Page 1 of 5
CAUSE NO. 10-11915
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENTION
COMES NOW Jeffrey Baron (“Baron
"
)
,
and files Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Pleas in
Intervention of Lyon and Taylor and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
1. On July 3, 2014, Gary Lyon (“Lyon”) filed a Plea in Intervention
2. On May 8, 2014, Powers Taylor, LLP (“Taylor”) filed a Plea in Intervention
(Collectively, Lyon, Taylor are hereinafter referred to as the “Interveners”)
3. Gary Lyon is a client of Defendants Gerrit Pronske and PGK. Mr Lyon, not licensed by
the state Bar of Texas, entered into a written contract with Mr. Baron to provide legal services in
the state of Texas. In 2010, Mr. Lyon released all claims against Baron and executed an accord
and satisfaction with Mr. Baron. Despite this agreement and release, Mr. Lyon made a fraudulent
claim in the receivership action along with Defendants Pronske and PGK, falsely claiming $____
against Mr. Baron. After being rebuffed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2012,
Mr. Lyon took his same fraudulent claim to the bankruptcy court, filing an involuntary
bankruptcy petition against Baron. The petition was dismissed for lack of standing.
JEFF BARON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GERRIT M. PRONSKE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND PRONSKE & PATEL, P.C.
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
193
rd
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
8/28/2014 10:45:48 PM
GARY FITZSIMMONS
DISTRICT CLERK
Page 2 of 5
4. Taylor and Powers is a client of Defendants Gerrit Pronske and PGP. Taylor and Powers
represented Baron in a civil action. Taylor and Powers have a written engagement agreement
with Baron and have been paid in full in accordance with the agreement. Taylor and Powers sent
Baron confirmation that they considered Baron to have fully complied with the agreement. After
being solicited by Lyon and Pronske, Taylor made a groundless claim in the bankruptcy court
and in the receivership action suddenly alleging an additional $_____ in fees. After being
rebuffed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2012, Taylor took his same groundless
claim to the bankruptcy court, filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Baron. The
petition, like his claim in the receivership was dismissed for lack of standing.
5. A suit is currently pending in the bankruptcy court against Mr. Lyon, Mr. Taylor and Mr.
Pronske for attorney fees and damages resulting from their bad faith filing of the involuntary
bankruptcy against Baron. Defendants Pronske and PGK represent Mr. Lyon and Mr. Taylor in
the bankruptcy court suit.
6. As much as Defendants Pronske and PGK desire them to participate and complicate this
proceeding, the Intervenors do not have standing to intervene. An intervening party must
demonstrate a “justicable interest” in the pending suit. In re Union Carbine Corp., 273 S.W.3d
152, 155 (Tex. 2008); Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982); Zeifman v. Michels,
229 S.W.3d 460, 464 (Tex. App.-Austin 2007, pet. denied). The Intervenors have not and cannot
do so.
Page 3 of 5
7. The Texas Supreme Court explained the "justiciable interest" requirement: “Because
intervention is allowed as a matter of right
1,
the “justiciable interest” requirement is of paramount
importance: it defines the category of non-parties who may, without consultation with or
permission from the original parties or the court, interject their interests into a pending suit to
which the intervenors have not been invited” Union Carbide at 154-55 (internal citations
omitted) (emphasis added).
8. In Union Carbide, the Texas Supreme Court had an opportunity to examine an
intervention similar to that of the Interveners in this case. In rejecting such intervention, the
Court explained that disruptive interlopers are not entitled to intervene in a cause, keenly
observing that “[t]he intervenor’s interest must be such that if the original action had never been
commenced, and he had first brought it as the sole plaintiff, he would have been entitled
to recover in his own name to the extent at least of a part of the relief sought” in the original
suit. Id quoting King v. Olds, 12 S.W. 65, 65 (Tex. 1888). “In other words, a party may
intervene if the intervenor could have “brought the [pending] action, or any part thereof, in his
own name.” Id .
9. Here, the Intervenors are precisely the type of disruptive interlopers that the Supreme
Court describes in Union Carbide
2
. The Interveners are entitled to bring their claims, provided
1
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides that “[a]ny party may intervene by filing a pleading subject to
being stricken out by the court for sufficient cause on the motion of any party.”
2
“The justiciable interest requirement protects pending cases from having interlopers disrupt the proceeding. Id.
Page 4 of 5
that they can overcome the standard for bringing frivolous claims, in new actions; however, they
are not entitled to disrupt and complicate this proceeding by intervening
3
For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff prays that the Court strike Interveners Petition in
Intervention.
/s/ Leonard Simon
Leonard H. Simon, Esq
TBN: 18387400; SDOT: 8200
The Riviana Building
2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77019
(713) 737-8207 – (Direct)
(832) 202-2810 – (Direct Fax)
Email: lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR
JEFFREY BARON
OF COUNSEL:
William P. Haddock, Esq.
Texas Bar No. 00793875
Email: whaddock@pendergraftsimon.com
PENDGRAFT & SIMON
The Riviana Building
2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77019
(713) 528-8555 – (Main)
(713) 868-1267 – (Main Fax)
3
Factors that a court may consider when faced with a motion to strike include whether the intervention will
complicate the case by the "excessive multiplication of the issues" and whether the intervention is "almost
essential to effectively protect the intervenor's interest." Guaranty Fed Sav. Bank v. Horshoe Operating Co., 793
S.W.2d 652, 657; see Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C. v. Ghiasinejad, 109 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth
2003, no pet.) (court may consider "other avenues available" to protect intervenor's interest when determining
whether intervention "almost essential").
Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 28, 2014 I served the above and foregoing by email
and by electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the Court’s
electronic filing system, which will send notification of such filing to:
Gerrit M. Pronske
PRONSKE, GOOLSBY & KATHMAN, P.C.
2200 Ross Avenue
Suite 5350
Dallas, TX 75201
Email: gpronske@pgkpc.com
Mark Stromberg
Stromberg Stock, PLLC
Two Lincoln Centre
5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75240
Email: mark@strombergstock.com
Mark L. Taylor
Powers Taylor LLP
Campbell Centre II
8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
Alan L. Busch
Christopher M. Albert
Busch Ruotolo & Simpson LLP
100 Crescent Court, Suite 250
Dallas, TX 75201
Email: busch@buschllp.com
Email: albert@buschllp.com
Jonathan B. Bailey
Law Office of J B Bailey
6401 W. Eldoroado Parkway, Suite 234
McKinney, TX 75070
Email: jbaileylaw@hotmail.com
Gary Lyon
Email: glyon.attorney@gmail.com
/s/ Leonard H. Simon
