-

Houston [1st

Dist.] 1992, no writ). A trial court does

not abuse its discretion by denying an application for temporary injunction if the applicant did

notprove any one of the requirements for a temporary injunction. Matrix NetworkInc. v . Ginn,

211 S.W.3d 994, 997 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.).

III.

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

A. Overview.

Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff can overcome thejurisdictional and standing objections

lodged byboth the City and TC Central, even a cursory review of Plaintiff's Petition makes it




40/70

clear that Plaintiff cannot meet the heavy burden required to obtain its desired injunctive relief.

The deficiencies are discussed infra, but it should be noted at the outset that Plaintiff cleverly

focuses its request against the City and its officials, and not directly against TC Central, in an

effort to minimize its bond obligation in the event of an injunction (Petition, 88). Plaintiff

asserts that since the City has "nopecuniary interest in the suit and no monetary damages canbe

shown" that the Court, in issuing an injunction, should fix the bond at a nominal amount.

(Petition, 88). This, of course, is apatently false construct of their "case," and an attempt at

shameless manipulation. TC Central is in the dead center of Plaintiffs target zone, given its

huge investment to date in the Development and its multiple commitments to multiple third-

parties, including Sam's Club. All of these commitments have been incurred since the ordinance

in question was adopted by the Dallas City Council on May 22, 2013. Indeed, TC Central's

original acquisition of the land was expressly conditioned upon the adoption of the subject

ordinance. Every action taken by TC Central has therefore been in full reliance upon the

ordinance being in place and on the City Council's unanimous approval thereof. Neither

Plaintiff itself nor its "confidential" membership bears any burden whatsoever, financial or

otherwise, so the comparative hardships faced asbetween Plaintiff and TC Central are enormous

and one-sided. Indeed, EVA was formed literally the day before it sought its first TRO, and its

primary purpose is transparently the attempted advancement of financial interests of its

members, despite the euphemistic rhetoric it markets in its governing documents.

B. Plaintiff Has No Cause of Action" Against TC Central.

With the foregoing in mind, it is apparent that Plaintiff seeks to "have its cake and eat it

too"by casting its claims as ones for declaratory relief. It has no direct claim against TC Central

-no "cause of action against this Defendant," and seeks to satisfy the first element of an




41/70

injunction action by focusing on the City's action in noticing hearings lending to thepassage of

Ordinance 29019. Theirpublic stance is hollow and misleading, given the requirement of Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure 683 that an injunction, once issued, is binding "upon the parties to the

action" and "upon those persons in active concert or participation with them." Thus, while

Plaintiff may facially and superficially satisfy the first element of a "cause of action" against this

Defendant, substantively it fails to meet that requirement.

C. Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate "Probable Right" to Recovery.

In order to prevail and demonstrate its "probable right," Plaintiff has chosen a single

avenue of attack: purported faulty notices issuedby the City. Inherent in that approach is the

concession that notices required by statute were indeed given, thus reducing Plaintiffs inquiry to

a question of "how much information is enough" to satisfy the requirements. While "insufficient

notice" cases are few in number, the one that stands out and is of greatest interest to this Court

(and from which Plaintiff quotes a stray statement out of context) actually supports TC Central's

and the City'sposition in this case that the notices given were more than adequate.

Midway Protective League v . City of Dallas, 552 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. Civ. App.-

Texarkana 1977, writ refd n.r.e.), involved a notice issued by the City advising the residents that

the zoning in question would be changed to permit shopping center district uses, but did not

include the fact that the shopping center would be classified as "dry." Id. at 173. On its own

motion, and well after thepublic hearing required for the rezoning, the City Council determined

on its own motion to impose a "dry" classification. In upholding the City's defense of sufficient

notice, the Court noted that although the notice was general, it was "sufficient to advise that a

planned development for a shopping center was under consideration." It went on to say that

notice is sufficient if "it reasonably apprises those for whom it was intended of the nature of the

DEFENDANT TCCENTRAL ASSOCIATES, LLC'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION



42/70

pendingproposal" and warns recipients that they may be affected by the contemplated action.

Id. at 175. This isprecisely what the notices in this case accomplished. The Court also observed

that the notice need not be complete in every respect but that it "mustbe such as will afford the

recipient an opportunity to oppose the measure if he desires." Therefore, unless changes are

made "that are so substantial that the proposal can be said to be a new one," the notice is

sufficient. Id. (citing City of Corpus Christi v . Jones, 144 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. Civ. App.-San

Antonio 1940, writ, dism'd);Amarillo v. Wagner, 326 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo

1959, writ ref d n.r.e.) (ordinance voided because the Court found an absence of notice rather

than an insufficiency)).

Plaintiff cannot meet the second element required for the issuance of a temporary

injunction.

D. Plaintiffs Alleged Injury Illusory.

Even more illustrative of Plaintiff s inability to meet its heavy burden is the lack of any

true "immediate, irreparable injury." First, it is obvious that EVA itself can suffer no injury: it

owns noproperty, and therefore owns none within 200 feet of the Development. It was not even

formed for purposes for which non-profit organizations can statutorily be organized. Even

Plaintiff makes nopretense of the ability of EVA to satisfy the injury element. The inquiry thus

focuses on unnamed (with few exceptions) EVA members and their complaints about the Sam's

Club. In every instance cited by Plaintiff, the "injury" is hypothetical, speculative, and purely

subjective: increased traffic, and "suppression" of their property values are the main recurring

complaints.

Texas courts-including the Dallas Court of Appeals-have consistently held that an

applicant for injunctive relief must show the existence of a "probable, imminent and irreparable




43/70

injury." Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204;Matrix, 211 S.W.3d at 948;Amend v. Watson, 333 S.W.3d

625, 629 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009). (installation by neighboring landowner of sewer line on

Applicant'sproperty found to be insufficient to demonstrate "probable, imminent and irreparable

injury" despite complaints of trespass, speculative loss of trees, and potential sewer main

leakage). TheAmend Court concluded that "fear and apprehension of injury are not sufficient to

support a temporary injunction." Id. (citing Matrix, 211 S.W.3d 947-48). Here, all Plaintiffs

members can show is an overstated, theoretical "parade of horribles" instead of actual injury.

Plaintiff itself has no injury. The members cite "fear and apprehension" as theirs. On this

element as well, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden.

E. Comparative Harm: "Balancing the Equities."

A secondary consideration, albeit very important in this case, involves a comparison of

harm that will result from the issuance of an injunction. This factor merits strong consideration

by the Court. Texas courts are required, in exercising their discretion, to "take into account other

considerations evident on the face of thepleadings and in the evidence," including the issue of

comparative injury or a "balancing of the equities and hardships" (including a consideration of

thepublic interest). MethodistHosp. ofDallas v . Tex. Indu.AccidentBd., 798 S.W.2d 651, 660

(Tex. App.-Austin 1990, writ dism'd w.o.j.). See also, Computek Computer & Office Supplies

Inc. v . Walton, 156 S.W.3d 217, 220 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, nopet.). ("Because an injunction

is an equitable remedy, a trial court weighs the respective conveniences and hardships of the

parties andbalances the equities.").

The effect of a temporary injunction would be to shut down the next steps in the

Development process: preparing infrastructure required in order to carry out asbestos abatement

in existingbuildings and a demolition thereof; opening the door to the invocation of "insecurity"




44/70

or other default provisions in existing agreements; and creating "domino effect" on the many

steps involved for completion of the Development, as each step in theprocess is dependent upon

prior actions. In short order, TC Central would find itself unable to deliver a building site to

Sam's Club, which would in turn open the door for substantial delay damages. Meanwhile,

Plaintiffblithely ignores the fact that the cost meter would continue unabated, with the reality of

carrying charges and the prospects of delay penalties looming. The equities overwhelmingly

favor TC Central in this case and weigh strongly against injunctive relief.

F. TheStatus Quo Would be Altered, Not Preserved, by the Issuance of An Injunction.

Aspreviously indicated, the purpose of a temporary injunction is topreserve thestatus

quopending final adjudication. Status quo has been defined as the last, actual, peaceable, non-

contested status that preceded the pending controversy. JaniusFilmsInc. v . City of Fort Worth,

358 S.W.2d 589 (1962). It is also settled law that a trial court will not decide disputed ultimate

factual issues in a hearing on an application for temporary injunction, nor will a temporary

injunction issue if the applicant would thereby obtain substantially all the relief that isproperly

obtainable in a final hearing. See, e.g.,DallasIndep. Sch.Dist. v. Daniel, 323 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.

Civ. App.-Dallas 1959, writ ref d n.r.e.); Texas Foundries Inc. v . Int'l Molders & Foundry

Workers Union, 248 S.W.2d 460 (1952). Here, the last actual, peaceable, non-contested status

that existed prior to this controversy was at a time after May 22, 2013 (the date on which the

Dallas City Council unanimously approved Ordinance 29019). An injunction in the form

requested by Plaintiff could alter rather thanpreserve thestatus quo. As if that were not enough,

the granting of a temporary injunction in this case would have the effect of granting to Plaintiff

all of the relief it could hope for at a final hearing.




45/70

As noted earlier, this discussion brings to life pragmatic, hugely material issues

associated with Plaintiffs desired relief, because all of the hardship will be visited upon TC

Central if injunctive relief is issued. All of the financial, reputational, and contractual

obligations will remain or, worse, escalate. In addition, the public interest would hardly be

served by the issuance of injunctive relief. That is because a development that is shut down

often has the earmarks of an abandoned project. Thus, a Sam's Club and other facilities that

meet design standards that have both practical and aesthetic value would be replaced by

incomplete grading and other halted work. Ironically, the very citizens who purport to be

aggrieved by a Sam's Club built to design standards would undoubtedly then be heard to

complain about the very urban blight they attribute to the planned construction.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons set forth, TC Central Associates, LLC prays that upon hearing, the

Court deny Plaintiffs Application for Temporary Relief respectfully and for such other and

further relief to which Defendant may show itself entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

WINSTEAD PC

2728 N. Harwood Street

500 Winstead Building

Dallas, Texas 75201

214-745-5709 (telephone)

214-745-5390 (facsimile)

By /s/JavJ.Madrid

Jay J. Madrid, Esq. SB#12802000Art Anderson, Esq. SB#01165957

Stephen R. Clarke, Esq. SB#24069517

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENANT

TC CENTRAL ASSOCIATES, LLC




46/70

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This will certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was provided to

counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on July 24, 2014.

Christopher D. Bowers, Esq.

Christopher J. Caso, Esq.

City Attorney's Office

7BN Dallas City Hall

1500 Marilla Street

Dallas, Texas 75201-6318

214-670-3475 (Telephone)

214-670-0622 (Fax)



P. Michael Jung, Esq.

Strasburger & Price LLP

901 Main Street, Suite 4400

Dallas, Texas 75202

214-651-4724 (Telephone)

214-659-4022 (Fax)

Anthony Ricciardelli, Esq.

Brown Fox Kizzia & Johnson PLLC

750N.St Paul St., Suite 1320

Dallas, Texas 75201

469-839-9950 (Telephone)

214-613-3330 (Fax)

/s/ JayJ. Madrid

One of Counsel


47/70

CAUSE NO. 14-07239-1

EAST VILLAGE ASSOCIATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF DALLAS, MICHAEL

ANGLIN, NEIL EMMONS, EMMA

RODGERS, BETTY CULBREATH,

TONY SHIDID, ANN BAGLEY, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

JED ANANTASOMBOON, MYRTL M.

LAVALLAISAA, GLORIA TARPLEY,

JOHN SHELLENE, JAYNIE SCHULTZ,

COOKIE PEADON, MARGOT MURPHY,

PAUL E. RIDLEY, AND ROBERT

ABTAHI IN THEIR OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE

Sam's Club Injunction Filings

Documents

Transcript of Sam's Club Injunction Filings