Update: May 4, 2021; A proposed order prepared by counsel for Gericare with revised and agreed schedule for the case, which includes the agreement that pro se’s retain counsel by May 30, 2020 and also answer the complaint – very optimistic considering it’s a year into the case. LIT won’t be holding their breath on that deadline being met.
Update: 20 April, Terry Barnes is headin’ for a road trip to a graduation and wants to be excused from the virtual conference. Apparently he won’t have any mobile devices with him to dial in. Oh and he wants all defendants excused so he can avoid discussin’ the missin’ million. pic.twitter.com/1yx8kAOmeD
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) April 20, 2021
Update; April 21, 2021; Sure says Judge Hanks, we always give y’all extra time and will reset schedules for school graduations and deny elder citizens who are rushed to hospital in an ambulance…it’s how we roll in Texas Federal Courts..Southern charm…zoom into your call on Friday April 30 per the attached call in details but if there’s anything else y’all need, just holla’.
Update: April 20, 2021; A letter has been submitted to S.D. Court from pro se acting on behalf of a company or companies (a no, no as discussed already below) wants to let the court know he’s got personal matters more important than the missing $1 million….
Terry Wilmot Barnes
55 E. Long Lake Rd, Ste 206
Troy, Michigan 48085
April 20, 2021
Via email only cm4147 @txs.uscourts.gov
Gabrielle Clair
Case Manager to the Hon. George C. Hanks, Jr.
United States Courthouse
515 Rusk St, Rm 5300
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: Gericare Medical Supply, Inc., v. J.L. Sadick, et al.
US District Court Case No. 4:20-cv-02425
Dear Ms. Clair:
This letter is written in response to the Court’s Notice of Setting [DE 41] of a Pre-Motion Conference on plaintiffs request for leave to amend plaintiff’s Complaint in the above referenced matter , as communicated in counsel’s April 16, 2021 correspondence [DE 40). As you know, the Court has scheduled the Pre-Motion Conference to be held via Zoom on Thursday, April 22, 2021 @ 11am.
Unfortunately, I am unable to participate in the Pre-Motion Conference on April 22. I am traveling tomorrow, April 21, to go out-of-state to attend my daughter’ s college graduation – with commencement taking place April 22. Accordingly , I respectfully request that the Pre Motion Conference be rescheduled for a date on or after April 27.
In addition , by way of response to counsel’s notification letter, I request that counsel ‘ s request for leave to amend be denied for several reasons , including but not limited to the following :
The Complaint [DE 1) was filed over nine months ago, on July 9, Subsequently , this Court’s Docket Control Order [DE I 6) set November 25, 2020 as the deadline for amendment of pleadings and joinder of parties. Accordingly , plaintiffs request for leave to amend its Complaint is untimely – as it falls almost six months after the court-imposed deadline for doing so, and as case milestone dates quickly approach.
The fact that the Complaint [DE l] asserts no cause(s) of action against me whatsoever demonstrates the obvious fact that I had no contract or direct dealings with the plaintiff. In addition, the Court can logically infer that the same goes for the others plaintiff now seeks to add as principal defendants , namely, Gregory Jones, Laura Romeo and Imitari Corporation. Otherwise , undoubtedly all four of us would have been named as principal As a result , there is no basis to grant leave to the plaintiff to add us as principal defendants now.
Update: April 16, 2021; A letter has been submitted to S.D. Court from Gericare seeking leave to amend their complaint and hold a pre-motion conference if necessary because the dosh has apparently involved way more people and companies than originally bargained for (and which are being represented pro se against federal rules as we identified earlier – and which has now been pointed out by Gericare in their letter). We anticipate this will be granted, considering the sum stolen from Gericare, $1M.
It’s all arranged; Zoom conf. set for 11am, Thursday 22 Apr per Order.
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Gabrielle Clair
Case Manager to Judge George C. Hanks, Jr.
United States Courthouse
515 Rusk St., Room 5300
Houston, TX 77002
Re: Request for Pre-Motion Conference: Plaintiffs Leave to Amend Pleading Gericare Medical Supply, Inc. v. J.L. Sadick, et al.
(Case No. 4:20-cv-2425)
Dear Ms. Clair:
Pursuant to Rule 6(B)(iv) of Judge Hanks’ Court Procedures , please accept this letter as Plaintiff Gericare Medical Suppl y, Inc.’s (“Gericare”) formal request to file a motion seeking leave to amend the Complaint in the above-referenced matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and to hold a pre-motion conference relating to this request should the comt feel it is necessary.
Gericare seeks to amend the complaint to add additional causes of action and new defendants. Of the new defendants, three proposed defendants were named as third-party defendants in the third party complaint that defendants J.L. Sadick and J.L. Sadick, P.C. (collectively “Sadick”) filed on November 25, 2020 (Doc. No. 21).
Third-party defendants Imitari Corp. (“lmitari”) and Terry W. Barnes (“Barnes”) answered the third party complaint prose on Feb. 26, 2021 (Doc. No. 35), and Gregory A. Jones, Jr. (“Jones”) filed his answer prose on March 01, 2021 (Doc. No. 36).1
The remaining proposed defendants are:
(1) Cojones Capital, Inc., a New York Corporation directed and controlled by Jones and/or Barnes (“Cajones”) ; and
(2) and Laura Romeo, an individual from lilinois (“Romeo”).
A copy of the proposed amended Complaint and exhibits are attached in the following link given the size of the exhibits: https://bur r.share file .com/d-s57f2 1 l 95c70c404ca8cf3a2 39fe7f 7aa.
1 Gericare notes, however, that corporations “cannot appear pro se in federal court.” National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Elite Coil Tubing Sols., LLC, No. CV H-13-0374, 2014 WL 12618088, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2014). Thus, Imitari Corp. must retain counsel in order to participate in these proceedings.
By way of brief background, this lawsuit arises out of the tortious disappearance of more than $1 Million Gericare was fraudulently induced to send Sadick in conjunction with Gericare’s attempt to purchase what turned out to be non-existent Personal Protection Equipment (“PPE”). Defendants’ wrongful actions have caused Gericare to suffer millions of dollars in damages.
As noted during the initial status conference in this case, Gericare was not aware of most facts relating to the fraudulent transaction, or the true identities of those involved therein when it filed the Complaint.
As such, Gericare has engaged in extensive written discovery regarding these topics with Sadick, which on several occasions required Gericare to undertake good faith efforts to obtain complete discovery responses and responsive documents without involving the Court.
Gericare has also issued more than 20 subpoenas to third parties and conducted additional investigation relating to information obtained through discovery in an effort to determine the facts surrounding the fraudulent transaction giving rise to this lawsuit as well as the identities of those involved therein. This investigation and extensive discovery efforts have resulted in the proposed amendment to the Complaint.
In advance of sending this letter, we conferred with Sadick and attempted to confer with third-pai1y defendants Imitari, Barnes and Jones, sending emails to Barnes and Jones on April 9, 2021, at addresses they previously used to communicate with Gericare.
Sadick’s counsel consented to the proposed amendment.
Failing to receive a response from Barnes or Jones, we sent follow up emails on Apri I 13, 2021, stating that we intended to advise the Court of their positions relating to the amendment on Friday, April 16, 2021, setting a deadline to respond of 5 p.m. CDT on April 15, 2021. We also called Barnes and Jones on April 14, 2021, at telephone numbers they previously used to communicate with Gericare, but were unable to reach them. As of the date of this letter, we have not been able to discuss the proposed amendment with either Barnes or Jones in writing or by phone.
In conclusion, we believe that good cause exists to allow the proposed amendment We appreciate very much your time and attention to this matter.
Please do not hesitate to let us know of any questions or comments at your convenience.
Very truly yours
Joshua H. Threadcraft
Update: March 24, 2021; No movement since the Order on Motion to Strike (8th March).
As we all know, a corporation cannot respond to a law suit as pro se in federal court, but that’s exactly what Terry Barnes has done. Imitari Corporation was recently established (2019) and the reply by Barnes clearly shows knowledge of the law, so it’s hard to believe Barnes is not aware of the law e.g. corporations need to be represented by an attorney in federal court.
Indeed, Barnes is listed on another corporation, called Metro Doctors Inc (2009) which is a primary care provider established in Farmington Hills, Michigan specializing in general practice. Metro Doctors Inc operates as a multi-specialty business group with one or more individual providers who practice different areas of specialization. The authorized official of this NPI record is Mr. Terry Wilmot Barnes (Owner).
There is maybe truth to the name of Barnes corporation as in latin, Imitari means an imitation…only time will tell what happened to the million dollars in this case…
LIT COMMENTARY
On August 11th, an entry of default was requested and the following day, the court obliged, entering default on Wednesday, 12th Aug., 2020. Over the weekend and after default entered, a response has been filed. You’ll see Jan Laurence (J.L.) Sadick received a ‘fully probated’ suspension for similar conduct just recently. It’s how Texas Bar rolls…
ORDER
Your initial scheduling conference in this case is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 12, 2020. As a general rule, I require counsel to attend initial scheduling conferences in person. Given the coronavirus outbreak’s devastating impact on our society, that general rule is obviously suspended for the November 12, 2020 initial scheduling conferences. In an effort to maximize modern technology, we will conduct the pretrial conferences by videoconference using the platform Zoom. A day or so before the initial scheduling conference my case manager will circulate to all counsel of record a link to join the Zoom meeting. Please click on that link at least 5-10 minutes before your hearing to test your system.
Here are some basic instructions on how to use Zoom:
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
- a telephone; or
- a smart phone with camera; or
- a computer with camera and microphone and access to internet
SOFTWARE
- Please download the Zoom Client well in advance of the hearing:
- The free app for smartphone is available at the Apple App Store for iPhones and Google Play for
- The Free Software for your computer is available at us. Click on the “Resources” tab at the top right and select “Download Zoom Client.”
- You do not have to register with Zoom, but it is encouraged and it is
Please confer with opposing counsel as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f), and prepare and file by Thursday, November 5, 2020, a joint discovery/case management plan.
Upon receipt and review of the joint discovery/case management plan, I will prepare a draft docket control order and have my case manager email it to all counsel a few days before the initial scheduling conference. We will discuss the draft docket control order on the videoconference.
One other note: you are NOT required to wear formal courtroom attire during the videoconference. You are, however, required to wear clothes.
SIGNED and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2020.
|
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Stop the Court Packing. Annul the Absurd July 29 Nominations Hearing. This is life tenure for a federal judge pick, not to be confused with strawberry pickin’@SenatorMenendez @SenJackReed @SenKevinCramer @JerryMoran @SenMcSallyAZ @SenJohnKennedy @SenThomTillis @sendavidperdue https://t.co/U4qmJ4DVyD pic.twitter.com/ZLaN3044ts
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) August 12, 2020
Houston Lawyer Sued for Denying Refund In Botched PPE Deal
A Houston solo practitioner is embroiled in a dispute with a medical supply company over a $1 million refund in a botched personal protective equipment deal.
July 10, 2020
A Houston attorney was hit with a federal lawsuit alleging he mishandled more than $1 million in escrow funds in a botched deal for personal protective equipment.
During the personal protective equipment shortage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Gericare Medical Supply Inc. was helping its customers by trying to get personal protective equipment from various sources, according to its complaint.
It alleged Houston solo practitioner J.L. Sadick was representing a company that was supposed to sell 1 million medical gowns to Gericare. In that role, Sadick accepted half of a $2.8 million payment and was supposed to place the funds in escrow. The company claimed Sadick didn’t refund the money when the deal turned south.
But the attorney denies this.
“There’s no merit to it. I can’t comment about it until the other parties are notified,” Sadick said.
The medical gowns were supposed to be of a certain quality level and come from the United States, the plaintiff stated. But when they were delivered, it was only 3% of the order, and the gowns were made of a cheap plastic material and manufactured in China, alleged the petition in Gericare Medical Supply Inc. v. Sadick, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.
Gericare rejected the delivery, and the seller, Imitari Corp., promised a full refund of the escrow funds, according to the complaint.
But according to the lawsuit, there was trouble when Gericare sought its money back from the attorney.
Over multiple days between June 2 and June 15, Sadick stated in phone calls with Gericare’s attorney that the funds would be wired to Gericare, but the funds did not come, the complaint stated. Over those multiple calls, Sadick didn’t say the funds had already been removed from the escrow trust account, the petition alleged.
Finally on June 15, Sadick told Gericare’s attorney that the funds were not available because one of Imitari’s officers had “pledged” the escrow deposit and the funds were “tied” to that person’s credit line.
The lawsuit claimed that Sadick did not get authorization to release Gericare’s escrow deposit.
In later communications, the petition alleged that Sadick didn’t respond to a request for documentation of what funds were in the escrow account. Sadick cut off communications after June 15, the petition said.
Gericare alleged that Sadick transferred the funds out of the escrow trust account, and although Gericare has demanded its funds back, Sadick has not returned the money.
The company also claimed that Sadick made misrepresentations about the reputability of a person and a company that Imitari was supposedly associated with. Gericare relied on those misrepresentations when it first decided to do the deal, said the petition.
Plaintiffs attorney Joshua Threadcraft, partner in Burr & Forman in Birmingham, Alabama, didn’t immediately return a call or email seeking comment
RELATED LIT ARTICLES
What is a Summons?
A summons provides legal notice to a party about a lawsuit. It is the first official notice that a defendant receives to notify him or her that he or she is being sued. In some instances, the summons may specify a specific court date, but in others, it does not.
Who Receives the Summons?
The defendant, the person being sued, receives the summons. The summons serves as legal notice of a pending court case.
How Do I Send a Summons?
Generally, a person must be served with a summons. This typically requires that an independent process server provide the defendant with the summons and the complaint. Additionally, the process server must usually complete an affidavit to attest to the fact that he or she served the
A sheriff of the jurisdiction where the court is located may also be used to serve a defendant. In certain cases, service of process can be completed through certified mail. If you have hired an attorney, he or she can explain which option is best for your case. You cannot serve the defendant yourself.
What Are the Rules Regarding a Summons?
Each jurisdiction determines its own set of rules of civil procedure. However, many model after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules state that a summons must include the name of the court, the parties, the plaintiff’s attorney’s address and the time when the defendant must appear in court if applicable.
Additionally, it must include a statement to the effect that if the defendant does not appear, a default judgment will result against the defendant for the relief that you demand in the complaint. Additionally, a clerk must sign and seal the summons. The summons must be served with a copy of the plaintiff and provide copies to the sheriff or process server.
If the defendant is a corporation, an agent for the corporation may accept service. An adult must serve the summons and cannot be a party to the complaint. The defendant must be served within 120 days after the complaint was filed. Again, a state court may have different rules pertaining to summons, service of process and other matters that can affect these rules. For example, a jurisdiction may prohibit Sunday service or service on holidays or after a certain time. Discuss this topic with your attorney to ensure that service is provided properly. Improper service can have a dramatic impact on your case.
How Is a Summons Different than a Subpoena?
A subpoena is an order for a witness to appear in court; it is not optional like it is for a defendant in a civil case. Additionally, a subpoena is served on a witness while a summons is served on a party to the case.
What If a Person Does Not Respond to the Summons?
While a summons is an invitation for a person to appear in court, it is not an order. If the individual does not wish to go to court and simply does not appear or answer the complaint, the judge can decide the case without him or her there. In many cases, this results in a default judgment against the defendant.
What If a Summons Is Not Properly Served?
If you attempt to have another person served but do not follow the rules of the court in your jurisdiction, the defendant can come to court and explain to the judge that he or she was not properly served. If the defendant is correct, the judge should halt the proceedings as he or she does not have proper jurisdiction over the case. You may be given another opportunity to have the defendant served again.
What Else Should I Know about a Summons?
A summons may contain additional information in itself or with accompanying documents. For example, it may contain information about the subject matter of the lawsuit. It may include a complaint that sets out certain factual allegations against the defendant that support the plaintiff’s case.
Read through the summons carefully and look for any specific dates or date ranges. For example, the summons may state that you have 30 days to respond with an answer. Additionally, the summons may include a paragraph that states what will happen if the defendant does not respond or appear on the date specified.
Provided by HG.org
This. https://t.co/mMdK0ThOYQ@ClassActionLaw @statebaroftexas @SupremeCourt_TX @JudgeDillard @JusticeWillett @KannonShanmugam @roysimon @VolokhC @JoshMBlackman @josh_hammer @nytimes @blaw @law360 @VAStateBar @TheFlaBar @DC_Bar @scotxblog @ishapiro @Public_Justice @FedSoc pic.twitter.com/kqLKMqYiGb
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) July 5, 2020
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20-cv-02425
| Gericare Medical Supply, Inc. v. Sadick et al Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr Demand: $1,090,000,000 Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud |
Date Filed: 07/09/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 370 Other Fraud Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Gericare Medical Supply, Inc. | represented by | Joshua Howard Threadcraft Burr Forman LLP 420 N 20th St Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205-251-3000 Email: joshua.threadcraft@burr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| J.L. Sadick | ||
| Defendant | ||
| J.L. Sadick, P.C. | ||
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 07/09/2020 | 1 | COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0541-24907435) filed by Gericare Medical Supply, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Purchase Invoice, # 2 Exhibit Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Email, # 4 Exhibit Email, # 5 Exhibit Email, # 6 Exhibit Email, # 7 Exhibit Civil Cover Sheet)(Threadcraft, Joshua) (Entered: 07/09/2020) |
| 07/10/2020 | 2 | Request for Issuance of Summons as to All Defendants, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Summons to J.L. Sadich, Ind)(Threadcraft, Joshua) (Entered: 07/10/2020) |
| 07/10/2020 | 3 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 11/12/2020 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 600 in Houston before Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ChristopherSarratadi, 4) (Entered: 07/10/2020) |
| 07/13/2020 | 4 | Summons Issued as to J.L. Sadick, P.C., J.L. Sadick. Issued summons delivered to plaintiff by NEF, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(ChristopherSarrat, 4) (Entered: 07/13/2020) |
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20-cv-02425
| Gericare Medical Supply, Inc. v. Sadick et al Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr Demand: $1,090,000,000 Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud |
Date Filed: 07/09/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 370 Other Fraud Jurisdiction: Diversity |
There are proceedings for case 4:20-cv-02425 but none satisfy the selection criteria.
Judge David Hittner is Over 80 Years Old and Still Can’t Find a Hobby, So His Courtroom is His Playroom
“When I took senior status, in effect, it created another judgeship. But since I kept a full caseload, the district gets another judge and the other judges don’t have to divvy up my docket.” said Senior Judge David Hittner
S.D. Tex. Federal Court Judges
What you should know about Texas Southern District Federal Court Judges. Laws in Texas provides bios, cases and opinions from these lifetime judicial appts.
Houston Southern District: US Judge Hanks Awards “Triple Damages” for Mortgage Fraud by Lender Allied Home Mortgage
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE $300 MILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT AGAINST ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE, WHICH INCLUDES TRIPLE DAMAGES AS PER THE LOWER COURTS ORDER (SDTX). Act allows courts to triple damage awards. Allied not only sought to toss the jury verdict against it, they also tried to convince the court that any losses suffered by the government were not caused by them. Judge Hanks didn’t buy their arguments, however.
Rachel Hoffman
October 21, 2020 at 9:36 pm
always been a crook.
Denia Mendenhall
April 2, 2021 at 1:30 am
I almost married him! I’m very upset about this lawsuit as well as the Florida PPE lawsuit filed in March.
Sad to hear your comment, Rachel. Well, life goes on and we shall see where this takes Jan.
Denia Mendenhall
April 2, 2021 at 2:17 am
SOOOO VERY SAD!
Rachel Hoffman
April 27, 2021 at 10:12 pm
It is sad and I regret my comment. I hope for the best for the family.
Denia Mendenhall
May 5, 2021 at 3:52 am
My dear, crime seeps through many a crack. In my life I have observed much crime…
Your comment did not smart at all I’m used to observing such actions. Freedom of speech but using communications in radical wreck-less fashions disrupts civility!
Denia Mendenhall
May 5, 2021 at 3:57 am
Asking like a school child for an agreed conference date to be deferred. What has the legal realm come to…