Matthew Thompson
9710 Tanglewood Drive
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
Email
Plaintiff in pro per
IN THE 344TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF TEXAS
MATTHEW THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ADAM ARTIMEZ; SLADE THORNTON; JOSE RODRIGUEZ; AND THE CITY OF MONT BELVIEU,
Defendants.
Case No.: Number
PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Matthew Thompson, Plaintiff, and files this Complaint against Adam Artimez and the City of Mont Belvieu, Defendants, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
PARTIES
Plaintiff Matthew Thompson is a law-abiding male adult citizen of sound mind and a resident of 9710 Tanglewood Drive, Mont Belvieu, TX _________.
Defendant Adam Artimez is a male adult citizen of sound mind. He is the head of the city’s permit department.
Defendant Slade Thornton is an employee of the City of Mont Belvieu.
Defendant Jose Rodriguez is an employee of the City of Mont Belvieu.
Defendant City of Mont Belvieu is a city in Chambers and Liberty Counties, Texas.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to Texas Government Code § 24.007 and Article 5, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution.
Venue is proper in this Court because the causes of action took place within Chambers County which is served by the 344th District Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff is building a shed in his backyard. Before he began construction, he obtained permission from the home owners’ association as well as verbal permission from the City of Mont Belvieu.
On 02/09/2022, one of the City’s code enforcers came to Plaintiff’s door and said that he needed a permit. Plaintiff stopped building and submitted everything required by the City code. Plaintiff’s application was rejected and he was asked to get a licensed architect.
Plaintiff received an email saying that his application had been approved. He paid for the permit, and printed the receipt of payment as well as the permit.
Two days after Plaintiff had obtained the permit, 2 code enforcers and 2 police officers came to Plaintiff’s door. Mr. Artimez told Plaintiff that his permit had been cancelled and refunded the money that Plaintiff had paid for the permit.
Mr. Artimez knew that Plaintiff had obtained the services of an architect, so he asked for more requirement so Plaintiff would receive another permit: wind load criteria from a Texas-registered structural engineer, construction plans submitted by a Texas-registered design professional, and electrical plans. Plaintiff’s plan for the shed did not include electricity. Mr. Artimez did not explain why Plaintiff needed to submit electrical plans.
Mr. Artimez said that his requirements were based upon R105.4 of the Residential Code for one- and two-family dwellings of the Texas Industrialized Housing and Building Programs. The provision does not exist in the code.
Plaintiff had submitted an official property survey, satellite views of the property with easement and building placement information, measurements from the property line to the easement and the accessory structure, architectural plans drafted by a non-Texas licensed architect, construction plans drafted by a non-Texas licensed designer, and H.O.A. permission.
Mr. Artimez, Mr. Thornton and Mr. Jose tried to enforce the made-up ordinances on Plaintiff.
As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has been unable to finish constructing his shed. It is untenable how City officials can trump up provisions of the city code and enforce them. To make matters worse, the trumped-up provisions are used to frustrate citizens who have complied with the Code.
Plaintiff is a handicapped man and Defendants are well aware of this. Plaintiff has wasted time that he could have spent constructing his shed. He has suffered, and continues to suffer mental anguish from being frustrated by Defendants’ actions.
CAUSES OF ACTION
The City Lacks Immunity From This Suit
Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts and allegations set out in Paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint.
Texas Local Government Code § 271.158 provides as follows: “Nothing in this subchapter shall constitute a grant of immunity to suit to a local governmental entity.”
Texas Local Government Code § 51.013 provides thus: “The municipality may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, and answer and be answered in any matter in any court or other place.”
“the court of appeals concluded that section 51.075 is “ambiguous at best”. The court reasoned that because the phrase “plead and be impleaded” often appears in statutes in conjunction with “sue and be sued,” and because “sue and be sued” waives immunity from suit, according to this Court’s holding in Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brownsville Navigation District, “plead and be impleaded” must be presumed to have a different meaning if every word of such statutes is to be given effect. The latter phrase, the court said, “can be reasonably construed as authorization for municipalities to file pleadings and be named in adverse pleadings in lawsuits in which immunity from suit has already been waived.” Further, the court observed, section 51.075 “does not require the joinder of a home-rule municipality in a suit for which immunity would otherwise attach”, and no limitation on home-rule municipalities’ potential liability accompanied the enactment of section 51.075. Thus, the court held that section 51.075 does not waive immunity from suit.” Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 SW 3d 325 (2006).
Fraud
Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts and allegations in Paragraphs 1-21 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
“The elements of fraud are: (1) that a material representation was made; (2) the representation was false; (3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the speaker made the representation with the intent that the other party should act upon it; (5) the party acted in reliance on the representation; and (6) the party thereby suffered injury.” In Re First Merit Bank, NA 52 SW 3d 749 (2001).
Defendants made a material misrepresentation that Plaintiff was required to submit wind load criteria from a Texas-registered structural engineer, construction plans submitted by a Texas-registered design professional, and electrical plans in accordance with R105.4 of the Residential Code for one- and two-family dwellings of the Texas Industrialized Housing and Building Programs.
Defendants knew that the above provision did not exist but still went ahead to enforce their fictitious law. Defendants intended that Plaintiff should rely on their misrepresentation and proceed to file for a permit again so he can pay more money.
Defendants have frustrated Plaintiff by cancelling his initial permit that was granted after complying with the requirements of Mont Belvieu, Texas Code of Ordinances § 10-166 and requiring him to comply with requirements of a law that does not exist.
Plaintiff’s plans to construct his shed have been put on hold for no reason. He has also suffered mental anguish as a results of Defendant’s malicious actions.
Abuse of Power
Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts and allegations in Paragraphs 1-27 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
Texas Penal Code §39.02(a) states the following: “A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s office or employment; or (2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.”
Mr. Artimez, Mr. Thornton and Mr. Rodriguez are all civil servants working for the City of Mont Belvieu. They intended to defraud Plaintiff when they revoked his permit that had been lawfully granted after complying with all requirements. They proceeded to ask for more items under a law that does not exist.
Defendants are adamant that Plaintiff’s permit will not be granted if he does not comply with the requirements of their fictitious law. In doing so, they are preventing Plaintiff from constructing his shed.
Defendants are liable for abuse of power and ought to pay damages to Plaintiff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant him the following reliefs:
GRANT judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants;
AWARD Plaintiff damages for fraud and abuse of power in the sum of $500,000;
AWARD Plaintiff punitive damages;
AWARD Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interests and costs of this suit;
AWARD Plaintiff such equitable relief as this Court deems fair; and
AWARD Plaintiff such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
Dated this _____ day of April, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________________
Matthew Thompson,
Plaintiff in pro per
VERIFICATION
I, Matthew Thompson, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.
_________________________________
(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of April, 2022.
______________________________
Notary Public
________________________________________
(Printed name of Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: ____________________
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.