Dark Money

Sonya Porretto Questions Galveston’s New Mayor…correction, Federal Judge Jeff Brown’s Non-Disclosures

Whilst former Texas Supreme Court Judge Jeff Brown and his wife are recent landowners in Galveston the same cannot be said of the Porretto’s.

Porretto v. The City of Galveston Park Bd. of Trs.

No. 23-40035

(5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2024)

Porretto v. The City of Galveston Park Board of TrusteesPark

(3:21-cv-00359)

District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Jeff Brown

JUN 25, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 19, 2023

MOTION FOR: (1) RECUSAL OF JUDGE BROWN; AND, (2) MOTION FOR RANDOM REASSIGNMENT TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS – HOUSTON DIVISION

JAN 12, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 19, 2023
Note; transcript excludes embedded images, see PDF version for those.

Plaintiff respectfully moves for the recusal of Hon. Jeffrey V. Brown from this case in order to redress an appearance of impropriety and to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the process. The federal recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), requires that “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Plaintiff respectfully submits that Judge Brown’s business dealings with the City of Galveston’s City Council Member John Paul Listowski on its own and taken together with other factors shows that by the objective standard required by federal law, Judge Brown’s impartiality has reasonably been called into question, and he must be recused given the City of Galveston is a defendant in this matter.

As such, upon recusal, Plaintiff requests that the case be randomly reassigned to a District Judge in the Southern District of Texas – Houston Division, which is the closest Division to the Galveston Division. 28 U.S.C. § 292.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A.    Current Procedural Status

1.                  This case was filed as an adversary proceeding in Ms. Porretto’s Bankruptcy. See, USBC SDTx Case No. 21-03458. Case No. 21-03458 is still noted as an open case on PACER, although the main bankruptcy case was closed a year after the adversary proceeding was filed on June 22, 2022.

2.                  The Bankruptcy Court transferred the adversary proceeding to the United States District Court – Galveston Division after the City of Galveston (“City”) and Galveston Park Board of Trustees (“Park Board”) made a jury demand and did not consent to the Bankruptcy Court hearing the case or entering final orders. The defendants also challenged the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction. After the case was transferred, the City declined to consent to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison presiding over the case. ECF 64, p. 19.

3.                  Judge Brown was sworn in as the District Court Judge for the Galveston Division on September 11, 2019. Judge Brown is the only District Judge for the Galveston Division. As such, this case was reassigned from the Bankruptcy Court to Judge Brown.

4.                  On December 7, 2022, the Court issued rulings in favor of the City in the captioned case and in the related Citation Case. The Citation Case is Case No. 3:22- cv-00256. The memorandum opinions and orders were sharply worded and somewhat derisive of plaintiff, especially the opinion in the Citation Case. The evocatory language of the opinions gave the appearance of a potential bias against Ms. Porretto.1 However, relying on the reassurances that the Court would be fair, Ms. Porretto filed a motion or new trial on December 12, 2022 in the Citation Case to address the errors. See, 3:22-cv-00256, ECF 31 – 35. As just one example, the Court stated Ms. Porretto raised a “ridiculous” argument that a citation could be considered a pleading in the Citation Case. The Court did not cite any case or statute in support of its “ridiculous” finding. A written notice to appear for a fine-only misdemeanor offense may serve as a complaint. See, Art. 27.14(d), Tex. Code Crim. Proc; Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JM-869 (1988) and Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JM-876 (1988)2. A complaint is a “pleading.” See, Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Merriam-Webster defines “ridiculous” as: “arousing or deserving ridicule: extremely silly or unreasonable: ABSURD, PREPOSTEROUS.”

5.                  On December 14, 2022, a mere two days after the motion for new trial was filed, the Court denied the motion for new trial for lack of jurisdiction despite there being no evidence that the mailing required under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 had been completed by the Clerk. See, Citation Case, Case No. 3:22-cv-00256, ECF 36. As of January 12, 2023, Ms. Porretto has not received any notice from the municipal court. Ms. Porretto filed a notice of appeal in the Citation Case. Id. at ECF 37.

1 28 U.S.C. § 144.

2 “Municipal Court: The Basics”, Texas City Attorneys Association, June 2010, p. 5 of 27. https://texascityattorneys.org/2010speakerpapers/MunicipalCourt–TheBasics.pdf

6.                     On January 4, 2023, Ms. Porretto filed a motion for new trial on the ruling in this case which granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and denying Ms. Porretto’s request for leave to further amend the complaint in lieu of dismissal. ECF 85.

7.                     This motion to recuse is being filed before the Court has ruled on the motion for new trial.

B.     Appearance of Impropriety

8.                     On Sunday, January 8, 2023, Ms. Porretto learned that a “Mechanic’s Lien Contract” was entered into by Judge Brown and his wife with Lux Builders LLC dba Lux Custom Homes (“Lux”). The property subject to the lien was Judge Brown’s Galveston home which was recently renovated before he purchased it. The home is located in a historic district of Galveston and recorded as a Texas Historic Landmark around 2014. City Council Member John Paul Listowski signed the lien as the Managing Member for Lux. The Mechanic’s Lien was in the amount of $72,683.99.

9.                  A copy of the Mechanics Lien Contract, HomeTown Bank, NA Deed of Trust, and Agreement and Assignment are attached as Exhibits A, B and C. The address for the Judge’s home is redacted in the exhibits. While the records are public records, the Galveston CAD reflects the owner as confidential. Out of an abundance of caution, it is reasonable and prudent to redact the home address.

10.                 Upon learning of the mechanic’s lien, Ms. Porretto filed an amended certificate of interested parties detailing each council member and park board trustee as an interested party and disclosing the lien signed by Judge Brown and Council Member Listowski. See, ECF 86. A corrected amended certificate of interested parties was filed on January 10, 2023, after additional land records were reviewed. See, ECF 87.

11.                 The Mechanic’s Lien Contract is signed by Judge Brown, his spouse, and Council Member Listowski as Managing Member of Lux. The signature pages are pasted below:

12.              Lux is owned and operated3 by Council Member Listowski. Council Member Listowski has publicly voted for projects which caused the flooding of Plaintiff’s property.

3 See, Exhibit D, campaign website page for Council Member Listowski.

See, ECF 39, Third Amended Complaint and Declaration of Sonya Porretto, ECF 85-1, Exhibit F 85-7. Council Member Listowski voted for these projects despite Ms. Porretto’s objections and the objections of other citizens who own private property adjacent the project. Ms. Porretto alleged the projects would cause flooding and damage to the neighboring properties, as well as damage to the City-owned Stewart Beach. As Ms. Porretto admonished, the projects caused flooding and continue to cause flooding to Ms. Porretto’s property causing injury to her property and the commercial operations of the beach. After the construction projects were completed, Council Member Listowski during public council meetings acknowledged that the Stewart Beach projects which flooded Porretto’s property were a failure.

13.              A search of the City of Galveston Document Center electronic records was conducted on January 11, 2023, in order to locate the residential construction permits related to the mechanic’s lien. The only recent permit that could be found was a permit issued on January 31, 2020. The permit was for a Job Value of $28,000 for a project to convert a sunroom into a master bath/closet and a new rear awning.

14.              Mr. Listowski was a council member when Judge Brown was sworn in; when the Mechanic’s Lien was executed; and, remains a council member to this day.

15.              The Galveston Division Courthouse is located in the City of Galveston. The City of Galveston is a city with a resident population of around an estimated 50,000. Galveston is also known to have a substantial number of vacation homeowners and temporary residents during the beach season. Galveston is a popular tourist destination for people from all over Texas as well as from out of state. Galveston has substantial natural resources including beaches, sand, natural gas, and oil interests which are subject to applicable federal regulations and statutes. As such, it would be reasonable to assume a federal judge in Galveston would refrain from business dealings with City officials liked Council Member Listowski who votes on policy given the substantial likelihood that the City could become a party in a case that would be pending before the Galveston Division.

16.              There are numerous contractors who could have been hired to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

17.              Although the Mechanic’s Lien Contract was assigned to HomeTown Bank, NA and later released when there was apparently a refinancing, a residential construction project may give rise to warranty claims, construction defect claims, or other claims long after the initial work is done.

18.              While the relevant construction contract is not publicly available and the actual terms remain unknown, the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act, Texas Property Code Title 4, Chapter 27, is one applicable state statute which would apply. The statute of limitations for an owner to raise claims under the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act are 4 years for breach of contract or breach of warranty and 2 years for torts, such as negligence or product liability. The Mechanic’s Lien was in September 2020 and four years would not run until September 2024. In addition, in Texas, the statute of repose is 10 years, and an owner could potentially file suit against the contractor for a construction defect 10 years after substantial completion of the project with some exceptions.

19.                 Judge Brown has publicly stated “It is incumbent upon me to make sure the parties who are in front of me feel treated fairly by the system4 and get their fair day.” Part of that “fair day,” at a minimum, is disclosure by the Court and/or the City of the fact that a sitting Council Member acted on behalf of a company signing liens and performing other contractual obligations for the Judge’s family home on behalf of a company he owns and operates.

20.                    Ms. Porretto respectfully requests that Judge Brown recuse himself and that the case be randomly reassigned to the Houston Division for the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292.

C.    Additional Facts Which Give the Appearance of Impropriety and Call into Question the Integrity of the Process

21.                    The Mechanic’s Lien Contract is for $72,683.99. The home subject to the lien has a value in the range of between — $402,600 (Zestimate as of January 11, 2023 www.zillow.com) on the low side to an estimated $725,044 (www.redfin.com) on the high side. The Galveston CAD value is not publicly available. The Mechanic’s Lien is a substantial financial obligation and equates to approximately 10% to 18% of the total value of the Judge’s home. On information and belief, the home is the Judge’s homestead.

22.                    City of Galveston Mayor Craig Brown Connections: Ms. Porretto was previously informed that Judge Brown lived next door to City of Galveston Mayor Craig Brown. Craig Brown’s Campaign Finance Reports compared with the Mechanic’s Lien

4 https://open.spotify.com/episode/0qv7rdpRw8wtrGKUPMHnYj  @ at 47:20 et seq. Judge Brown also his historic home during this podcast.

confirm they are next door neighbors. Living next door to someone on its own does not automatically give rise to the appearance of impropriety without something suggesting a close relationship or ex parte discussions. However, considering the totality of the facts and that the Judge had a business relationship with Council Member Listowski which the Judge and City did not disclose, Mayor Brown living next door to Judge Brown weighs towards the appearance of impropriety when the facts of the case and related Citation Case are put into context. Mayor Brown and Council Member Listowski routinely vote as part of a block in the same way when issues related to Ms. Porretto or her property are before City Council.

23.              In addition, Mayor Brown, while a Park Board Trustee, was issued a citation for interference with a peace officer. The address identified for the incident on the citation was Ms. Porretto’s property. See, 3:22-cv-00256, ECF 13. The City did not refute these facts or dispute the authenticity of the citation issued to Mr. Brown. Id. The Citation issued to Mayor Brown was materially different from the handwritten citation issued to Ms. Porretto on June 29, 2022.

24.              Mayor Brown also voted for the recent drainage projects at Stewart Beach over Ms. Porretto’s objections, which then flooded her property.

25.              In addition, as noted in the record of this case and not disputed by the City, Mayor Brown negotiated with the Grand Preserve homeowners to try to cover up the Park Board’s sand harvesting from the Grand Preserve property. Grand Preserve is to the East of Stewart Beach and Porretto’s property is to the West of Stewart Beach. The City has not provided any declarations or affidavits refuting the Mayor ordered an employee of the Park Board to replace the stole sand for the Grand Preserve homeowners or that the Park Board was continuing to engage in sand theft and unauthorized sand harvesting. ECF 60-4, p. 4.

26.              On information and belief, Mayor Brown was one of the elected officials demanding the City issue a Citation to Ms. Porretto in June 2022 for maintaining her property in the same way she and predecessors in title have maintained it for decades. The City knew or should know that the City Code does not require a permit for maintenance and that Ms. Porretto has a judgment providing her control over the commercial activities on the property which would include maintaining her parking area.

27.              While more tangential but notable, comparing the campaign finance reports for Mayor Brown and Judge Brown’s state court campaigns for judicial office some common connections which has a connection to the allegations in this case.

28.              Mayor Brown’s Campaign Finance Reports which are available on the City website. https://www.galvestontx.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/461  Judge  Brown’s campaign finance reports are available at https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/search/QuickViewReport.php

29.              Mayor Brown’s campaign finance reports show few PAC donations. Over the years, his campaign is largely funded by self-funded loans. He has built a substantial reserve by not paying back the loans. Given the dearth of PAC donations, one donation stood out particularly from the others. A DEC PAC donation for $2,000 on August 24, 2020. On information and belief, this is the only donation from Dannenbaum Engineering or the DEC PAC that Mayor Brown has received in his various campaigns.

30.              Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation was rebranded as DEC.5 DEC PAC appears to be a PAC funded largely by the leadership of the company.6 The address Mayor Brown provided in his campaign finance report for DEC PAC is the address used for Blakemore & Associates, a political consulting firm. Judge Brown used Blakemore & Associates as campaign consultants from around 2003 to April 2010 paying substantial sums for consulting services over the years.7 Also, James and Shirley Dannenbaum contributed at least $15,000 ($5,000 on 2/3/2015, 6/13/2017, and 4/17/2018)8 to Judge Brown while he was a state court judge according to www.transparencyusa.org.

31.              Since this case was filed, Ms. Porretto received a copy of a Dannenbaum Engineering Corp Field Survey which showed that the City knew or should have known Ms. Porretto’s beach property was always accreting and intentionally concealed it to get

5 https://www.decorp.com/houston

6 Compare https://www.transparencyusa.org/tx/committee/dec-pac-00084763-mpac with https://www.decorp.com/leadership

7 In preparing this Motion, Ms. Porretto also learned Joe Slovacek was a former Campaign Treasurer for Judge Brown and used the Blakemore & Associates address for purposes of Judge Brown’s campaign. Mr. Slovacek is active in Republican politics at the state and federal level. Ms. Porretto’s counsel formerly worked with Joe Slovacek at HooverSlovacek LLP. Ms. Porretto resigned in June 2020 due to a conflict with Mr. Slovacek. Ms. Porretto is a former client of HooverSlovacek, LLP which predated Ms. Brown joining the firm. Ultimately, Mr. Slovacek returned Ms. Porretto’s retainer to her in full and the engagement ended. Neither Ms. Porretto or Ms. Brown know if Judge Brown has any current relationship politically or otherwise with Mr. Slovacek. This connection is noted out of an abundance of caution as it was just learned after January 8, 2022 as well.

8 James Dannenbaum resigned from DEC after being convicted of illegal campaign contributions during 2015 to 2017. See, https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/texas-businessman-convicted- making-illegal-campaign-contributions-political-candidate-0

funding for different projects by creating man-made erosion through unregulated shoreline excavation, sand harvesting, scraping and subterfuge. This also contributed to manipulating the permit process by creating false erosion data which resulted in denial of permits to sell sand. See, 3:22-cv-00256, ECF 11-1, Exhibit 2.

32.              City’s Outside Counsel – Susan Bickley and Barry Abrams –  Susan Bickley, Barry Abrams and/or their law firms Blank Rome, LLP and Abrams, Scott & Bickley, LLP combined donated over $9,000 to Judge Brown’s judicial campaigns.

33.              Campaign finance donations for a judge who was previously elected to the state court bench are not normally reflective of an appearance of impropriety by themselves. But, this case is not normal given the City Council never voted to approve the outside counsel in the Citation Case as required under the City Code. The outside counsel represented the City in the Adversary Proceeding and the Citation Case. In addition, outside counsel has taken inconsistent positions between the main bankruptcy, adversary proceeding, and Citation Case. Further, Ms. Porretto filed a motion to disqualify the outside counsel in the Citation Case and a motion to jointly administer the adversary proceeding and Citation Case.

34.              As such, given concerns were raised about outside counsel, the fact that they donated over $9,000 to the Judge’s campaigns, numerous repeat donations of $1000, and longevity of the donor relationship with the Judge’s campaigns suggests an appearance of impropriety warranting recusal when looking at the totality of circumstances.

35.              Ms. Bickley filed the response to the motion to disqualify counsel in the related Citation Case.

The Court quickly denied the motion before Ms. Porretto’s reply deadline had run.

36.              Upon further research, it was learned that Ms. Bickley has another case before Judge Brown where the Court ruled in her client’s favor granting a motion for summary judgment avoiding a jury trial. See, Sweetin et al v. Texas City et al., Case No. 3:2019cv00233.

37.              In the Sweetin case, Ms. Bickley represented Texas City. The Court notified the parties on September 21, 2021, days before the trial date9 that the trial would be cancelled. The Court was going to grant Ms. Bickley’s client’s motion for summary judgment with a ruling to be entered in a couple days. Id. at ECF 50. On October 10, 2021, after a ruling was not entered, the Plaintiff filed a notice of no entry of judgment. Id. at ECF 49, 50 and 51. Then, on October 17, 2021, when no written ruling was entered, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On October 22, 2021, a memorandum of opinion and judgment were entered. Id. at 55 and 56. The Fifth Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

38.              Ms. Porretto also learned that Ms. Bickley serves on the Houston Law Review Board of Directors (“HLR Board”) with Judge Brown. The General Land Office’s counsel Grant Dorfman also serves on the HLR Board. It is uncertain if the Houston Law Review pays its directors honorariums or stipends for their service or how directors are

9 Trial was set for September 27, 2021.

appointed/elected to the Board. Judge Brown has served on the Houston Law Review Board of Directors since 2004. On information and belief, Ms. Bickley’s and Mr. Dorfman’s tenure on the HLR Board of Directors is shorter than Judge Brown’s.

39.              Misplaced Reliance on Magistrate’s Assurances at Initial Conference – At the initial conference in the companion Citation Case, the Magistrate went above and beyond to introduce the Galveston Division to the parties appearing on November 9, 2022. The initial conference was via video.

The Magistrate assured the parties that the local procedures would be adhered to and that while the Galveston Division may have a negative reputation due to past judges, the parties did not need to worry about the appearance of impropriety by Judge Brown or the Magistrate.10 It is unknown but assumed that the Magistrate was not aware of Judge Brown’s relationship with Council Member Listowski when these comments were made.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

A.   Recusal is Required Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Recusal is required whenever “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994)(Scalia, J.). “When considering a claim under

§ 455(a), we must consider “whether a reasonable and objective person, knowing all of the facts, would harbor doubts concerning the judge’s impartiality.’ In re Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,

10 The Transcript of the hearing held on November 9, 2022 has been requested but is not yet available.

121 F.3d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). This is because the goal of this provision is to ‘avoid even the appearance of partiality.’ Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860, 100 L. Ed. 2d 855, 108 S. Ct. 2194 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, recusal may be required even though the judge is not actually partial.” Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 484 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). “If the question of whether § 455(a) requires disqualification is a close one, the balance tips in favor of recusal.” Id. at 484-485 (citation omitted).

The “appearance of impartiality” standard is “to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.” Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988). “Once a judge whose impartiality toward a particular case may reasonably be questioned presides over that case, the damage to the integrity of the system is done.” Durhan v. Neopolitan, 875 F.2d 91, 97 (1989).

The Fifth Circuit requires a motion to recuse to be filed at the earliest moment that a party has knowledge of facts that might cause disqualification. See Hirczy v. Hamilton, 190 F. App’x 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2006). A party cannot wait until after an adverse decision has been made by the judge before raising the issue of recusal. Id.

Ms. Porretto asserts this motion is timely given she just learned about the Mechanic’s Lien and relationship with Council Member Listowski and is filing this motion five (5) days later and before the Court has ruled on the motion for new trial which is pending before the Court. Some of the information she has learned in the last couple days because she was prompted to engage in further research after learning of the lien, especially when considering Council Member Listowski and Mayor Brown more often than not vote together and certainly vote together on issues related to Ms. Porretto’s property and Judge Brown is Mayor Brown’s “neighbor”. But, it appears they are next door neighbors. As next-door neighbors, there is more concern and the appearance of impropriety. The concern of impropriety was triggered when learning of the relationship between Council Member Listowski and Judge Brown. Discovery was stayed in the case at the City’s request, and the total scope of the relationship between Council Member Listowski and Judge Brown and the Mayor and Judge Brown is not fully known.

Publicly available records show a residential construction permit was requested for project at Judge Brown’s home with the project valued at $28,000. However, the lien amount is over $72,000. When the knowledge of the mechanic’s lien and relationship with Council Member Listowski is coupled with the other circumstantial facts – there is no question the weight of the facts suggest the only appropriate course of action to ensure integrity is to grant the motion for recusal and request that the case be randomly assigned to the Houston Division for a decision on the motion for new trial.

A district court abuses its discretion in denying recusal where a reasonable man, cognizant of the relevant circumstances surrounding the judge’s failure to recuse, would harbor legitimate doubts about the judge’s impartiality.  Grambling Univ. Nat’l Alumni Ass’n v. Bd. of Supervisors for the La. Sys., 286 F. App’x 864, 865 (5th Cir. 2008).

Any reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality in this case if recusal is denied.

As such, this is one of the exceptional cases where recusal should be granted, and the case transferred to the United States District Court – Houston Division.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Porretto respectfully requests that Judge Brown recuse himself in this matter and in Case No. 3:22-cv-00256 to the extent there is any other action in that case, and request that the case be randomly reassigned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas – Houston Division.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Deirdre Carey Brown

Notice of Appeal – It’s important you read this, it’s not a boilerplate notice…

Defendant

George P Bush
REPRESENTED BY
Autumn Dawn Highsmith
(214) 290-8802

Texas Attorney General
12221 Merit Drive
Ste 650
Dallas, TX 75251

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Bennett Hobson
(512) 463-2100

Office of the Texas Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548, MC-066
Austin, TX 78711-2548

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Bradley Binford
(214) 377-7879
Fax: (214) 377-9409

Ross & Smith, PC
700 N. Pearl St.
Ste. 1610
Dallas, TX 75201

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Amber Ahmed
(512) 475-4006

Office of the Attorney General of Texas
300 W 15th St.
Austin, TX 78711-2548

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelly Magan Doggett
(512) 475-3205

Attorney General of Texas
P O Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LEAD ATTORNEY

TERMINATED: 11/03/2022 (Nov. 3, 2022)

Texas General Land Office
REPRESENTED BY
Autumn Dawn Highsmith
(214) 290-8802

Texas Attorney General
12221 Merit Drive
Ste 650
Dallas, TX 75251

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Bennett Hobson
(512) 463-2100

Office of the Texas Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548, MC-066
Austin, TX 78711-2548

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Bradley Binford
(214) 377-7879
Fax: (214) 377-9409

Ross & Smith, PC
700 N. Pearl St.
Ste. 1610
Dallas, TX 75201

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Amber Ahmed
(512) 475-4006

Office of the Attorney General of Texas
300 W 15th St.
Austin, TX 78711-2548

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelly Magan Doggett
(512) 475-3205

Attorney General of Texas
P O Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LEAD ATTORNEY

TERMINATED: 11/03/2022 (Nov. 3, 2022)

The City of Galveston Park Board of Trustees
REPRESENTED BY
Barry Abrams
(713) 228-6601
Fax: (713) 228-6605

Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Ave.
Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LEAD ATTORNEY

The City of Galveston, Texas
REPRESENTED BY
Barry Abrams
(713) 228-6601
Fax: (713) 228-6605

Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Ave.
Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff

Sonya Porretto
REPRESENTED BY
Deirdre Carey Brown
(832) 367-5722

Deirdre Carey Brown Pllc
1990 Post Oak Blvd
Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77258

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LEAD ATTORNEY

Read; Porretto v. Tex. Gen. Land Office, 448 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. 2014)

City of Galveston v. Porretto, 3:22-cv-256 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2022)

The owner of Porretto Beach, a 10-acre strip of privately owned sand near popular Stewart Beach, is suing the city, the Park Board of Trustees and the Texas General Land Office over claims of improper taking of property, among other things.

The complaint, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, is just the latest chapter in a long- running dispute over a swath of beach that’s rare because it isn’t owned by the state.

Sonya Porretto just this summer began operating Porretto Beach, between Sixth and 10th streets, after years of legal fights in a 2009 Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The land reverted to her ownership after a trustee sale fell through.

Porretto couldn’t be reached for comment on Monday.

The family operates parking and an umbrella rental business on the property.

The lawsuit claims a drainage project at Stewart Beach caused adjacent Porretto Beach to flood. The flooding impedes operations of business on the property, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also claims the park board improperly removed sand from Porretto Beach.

The city declined to comment about the litigation. Park board officials said only that the lawsuit was being reviewed.

The Texas General Land Office didn’t respond to requests for comment Monday.

During last week’s Galveston City Council meeting, Porretto’s son, Alexander Nelson, spoke during the public comment portion about flooding issues caused on the property because of a drainage project at Stewart Beach.

“As a result, it’s completely flooded out Porretto Beach and other adjacent areas of Stewart Beach,” Nelson said.

The park board has a project planned at Stewart Beach for this year to address issues with chronic flooding at the beach’s parking lot.

The Porretto family’s concerns go back years, Nelson said.

“These issues with beach access are the same ones that Sonya Porretto has been bringing up for years and has been retaliated against for,” Nelson said.

Porretto Beach has been in the family since the 1950s.

Porretto in 2009 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which lets debtors reorganize business debts and assets.

A judge two years later ordered the case changed to a Chapter 7 case, which allows liquidation of assets to pay creditors.

Last year, the trustee representing the case filed a notice to abandon the property, which means the trustee determines an asset doesn’t have value that would benefit unsecured creditors.

The property was essentially returned to the Porretto family.

Henry Peter Porretto, Sonya’s father, battled the land office over the beach and finally won in a 2015 Texas Supreme Court ownership ruling.

This lawsuit is an advisory proceeding added onto the 2009 bankruptcy case.

The proceeding allows for separate matters related to the bankruptcy.

Houston lawyer Deirdre Carey Brown, with Forshey & Prostok LLP, is representing Porretto.

“The complaint has multiple causes of action which deal with takings claims for drainage and other property interests, as well as other claims,” Brown said.

The lawsuit asks for award of attorney’s fees and relief for the claims.

It Went Pear-Shaped for Hatton in Pearland: The Mortgage Eliminator is a Sovereign Citizen

Judge Jeff Brown, Mayor of Galveston’s Order concludes: Given the lack of complete diversity, the court hereby dismisses this case.

The Tale of Ms. Robinson’s Dismissal With Prejudice in Galveston Federal Court by Frivolous Lawsuit Lawyer

Jennifer Robinson is alleged to be past due for the November 1, 2017, loan payment and all subsequent payments due on Manvel home.

With Galveston Judge Jeff Brown’s 26-Page Opinion from April 2023 Lost at Sea, Kindi Shepard Returns

It also looks like Emily Stroope managed to convert Deutsche Bank to a new client for Baker Donelson when she left the Staff office.

Bandit Lawyer Clay Vilt Represents Shelton Howard from Pearland before Judge Jeff Brown

Just another case before Vilt’s BFF’s in Dirty Black Robes in Galveston, with Shelley Hopkins and Robert Foster of BDF Hopkins included.

The Tale of Robinson’s Dismissal With Prejudice in Galveston Federal Court by Frivolous Lawsuit Lawyer

Dismissed with prejudice on submission by frivolous filer Clay Vilt, stating parties had resolved the matter amongst themselves.

Texas Federal Judge Jeff Brown’s Views on Roe v. Wade, and More.

Brown has posted on his Twitter to dissenting opinions in the landmark Roe v Wade Supreme Court case guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion

Judge Jeff Brown Reverses Judge Al Bennett re Special Exceptions which Included Implied Threats of Murder

In earlier times, Judge Al Bennett was a Texas State Judge and Judge Jeff Brown was a Justice on the Texas Appellate Courts.

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.

Donald Trump and the Seven Texas Federalists

President Donald Trump, with the help of Mitch McConnell, has made a big push during his presidency to fill judicial roles, especially federal judges with lifetime appointments.

Sonya Porretto Questions Galveston’s New Mayor…correction, Federal Judge Jeff Brown’s Non-Disclosures
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

To Top