Federal Judges

Attorney Tammy Tran’s Dual Representation of Sacked METRO Developers PRCHOU

Tran’s dual representation: PRCHOU are being sued in Houston federal court and have filed suit against METRO in Harris County District Court.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. PRCHOU, LLC

(4:24-cv-00796)

District Court, S.D. Texas

MAR 4, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 5, 2024
SEP 5, 2024

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

Defendants file this Unopposed Verified Motion for Enlargement and/or Extension of Time, requesting a 14 day extension of the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses Pursuant to Rule 12(f) and Brief in Support (or “Motion to Strike”).

I.

Hurricane Beryl has affected numerous residents of Houston and Fort Bend Counties1 including the undersigned counsel for Defendants,2 Minh-Tam “Tammy” Tran (or “Tran”).

Ms. Tran fell ill in the aftermath of the storm and has been working diligently to catch-up following her illness and the extensive period without power and internet services following the storm.

1 https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-beryl-texas-7dfd5353671ee30d0c6d11518ea5a370

2 Minh-Tam Tran represents main Defendants PRCHOU, LLC, Mukadas D. Kurban and Apar Pataer.

In furtherance of these efforts, Defendants respectfully request a 14 day extension of the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

II.

The extension would provide the time needed for the Defendants and their counsel to prepare and file the appropriate response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. The proposed new deadline is September 13, 2024. This request is not made for purposes of delay but so that substantial justice may be done.

III.

All Defendants join in this request. Finally, counsel for Plaintiff was consulted about the relief requested herein and said opposing counsel promptly and graciously indicated that Plaintiff is unopposed.

For the reasons stated above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses to September 13, 2024. Defendants also request all other relief to which they are justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Tammy Tran Law Firm

/s/ Minh-Tam Tran

Minh-Tam (Tammy) Tran
Texas Bar No. 20186400

4900 Fournace Place, Suite 418
Bellaire, Texas 77401
Telephone: (832) 372-4403
Email: ttran@tt-lawfirm.com

Attorneys Defendants PRCHOU, LLC,

Mukadas D. Kurban, and APAR PATAER

Meade Neese & Barr LLP

/s/ D. John Neese, Jr.
D. John Neese, Jr.
State Bar No. 24002678

Samuel B. Haren
State Bar No. 24059899

2118 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 355-1200
jneese@mnbllp.com
sharen@mnbllp.com

Attorneys for Defendants Abdul R. Dawood and Maria E. Dawood

Certificate of Conference

Counsel for Plaintiff indicated that he is opposed to the relief requested herein.

/s/ Minh-Tam Tran
Minh-Tam (Tammy) Tran

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record by electronic service on August 30, 2024.

/s/ Minh-Tam Tran
Minh-Tam (Tammy) Tran

VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS            § COUNTY OF HARRIS      §

Before me, a notary public, on this day, personally appeared MINH-TAM TRAN, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing document and, being by me first duly sworn, declared that the statements therein contained are true and correct and within personal knowledge.

MINH-TAM TRAN

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on August 27, 2024, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

Tammy Tran is a leading voice among Vietnamese-Americans in the United States. Tammy attended and graduated from the University of Texas, School of Law,

clerked for the Honorable Melinda Harmon, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,

and

practiced litigation at an international firm Fulbright & Jaworski, one of the top litigation firms in the country, in Houston, Texas (with 1,000 attorneys) for a total of eight years.

Tammy founded the Tammy Tran Law Firm to serve the Asian-American community by giving its members a voice in the American justice system.

Tammy has been recognized for her activism inside and outside the courtroom, in matters of broad national consequence as well as cases of local interest, on behalf of thousands of clients whose causes and concerns has been the focus of Tammy’s career and life.

While her legal abilities have brought her renown, it is Tammy’s Christian love and compassion—especially for the poor and oppressed—that have defined her life.

Her clients have been her cause, but her Christian calling has been her life’s work.

A Team Approach

With over 25+ years of experience, PRC+HOU is a full-service general contractor as well as a qualified sub-contractor on a spectrum of projects.  Results include effective collaborations, cost-saving efficiency, and a level of quality that reaches beyond design/building requirements to actual performance needs.

Our Values

Safety, Operational Excellence, Stewardship, Lasting Relationships, Integrity, and Innovation.

Our Management Team

We bring a wide array of depth and breadth of experience.

Dansi Kurban

Founder & CEO

Over 20+ years experience as a real estate broker with 50+ agents. Including property management and construction.

Abdul Dawood

Managing Director

Over 30+ years of experience as a builder and developer of every type of commercial real estate project including residential, retail, hospitality, medical, restaurants, warehouses and offices

Jacob Varghese

COO

With over 20+ years as an international entrepreneur, clients include Nike, Converse, Cartier, Uniqlo and Diageo.

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

AUG 30, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 5, 2024

Plaintiff, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (the “Surety”), files this its Complaint against Defendants, PRCHOU, LLC; Mukadas D. Kurban; Apar Pataer; Abdul R. Dawood; and Maria E. Dawood (collectively, the “Indemnitors”), and respectfully states:

I. Parties

1.                  Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut.

The Surety is authorized to do business in the State of Texas.

2.                  PRCHOU, LLC (the “Principal”) is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in the Houston, Texas.

The Principal is authorized to do business in the State of Texas.

The Principal has a single member: Mukadas D. Kurban, who is an individual resident, domiciliary, and citizen of the State of Texas (2027 Westshore Dr., Missouri City, Texas 77459).

Thus, for diversity purposes, the Principal is a domiciliary and citizen of the State of Texas.

The Principal can be served with process through its registered agent: Mukadas D. Kurban, 3411 Richmond Avenue, Ste. 610, Houston, Texas 77046.

3.                  Mukadas D. Kurban is an individual resident, domiciliary, and citizen of the State of Texas who can be served with process at 2027 Westshore Dr., Missouri City, Texas 77459, or wherever she may be found.

Thus, for diversity purposes, Mukadas D. Kurban is a citizen of the State of Texas.

4.                  Apar Pataer is an individual resident, domiciliary, and citizen of the State of Texas who can be served with process at 2027 Westshore Dr., Missouri City, Texas 77459, or wherever he may be found.

Thus, for diversity purposes, Apar Pataer is a citizen of the State of Texas.

5.                  Abdul R. Dawood is an individual resident, domiciliary, and citizen of the State of Texas who can be served with process at 8118 Cicada Drive, Missouri City, Texas, 77459, or wherever he may be found.

Thus, for diversity purposes, Abdul R. Dawood is a citizen of the State of Texas.

6.                  Maria E. Dawood is an individual resident, domiciliary, and citizen of the State of Texas who can be served with process at 8118 Cicada Drive, Missouri City, Texas, 77459, or wherever she may be found.

Thus, for diversity purposes Maria E. Dawood is a citizen of the State of Texas.

II. Jurisdiction

7.                  The jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this action is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

III. VENUE

8.                  Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(3) in that the Southern District, Houston Division is a judicial district in which in which all of the Indemnitors are subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

In addition, the Indemnitors consented to jurisdiction and venue in a valid forum selection clause.

IV.

Factual Background

A.                 The Indemnitors Executed an Agreement of Indemnity in Favor of the Surety

9.                  The Principal approached the Surety to issue performance and payment bonds in connection with construction projects.

10.              The Surety required indemnity prior to issuance of any bond.

11.              This indemnity requirement was met by execution of a General Agreement of Indemnity by the Indemnitors in favor of the Surety, dated May 9, 2019 (the “Indemnity Agreement”).

A true and correct copy of the Indemnity Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

12.              The Indemnitors have an obligation under the Indemnity Agreement to indemnify the Surety from loss:

3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: Indemnitors shall exonerate, indemnify and save Company harmless from and against all Loss. An itemized, sworn statement by an employee of Company, or other evidence of payment, shall be prima facie evidence of the propriety, amount and existence of Indemnitors’ liability. Amounts due to Company shall be payable upon demand.

B.                 The Bonds and Claims

13.              Relying upon the Indemnity Agreement, the Surety issued various payment and performance bonds on behalf of the Principal (the “Bonds”).

14.              After execution of the Bonds, the Principal was issued notices of default and/or terminated by the obligee on the Bonds.

15.              The Surety also received claims against the Bonds by subcontractors and/or suppliers of the Principal who alleged that they were not paid by the Principal for labor and/or materials provided on the bonded projects.

16.              Based on the claims against the Bonds, and in accordance with the obligations of the Indemnity Agreement, the Surety demanded collateral of $2,866,884.78 on July 16, 2023.

A true and correct copy of the demand for collateral is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated herein by reference.

17.              The Indemnitors did not respond to the demand and have not provided collateral as requested by the Surety and as required by their obligations in the Indemnity Agreement.

18.              On August 8, 2023, the Surety notified the Indemnitors that the failure to provide collateral constituted a default of the Indemnity Agreement.

A true and correct copy of notice of default is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and is incorporated herein by reference.

19.              At no point have the Indemnitors sought to cure this default.

C.                 Damages of the Surety

20.              Based on the existence of the claims against its Bonds, the Surety has suffered losses under the Bonds of at least $147,851.06 as of March 1, 2024.

21.              In addition, the Surety faces continuing exposure on the Bonds in connection with claims by the obligee tied to the failure of the Principal to complete the bonded projects.

22.              The investigation by the Surety into the claims against the Bonds by the obligee reveals that the Surety will have a loss of at least $1,512,283.12, although the obligee asserts that the damages owed by the Surety under the Bonds is higher.

23.              The Surety continues to incur losses in the form of attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuing enforcement of the Indemnitors’ obligations under the Indemnity Agreement.

24.              In light of the claims against the Bonds and the losses incurred by the Surety under the Bonds, the Indemnitors have an obligation under the Indemnity Agreement to indemnify the Surety from any loss.

25.              The Indemnitors have failed to fulfill their obligations under the Indemnity Agreement.

V. Conditions Precedent

26.              All conditions precedent to recovery by the Surety from each defendant has occurred or has been performed.

VI. Causes of Action

Count I

Breach of Indemnity Agreement

27.              The Surety incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth, the allegations set forth above.

28.              The Indemnitors are liable to the Surety under the Indemnity Agreement for all losses the Surety has incurred, and will incur, in connection with the Bonds.

Count II

Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses

29.              The Surety incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth, the allegations set forth above.

30.              The Surety is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and expenses from the Indemnitors as a direct loss under the provisions of the Indemnity Agreement.

31.              Additionally, and alternatively, the Indemnitors are obligated to reimburse the Surety for its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the bringing of this complaint under Section 38.001, et. seq. of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code

VII. Request for Relief

For the foregoing reasons Plaintiff, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, respectfully request that the Indemnitors be cited to appear and answer herein and, upon final trial thereof, that the Surety receive:

1.                  Judgment against the Indemnitors in the amount of damages incurred by the Surety;

2.                  Attorneys’ fees and expenses;

3.                  Pre-judgment and post judgment interest at the maximum permissible at law or in equity;

4.                  Costs of court; and

5.                  Such other and further relief to which the Surety is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Bains Law PLLC

By: /s/ Brandon K. Bains

Brandon K. Bains – Attorney in Charge
State Bar No. 24050126
S.D. Texas Bar No. 711977
P.O. Box 559
Azle, TX 76098
Telephone: (214) 494-8097
brandon@bainslaw.com

ATTORNEY TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA

202412963 –

PRCHOU LLC (D/B/A PREMIER REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION HO vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY 

(Court 133, JUDGE JACLANEL M. MCFARLAND)

FEB 28, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 5, 2024

Defendant Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (“METRO”) files this original answer to Plaintiff PRCHOU LLC, d/b/a Premier Regional Construction Houston’s (“Plaintiff” or “PRCHOU”) original petition (the “Petition”), and in support would respectfully show as follows:

I.                   FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1.                  PRCHOU paints a story of a hard-working company and its diligent owner, wrongfully replaced as part of a METRO conspiracy to utilize a different vendor.

But this story is a fabrication, concocted by a failed vendor after the fact to justify its woefully inadequate performance.

2.                  PRCHOU breached its duties and obligations under not only its contract with METRO, but also with its subcontractors and sureties.

PRCHOU’s breaches have led to multiple lawsuits filed against it. But this is PRCHOU’s own fault—not METRO’s.

3.                  PRCHOU is correct, however, in that problems with its performance began almost immediately after the consummation of its contract with METRO.

PRCHOU failed to provide compliant scheduling, complete work timely, and maintain public safety.

These breaches—and others—resulted in METRO sending non-conformance reports as early as August 2022.

4.                  Despite METRO’s early and frequent feedback, PRCHOU failed to cure.

METRO issued its first Letter of Concern to PRCHOU on or about November 28, 2022, expressing METRO’s concern regarding scheduling and period of performance.

5.                  PRCHOU again failed to address METRO’s concerns.

6.                  METRO subsequently issued Cure Notices on or about February 7, 2023 and February 13, 2023 for ongoing scheduling issues and defective work. Public safety in particular was an ongoing concern, as Plaintiff failed to maintain pedestrian access and traffic protection, resulting in a safety shutdown in March 2023.

This shutdown was caused by PRCHOU’s failure to provide necessary signage, flaggers, police officers, and detours as required by Contract specifications.

7.                  In addition to these ongoing performance, safety, and scheduling issues, PRCHOU had continued compliance issues related to its usage and payment of subcontractors.

PRCHOU tries to excuse these serious failings by attempting to depict itself as a wronged small business— but being a small business is not an excuse for failing to comply with the reporting and payment requirements related to subcontractors under the Contract and METRO policy.

PRCHOU’s reticence to report subcontractor participating hurt Houston small businesses.

8.                  Incomplete and deficient work, late or non-existent payments to subcontractors, failure to comply with METRO’s Small Business Program, and improper scheduling were all defaults attributable to PRCHOU.

These defaults resulted in METRO’s termination of the Contract on or about May 5, 2023.

Critically, when METRO terminated the Contract, PRCHOU had already abandoned the worksite, leaving it unsecured and a direct threat to public health and safety.

9.                  PRCHOU failed in every aspect of its performance.

Despite its numerous failures, METRO worked with PRCHOU for over a year to provide PRCHOU with opportunity after opportunity to remedy its many mistakes.

Ultimately, METRO was required to conduct not one, but two, formal procurements to continue the project.

PRCHOU—not METRO—is responsible for the delay, expense, and safety issues caused by its non-performance.

II.                PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

1.                  METRO is a governmental entity entitled to governmental immunity, absent an express waiver of that immunity.

See Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty. v. Douglas, 544 S.W.3d 486, 492 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied);

see also Kosoco, Inc. v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty., No. 01-14-00515-CV, 2015 WL 4966880, at *6 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 20, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op)

(acknowledging that METRO is a governmental entity).

Governmental immunity has two components: immunity from liability and immunity from suit.

Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 332 (Tex. 2006).

2.                  Governmental immunity deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction unless the governmental entity consents to suit or immunity is waived.

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004).

A movant may file a plea to the jurisdiction on any ground over which it claims the Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction.

See City of Austin v. L. S. Ranch, Ltd., 970 S.W.2d 750, 752 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.);

Amador v. San Antonio State Hosp., 993 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied);

State v. Benavides, 772 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied).

3.                  The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts affirmatively showing that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction and must show that immunity has been waived.

Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993); Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t, 972 S.W.2d at 140, 142-143.

In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, the Court must not weigh the merits of the claim, but should consider only the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry.

Cnty. of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000).

4.                  Accordingly, METRO respectfully requests that judgment be entered dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against METRO for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and granting METRO such other and further relief, general or special, at law or in equity, to which it may be justly entitled.

III.             GENERAL DENIAL

1.  Subject to and without waiver of METRO’s plea to the jurisdiction, METRO generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition and demands strict proof thereof pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Texas and in accordance with Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

IV.             AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Subject to and without waiver of METRO’s plea to the jurisdiction, pleading further and in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 94 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, METRO asserts for further answer the following defenses and affirmative defenses:

1.                  METRO is entitled to governmental immunity.

2.                  The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against METRO.

3.                  METRO affirmatively pleads its entitlement to all statutory limitations on liability, including pursuant to Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code.

4.                  METRO asserts that the damages and injuries alleged by Plaintiff were legally and proximately caused, as a whole or in part, by the negligence, fault, and other culpable conduct of Plaintiff.1

5.                  METRO asserts that the damages and injuries alleged by Plaintiff were legally and proximately caused, as a whole or in part, by the negligence, fault, and other culpable conduct of persons or parties over whom METRO had no control, including but not limited to parties that may be designated responsible third parties by order of this Court.

6.                  Any claims Plaintiff may have for damages are subject to offset.

7.                  Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

8.                  METRO asserts the affirmative defense of ‘in pari delicto’ as the Plaintiff’s own actions or omissions contributed to or caused the situation from which the alleged damages arise.

9.                  Plaintiff failed to satisfy all conditions precedent.

10.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to prior material breach.

11.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred because of Plaintiff’ anticipatory breach of the Contract.

12.              METRO was excused from performing under the Contract because Plaintiff breached the contract first by repudiating its obligations by indicating it would not perform under the terms of the Contract. Specifically, Plaintiff breached its obligations under the Contract by its continued performance deficiencies.

1 On March 4, 2024, Travelers Casualty and Surety of America filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No.4:24-cv-00796) against PRCHOU, LLC; Mukadas D. Kurban; Apar Pataer; Abdul R. Dawood; and Maria E. Dawood.

This action follows from METRO’s making a claim on Plaintiff’s surety bond following METRO’s termination of Plaintiff’s contract due to Plaintiff’s numerous defaults and failures to cure.

13.              METRO was justified in the alleged conduct, and Plaintiff’s claims are therefore barred.

14.              The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, in whole or in part.

15.              Plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance.

16.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred by repudiation.

17.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to waiver.

18.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to laches.

19.              Plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages.

20.              Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing its entitlement to damages.

21.              All or part of the damages requested by Plaintiff are unavailable as a matter of law.

22.              METRO denies that Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees.

23.              METRO reserves the right to assert any additional affirmative defenses or claims of avoidances as may be appropriate based upon facts or issues disclosed during the course of additional investigation and discovery.

V.                PRAYER

For the reasons set forth herein, METRO respectfully requests that Plaintiff take nothing by way of its claims, that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice, and for all relief at law or in equity to which METRO may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

By:       /s/ Ben Stephens

Rick Anderson
State Bar No. 24059047
Rick.Anderson@huschblackwell.com

Sandy Hellums-Gomez
State Bar No. 24036750
Sandy.Gomez@huschblackwell.com

Ben Stephens
State Bar No. 24098472
Ben.Stephens@huschblackwell.com

Husch Blackwell LLP
600 Travis, Suite 2350
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone:     (713) 647-6800
Facsimile:      (713) 647-6884

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Harris County Criminal Magistrate Judge Sharon Chu aka Muharib’s Bad Faith Bankruptcy Dismissed

Jan. 2024: The judges of Harris County District Courts appointed Sharon Chu Criminal Law Hearing Officer. In federal court, this happened.

Candace Brooks Hires The Pope and The Lord Removes Her to a Higher Pulpit

It’s all BBQ and Brisket. Maybe Candace Brooks can get refinanced by former bankruptcy Chief Judge David R. Jones and his own legal BBQ team.

Fifth Circuit Orders Remand of Michael Van Deelen’s Case for Further Fact-Finding

Jurisdiction Dispute: Michael Van Deelen’s Objection to Bankruptcy Court’s Authority Triggers Further Review

Attorney Tammy Tran’s Dual Representation of Sacked METRO Developers PRCHOU
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top