PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATIVE AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

IN THE TARRANT COUNTY COURT AT LAW

YAMIL LUCIANO      §

Plaintiff,      §

§

v.      § Case No. 67-331518-22

§

PATRICK CHARLES; and SHELDEON      §

JOINER      §

Defendants.      §

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATIVE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

NOW COMES Yamil Luciano, Plaintiff, and files this Complaint against Patrick Charles and Sheldeon Joiner, Defendants, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

  1. PARTIES
  2. Plaintiff Yamil Luciano is a law-abiding male adult of sound mind and a resident of 1332 Pepperidge Lane, Fort Worth TX.
  3. Defendant Patrick Charles is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of 8100 North Riverside Dr, Fort Worth TX 76137.
  4. Defendant Sheldeon Joiner is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of 6221 Tierra Dr, Shreveport LA 71119.
  • JURISDICTION AND VENUE
  • Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to Texas Government Code – Gov’t § 25.2222.
  • Venue is proper in this Court because the causes of action took place within Tarrant County.
  • STATEMENT OF FACTS
  • On or around 03/07/2021, the Parties jointly formed a company, SPL Transport Logistics, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “SPL Transport”). Each Party had one-third interest in the company.
  • At the formation of the company, no Articles of Organization were filed with the State of Texas.
  • SPL Transport got into a contractual relationship with My Favorite Dispatcher in the inception stage and the contractual relationship was memorialized on 06/01/2021. (Exhibit A)
  •  Patrick Charles became upset on 01/06/22 when My Favorite Dispatcher charged him dispatching fees of $36.19 for freight that he booked.
  • On 01/06/2022, Plaintiff organized an informal recorded meeting with Defendants to see if they could resolve the dispute between them. After both Defendants presented ultimatums to the Plaintiff regarding the status of SPL Transport Logistics LLC, they abandoned the meeting in frustration.
  • During a group chat discussion on 01/14/2022, Defendants gave Plaintiff similar ultimatums which if he didn’t meet, they would shut down SPL Transport. Defendants totally rejected the involvement of a third-party arbitrator o help them resolve their dispute.
  • During the course of the Parties’ dispute, Defendants reiterated to Plaintiff more than 6 times that they would do everything in their power to ensure the dissolution of SPL Transport.
  • Defendants held that they were no longer in agreement with the terms of the contract between SPL Transport and My Favorite Dispatcher. However, the way they want to dissolve the company not only opens up lawsuits from multiple entities, but also causes immediate harm to Plaintiff since SPL Transport is his primary source of income.
  • Although the defendants have made it clear that they do not intend to continue being members of SPL Transport, the actions that they are taking are aimed less in dissolving the company and aimed at hurting Plaintiff’s ability to make a living.
  • Plaintiff stands to suffer economic loss if Defendants go ahead and maliciously wind up the company improperly. Plaintiff’s main source of income is through one truck leased to SPL Transport. If the company is wound up too quickly without at least undergoing mediation, Plaintiff will suffer immediate injury to his primary source of income.  Winding up the company in a more organized and civil manner will help avoid any lawsuits and especially, both Plaintiff and Defendants, can better prepare for the aftermath without immediate injury to each of their primary source of income.
  • Defendants are trying to orchestrate a charade whereby they want it to seem like they are winding up the company for legitimate reasons, but they are really doing it to hurt Plaintiff because they know it is his main source of income.
  • CAUSES OF ACTION

Tortious Interference With Existing Contractual Relations

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts and allegations set out in Paragraphs 1-16 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
  2. “We have identified the elements of tortious interference with an existing contract as: (1) an existing contract subject to interference, (2) a willful and intentional act of interference with the contract, (3) that proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) caused actual damages or loss. See ACS Investors, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Tex. 1997).”
  3. There exists a contract between SPL Transport and RTS Financial, under which Plaintiff leased out his truck for freight transport. That is Plaintiff’s main source of income.
  4. Defendants willfully and intentionally interfered with that contractual relationship when they gave false information to vendors of SPL Transport, including RTS Financial that Plaintiff was no longer a member of SPL Transport.
  5. The false information that Plaintiff was no longer a member of SPL Transport led to RTS Financial withholding $12,000 that Plaintiff had made from the use of his truck. As a result of the lies peddled by Defendants, Plaintiff no longer continues to earn money from his truck.
  6. Defendants knew very well that saying that Plaintiff was no longer a member of SPL Transport would lead to vendors such as RTS Financial taking drastic action against Plaintiff.
  7. The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendants constitute tortious interference with existing contractual relations. Plaintiff urges this Court to compel RTS Financial to pay Plaintiff $12,000 as consideration for the use of his truck and Defendants to pay Plaintiff damages for intentional interference with existing contractual relations.
  • PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant him the following reliefs:

  1. GRANT judgment in favor of Plaintiff;
  2. ISSUE a declaration that Defendants have voted to dissolve the company;
  3. ORDER the dissolution of SPL Transport;
  4. ISSUE an order compelling RTS Financial to release $12,000 earned by Plaintiff as income from his truck;
  5. ISSUE an injunction prohibiting Defendants from opening up any other business checking or savings account for SPL Transport Logistics, LLC without providing that all members have full authoritative access to the account;
  6. ISSUE an injunction prohibiting Defendants or any of their agents from directing the insurance company to restrict Plaintiff from accessing or requesting any information relevant to any commercial vehicle covered under the policies of SPL Transport;
  7. ISSUE an injunction prohibiting Defendants or any of their agents from canceling the insurance of any truck owned by Plaintiff or any of his agents;
  8. ISSUE an injunction prohibiting Defendants or any of their agents from canceling, causing to go to default, or restricting any services or licenses that are essential to the lawful operation of SPL Transport Logistics, LLC;
  9. ISSUE an injunction prohibiting Defendants or any of their agents from instructing any client of My Favorite Dispatcher including those clients whose trucks are leased unto SPL Transport from doing business with My Favorite Dispatcher so that they can avoid any fees with My Favorite Dispatcher by dispatching themselves or leaving SPL Transport in favor of going to another competitor;
  10. ISSUE an order of specific performance compelling Defendants to return all unused electronic devices back to Samsara in avoidance of incurring fines for not returning their equipment;
  11. AWARD Plaintiff punitive damages, pre and post judgment interests, costs of this suit and attorney fees;
  12. AWARD Plaintiff such equitable relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances; and
  13. AWARD Plaintiff such further relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper.

Dated this ____ day of January, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Yamil Luciano,

Plaintiff in pro per

VERIFICATION

I, Yamil Luciano, being duly sworn depose and say that I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action, 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 ___________________, 2021.

______________________________

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, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )