Maserati Owner n’ Thug With a JD Andrew Lehman’s a Habitual Felon Who Won’t Stop Suin’ as a Pauper

NOVEMBER 12, 2024 [LEHMAN, PRO SE, IFP]

Address: 1743 Randons Point Drive, Sugar Land, TX, 77478

Case No. 24-DCV-323048

Andrew Lehman, an individual vs Darnco LLC , a Texas Limited Liability Company, Scott Darnell an Individual, Rebecca Darnell, an Individual (Active)

Lehman files this civil case with a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond, which is sealed.

This case is to do with his Maserati Levante Larussa European luxury vehicle (purchased at Helfman, Katy for $53,486 per Lehman’s original petition), $50k financed at $1,800 p.m. (per previous IFP application which was not sealed), auto insurance cost unknown.

His home address listed at time of filing shows a rental of $4,500. The home value is in excess of $1M.

The complaint discusses visits by Monica Riley to the Defendants auto repair facility on June 26, 2024 and August 23, 2024.

Lehman also avers he retained an expert from  Miami, Florida “at considerable expense, including travel and lodging”.

He also submitted bills for service costs, paying invoices for $484.63 on June 26, 2024 and $619.14 on July 15, 2024 (Total $1,103.77).

Finally, convicted felon Nicole Meier signed a deficient “unsworn declaration” on Feb. 20,  2025, attesting to the mailing of default judgment (certificate of service).

COMES NOW, DARNCO LLC, Defendant in the above-entitled and numbered cause and files this Plea to the Jurisdiction, asserting that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Plaintiff, ANDREW LEHMAN, due to Plaintiffs lack of standing to pursue said claims.

In support hereof, Defendant would respectfully show the Court as follows:

STANDARD OF LAW

“When assessing a plea to the jurisdiction, our analysis begins with the live pleadings.

We may also consider evidence submitted to negate the existence of jurisdiction-and we must consider such evidence when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issue.

We construe the plaintiffs pleadings liberally, taking all factual assertions as true, and look to the plaintiffs intent.

We must grant the plea to the jurisdiction if the plaintiffs pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction.

And we must grant the plea if the defendant presents undisputed evidence that negates the existence of the court’s jurisdiction.”

Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tex. 2012).

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

“Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case.

Standing is implicit in the concept of subject matter jurisdiction….

Subject matter jurisdiction is never presumed and cannot be waived.”

Texas Ass’n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440,  443-44  (Tex.  1993).

“For  standing,  a plaintiff  must be  personally  aggrieved.”

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman, 252 S.W.3d 299, 304–05 (Tex. 2008).

Plaintiffs claims all arise from alleged damage to a specific vehicle.’

However, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that Plaintiff owns said car.

Instead, the record evidence supplied by Plaintiff Lehman to the Defendants in support of an alleged Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim conclusively shows that this vehicle is owned by Platinum Tax Relief, Inc. – not Plaintiff Andrew Lehman.2

Platinum Tax Relief, Inc. is not a party to this litigation.

“Although the name on a certificate of title is not conclusive of ownership, evidence of the name in which an automobile is registered raises a presumption of ownership.

That presumption vanishes only when positive evidence to the contrary is introduced.”

Grant v. Espiritu, 470 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex. App.­ El Paso 2015, no pet.).

Only the registered owner of a vehicle has the justiciable interest in a vehicle necessary to sue for alleged damage to that vehicle.

Id. at 203.

Without proof of ownership, Plaintiff Lehman lacks standing to sue for alleged damage to the Maserati, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims, and this case must be dismissed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, DARNCO LLC, respectfully requests that this Court:

1.      Sustain this Plea to the Jurisdiction;

2.         Dismiss Plaintiffs claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

3.         Award Defendant all costs of court; and

4.         Grant such other and further relief to which Defendant may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

BAIN & BARKLEY
A Partnership of Professional Corporations

1 Pl.’s Orig. Pet. (Nov. 12, 2024) at 14, para. 44

(alleging Defendants committed fraud “in the destruction of Plaintiffs vehicle”);

id. at 15, para. 49

(alleged failure “to perform the oil change service with reasonable care and honesty”);

id. at 51

(breach of contract “leading to severe damage to Plaintiffs vehicle”);

id. at 53

(alleging the “conversion of Plaintiffs vehicle”);

id. at 20, para. 60

(alleging DTPA damages consisting of “the cost of repairs, loss of use of the vehicle, and replacement of the entire vehicle engine, and/or the entire automobile”);

id. at para. 64

(same damages for negligence).

2 Exhibit A: Buyer’s Slip for Maserati VIN 9812 (Mar. 3, 2023).

ROUTED TO COURT 3/27/2025 CB

RT’C TO D. CLERK    3/28/2025 cb