in Re Adriene L. Sibley ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                    FILED IN
    Ot-lS- o\lC-c>/                           1ST COURT OF APPEALS
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
    MAR - 3 2015
    HOUSTON, TEXAS                      CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
    CLERK
    IN RE: ADRIENE SIBLEY               CAUSE NO.
    PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
    Adriene Sibley
    45 Hardy Ct
    Gulfport,Ms 39507
    832-420-2071
    sibleyadriene@yahoo.com
    TABLE     OF    CONTENTS
    Petition                    '.         ';                             1
    Statement of Jurisdiction                                     ....    1
    Parties..       v.               ,,          ,.-.   s,:.:             2
    Factual and Procedural Background                                    .3
    Statement of Issues                                                  5
    Prayer.                                                     ...      .8
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    Cases
    Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 
    806 S.W.2d 791
    , 793             2
    Humble Exploration Co. v. Walker, 641 S.. W. 2d 941       .,....,,...1
    In re   Lewis, 
    223 S.W.3d 756
    , 761                                1
    In re Roof, 130 S. W. 3d 414,415                                .....1
    Patterson, 
    971 S.W.2d 439
                                         6
    Stone v. Kuteman,         
    150 S.W.2d 107
    , 109                   1
    Tex.Ass'nofBus., 
    852 S.W.2d 440
    ...                        6
    Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez, 
    93 S.W.3d 548
                         5
    West v. Triple B Servs., LLP 
    264 S.W.3d 446
    ...                     6
    Statutes
    Tex. Const. Art.   V. 6....                                          1
    Tex. Govt. Code 22.221(b)                                            1
    Tex. Rule Civ. Procedure      Rule 86                                8
    Tex. Rule Civ. Procedure      Rule 87.                               8
    No.
    IN RE:      ADRIENE        SIBLEY
    Realtor
    REALTOR'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF                PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
    Comes now^ the Realtor, Adriene Sibley, ("Sibley") and petitions this Honorable Court to
    award a Writ of Prohibition against the Respondent, the Honorable Judge Jeremy Warren in his
    official capacity as Judge of the County Court at Law #3 of Brazoria County, Texas.
    STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
    1. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus
    pursuant to the Tex, Const. Art. V, 6; Tex, Govt, Code 22.221(b)
    2.    A writ of prohibition of an appellate court is a limited purpose remedy. In re Lewis,
    
    223 S.W.3d 756
    , 751 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2007) The writ of Prohibition is an extraordinary
    judicial writ that a court of appeals, as a court of special jurisdiction, may divert to a court of
    inferior jurisdiction.   Humble Exploration Co.        v.   Walker, 64l      S.W. 2d    941 (Tex.
    App.-Dallas 1982) The writ of prohibition may be issued to prevent an inferior court from
    exercising a jurisdiction which it has no lawful right to exercise. Stone v. Kuteman 150
    S.W, 2d 107, 109 Without jurisdiction whatsoever to act, the availability of a remedy of
    appeal is immaterial to the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prevent a injustice.
    3.     A writ of mandamus is proper to compel a public official to perform a ministerial act.
    In re Roof, 
    130 S.W.3d 414
    , 415 (Tex. App.-Houston) A duty is imposed by law is ministerial
    1 | Pa g e
    when "the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed by the official with certainty that
    nothing is left to the exercise of discretion. Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 
    806 S.W.2d 791
    , 793 (Tex. 1991)
    4.       Pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court, Sibley, seeks relief in the form of
    a Writ of Prohibition and/or a Writ of Mandamus as the County Court is exercising a jurisdiction
    that is has no lawful right to. A Writ of Prohibition and/or Writ or Mandamus is appropriate and
    the only means to obtain the desired relief due to the fact that the County Court's actions are a
    complete disregard for the substantive law and procedural law.
    PARTIES
    1. The Realtor, Adriene Sibley (Sibley) is a defendant in a civil action for breach of
    contract pending in the County Court at Law #3, Brazoria County, Texas in Case No. CI 50979,
    Seminole Pipeline Company, LLC v. Adriene Sibley.
    2.       The Respondent, The Honorable Jeremy Warren is the Judge of the County Court
    at Law #3.
    3.       The Real Party in Interest, Seminole Pipeline Company, LLC is the plaintiff in the
    civil action.
    STATEMENT OF CASE
    Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) needed to use Sibley's property for a
    repair and maintenance operation therefore Sibley and Shelly Patton, the representative for
    Enterprise started negotiations regarding compensation to Sibley for the use of Sibley's property.
    Sibley and Patton were unable to reach an amicable agreement. Enterprise had no rights of
    Texas law to force Sibley to permit Enterprise to use Sibley's              property for Enterprise's
    operation therefore the creative lawyering began.
    2 | Page
    Seminole is actually suing Sibley on behalf of Enterprise because Sibley prohibited
    Enterprise from using Sibley's property. Enterprise had no valid cause of action under Texas
    law nevertheless Seminole decided on breach of contract in an attempt to obtain a permanent
    Injunction against Sibley to illegally take Sibley's property rights with the aide of the Court. It
    is absurd and in violation of Texas law that Sibley can be sued merely because Sibley refused
    Enterprise's compensation offer.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    1.    In 1981, Ora Mae Kennedy, Margie Bell Lewis, Minnie Mae Helm, and Robert
    Rossow grants Seminole an 30 ft. easement recorded at Vol. 1554, page 299; Ella Louise
    Dofsey, Herman Edwards and Joel Rossaw granted Seminole an easement recorded at Vol. 1554,
    page 301 and William Moore grants Seminole an easement recorded at Vol. 1754, page 826, all
    easement are recorded in Official Records of Brazoria County, Texas.                All grantors are
    collectively the "Rossaws".
    2.          Sibleyis a heir to the Grantors that executed the Easement to the Property.
    3.        In December 2013, Enterprise Products Operating ("Enterprise"), the operator of the
    pipeline        was performing an alleged repair and maintenance operation ("operation") on
    Seminole's easement that required the use of Sibley's property outside the 30ft. easement to be
    able to perform the operation.
    4.          About January 9, 2014, Sibley and Shelly Patton, the representative of Enterprise
    entered into negotiations in Houston, Texas and while Sibley was in Mississippi for
    compensation to Sibley for the use of Sibley's property outside the easement for the operation or
    for a workspace agreement. Sibley and Patton were unable to reach an agreement therefore
    Sibley's restricted the use of Sibley's property for the operation while in Houston, Texas on
    3 | Page
    December 10,2014.
    5.      Enterprise and First Call Field Services ("First Call") continued to perform the
    operation on the easement through February 6, 2014 utilizing Sibley's property outside the
    easement.
    6.       Seminole filed a petition for breach of contract, temporary restraining order,
    temporary injunction and injunction on February 6, 2014 against Sibley and several other
    defendants. The County Court granted a temporary restraining order on February 6, 2014.
    7.     Sibley filed a writ of mandamus in this Court and this Court instructed Sibley to
    permit the temporary restraining order to expire.
    8.      Sibley filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court, Galveston
    Division February 18, 2014.      Seminole filed a Motion to Remand and the Galveston Court
    issued.
    9.   Seminole filed the first amended petition on July 2, 2014 and that petition deleted the
    other defendants and identified Sibley as the only defendant.         Seminole filed a motion for
    Summary Judgment in August 2014.
    10.     Sibley filed a second Notice of Removal or in the alternative, to transfer of the case to
    the United States District Court in Gulfport, Mississippi pursuant to diversity of citizenship on
    August 29, 2014 and also filed a response to Seminole's motion for summary judgment.
    Seminole filed a Motion to Remand yet as of this date Sibley has no knowledge of a order of
    remand.
    11.     Sibley filed a plea to jurisdiction, motion to dismiss and motion to transfer venue on.
    4 | Pa g e
    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
    1.     Whether the County Court has a lawful right to exercise jurisdiction over this case?
    II.    Whether the County Court can only       render an advisory opinion which is prohibited
    by law?
    III.    Whether the County Court is required to determine Sibley's Motion to Transfer
    Venue?
    I.   The County Court have no lawful right to exercise jurisdiction over this case?
    1.      First, Sibley is merely a heir of the grantors of the easement and Sibley never
    consented to the terms of the easement therefore no contract exist between Sibley and Seminole;
    Parties for a binding contract when there is I) an offer, 2) as acceptance in strict compliance with
    the terms of the offer, 3) a meeting of the minds, 4) consent by each party to the terms, and 5)
    execution and delivery of the contract with the intent that it be mutual and binding. Wal-Mart
    Stores, Inc.     v.   Lopez,   
    93 S.W.3d 548
    , 555-56          There is no remedy or jurisdiction
    provided by law or the Texas Constitution that would provide Seminole with relief against
    Sibley, a non-party to a contract.
    2.      Second, the face of Seminole's petition states that the easement contract was between
    Seminole and the Rossaws and that "Sibley purports to be an successor or heir". (App, C, p. 2)
    The term purport is used when the intent is to convince someone about something that might
    not be true therefore Seminole did not identify Sibley as a successor or heir but merely stated
    Sibley claimed to be a successor or heir. Before Seminole's petition can invoke the jurisdiction
    of the County Court the petition has to identify Sibley as a party to the contract and not just
    5 | Pa ge
    re-assert a claim of Sibley.     To prevail in a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must prove a
    valid contract exist existed between the plaintiff and the defendant, West v. Triple B Servs.,
    LLP 
    264 S.W.3d 440
    , 446 Seminole petition fails to identify Sibley as a party to the
    easement, a successor or heir therefore there is no remedy or jurisdiction provided by law or the
    Texas Constitution.
    3. Third, Seminole petition state that Seminole made the decision to cease the operation
    on the easement to prevent civil litigation. (App. B, p. 4) There is no remedy or jurisdiction
    provided by law or the Texas Constitution that make a defendant liable for the decision of the
    plaintiff absent fraud.
    4. The Texas Constitution provides that the District Court "shall have general original
    jurisdiction over all causes of actions for which a remedy or jurisdiction is not provided by law
    or the Constitution therefore the County Court at Law is without jurisdiction whatsoever and
    jurisdiction lies in the District Court.
    Based on the foregoing reasons that the County Court is Withoutjurisdiction whatsoever
    therefore writ of prohibition is appropriate to command Judge Warren to cease the proceeding in
    the case.
    II.   The County Court can only issue an advisory opinion therefore the court is without
    jurisdiction whatsoever.
    1.    Texas law is clear that a Court cannot make an advisory decision because advisory
    opinions are prohibited by law and any judgment in this case would be an advisory decision.
    The Separation of Powers Doctrine prohibit against court ordered advisory Opinions. Patterson
    
    971 S.W.2d 439
    , Tex. Ass'n of Bus. 
    852 S.W.2d 440
    2. First, Seminole performed the operation on the easement from December 2013 until
    6 | Pa ge
    Seminole made the decision to cease the operation on the easement to prevent civil litigation on
    February 6, 2014 therefore Seminole had not been denied access to the easement at the time
    Seminole filed the petition. Furthermore, Seminole's petition never stated that Seminole stopped
    the operation on the easement due to being denied access to the easement. The petition stated
    "that Seminole made the decision to cease the operation on the easement". (App. B, p. 2) The
    issue of whether Seminole was      denied access to the easement became moot because Seminole
    accessed and utilized the easement until Seminole made the decision to cease the operation on
    the easement therefore no justiciable controversy existed at time the petition was filed. Pantera
    
    150 S.W.3d 466
            A judgment issued by a court brought by party when no justiciable
    controversy exist is an advisory opinion which is prohibited by law.         Tex. Ass'n of Business
    
    852 S.W. 2d
    . 440
    3.     Second, the ripeness doctrine dictates that at the time a suit is filed the case is to be
    sufficiently developed so that an injury has occurred       At the time Seminole filed the petition
    on February 6, 2014 Seminole stated in the petition that "the Defendants installed a new lock on
    the gate presumably to deny Seminole access to the easement". (App. B, p. 3) Seminole's
    petition dictates that Seminole did not have knowledge as to who installed an alleged new lock or
    whether the alleged new lock was installed to deny Seminole access to the easement and because
    the alleged new lock never denied Seminole access to the easement there was no injury and the
    case was not ripe for adjudication.    Furthermore, Seminole's petition requested damages it has
    and or may incur. (App. B, p. 5) On the day the alleged new lock was installed there were no
    damages because Seminole accessed the easement          and Seminole's request for damages that
    may occur dictates that the injury and damages were not concrete and depended on upon
    contingent or hypothetical facts therefore the injury was not ripe at the time the petition was filed
    7 | Page
    and the trial court does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute,      Because of the ripeness
    doctrine any judgment by the Court based on the pleading would be advisory and prohibited by
    law.
    Based on the foregoing, Any judgment of the County Court on the pleading before the
    Court would be an advisory opinion which is prohibited by law therefore a Writ of prohibit as
    there is no remedy or jurisdiction of Texas for to render an advisory opinion.
    III.       The Court is required to determine Sibley's Motion to Transfer Venue.
    1.    Sibley filed a Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to the Tex. Rules of Civ. P. 86.
    Rule 87 dictated that the determination of the motion to transfer venue shall be made promptly
    by the Court and such determination must be made in a reasonable time prior to trial.
    2.   The term "shall" make the determination of the motion to transfer mandatory and
    not discretionary therefore the County Court is required to must make a determination of the
    motion prior incompliance with Rule 87 therefore mandamus is appropriate to compel Judge
    Warren to promptly make a determination of Sibley's Motion to Transfer Venue in compliance
    with Rule 87.
    PRAYER
    WHEREFORE, the Realtor, Adriene Sibley, prays for the following relief:
    a.      That Adriene Sibley's Writ of Prohibition be granted and Judge Warren is commanded to
    cease any further proceeding in the said case.
    b.       In the alternative, Sibley's Writ of Mandamus be granted and Judge Warren is commanded
    to conduct a hearing and determine Sibley's Motion to Transfer Venue.
    c.     That this Honorable Court issue a rule to show cause against the respondents directing them
    8 | Pa ge
    to show cause, if they can, as to why a Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus should not be awarded
    against him.
    d. That all proceedings in the County Court at Law #3 be stayed in the civil case Seminole
    Pipeline Company, LLC v. Adriene Sibley case no. CI 50979 pending resolution of the issues
    raised in this petition.
    e.   Such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary, appropriate, as proper.
    Respectfully submitted this Q day of March 2015.
    Realtor, Adriene Sibley
    M     MVi-,
    Adriene Sibley
    45 Hardy Ct "
    Gulfport,Ms 39507
    sibleyadriene@yahoo.com
    832-420-2071
    9 I Paee
    CERTIFICATION
    I hereby certify that I have reviewed the foregoing petition and have concluded that
    every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the
    appendix and record.
    M     KaM-s
    Adriene    Sibley
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and
    foregoing Petition was served on March 3, 3015 by certified mail, return receipt requested upon
    the following:
    James Freeman
    420 Heights Blvd
    Houston, Texas 77007
    713-802-9117
    Attorney for real Parties In Interest
    Hon. Jeremy Warren
    County Court at Law #3
    11 I.E. Locust
    Angleton, Texas 77515
    Respondent
    M      /U9y
    Adriene Sibley
    IN RE:     ADRIENE SIBLEY                     IN THE FIRST      COURT OF APPEALS
    Houston, Texas
    APPENDIX TO THE PETITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
    Realtor, Adriene Sibley, submits the following documents in support of the petition for
    writ of prohibition or mandamus:
    LIST OF DOCUMENTS
    Easement                                                                         TAB     1
    Seminole's Original Petition                                            .............TAB 2
    Seminole's Amended Petition....                                                  TAB    3
    TAB   A
    „ 40§J                  / ?..«:                 DEED
    £*» 100 (S'lOl
    ml554rM*299                              R/W W
    GRANT OF EASEMENT
    POR MID IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10:00) in hand paid and
    other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
    hereby acknowledged, I, or we,                            P/fr yfoe             fca^Wyg, >^>Brg
    OKUd&aJ 6*/fc /m.fff..
    tt'+uusm. //faJ>-            H*J*n           afU/U-*«* JUim.rfijiy-           K/yx.faMi .
    M.--*v«: s:J?i 0ft*.* '•
    •-.-;!n.5K*'U
    i*™,*/..,,rfw«i««, .„*„,»• ,„Jlwhw.„».,,„„,,A,torcfcrswt, j,^., M.„alH,."^Tl"^llSiAWANy i,ssut
    ««.«, and ass.ens. rrcremaftcr referred u. a, Gramer-. ,hr ,i,.h. privile,., a,,J easement. „, an, ton. ami from ,;„«, ,„,„„, ,.,„„„,„,» nuim^n in.
    faxi. operate, rmiccct. rcpa,r. replace, chanre .he ,1kof. „ „.„„„,. ap,>rfi,„.,„ prunes, and other appuncnamc*. »-i,r,ii, .1.- ..mrine* „l a,isl„ „f .,,„
    f ,y,**Lw!?"'
    lu„                "" ;i"",'llar
    ,to be) la* surveyed and dcfin,,c!y'T"" 777^by ,hc «.-n,crUne
    esraWchcd             '"*...,,n,1*""N""l^«»
    i„i„J pipeline «* "« lor the-35
    o-mruced                 fee,uonmuni
    transpona.ion      .he twMBt       side of a
    gas. oil. pcrrolcum
    (*,JM. ,, an,(Other bmuuX««« uc subua^ro.*>«!« «»p»lvWn*. a?„V,W. ...prtKT .W, ,1» righ. „r i,,Ktc„ degress -JT^i IWm,
    rhe same to .be |Mn»M> afc.»ad. over, under. rhnauth and »t«« .he r..0..winj. describe! land,. „f wh*h ,he Cram.., warran.s .hey are .he owner, in
    (re simple, situated in .he Ctiunty of                n-r»v>etT^ n                                          ^M"                                    „,
    All that part of a 16 acre tract of lafiWlying
    laWTlying SISr"aScfStest of%junV" S
    Boad Kb. B400, being part of the S. P. Austin 7-1/3 League Grant, Abstract No. 20?
    said 16 acre tract of land being further described in deed recorded at Volume 264,
    page 1, Brazoria County Records.
    ^ HotvifhsVanfeng anything herein to the contrary, only one (1) pipeline 14 inches in
    «w. diameter-shall, be constructed under the terms of this easement.
    Said.-pipel3.ne shall have a minimum of 48 inches of cover.
    Following construction, said Right of Way shall revert to a permanent 30-foot wide Right
    of »ay being 10-foot on the Northerly                                 side and 20-foot on the Southerly                               side.
    I. isagreed that tfic pipeline or pipelines t.i be hidunder this pant shall be ronnruc.cd at oifficicnl depth bcW the surface ofthe ground ...
    permit normal culttvarinn. and Grantor shall have (he right to fully use and enjoy the above described premises, subject to the rights herein
    granted.
    Ounce shall haw the right to clear and keep clear all trees, undergrowth and other obstructions from the herein granted right of my and
    Gnittw agrees not to bond, comrtucl orcreate, nor permit others to build, construct .,rcreate any buildings orother strumites on the herein
    granted right of waythat willinterfere with the normal "titration and maintenance of the said line or lines.
    Grantee agrees to pay to the then owners and to any tenant, as their interests may be. any and all damages tocrops, limber, fences, drain tile
    or other improvements on said premises that may arise from the exercise of the rights herein granted. Any payment due hereunder may be
    made direct to the said Grantor or any one of tliem.
    Grantor hereby crprvssfy agrees that in dn- event the route of the pipeline or pipelines to he constructed hereunder should cross any roads
    radroada, creeks, rivets ur other waterways located onthe above described land or other places requiring extra working space, then Gran.cc shall
    hay. the right and temporary access to additional working space whirl, may be necessary for construction and Or;
    Grau.ee               agrees to pay Grantor
    any and all damages which Grantor suffers byreason nf'Grantee's use of^d additional working space.
    (Cantor represents that theabove described land $s) (is not) rented for ibe period beginning
    19         to                                -. . 1*       on (cash) (crop) basis to
    The terms and. conditions Itereofshall lx- binding umm and inure to ihe benefits of the heirs. eRccuttrrs. administrators, devisees, successors.
    trustees or assigns of the parties hereto.
    iWitness Whereof the said t;ran.ota_baJn{.brre»»... »-r sTa4aV«t-_«.Mg»fy_ _.; \<>&/ .
    WITNESS!
    4*t**nS          %*>   fsf?*>
    1
    TAB   B
    Case l:14-cv-00299:HSO-JCG Document 5-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page! of 9
    ^ FILED FOR RECORD
    CAUSE NO
    •( X2^J-\ l I jam FEB 6 PR 3 19
    SEMIOLE         PIPELINE           COMPANY   §    COUNTY CIVIL CO
    LLC,                                         §
    §
    Plaintiff,                           §
    §
    vs.                                          §    NO.   3.
    ADRIENE       SIBLEY       a/k/a   ADRIENE
    GAIL LEWIS, REGINALD TIMOTHY
    ROSSOW, SR., WINSTON JAMES
    ROSSOW, JOHNEL LEWIS, DONYLL
    DWAYNE      LEWIS,    DUSHAY
    DEMITRIC       LEWIS       AND     LAMONT
    DESHAWN LEWIS,
    Defendants.                               BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS
    SEMINOLE PDPELINE COMPANY LLC'S ORIGINAL PETITION
    AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
    TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
    Plaintiff, Seminole Pipeline Company LLC ("Seminole"), files this Original Petition and
    Request for Injunctive and Other Relief (the "Petition") against Adriene Sibley a/k/a Adriene
    Gail Lewis, Reginald Timothy Rossow, Sr., Winston James Rossow, Johnel Lewis, Donyll
    Dwayne Lewis, Dushay Demitric Lewis and LaMont DeShaun Lewis ("Defendants") and shows
    the Court as follows:
    DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
    1.     Discovery is intended to be conducted under level 2 of Rule 190 of the Texas
    Rules of Civil Procedure.
    PARTIES
    2.     Plaintiff, Seminole Pipeline Company LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability
    Company authorized to conduct business in the State of Texas.
    EXHIBIT A
    Case l:14-cv-00299-HSO-JCG             Document 5-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of .9
    3.     Defendant, Adriene Sibley a/k/a Adriene Gail Lewis, is a resident of Texas and
    may be served at 4808 Fairmont Parkway, Pasadena, Texas 77505.
    4.      Defendant, Reginald Timothy Rossow, Sr., is a Texas resident and may be served
    at 308 S. Ave G, Freeport, Texas 77541.
    5.      Defendant, Winston James Rossow, is a Texas resident and may be served at 511
    S. Ave D, Freeport, Texas 77541.
    6.      Defendant, Johnel Lewis, is a Texas resident and may be served at 2806 Morning
    Bay Dr., Pearland, Texas 77584.
    7.      Defendant, Donyll Dwayne Lewis, is a Texas resident and may be served at 1322
    W7th Street, Freeport, Texas 77541.
    8.      Defendant, Dushay Demitric Lewis, is a Texas resident and may be served at
    1322 W 7th Street, Freeport, Texas 77541.
    9.      Defendant, LaMont DeShaun Lewis, is a Texas resident and may be served at
    1.1.150 Beamer Rd., Apt. 440, Houston, Texas 77089.
    VENUE
    10.     Venue is mandatory in Brazoria County, Texas, pursuant to §15.011 of the Texas
    Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and/or because all or substantially all the events or omission
    giving rise to the asserted claims arose in Brazoria County, Texas.
    JURISDICTION
    11.     The Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties to this suit because the
    property is located in the State of Texas, Seminole's causes of action arise out of events or
    omissions which occurred in the State of Texas and the type of claims asserted by Seminole lie
    within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
    -2-
    Case l:14-cv-00299-HSO-JCG Document 5-1 Filed 08729/14 Page 3 of 9
    FACTS
    12.     In 1981, Ora Mae Kennedy, Margie Belle Lewis, Minnie Mae Helm, and Robert
    Rossaw granted Seminole an easement recorded at Vol. 1554, Page 299, Deed Records Brazoria
    County, Texas; Ella Louise Dorsey, Herman Edwards, and Joel Rossaw granted Seminole an
    easement recorded at Vol. 1554, Page 301, Deed Records Brazoria county; and William Moore
    granted Seminole an easement recorded at Vol. 1574, Page 826, Deed Records Brazoria County
    Texas (the "Easements").1 The Easements grant Seminole the right, privilege, and easement to
    construct, maintain, inspect, operate, protect, repair, replace, change the size of, or remove a
    pipeline or appurtenances within the confines of the thirty-foot (30') right of way. The
    Easements also grant Seminole the right of ingressand egress to and from the right of way.
    13.     Defendants purport to be the successors, assigns and heirs to the Grantors in and
    to the property subject to the Easements (the "Property").
    14.     On or about January 10, 2014, Seminole was in the process of replacing a valve
    on its pipeline, which required certain maintenance and repair operations to be done on the
    Easements {i.e., installation of a stopple to isolate the section of the pipeline so as to allow
    replacement of the valve). On that same day, while Seminole was in the process of completing
    its maintenance and repair operations, Defendants, represented by Ms. Adriene Sibley a/k/a
    Adriene Gail Lewis, sent an email to Seminole threatening legal action (specifically a temporary
    restraining order) unless Seminole paid Defendant $120,000.00 for violating the Easements. At
    the same time, Defendants installed a new lock on the gate to the property, presumably in an
    attempt to deny Seminole access to its Easements. In light of the substantial costs that would
    1 The Afffidavit of Shelly Patton is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein for all intents
    and purposes.
    -3-
    Case l:14-cv-00299-HSO-JCG          Document 5-1 Filed 08729/14 Page 4 of 9
    have been incurred by Seminole if it had continued with its operations (i.e., shutting down the
    flow of product on its pipeline until resolution of Defendants' claims) and Defendants followed
    through with their threat to shut down Seminole's repair and maintenance operations, Seminole
    had no choice but to cease further repair and maintenance operations and demobilize. Since
    then, Seminole has tried to work out an amicable agreement with Defendants, including, but not
    limited to, payment for the use of temporary workspace, so that it may complete its necessary
    repair and maintenance operations but, to date, has been unsuccessful.
    CAUSES OF ACTION
    15.    Throughout this pleading, each of the causes of action asserted by Seminole are
    pled in the alternative, such that the allegations under one cause of action do not preclude or in
    any way prejudice the allegations made under a separate cause of action.
    Breach of Contract
    16.    The Easements grant Seminole the right to maintain, operate, protect, repair and
    replace its pipeline and other appurtenances, which necessary includes those maintenance and
    repair operations necessary to repair and replace the existing valve. Seminole has been ready,
    willing and able to enter upon the Easements to perform the necessary repair and maintenance
    operations, but, because of Defendants breach of and repudiation of the Easements, has been
    denied its valuable property rights, and is, without potentially breaching the peace, unable to
    make entry upon the Easements.
    17.     Because Defendants have refused to allow Seminole access to its Easements to
    perform the necessary repair and maintenance operations, rights granted Seminole under the
    Easements, Defendants are in breach of the Easements, for which Seminole seeks specific
    -4-
    Case l:14-cv-00299-HSOsJCG Document 5-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 5 of 9
    performance under the Easements and any and all damages it has and/or may incur as a result of
    Defendants' breach.
    Injunctive Relief
    18.   Defendants have denied Seminole access to its Easements. If Defendants are not
    immediately restrained from interfering with Seminole's repair and maintenance operations,
    rights expressly granted Seminole under the Easements, Seminole will not be able to complete
    the necessary repair and maintenance operations, which could cause Seminole to incur additional
    move-around, demobilization and remobilization costs, lose valuable transportation fees and
    suffer immediate and irreparable harm. These damages are not fully ascertainable at this point in
    time.
    19.    Seminole requires immediate access to the Easements to perform its maintenance
    and repair operations. If Defendants are not immediately restrained from (i) interfering with
    Seminole's repair and maintenance operations; and (ii) from engaging in any acts to deny
    Seminole access to the Easements, immediate and irreparable harm will result to Seminole, for
    which Seminole has no adequate remedy at law. In that regard, if a temporary restraining order
    and/or injunction is not immediately issued, Seminole will not be able to replace the valve,
    interfering with Seminole's valuable property rights under the Easements and causing Seminole
    to suffer financial losses that are not readily ascertainable with any degree of certainty. The
    damages which have accrued and which will accrue in the future if injunctive relief is not
    granted will be difficult to measure by any pecuniary standard. There is no relief that is as plain
    and complete and as practical to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the
    injunctive relief herein sought.
    -5-
    Case l:14-cv-00299-HSO-JCG Document 5-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 6 of 9
    20.    Additionally, in all likelihood, Seminole will prevail in the prosecution of this
    dispute. Seminole has the right, under the Easements, to enter upon the Property to maintain,
    operate, protect, repair, and replace its pipeline, which necessary includes the repair and
    maintenance operations flowing from replacement of the existing valve.
    Attorneys' Fees
    21.     Because of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Seminole has been required to
    bring this suit and seek the relief herein stated. Seminole has provided all requisite notices and
    has satisfied all prerequisites for an award of attorneys' fees, and therefore seeks to recover its
    reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this action.
    WHEREFORE, Seminole respectfully prays that:
    a.     a temporary restraining order be immediately issued restraining
    Defendants, and their agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those
    persons in active concert or participation with one or more of them who
    receive actual notice of the temporary resfraining order by personal service
    or otherwise from in any way (i) interfering with Seminole's repair and
    maintenance operations on the Easements; and (ii) from engaging in any
    acts to deny Seminole access to the Easements;
    b.      that upon hearing, a temporary injunction order be immediately issued,
    and upon trial a permanent injunction be issued restraining Defendants,
    arid their agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in
    active concert or participation with one or more of them who receive
    actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise from in
    any way (i) interfering with Seminole's repair and maintenance operations
    on the Easements; and (ii) from engaging in any acts to deny Seminole
    access to the Easements;
    c.      Seminole, subject to and without waiver of its request for injunctive relief,
    prays for the recovery of all damages herein sought, together with its
    attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded
    hereunder at the maximum rate permitted by law, all court costs incurred
    by Seminole and for such other and further relief to which it may show
    itselfjustly entitled;
    -6-
    Case l:14-cv-00299-HSO-JCG Document 5-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 7 of9
    Respectfully submitted,
    ZABEL FREEMAN
    Zabel
    f500
    lan
    x 00796580
    TO Heights Blvd.
    Houston, .TX 77007
    (713)802-9117
    (713) 802-9114 (Fax)
    GILBERT & GILBERT LAW OFFICE
    John R. Gilbert
    State Bar No. 07898500
    Justin R. Gilbert
    State Bar No. 24043691
    222 North Velasco Street
    Angleton, Texas 77515
    (979) 849-5741
    (979) 849-7729 (Fax)
    COUNSEL FOR PLAINTDJF,
    SEMINOLE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC
    -7-
    Case l:14-cv-00299-HSO-JCG             Document 5-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 8 of 9
    AFFIDAVIT OF SHELLY PATTON
    STATE OF TEXAS                        §
    §
    COUNTY OF HARRIS                      §
    BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Shelly Patton, a
    person whose identity is known to me. Aiter I administered an oath to her, upon her oath, she
    said:
    1.    "My name is Shelly Patton. I am over the age of twenty-one (21) years,
    am of sound mind and am fully competent to make this affidavit I have
    personal knowledge of all facts herein stated and said facts are true and
    correct I am employed by Enterprise Products as a Senior Land
    Representative.
    2.    I provide services in that capacity to Seminole Pipeline Company LLC
    ("Seminole") for the construction, inspection, maintenance, repair, and
    operation of pipelines in Brazoria County, Texas. Seminole is the
    successor to Seminole Pipeline Company.
    3.    As part ofmy duties, I am aware that in 1981, OraMae Kennedy, Margie
    Belle Lewis, Minnie Mae Helm and Robert Rossaw granted Seminole
    Pipeline Company an easement recorded at Vol. 1554, Page 299, Deed
    Records Brazoria County, Texas; Ella Louise Dorsey, Herman Edwards,
    and Joel Rossaw granted Seminole Pipeline Company an easement
    recorded at Vol 1554, Page 301, Deed Records Brazoria county; and
    William Moore granted Seminole Pipeline Company an easement
    recorded at Vol. 1574, Page 826, Deed Records Brazoria County Texas
    (the "Easements'''). The Easements grant Seminole the right, privilege,
    and easement to construct, maintain, inspect, Operate, protect, repair,
    replace, change the size of, or remove a pipeline or appurtenances within
    me confines ofme thirty-foot (30*) right ofway.
    4.    On or about January 10, 2014, Seminole was in the process of replacing a
    valve on its pipeline, which" required certain maintenance and repair
    operations to be done on the Easements (/.&, installation of a stopple to
    isolate the section ofthe pipeline so as to allow replacement ofthe valve).
    On that same day, while Seminole was in the process of completing its
    maintenance and repair operations, Defendants, represented by Ms.
    Adriene Sibley a/k/a Adriene Gail Lewis, sent an email to me threatening
    legal action (specifically a temporary restraining order) unless Seminole
    paid Defendant $120,000.00 for violating the Easements. At the same
    time, Defendants installed a new lock on the gate to the property,
    presumably in an attempt to deny Seminole access to its Easements. In
    light of the substantial costs that could have been incurred by Seminole if
    Case l:14-cv-00299-HSO-JCG               Document 5-1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 9 of 9
    it had continuedwith its operations and Defendants followed through with
    their threat to shut down Seminole's repair and maintenance operations
    (i.e., shutting down the flow of product on its pipeline until resolution of
    Defendants' claims), Seminole had no choice but to cease further repair
    and maintenance operations and demobilize. Since then, I have had
    several communications with Ms. Sibley in an effort to work out an
    amicable agreement with Defendants, including, but not limited to,
    payment for the use of temporary workspace, but, to date, have been
    unsuccessful.
    5.     If Defendants are not immediately restrained from interfering with
    Seminole's repair and maintenance operations, Seminole will not be able
    to complete the necessary repair and maintenance operations and replace
    the valve, ihterfering with Seminole's valuable property rights under the
    Easements, which could cause Seminole to incur additional move-around,
    demobilization and remobilization costs, lose valuable transportation fees
    and suffer immediate and irreparable harm. These damages are not fully
    ascertainable at this point in time.
    Further Affiant sayeth not.
    Xa%M^
    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before meby Shelly Patton on the5th day of February
    2014.
    CHARLES ADDISON BECKHAM IH                Notary Public
    Notary Public                     State ofTexas
    STATE OF TEXAS
    My Com.li. Exp. Jan. 07,2016
    Page 2 of2
    TAB   C
    ._._.!
    CAUSE NO. CI50979
    SEMINOLE        PIPELINE
    COMPANY §                     COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW
    LLC,                         §
    I
    Plaintiff               §
    §
    vs.                          §                    NO. 3
    §
    ADRIENE SIBLEY a/k/a ADRIENE §
    GAIL LEWIS,                  §
    §
    Defendant                             §    BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS
    SEMINOLE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC'S
    FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
    TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
    Plaintiff Seminole Pipeline Company LLC ("Seminole"), files this First Amended
    Original Petition against Defendant Adriene Sibley a/k/a Adriene Gail Lewis ("Sibley"), and
    shows the Court as follows:
    DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
    1.     Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 2 of Rule 190 of the Texas
    Rules of Civil Procedure.
    PARTIES
    2.     Plaintiff Seminole Pipeline Company LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability
    Company authorized to conduct business in the State of Texas.
    3.     Defendant Adriene Sibley a/k/a Adriene Gail Lewis, is a resident of Texas and
    been served and has appeared herein.
    VENUE
    4.      Venue is mandatory in Brazoria County, Texas, pursuant to Section 15.011 of the
    Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and/or because all of substantially all of the events or
    omission giving riseto the asserted claims arose in Brazoria County, Texas.
    JURISDICTION
    5.      The Courthas personal jurisdiction overthe parties to this suit because the subject
    property is located in the State of Texas, Seminole's causes Of action arise out of events or
    omissions that occurred in the State of Texas, and the type of claims asserted by Seminole lie
    within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
    FACTS
    6.      In 1981, Ora Mae Kennedy, Margie Belle Lewis, Minnie Mae Helm, and Robert
    Rossaw granted Seminole an easement recorded at Volume 1554, Page 299, Deed Records
    Brazoria County, Texas; Ella Louise Dorsey, Herman Edwards, and Joel Rossaw granted
    Seminole an easement recorded at Volume 1554, Page 301, Deed Records Brazoria County; and
    William Moore granted Seminole an easement recorded at Volume 1574, Page 826, Deed
    Records Brazoria County, Texas (collectively, "the Easements"). The Easements grant Seminole
    the right, privilege, and easement to construct, maintain, inspect, operate, protect, repair, replace,
    change the size of, or remove a pipeline or appurtenances within the confines of the thirty-foot
    (30') right of way. The Easements also grant Seminole the right of ingress and egress to and
    from the right of way.
    7.      Sibley purports to be a successor, assign, and heir to the Grantors in and to the
    property subject to the Easements (the "Property").
    -2-
    8.      On or about January 10, 2014, Seminole was in the process of replacing a valve
    on its pipeline, which required certain maintenance and repair operations to be done on the
    Easements (i.e., installation of a stopple to isolate the section of the pipeline so as to allow
    replacement Ofthe valve). Oh that same day, while Seminole was in the process of completing
    its maintenance and repair operations, Sibley sent an email to Seminole threatening legal action
    (specifically a temporary restraining order) unless Seminole paid her $120,000.00 for violating
    the Easements. At the same time, Sibley installed a new lock on the gate to the Property,
    presumably in an attempt to deny Seminole access to its Easements. In light of the substantial
    costs that would have been incurred by Seminole if it had continued with its operations (i.e.,
    shutting down the flow of product on its pipeline until resolution of Sibley's claims) if Sibley
    followed through with her threat to shut down Seminole's repair and maintenance operations,
    Seminole had no choice but to cease further repair and maintenance operations and demobilize.
    Thereafter, Seminole tried to work out an amicable agreement with Sibley, including, but not
    limited to, payment for the use of temporary workspace, so that it could complete its necessary
    repair and maintenance operations but was unsuccessful.
    CAUSES OF ACTION
    9.      Throughout this pleading, each of the causes of action asserted by Seminole are
    pled in the alternative, such that the allegations under one cause of action do not preclude or in
    any way prejudice the allegations made under a separate cause of action.
    Breach of Contract
    10.     Seminole incorporates Paragraphs 6-9 as if fully set forth at length herein for all
    intents and purposes.
    -3-
    11.   The Easements grant Seminole the right to maintain, operate, protect, repair, and
    replace its pipeline and other appurtenances, which necessarily includes those maintenance and
    repair operations necessary to repair and replace the existing valve. Seminole has been ready,
    willing, and able to enter upon the Easements to perform the necessary repair and maintenance
    operations, but, because of Sibley's breach of and repudiation of the Easements, has been denied
    its valuable property rights, and is, without potentially breaching the peace, unable to make entry
    upon the Easements.
    12.   Because Sibley refused to allow Seminole access to its Easements to perform the
    necessary repair and maintenance operations, rights expressly granted to Seminole under the
    Easements, Sibley breached the Easements, for which Seminole seeks specific performance
    under the Easements and any and all damages it has and/or may incur as a result of Sibley's
    breach.
    Attorneys' Fees
    13.   Seminole incorporates Paragraphs 6-12 as if fully set forth at length herein for all
    intents and purposes.
    14.   Because of the wrongful conduct of Sibley, Seminole has been required to bring
    this suit and seek the relief herein stated to enforce its rights under the Easements. Seminole has
    provided all requisite notices and has satisfied all prerequisites for an award of attorneys' fees
    pursuant to Section 38.001(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and therefore
    seeks to recover its reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
    with this action.
    -4-
    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO SIBLEY'S COUNTERCLAIMS
    15.     Seminole has not breached the Easements.
    16.     Seminole has not committed an abuse of process, and all of the pleadings and
    motions that Seminole has filed herein and in the federal action that Sibley improperly removed
    to federal court were a proper exercise of Seminole's efforts to lawfully enforce the terms of the
    Easements and prevent Sibley's interference with Seminole's rights in and to the Easements.
    17.    There is no legitimate basis for ah award of punitive damages against Seminole.
    18.     Sibley's Counterclaims for "Conspiracy in Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985"
    are patently frivolous, and lack any legal basis.
    19.     There is no legitimate basis for the award of "attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.
    1988," and Sibley's Counterclaim for such is patently frivolous.
    WHEREFORE, Seminole respectfully prays (1) that it recoverall damages herein sought,
    together with its attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded
    hereunder at the maximum rate permitted by law, and all court costs incurred by Seminole; (2)
    that Sibley take nothing by virtue of her counterclaims against Seminole; and (3) for such other
    and further relief to which it may show itselfjustly entitled.
    Respectfully submitted,
    ZABEL FRE
    jomas/
    state Bar W
    SA.Fi
    ite Bar No. 00796580
    Heights Blvd.
    Houston, TX 77007
    (713)802-9117
    (713) 802-9114 (Fax)
    GILBERT & GILBERT LAW OFFICE
    John R. Gilbert
    State Bar No. 07898500
    Justin R. Gilbert
    State Bar No. 24043691
    222 North Velasco Street
    Angleton, Texas 77515
    (979) 849-5741
    (979) 849-7729 (Fax)
    COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF,
    SEMINOLE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I herby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoihg Seminole Pipeline Company
    LLC's First Amended Original Petition was served on the following pro se party via first class
    mail, return receipt requested, and a courtesy copy was emailed on this the 2 day of July 2014:
    Adriene Sibley
    4808 Fairmont Pkwy
    Pasadena, Texas 77505
    siblevadriene@yahqo.com
    VERIFICATION
    STATE OF TEXAS
    COUNTY OF HARRIS
    BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Adriene Sibley,
    affiant, a person whose identity have been verified. After I administered an oath to affiant,
    affiant testified:
    "My name is Adriene Sibley, I am of sound mind, over 21 years of age, capable of making this
    affidavit, and have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. I am the realtor in the Writ.
    The facts in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.
    All the document included with the petition for Writ of Prohibition are true and correct."
    FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
    Adriene Sibley
    SUBSCRIBED AND SWOTN TO before me by Adriene Sibley on this the O, day of
    March, 2015.
    LiOZ '€0 Jeqiueoea        Me-,,,lYiS
    seJidxg uoissiuiuLioo Am
    so»at ,o e»o,s 'onqru Ajdjon VCW/
    Notary                      ;
    PETER M. KIERNAN
    Notary Public, State ot Texas
    t          My Commission Expires
    Oecemtssf 03, 2017
    Ms