BDF Hopkins Sued in Harris County. ‘Of Counsel’ Notably Missing from Hopkins Pro Se Signature

202212297 – RUIZ, RODNEY vs. DELGADO, JO ANN (HONORABLE JUDGE) (Court 281)

FEB 28, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 10, 2022

I. GENERAL DENIAL

1. Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Attorney Defendants generally deny each and every allegation contained within Plaintiffs’ Petition and any amendments thereto and demands strict proof thereof as required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas. Attorney Defendants further reserve the right to plead further and in greater particularity as the case progresses.

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2. Attorney Defendants assert attorney immunity as an affirmative defense as required to be specifically pled by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94.

The facts and allegations against Saucedo were alleged conducted when he was counsel with Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP and Attorney Defendants acted solely in their capacity as counsel for the mortgagee and mortgage servicer.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of attorney immunity and/or absolute privilege to the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon alleged conduct by Attorney Defendants in the representation of their client in an adversarial context to Plaintiff.

3. Attorney Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are further barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

4. Attorney Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are further barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

5. Attorney Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are further barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion and claim preclusion.

6. Attorney Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are further barred by unclean hands.

7. Attorney Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are further barred by lack of duty.

8. Attorney Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are further barred by laches.

9. Attorney Defendants assert that Plaintiffs failed to state any claim against Attorney Defendants and further failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Attorney Defendants.

10. In addition to and/or alternatively, without waiving the foregoing, Attorney Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to lack of privity of contract.

11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by reason of Attorney Defendants’ compliance with applicable statutes and other provisions of law.

12. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by Plaintiffs’ own acts, negligent or otherwise, for which Attorney Defendants are not liable.

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants Israel Saucedo and Barret Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP pray that Plaintiffs’ Petition be dismissed and that Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their claims.

Israel Saucedo and Barret Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP further request that judgment be granted in their favor with respect to all claims asserted by Plaintiffs, and for all further and other relief, whether at law or in equity, to which Israel Saucedo and Barret Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP may be justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

HOPKINS LAW, PLLC

By: /s/ Shelley L. Hopkins

Shelley L. Hopkins
State Bar No. 24036497
Mark D. Hopkins
State Bar No. 00793975
3 Lakeway Centre Ct., Suite 110
Austin, Texas 78734
(512) 600-4320
mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
ISRAEL SAUCEDO AND BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, LLP

Case Contacts