El Paso County - 384th District Court Filed 7/31/2017 3:11 PM

Norma Favela Barceleau

District Clerk
El Paso County
2017DCV2528
Cause No. ___________



MAX GROSSMAN,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v.
____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CITY OF EL PASO,
EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendant.

PLAINTIFF MAX GROSSMANS ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

NOW COMES Max Grossman, Plaintiff in the above-captioned cause, and submits this

Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction. In

support of this petition, Plaintiff shows as follows:

I
DISCOVERY

1. Plaintiff requests that this case be conducted as a Level 2 case for the

purposes of discovery in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.3. Plaintiff reserves the right to

move this court to enter a discovery control plan order under TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.4.

II
PARTIES1

2. Plaintiff Max Grossman is a citizen of the State of Texas and a resident of El

Paso, Texas.

3. Defendant City of El Paso (the City) is a municipality located entirely within

1
Plaintiff has notified the Texas Historical Commission of this Original Petition and Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction and invited the Commission to intervene in this action if appropriate.
El Paso County, Texas, that is organized and operating under the laws of the State of Texas

and is, therefore a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The city may be served with

process by serving Mayor Dee Margo at City Hall, 300 N. Campbell El Paso, Texas 79901,

under the authority of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, section 17.024(b).

III
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this Cause pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory

Judgments Act, found at Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The

relief sought is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Venue is proper in El Paso County, Texas,

pursuant to section 191.173(b) of the Texas Natural Resources Code, which provides that

Venue of an action by a citizen lies in the county in which the activity sought to be restrained

is alleged to be taking place. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE 191.174(b). Venue is also proper in

El Paso County, Texas, under section 15.002 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code,

because all or a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in

El Paso County, Texas.

IV
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. The City plans to build an arena over El Pasos oldest continuously occupied

downtown neighborhood, Duranguito, also known as Union Plaza. See Declaration of Max

Grossman, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, 12. 2 As part of this

$180 million project, the City has contracted to demolish many historic buildings in the

Duranguito neighborhood. Grossman Decl. 14, App. 6. Over 11 acres could be affected by

2
Duranguito, as used in this petition, refers to the area in figures 5:52 and 5:53 in The Union Plaza Downtown El
Paso Development Archaeological Project: Overview, Inventory and Recommendations, John A. Peterson, Stephen
Mbutu, & Mark D. Willis, eds., ARC Archaeological Technical Report No. 17, for the Sun Metro Transit Authority,
City of El Paso, Texas, Dec. 9, 1998. See Grossman Decl. App. 10.

2
this project, including over 5 acres for the footprint of the proposed Arena. Grossman Decl.

12, App. 2, App. 4.

6. In furtherance of its arena project, the City has authorized its agents to acquire

properties in the Duranguito-Union Plaza neighborhood. Grossman Decl. 12, App. 3. The

City has already acquired six properties and has entered into purchase contracts for additional

properties. Grossman Decl. 15, App. 6. For any properties the City is not able to acquire

through negotiated sales, the City has authorized the use of eminent domain and condemnation

in order to obtain title to the properties. Grossman Decl. 12, App. 3.

7. For the project to proceed, the City requires that the buildings on these

properties be demolished. To this end, the City has included in the contracts a requirement

that vacant buildings be demolished. Grossman Decl. 14. Also in furtherance of this project,

the City has engaged in a systematic program to depopulate the land so that it can be prepared

for construction of the planned arena. It has offered and paid residents relocation incentives

to induce them to vacate their rental properties. Grossman Decl. 14, App. 5.

8. Demolition of these properties is imminent. In May 2017, the City filed a

lawsuit in Travis County, Texas (No. D-1-GN-17-001888) pursuant to Chapter 1205 of the

Government Code, seeking to validate the general obligation bonds that will be used to build

the Arena and to declare that using the bond funds to build an Arena in downtown El Paso is

a valid expenditure under the ordinance authorizing the issuance of the bonds. Grossman Decl.

13. Plaintiff Grossman, among others, appeared in that lawsuit and challenged the proposed

expenditure. Id. The matter was tried to the 201st Judicial District Court, the Honorable Amy

Clark Meachum presiding, on July 17 and 18, 2017. Grossman Decl. 16. The trial court

ruled from the bench that the City could use the bond proceeds to build a new facility in

3
downtown El Paso but that the facility could not be a sports arena, as currently planned.

Grossman Decl. 16, App. 7. The trial court set a hearing for entry of judgment on August 1,

2017, at 2 pm. Grossman Decl. 17, App. 8. As part of her bench ruling, the trial court noted

that the temporary injunction currently in placewhich prohibits the City from demolishing

any structures within the proposed footprint of its Arenawill likely be dissolved upon entry

of the Final Judgment on August 1, 2017. Grossman Decl. 16, App. 7. 3

9. Many of the buildings the City has or will cause to be demolished as part of its

arena project have historical and architectural significance. Grossman Decl. 18-22, 24.

Based on an archeological survey commissioned by the City of El Paso for the Sun Metro

Transit Authority and carried out by a team of experts led by John A. Peterson, Stephen

Mbutu, and Mark D. Willis, seven buildings within the so-called Master Planning Area of

the arena project area are recommended to be added to the National Register of Historic

Places, and an additional five locations were identified as high-probability archaeological

sites. Id.; see also id. App. 10. The 1998 survey concluded that many of the buildings within

Union Plaza provide good examples of period architecture. Overall, almost 20 buildings

Union Plaza, representing a wide range of character and styles, have been determined to meet

the Secretary of the Interiors criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic

Places. Grossman Decl. App. 10. The survey also states that The Union Plaza, part of the

original Ponce de Leon ranch (El Pasos first community), contains historic sites and buildings

that are potentially in danger of being impacted by construction during redevelopment. Id.

Further, although it did not identify any prehistoric sites, the survey concluded that potential

3
The basis for the Temporary Injunction issued in the Travis County litigation is distinct from the relief sought here.
The Travis County injunction was based on allegations that the City was illegally expending bond proceeds in building
a sports arena, instead of a Multi-Purpose Performing Arts and Entertainment Center, as approved by the voters, in
downtown El Paso. Grossman Decl. 13, 17.

4
for historic archaeological sites remains considerable. Id.

10. Yet, the City has endeavored to prevent a comprehensive architectural survey

of the neighborhood, refusing to authorize an archeological survey of downtown El Paso and

the adjacent barrios, including the 28 Trost buildings 4 and numerous other architectural

treasures surviving in downtown El Paso. Grossman Decl. 23. Despite the Citys opposition,

however, El Paso County has taken up the survey project, which is currently under way, and

there is a high likelihood that a Duranguito National Register District will be established, that

is, if the architecture is still there. Grossman Decl. 7.

V
CAUSES OF ACTION

Declaratory Judgment

11. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if expressly stated

herein.

12. A court of record within its jurisdiction has power to declare rights, status, and

other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. An action or

proceeding is not open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is

prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the

declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment or decree. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM,

CODE 37.003(a), (b) (internal notations omitted).

13. A person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings

constituting a contract or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute,

4
Henry C. Trost was one of the most iconic architects of the American Southwest. He was already well-known in the
southwest when he came to El Paso in 1903. He designed the El Paso School of Mines (now the University of Texas-
El Paso), El Paso High School, and numerous public and private buildings all across El Paso and the Southwest.

5
municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of construction

or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and obtain a

declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder. Id. 37.004(a) (emphasis

added).

14. The Texas Antiquities Code, found in Chapter 191 of the Texas Natural

Resources Code, imposes mandatory notice requirements for projects on public lands.

Specifically, section 191.0525(a) requires that a person 5 primarily responsible for a project

located on local public land must notify the Texas Historical Commission, which then must

determine if the site requires protection or if an archeological survey is necessary. TEX. NAT.

RES. CODE 191.0525(a), (b). Section 191.0525(d) further provides that a project for a city

requires advance project review only if the project affects a cumulative area larger than five

acres or disturbs a cumulative area of more than 5,000 cubic yards, whichever measure is

triggered first, or if the project is inside a designated historic district or recorded archeological

site. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE 191.0525(d). If the Texas Historical Commission determines

that an archeological survey is necessary at the project location, the project may not

commence until the archeological survey is completed. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE 191.0525(b).

Section 191.173(a) empowers a citizen of the State of Texas to maintain an action for

restraining orders and injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin violations or threatened

violations of this chapter. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE 191.173(a).

15. As described above, the Citys planned downtown arena project triggers the

5
Person includes a governmental subdivision such as the City. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. Dallas Area Rapid
Transit, 369 S.W.3d 845, 851 & n.17 (Tex. 2012) (explaining that Since the adoption of the Code Construction Act
in 1967, the Legislature has instructed that in construing its codes, the word person includes the government or
governmental subdivision or agency unless the statute or context . . . requires a different definition. (citing TEX.
GOVT CODE 311.005(2))).

6
Citys responsibility to notify and receive approval from the Texas Historical Commission as

provided in section 191.0525. Yet, in violation of this provision, and with full knowledge of

its obligations, see Declaration of Harry W. Clark, attached as Exhibit B and incorporated

herein by reference, neither the City nor any other person associated with the arena project

has not notified the Texas Historical Commission of the planned arena project or sought

approval to proceed. Grossman Decl. 26, App. 13.

16. As established above, the Citys planned $180 million arena project will require

the demolition of more than five acres, including the Duranguito-Union Plaza area, El Pasos

oldest continuously occupied downtown neighborhood, including many buildings that the

Citys own 1998 archeological survey identified as historically and architecturally significant

and worthy of protection. The 1998 survey recommended that seven buildings within the City

of El Pasos so called Master Planning Area be added to the National Register of Historic

Places, and an additional five locations were identified as high-probability archaeological

sites. The survey concluded that many of the buildings within Union Plaza provide good

examples of period architecture. Overall, 20 buildings, representing a wide range of character

and style in the Union Plaza have been determined to meet the Secretary of the Interiors

criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The report also states that

The Union Plaza, part of the original Ponce de Leon ranch (El Pasos first community),

contains historic sites and buildings that are potentially in danger of being impacted by

construction during redevelopment. Further, although it did not identify any prehistoric

sites, the report concluded that potential for historic archaeological sites remains

considerable. Moreover, the City is also aware that El Paso County is currently engaged in

an archeological survey project in the area, the likely result of which is that a Duranguito

7
National Register District will be established.

17. Thus, the City is well aware that its arena project will destroy many historically

significant buildings, triggering its obligation under section 191.0525 to notify the Texas

Historical Commission and to refrain from its activities endangering those buildings unless

and until the Commission gives its approval.

18. The City has entered into purchase contracts for properties in the Duranguito-

Union Plaza neighborhood. As a first step in preparing the land for construction, the City has

included in several of these contracts a requirement that the seller demolish vacant buildings.

19. To ensure that as many buildings as possible are vacant and ready to be

demolished, the City has offered and paid residents relocation incentives if they agree to

vacate their rental properties.

20. The property in question is public land as defined in the applicable provisions

of the Administrative Code because it is owned or controlled by the City. See 13 TEX.

ADMIN. CODE 29.4(25) (Public lands--means non-federal public lands that are owned or

controlled by the State of Texas or any of its political subdivisions.). The contracts for

purchase of real property in the Duranguito-Union Plaza area give the City an equitable

interest in the property sufficient to constitute ownership for the purposes of section 29.4(25)

of Administrative Code and public land for purposes of section 191.0525. See, e.g., Comerica

Acceptance Corp. v. Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist., 52 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Tex. App.Dallas

2001, pet. denied) (en banc) (explaining that owner means a person or entity holding legal

title to the property, or holding an equitable right to obtain legal title to the property

(emphasis added)). Further, by requiring the sellers to demolish the buildings in preparation

for the arena project, the City is exercising control over the property. Indeed, by requiring the

8
demolition, the City is breaking ground on the project that will necessarily be public land

pursuant to the very same sales contract that requires the demolition. Moreover, the pending

sales contracts prevent the sellers from altering the property in ways inconsistent with the

Citys conditions of sale, transferring the property to another party, or otherwise exercising

the rights of an owner. The City has also offered and paid residents relocation incentives to

vacate their rental properties by a date certain. Thus, City is directing the operations of the

premises. As a result, even if the City currently lacks legal title to some of the properties,

the properties are nonetheless public land as defined in the Code.

21. Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that:

a) the City is required to properly notify the Texas Historical Commission and
take any and all other actions in compliance with section 191.0525 of the
Texas Natural Resources Code.

b) the City, its affiliates, agents, attorneys, employees, contractors, servants,

are prohibited from entering into new contracts related to this project unless
and until the City has complied with all requirements of the Texas
Antiquities Code and received approval from the Texas Historical
Commission to proceed. New contracts include any new contracts between
the City and residents for relocation incentives or assistance.

c) the City, its affiliates, agents, attorneys, employees, contractors, servants,

are prohibited from issuing permits for the demolition of buildings in the
so-called Master Planning Area of the proposed new downtown arena or
elsewhere in the Duranguito neighborhood.

Injunctive Relief

22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if expressly stated

herein.

23. Section 191.173(a) empowers a citizen of the State of Texas to maintain an

action for restraining orders and injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin violations or

threatened violations of this chapter. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE 191.173(a).

9
 24. As described above, the Citys actions with respect to the arena project and the

public land in the Duranguito-Union Plaza area trigger the notice requirements of section

191.0525 of the Texas Natural Resources Code.

25. Plaintiff asks the Court to order the City to properly notify the Texas Historical

Commission and take any and all other actions in compliance with section 191.0525 of the

Texas Natural Resources Code. Plaintiff further asks the Court to enjoin the City, its affiliates,

agents, attorneys, employees, contractors, servants, and all those with knowledge of the

injunction to immediately cease entering into new contracts related to this project unless and

until the City has complied with all requirements of the Texas Antiquities Code and received

approval from the Texas Historical Commission to proceed. New contracts include any new

contracts between the City and residents for relocation incentives or assistance. Plaintiff also

asks the Court to enjoin the City from issuing permits for the demolition of buildings in the

Master Planning Area of the proposed new downtown arena or elsewhere in the Duranguito

neighborhood, as defined in figures 5:52 and 5:53 of the Citys own 1998 architectural survey

of the neighborhood.

VI
ATTORNEY FEES

26. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 37.009, Plaintiff

is entitled to recover costs of litigation and reasonable attorney fees incurred in bringing this

suit.

VII
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if expressly stated

herein, including the Exhibits referenced above.

10
 28. Plaintiffs application for a temporary restraining order is authorized by section

191.173(a) of the Texas Natural Resources Code, which provides that A citizen of the State

of Texas may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for restraining orders and

injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin violations or threatened violations of this chapter, and

for the return of items taken in violation of the provisions of this chapter. TEX. NAT. RES.

CODE 191.173(a). Plaintiff Max Grossman is a citizen of the State of Texas and brings this

action because the Citys actions and planned actions, including but not limited to, the

demolition and destruction of historic buildings in a historic, low-income neighborhood in

order to construct a new downtown arena, without having first notified and received approval

from the Texas Historical Commission, violate section 191.0525 of the Texas Natural

Resources Code.

29. Section 191.0525(a) requires that a person 6 primarily responsible for a project

located on local public land must notify the Texas Historical Commission, which then must

determine if the site requires protection or if an archeological survey is necessary. TEX. NAT.

RES. CODE 191.0525(a), (b). Section 191.0525(d) further provides that a project for a city

requires advance project review only if the project affects a cumulative area larger than five

acres or disturbs a cumulative area of more than 5,000 cubic yards, whichever measure is

triggered first, or if the project is inside a designated historic district or recorded archeological

site. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE 191.0525(d). If the Texas Historical Commission determines

that an archeological survey is necessary at the project location, the project may not

6
Person includes a governmental subdivision such as the City. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. Dallas Area Rapid
Transit, 369 S.W.3d 845, 851 & n.17 (Tex. 2012) (explaining that Since the adoption of the Code Construction Act
in 1967, the Legislature has instructed that in construing its codes, the word person includes the government or
governmental subdivision or agency unless the statute or context . . . requires a different definition. (citing TEX.
GOVT CODE 311.005(2))).

11
commence until the archeological survey is completed. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE 191.0525(b).

30. The Citys $180 million arena project will affect more than five acres of public

land. The property in question is public land as defined in the applicable provisions of the

Administrative Code because it is owned or controlled by the City. See 13 TEX. ADMIN.

CODE 29.4(25) (Public lands--means non-federal public lands that are owned or controlled

by the State of Texas or any of its political subdivisions.). The City owns already at least 6

properties in the Duranguito-Union Plaza area and has entered into contracts for purchase of

real property, giving the City an equitable interest in the property sufficient to constitute

ownership for the purposes of section 29.4(25) of Administrative Code and public land for

purposes of section 191.0525. See, e.g., Comerica Acceptance Corp. v. Dallas Cent.

Appraisal Dist., 52 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Tex. App.Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (en banc)

(explaining that owner means a person or entity holding legal title to the property, or

holding an equitable right to obtain legal title to the property (emphasis added)). Moreover,

the City, through its use of eminent domain and condemnation powers, can obtain legal title

to the land. Further, by requiring the sellers to demolish the buildings in preparation for the

arena project, the City is exercising control over the property. Indeed, by requiring the

demolition, the City is breaking ground on the project that will necessarily be public land

pursuant to the very same sales contract that requires the demolition. Moreover, the pending

sales contracts prevent the sellers from altering the property in ways inconsistent with the

Citys conditions of sale, transferring the property to another party, or otherwise exercising

the rights of an owner. The City has also offered and paid residents relocation incentives to

vacate their rental properties by a date certain. Thus, City is directing the operations of the

premises. As a result, even if the City currently lacks legal title to some of the properties,

12
the properties are nonetheless public land as defined in the Code.

31. In violation of section 191.0525, the City has not notified the Texas Historical

Commission about the arena project or otherwise sought or received approval from the

Commission to proceed.

32. Plaintiff asks the Court to order the City to properly notify the Texas Historical

Commission and take any and all other actions in compliance with section 191.0525 of the

Texas Natural Resources Code. Plaintiff further asks the Court to enjoin the City, its affiliates,

agents, attorneys, employees, contractors, servants, and all those with knowledge of the

injunction to immediately cease entering into new contracts related to this project unless and

until the City has complied with all requirements of the Texas Antiquities Code and received

approval from the Texas Historical Commission to proceed. New contracts include any new

contracts between the City and residents for relocation incentives or assistance. Plaintiff also

asks the Court to enjoin the City from issuing permits for the demolition of buildings in the

footprint of the proposed new downtown arena.

33. Plaintiff has a probable right to the declaratory and injunctive relief requested

following a final hearing. City of El Paso v. Caples Land Co., 408 S.W.3d 26, 37-38

(Tex. App.El Paso 2013, pet. denied) (An applicant for a temporary injunction need not

show that it will prevail at trial in order to establish the probable right of recovery element.

Instead, the applicant must plead a cause of action and present some evidence that tends to

sustain it.).

34. If Plaintiffs application is not granted, harm is imminent. As noted, the City

has already entered into multiple contracts that call for the demolition of historic buildings in

the Duranguito neighborhood in the footprint of the planned arena project. Further, the City

13
has issued at least seven permits for demolition in and adjacent to the relevant area. While

the City is currently restrained by court order from demolishing any structures within the

Arenas footprint, the injunction prohibiting demolition is likely to be dissolved on August 1,

2017. Media reports indicate that the City plans to commence demolition as soon as the

injunction is lifted. Grossman Declaration 25, App. 12. And citizens have observed

indicators of the immediate demolition of the area: utility lines removed, boarded windows,

and markings on sidewalks of gas lines and the like. See Declarations of Gilbert Guillen,

attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, Daniel Carey-Whalen, attached

as Exhibit D, and Bernard J. Sargent, attached as Exhibit E, all incorporated herein by

reference. Thus, the demolition is imminent and will proceed unless this Court grants

Plaintiffs application.

35. The harm that will result if the temporary restraining order is not issued is

irreparable because the Citys plans order the demolition and destruction of historical

buildings that are, by their very nature, irreplaceable. Indeed, this is precisely why the

Antiquities Code requires advance project review of such proposed projects. Further, the

harm that will result if the temporary restraining order is not issued is also irreparable because

Plaintiffs damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard.

36. Plaintiff also has no adequate remedy at law because the damages are

incalculable.

37. In any event, proof of a violation of a statute alone establishes a case for

injunctive relief. See, e.g., San Miguel v. City of Windcrest, 40 S.W.3d 104, 108 (Tex. App.

San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (A city seeking to enjoin a violation of its zoning ordinance,

however, need not prove that a violation would cause injury to it or its residents. Similarly,

14
an act that violates a statute or city ordinance may be enjoined without a showing that the

legal remedy is inadequate. (citations omitted)).

38. Plaintiff is willing to post a reasonable surety bond pursuant to Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure 684. Only a low bond is warranted here. As Rule 684 provides, where the

temporary restraining order or temporary injunction is against a political subdivision of the

State, such as the City, and the political subdivision has no pecuniary interest in the suit and

no monetary damages, the amount of the bond shall be fixed by the Court. TEX. R. CIV. PROC.

684; Maples v. Mascletech Inc., 74 S.W.3d 429, 431 (Tex. App.Amarillo 2002, no pet.)

(explaining that bond determination should be made on a case-by-case basis and rests within

the sound discretion of trial court). Here, the City will not be economically harmed by the

restraining order because it remains well ahead of the schedule planned for this project, which

originally did not call for construction related to this facility improvement until 2020.

Grossman Decl. 13, App. 5 (City brochures stating that the project is in its infancy and that

a yet-formed project team will develop a schedule for design and construction). Moreover,

even after unreasonably accelerating this project timeline in late 2016, the City did not expect

to complete property acquisition before August 2017. Id. Thus, even if enjoined from

proceeding during the pendency of this action, the City will still be able to proceed on or ahead

of schedule. More importantly, however, section 191.173 of the Texas Natural Resources

Code empowers a citizen to seek restraining orders and injunctive relief to enforce section

191.0525. Setting a high bond would thwart the intent of section 191.173(a). For the

foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court set a bond of $100 that does not prevent

Plaintiff access to the justice system or thwart the intent of section 191.173(a).

39. Plaintiff asks the Court to set his application for a temporary injunction for a

15
hearing, and after the hearing, issue a temporary injunction against the City.

VIII
JURY DEMAND

40. Plaintiff requests a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee with this petition.

IX
RULE 47(c) STATEMENT

41. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47(c)(2), Plaintiff states that he is

seeking monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief in this lawsuit.

X
PRAYER

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter a temporary restraining order,

temporary injunction, and permanent injunction ordering that the City, its agents, employees,

contractors, servants, and attorneys are prohibited from:

a) entering into new contracts related to acquiring, demolishing, rehabilitating, or new

construction on or of any property related to the proposed construction of a new
arena in the Duranguito neighborhood;

b) issuing permits authorizing or continuing to authorize any demolition of any

structure on a property related to the proposed construction of a new arena in the
Duranguito neighborhood; and

c) authorizing or continuing to authorize actions that will dispossess, or incentivize

the removal of persons from property related to the proposed construction of a new
arena in the Duranguito neighborhood.

Plaintiff further respectfully requests that the Court enter a temporary restraining order, temporary

injunction, and permanent injunction ordering that the City, through its agents, employees,

contractors, servants, and attorneys to:

d) properly notify the Texas Historical Commission and take any and all other actions
in compliance with section 191.0525 of the Texas Natural Resources Code.

Plaintiff further prays for such other and further relief and orders to which he may be justly entitled

at law or in equity.

16
Dated: July 31, 2017
Harriet ONeill
LAW OFFICE OF HARRIET ONEILL
919 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: 512-944-2222
Facsimile: 512-476-6441
HONeill@HONeilllawfirm.com
J. Eduardo Cadena
Attorney and Counselor at Law
CADENA LAW FIRM, P.C.
5809 Acacia Circle
El Paso, Texas 79912
(915) 845-4440 - Office
(915) 845-4441 - Facsimile
ecadena@cadenalawfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR MAX GROSSMAN
17
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lisa Bowlin Hobbs
Lisa Bowlin Hobbs
KUHN HOBBS PLLC
3307 Northland Drive, Suite 310
Austin, Texas 78731
Telephone: 512-476-6003
Facsimile: 512-476-6002
Lisa@KuhnHobbs.com
Frank Ainsa
AINSA HUTSON LLP
5809 Acacia Circle
El Paso, Texas 79912
Telephone: 915-845-5300
Facsimile: 915-845-7800