12/29/2017 6:42 PM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County CAUSE No. D-1-GN-17-005516 D-1-GN-17-005516 Terri Juarez THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DistRicr Court PLAINTIFF, vs. ‘Travis County, Texas Student Loan Relief, LLC Student Loan Relief of Texas, Ine. ‘Your Student Loan Relief Organization, and Jason Spencer, In jually, DEFENDANTS. 353" Judicial District Court DEFENDANT JASON SPENCER'S MOTION ‘TO TRANSFER VENUE AND ORIGINAL ANSWER Defendant, Jason Spencer, individually, by and through his attorney, Robert H. Rogers, files this motion to transfer venue to Dallas County, and contemporaneously files his Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Petition and Application For Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction. In support thereof, Jason Spencer would respectfully show the following: 1. This Case Should Be Transferred Pursuant to the Applicable Venue Statutes, Jason Spencer, hereinafter Defendant, files t n pursuant to TEX. R. Cv. P. 86 and TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.063. The Court should transfer the case to Dallas County because: (1) provi ns of Chapter 15 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and specifically Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 65.023(a) mandate venue in Dallas County; and (2) Travis County is not a proper alternative venue for this case. In these erg nema DEFENDANT IASON SPENCER'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 1circumstances, the Court should transfer the case to Dallas County. See Wichita Cnty. v, Hart, 917 SW.2d 779, 781 (Tex. 1996). A. Venue for injunctive relief is the Defendant's domicile which is Dallas County. ‘The original petition alleges multiple causes of action, but it is primarily an application for injunetive relief. § 65.023(a) of the Code provides that when the suit is for injunctive relief, venue shall be where the Defendant is domiciled. The petition alleges that the Defendant's home is in Dallas County and the Defendant was served in Dallas County. The mandatory venue provision should apply and the suit should be transferred to Dallas County. To determine the applicability of § 65.023(a) when a suit alleges multiple causes of action, the court is directed to look at the pleadings to determine if the injunctive relief is merely ancillary to the lawsuit, for example to maintain the status quo pending the resolution of the lawsuit, or is the injunction the primary purpose of the lawsuit. See Howell v. Texas Workers’ Comp. Commin, 143 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. App. 2004) The primary purpose of this suit is injunctive, A fair reading of this suit is that it is brought by the State of Texas in the public interest to shut down the Defendant’s business. ‘The remedies requested in the prayer section of the suit are primarily injunctive. In number, they list three remedies on behalf of the causes of action pled while they list thirteen under the injunctive relief. OF the three remedies the lawsuit lists that are not injunctive, only one is for the individual consumers loses. The remaining two are for the attorney's fees and the penalties of the State of Texas. The injunctive relief sought is not ancillary; the mandatory venue provision is applicable. The cause of action should be transferred to Dallas. === a URE ESN GEnEpUNERREERRENNenEenteReereeneeee eel ‘DEFENDANT JASON SPENCER'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND ORIGINALANSWER. Page 2+ ively, This Case § Transf C 15,002(b).. Even if this were not a mandatory venue case for which the only proper venue is Dallas County, the Court would still have discretion to transfer the case to Dallas County, pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM, CODE § 15,002(b) (providing for transfers “flor the "). The three convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of ju ied factors: injustice (0 the movant, interests of all the parties, and injustice to any other party if the action is transferred, all weigh in favor of transferring venue to Dallas County First, injustice to the Defendant is somewhat presumed based on the mandatory venue provision. Even if the Court determines that the primary purpose of the lawsuit is not injunctive, the Defendant is still forced to defend an injunctive lawsuit in a foreign county. Second, maintaining the suit in Travis County would work an injustice to the Defendant because of the parallel criminal proceedings in Dallas County. ‘The Defendant is currently the target of a criminal investigation regarding these same allegations by the Dallas office of the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Texas. The mental, physical and financial impact upon the Defendant of having to defend himself in two different portions of the state over the same allegations is unjust. ‘Third, the federal investigation in Dallas will become the hub around which all of the spokes of this lawsuit eventually connect. The lawsuit involves the interpretation of federal debt relief laws, the federal Department of Education is the only agency named in the suit and “42 million borrowers in the United States” are the potential victims. The federal investigation in Dallas County will ultimately turn this wheel.Fourth, in the event the State of Texas obtains an injunction against the Defendant, the enforcement of the injunction should be in Dallas County. For purposes of judicial ‘economy and fundamental fairness to the Defendant, Dallas County should be the venue for any hearings subsequent to the issuance of an injunction. The Defendant will be ing in Dallas County and the law enforcement authorities who would be in a position to testify about a violation of the injunction will be in Dallas County Fifth, there is no injustice to any party by transferring venue to Dallas County. No parti ire domiciled in Travis County. ‘The Office of the Attorney General is the only entity located in Travis County and they have offices in Dallas County. All listed parties are domiciled in Dallas County as well as the Defendant's counsel. All three factors for permissive venue are in favor of transferring venue to Dallas County. I. Request for Hearing The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court set a hearing on this motion, to be conducted pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CoDE § 15.064 and TEx. R. Civ. P. 87. The Defendant requests that, following the hearing, the Court grant the Defendant's motion to transfer venue, on either or both of the grounds set forth above, and transfer this action to Dallas County.A. General Denial Subject to and without waiving its motion to transfer, the Defendant asserts a general denial as is authorized by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and respectfully requests that Plaintiff be required to prove the charges and allegations against him by meeting the appropriate burden of proof required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas. PRAYER ‘The Defendant respectfully asks that the Court grant its motion to transfer venue and transfer this action to Dallas County, The Defendant also requests that Plaintiff take nothing by reason of his charges and allegations, that the Defendant recover all costs, and that it have all other relief to which it may show itself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert H. Rogers _ ROBERT H. ROGERS 4711 Gaston Ave. Dallas, Texas 75246 Phone: (214) 828-4578 Fax: (866) 202-2805 SBN 17186225 roberthrogers@sbeglobal.net ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DEFENDANT JASON SPENCER'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND ORIGINALANSWER. Page 5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, ROBERT H. ROGERS, do hereby cer fy that on the day this motion and answer was filed, a true and correct copy of the above instrument has been electronically served pursuant Tex. R. Civ. P.. 21a on Mr. lan Howe, representing the State of Texas. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE ‘The undersigned states that on the day this motion was filed, I attempted to confer with Assistant Attorney General Ian Howe whose voicemail stated that he would be unavailable and referred me to Candace Smith. I then conferred with Ms. Smith and she informed me that all decisions regarding venue would have to be made by Mr. Howe. {s/ Robert H. Rogers ROBERT H. ROGERS