Chavez Martinez Cardenas v LULAC Case

8/13/2019 Chavez Martinez Cardenas v LULAC Case

1/43

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.

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

Case 3:12-cv-00296-FM Document 46 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 43


2/43

2

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. As the Court is aware, there was a dispute regarding the ability of Florinda

Chavez, Joe Cardenas, III, and Beatrice Martinezs ability to run for a State elected office and for

a National Office within National LULAC. This Court ruled on August 9, 2013, Document 45,

that the Agreed Judgment that was entered on December 20, 2013, Document 26, does not

preclude Defendants from seeking or holding elected State office or for a National Office within

National LULAC organization.4. After this ruling by the Honorable Court, National LULAC convened a hearing on

October 5, 2013 in Washington D.C. to hear a complaint against the Defendants based upon the

Judgment that was entered in this case. This hearing was to determine on whether the

Defendants should be removed or impeached based upon the same facts as alleged in the

Complaint in this litigation and because of National LULAC prevailing in this litigation.1

National LULAC was once again attempting to prevent these Defendants from continuing their

membership within National LULAC based upon this Judgment entered by the Court.

5. Defendant Joe Cardenas, III has been expelled as a member of National LULAC

based upon the Judgment that was entered. This Judgment did not allow National LULAC to

expel him from their membership. There are no words, phrases, or language contained in this

1 See the attached Declarations of Joe Cardenas, III as Exhibit 1, Florinda Chavez as Exhibit 2, and BeatriceMartinez as Exhibit 3, wherein the basis of the facts for the hearing to remove or impeach these three were: LindaChavez who was removed from the office of State Director by the Board on June 30, 2012, convened an emergencyState meeting of some Texas LULAC Councils on July 21, 2012, with the support and acquiescence of the other twoindividuals, i.e. Joe Cardenas, III and Beatrice Martinez. The intent of this meeting was to start another organizationnamed Texas State LULAC. Thereafter, National LULAC filed judicial action against the three individuals and

prevailed.)



3/43

3

Judgment that would allow National LULAC to expel Joe Cardenas, III from their membership.

Defendants Florinda Chavez and Beatrice Martinez were not expelled at the National LULAC

meeting but based upon the action taken by the Texas State Legal Advisor at a State LULAC

board meeting believe they have been expelled. The Defendants have been prejudiced in that,

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

been removed from National LULAC or in the alternative there has been an attempt to have them

removed and/or expelled from National LULAC.

II.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

A. Request for Declaratory Judgment6. 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.

7. 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 they are to be removed

2SeeFED.R.CIV.P. 57;seealso Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969).3See Brister v. Faulkner, 214 F.3d 675, 68 (5 thCir. 2000).



4/43

4

and/or expelled from National LULAC on the basis of the underlying facts of this litigation and

the Judgment that was entered in this cause.

8. 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 Judgment9. 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 expel

the Defendants as members of National LULAC. 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

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

Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 to prevent Plaintiff from expelling the Defendants as

members of LULAC. In the alternative, Defendants request the court issue an order voiding any

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



5/43

5

action taken by National LULAC to expel and/or to remove these Defendants as members of

National LULAC

11. Defendants have annexed to this motion their sworn declarations and other

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

because of Plaintiffs actions. These Declarations 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 inequity, 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, 19thFloorSan 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

5SeeExhibit 1, Declaration of Joe Cardenas, III, dated December 27, 2013; SeeExhibit 2, Declaration of FlorindaChavez, dated December 27, 2013; and SeeExhibit 3, Declaration of Beatrice Martinez, dated December 27, 2013.



6/43

6

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 Files

System of the Western District of Texas on the 14th

day of January, 2014.

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has beenprovided to counsel for Plaintiff on this the 14 thday of January, 2014, as follows:

Mr. Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. [ ] First Class MailThe Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. [ ] 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 [ ] Facsimile; 1-(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 [ ] Facsimile; 210-212-5653201 West Poplar [ ] CM,RRRSan Antonio, Texas 78212 [ XX ] E-Mail [email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


7/43EXHIBIT "1" 00009



8/43EXHIBIT "1" 00009



9/43EXHIBIT "1" 00009



10/43EXHIBIT "A" 00009



11/43EXHIBIT "A" 00010



12/43EXHIBIT "A" 00010



13/43EXHIBIT "A" 00010



14/43EXHIBIT "B" 00010



15/43EXHIBIT "B" 00010



16/43EXHIBIT "B" 00010



17/43EXHIBIT "B" 00010



18/43EXHIBIT "B" 00010



19/43EXHIBIT "C" 00010



20/43EXHIBIT "2" 00010



21/43EXHIBIT "2" 00011



22/43EXHIBIT "2" 00011



23/43EXHIBIT "A" 00011



24/43EXHIBIT "A" 00011



25/43EXHIBIT "A" 00011



26/43EXHIBIT "A" 00011



27/43EXHIBIT "B" 00011



28/43EXHIBIT "B" 00011



29/43EXHIBIT "B" 00011



30/43EXHIBIT "B" 00011



31/43EXHIBIT "B" 00012



32/43EXHIBIT "3" 00012



33/43EXHIBIT "3" 00012



34/43EXHIBIT "3" 00012



35/43EXHIBIT "A" 00012



36/43EXHIBIT "A" 00012



37/43EXHIBIT "A" 00012



38/43EXHIBIT "A" 00012



39/43EXHIBIT "B" 00012



40/43EXHIBIT "B" 00012



41/43EXHIBIT "B" 00013



42/43EXHIBIT "B" 00013



43/43


Chavez Martinez Cardenas v LULAC Case

Documents

Transcript of Chavez Martinez Cardenas v LULAC Case