Fraudulent - Sued in Texas
Complaint
International Acquisition Group
Country: United States
Case 3:16-cv-00085-FM Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
DATAMARK, INC. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 16-85
)
DATAMARK HRI, LLC, )
HAYWOOD S. HULLENDER, )
INTERNATIONAL ACQUISITION )
GROUP, LLC, INTEGRATED )
ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, and IAG, )
LLC )
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Datamark, Inc., files this action complaining of Defendants, Datamark HRI,
LLC, Haywood Hullender, International Acquisition Group, LLC, Integrated Advisory Group,
LLC, and IAG, LLC, and in support thereof would show as follows:
I. THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Datamark Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal business located at 123 W. Mills Ave., Ste. 400, El Paso, Texas, 79901.
2. Defendant Datamark HRI, LLC is a Texas limited liability company, with its principal office in Carrollton, Texas, and upon whom service may be had by serving its registered agent, Haywood S. Hullender, at 8013 Cavalier Dr., Plano, Texas 75024.
3. Defendant Haywood Hullender is an individual residing in Plano, Texas, who is the managing member of Datamark HRI, LLC, and upon whom service may be had by serving him at 8013 Cavalier Dr., Plano, Texas 75024.
4. Defendant International Acquisition Group, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company, with its principal office in Carrollton, Texas, and upon whom service may be had by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
5. Defendant Integrated Advisory Group, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company, both Defendants are one in the same company, with its principal office in Carrollton, Texas, and upon whom service may be had by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
6. Defendant IAG, LLC (“IAG”), is a foreign limited liability company, with its principal office in Carrollton, Texas. Defendant IAG, a limited liability company, is a nonresident of Texas subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant IAG is deemed to have done business in the State of Texas because it committed a tort in Texas and this cause of action arises out of that tort. Further, Defendant IAG does not maintain a place of regular business in the State of Texas or a designated agent upon whom service may be made upon causes of action arising out of torts committed within the State of Texas. Defendant IAG may be served by serving the Secretary of State of Texas, who may forward summons and complaint by registered mail, return receipt requested to Defendant IAG at its home office at 1925 E. Belt Line Rd., Ste.
550, Carrollton, Texas 76244.
II. NATURE OF THE ACTION
7. This is an action at law and in equity for trademark infringement, deceptive practices, fraud, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. This is also an action for injury to business reputation and trademark dilution under Texas Business & Commerce Code §16.103.
8. Datamark Inc. has extensively used the coined and registered term “DATAMARK” (hereinafter, the “Mark”) as a trademark in connection with the services it provides for over 35 years. The Mark is also the subject of an incontestable federal registration and is widely known among its customers and potential customers as an indicator of the quality and source of Datamark Inc.’s services.
9. Defendants have contacted potential customers claiming to be “Datamark” and offering business services similar to those of Datamark Inc., and as a result some of those potential customers have come to believe Defendants’ solicitations are coming from Datamark
Inc. According to complaints posted on the internet regarding Defendants’ unwanted calls, Defendants repeatedly make calls to potential customers despite their requests to be removed from Defendants’ call-list and Defendants have harassed potential customers by calling, but not speaking, when a call is answered, as well conducting a fraudulent business in an effort to scam potential clients. These actions are harming Datamark Inc.’s reputation. Defendants’ use of the Mark, with services similar to those of Datamark Inc. to potential customers who may need services offered by Datamark Inc. in overlapping channels of trade, constitutes trademark infringement and is misleading and confusing to potential customers, and constitutes unfair competition by trading on Datamark Inc.’s substantial goodwill, as the Defendants are conducting a fraud.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case and controversy.
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have sufficient contacts with this forum and they have committed and continue to commit, the complained of torts including acts of trademark infringement in this judicial district.
12. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Defendants are doing business in this district by making calls soliciting business to potential customers located in this district.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13. Since at least 1990, Datamark Inc. has used the Mark in connection with the services it provides. As a result of its use over the last 35 years, the Mark has come to identify and distinguish Datamark Inc.’s services.
14. Datamark Inc. has expended considerable effort and resources in offering a wide range of quality services under the Mark. As a result, the Mark has become strongly identified by its customers and potential customers with Datamark Inc., and it enjoys substantial goodwill in connection with the Mark.
15. Consistent with its extensive use of and common law rights in the Mark, Datamark Inc. is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration Number 3750948, which covers “administrative forms processing services, namely, inbound mail processing, document reproduction, namely, document scanning, data processing services, namely, data entry, collection and processing services of business information, data, statistics and indices, management of call centers for others, order fulfillment services” (the “Services”). The registration has obtained incontestable status, which means the registration is conclusive evidence of Datamark Inc.’s exclusive right to use the Mark in connection with the Services. See attached Exhibit A.
16. Defendants have used the Mark when advertising for call center services to
potential customers, including, but not limited to, the following:
Potential Customers
LOCATION
LightParts, Inc.
Austin, TX
Elliot Bay Industries
Seattle, WA
Hydrological Solutions, Inc.
Waller, TX
Bass Plumbing
Albany, NY
Elmira Road Materials
Horseheads, NY
Heavy Metal Safe Co LLC
Mesa, AZ
All of these potential customers have mistakenly contacted Datamark Inc. to complain about calls received from Defendants.
17. Defendants have solicited potential customers, using the name “Datamark”, on numerous occasions by phone calls to offer call center services as shown on one of Defendants’ web site, attached as Exhibit B and located at http://www.datamarkhri.com/?page_id=19., Exhibit C and located at http://www.i-advisorygroup.com/ Defendants are using the name “Datamark” in their fraud and solicitations, which are confusing potential customers and using and, at the same time, harming the goodwill of Datamark Inc.
18. Defendants solicitations have been discourteous and annoying, as reflected in numerous reports on the internet, see Exhibit C, attached. These solicitations negatively effect Datamark Inc.’s reputation because the potential customers often think Defendants’ solicitations are coming from Datamark Inc. and have contacted Datamark Inc. regarding the solicitations. Defendants wrongful acts are harming the reputation and goodwill of Datamark
Inc.
19. Defendants are using the Mark to advertise and promoting a fraud of their services through their solicitations over the phone to potential customers throughout the United States, including in this judicial district.
20. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with their fraudulent practices, services are likely to continue causing confusion, mistake, and to deceive potential customers as to an affiliation, approval, license, endorsement, sponsorship, or other connection with Datamark Inc. when none exists.
21. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with their services is likely to dilute and/or tarnish the distinctiveness, reputation and goodwill enjoyed by Datamark Inc.
22. Defendants’ use of the Mark in connection with their fraud including their call center services is without Plaintiff’s consent or permission.
23. Based on their past conduct, Defendants intend to continue their fraud, unauthorized infringing activities unless required to cease such activities by this Court.
V. IRREPARABLE INJURY TO DATAMARK INC.
24. Defendants’s unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with their offering call center and related services allows Defendants to unfairly receive and enjoy the benefits of goodwill, acceptance, and recognition that Datamark Inc. has acquired over an extended period in connection with its registered Mark at great effort and expense. It further allows Defendants to unfairly gain acceptance for its call centers and related services based not upon Defendants’ own merits, but instead based on the reputation and goodwill that Datamark Inc. has achieved, and that are associated with its protected Mark.
25. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with offering call center and related services, constitutes an invasion of the valuable property rights of Datamark Inc. in its Mark and the attendant goodwill in a manner that unjustly enriches Defendants.
26. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with offering calling center and related services effectively places the valuable reputation and goodwill of Datamark Inc. in the hands of Defendants, over whom Datamark Inc. has absolutely no control.
27. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with offering calling center and related services has caused, and continues to cause, injury to Datamark Inc.’s business reputation and property interests in the Mark.
28. Because of the value imbued by Datamark Inc. in the Mark, including its future value, Datamark Inc. has no adequate financial remedy. Unless Defendants’ unauthorized and infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, they will continue to cause irreparable injury to
Datamark Inc. and to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The Court has an obligation to protect the public from fraud.
VI. Federal Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114 et seq.
29. As described above, Defendants’ unauthorized acts constitute trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1114(1).
30. As describe above, Defendants’ unauthorized acts make this an exceptional case entitling Datamark Inc. to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
VII. False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
31. As described above, Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark constitutes false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).
32. Defendants have acted in bad faith with full knowledge and conscious disregard of Datamark Inc.’s rights in the Mark, and with a willful and deliberate intent to trade on Datamark Inc.’s goodwill. In view of the willful nature of Defendants’ infringement, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1117(a).
VIII. Trademark Dilution
33. As described above, Defendants’ unauthorized acts constitute trademark dilution in violation of Texas Business & Commerce Code §16.103.
IX. Unfair Competition
34. As described above, Defendants’ unauthorized, fraudulent acts constitute unfair competition under the Texas common law.
X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Datamark Inc. prays that:
35. Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, related companies, and all those acting in concert with any of them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined and restrained from conducting business, in connection with the sale, promotion, advertising, or offering of calling center or any other services, any name or mark including the Mark, or any other name, mark, or device confusingly similar to the Mark; in connection with Broker activities, and financial instruments.
36. Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, related companies, and all those acting in concert with any of them, be required to deliver to the Court for destruction, or to show proof of destruction of, any and all displays, signs, circulars, promotional materials, advertisements and any other materials that bear or depict the Mark, or any name, mark, or device confusingly similar thereto and/or any branded merchandise, as well as all plates, molds, casts, and other means of reproducing, counterfeiting, copying or otherwise imitating Datamark Inc.’s Mark or any name or mark confusingly similar thereto;
37. Defendants be ordered to file with this Court and to serve upon Datamark Inc., within thirty (30) days after the entry of an injunction, a report in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction;
38. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), Datamark Inc. recover its reasonable attorney’s fees, including such fees associated with all trial and appellate proceedings; and
39. That this Court award Datamark Inc. recovery of its costs incurred in this action, including the closing of Defendants fraudulent business and such other and further relief as this Court may determine appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
KEMP SMITH LLP
P.O. Box 2800
El Paso, Texas 79999-2800
915.533.4424
915.546.5360 (FAX)
By: /s/ Mark Osborn
Mark N. Osborn
State Bar No. 15326700 mosborn@kempsmith.com
1 1324741v.1 12976/01600
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
DATAMARK, INC. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 16-85
)
DATAMARK HRI, LLC, )
HAYWOOD S. HULLENDER, )
INTERNATIONAL ACQUISITION )
GROUP, LLC, INTEGRATED )
ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, and IAG, )
LLC )
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Datamark, Inc., files this action complaining of Defendants, Datamark HRI,
LLC, Haywood Hullender, International Acquisition Group, LLC, Integrated Advisory Group,
LLC, and IAG, LLC, and in support thereof would show as follows:
I. THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Datamark Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal business located at 123 W. Mills Ave., Ste. 400, El Paso, Texas, 79901.
2. Defendant Datamark HRI, LLC is a Texas limited liability company, with its principal office in Carrollton, Texas, and upon whom service may be had by serving its registered agent, Haywood S. Hullender, at 8013 Cavalier Dr., Plano, Texas 75024.
3. Defendant Haywood Hullender is an individual residing in Plano, Texas, who is the managing member of Datamark HRI, LLC, and upon whom service may be had by serving him at 8013 Cavalier Dr., Plano, Texas 75024.
4. Defendant International Acquisition Group, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company, with its principal office in Carrollton, Texas, and upon whom service may be had by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
5. Defendant Integrated Advisory Group, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company, both Defendants are one in the same company, with its principal office in Carrollton, Texas, and upon whom service may be had by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
6. Defendant IAG, LLC (“IAG”), is a foreign limited liability company, with its principal office in Carrollton, Texas. Defendant IAG, a limited liability company, is a nonresident of Texas subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant IAG is deemed to have done business in the State of Texas because it committed a tort in Texas and this cause of action arises out of that tort. Further, Defendant IAG does not maintain a place of regular business in the State of Texas or a designated agent upon whom service may be made upon causes of action arising out of torts committed within the State of Texas. Defendant IAG may be served by serving the Secretary of State of Texas, who may forward summons and complaint by registered mail, return receipt requested to Defendant IAG at its home office at 1925 E. Belt Line Rd., Ste.
550, Carrollton, Texas 76244.
II. NATURE OF THE ACTION
7. This is an action at law and in equity for trademark infringement, deceptive practices, fraud, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. This is also an action for injury to business reputation and trademark dilution under Texas Business & Commerce Code §16.103.
8. Datamark Inc. has extensively used the coined and registered term “DATAMARK” (hereinafter, the “Mark”) as a trademark in connection with the services it provides for over 35 years. The Mark is also the subject of an incontestable federal registration and is widely known among its customers and potential customers as an indicator of the quality and source of Datamark Inc.’s services.
9. Defendants have contacted potential customers claiming to be “Datamark” and offering business services similar to those of Datamark Inc., and as a result some of those potential customers have come to believe Defendants’ solicitations are coming from Datamark
Inc. According to complaints posted on the internet regarding Defendants’ unwanted calls, Defendants repeatedly make calls to potential customers despite their requests to be removed from Defendants’ call-list and Defendants have harassed potential customers by calling, but not speaking, when a call is answered, as well conducting a fraudulent business in an effort to scam potential clients. These actions are harming Datamark Inc.’s reputation. Defendants’ use of the Mark, with services similar to those of Datamark Inc. to potential customers who may need services offered by Datamark Inc. in overlapping channels of trade, constitutes trademark infringement and is misleading and confusing to potential customers, and constitutes unfair competition by trading on Datamark Inc.’s substantial goodwill, as the Defendants are conducting a fraud.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case and controversy.
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have sufficient contacts with this forum and they have committed and continue to commit, the complained of torts including acts of trademark infringement in this judicial district.
12. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Defendants are doing business in this district by making calls soliciting business to potential customers located in this district.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13. Since at least 1990, Datamark Inc. has used the Mark in connection with the services it provides. As a result of its use over the last 35 years, the Mark has come to identify and distinguish Datamark Inc.’s services.
14. Datamark Inc. has expended considerable effort and resources in offering a wide range of quality services under the Mark. As a result, the Mark has become strongly identified by its customers and potential customers with Datamark Inc., and it enjoys substantial goodwill in connection with the Mark.
15. Consistent with its extensive use of and common law rights in the Mark, Datamark Inc. is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration Number 3750948, which covers “administrative forms processing services, namely, inbound mail processing, document reproduction, namely, document scanning, data processing services, namely, data entry, collection and processing services of business information, data, statistics and indices, management of call centers for others, order fulfillment services” (the “Services”). The registration has obtained incontestable status, which means the registration is conclusive evidence of Datamark Inc.’s exclusive right to use the Mark in connection with the Services. See attached Exhibit A.
16. Defendants have used the Mark when advertising for call center services to
potential customers, including, but not limited to, the following:
Potential Customers
LOCATION
LightParts, Inc.
Austin, TX
Elliot Bay Industries
Seattle, WA
Hydrological Solutions, Inc.
Waller, TX
Bass Plumbing
Albany, NY
Elmira Road Materials
Horseheads, NY
Heavy Metal Safe Co LLC
Mesa, AZ
All of these potential customers have mistakenly contacted Datamark Inc. to complain about calls received from Defendants.
17. Defendants have solicited potential customers, using the name “Datamark”, on numerous occasions by phone calls to offer call center services as shown on one of Defendants’ web site, attached as Exhibit B and located at http://www.datamarkhri.com/?page_id=19., Exhibit C and located at http://www.i-advisorygroup.com/ Defendants are using the name “Datamark” in their fraud and solicitations, which are confusing potential customers and using and, at the same time, harming the goodwill of Datamark Inc.
18. Defendants solicitations have been discourteous and annoying, as reflected in numerous reports on the internet, see Exhibit C, attached. These solicitations negatively effect Datamark Inc.’s reputation because the potential customers often think Defendants’ solicitations are coming from Datamark Inc. and have contacted Datamark Inc. regarding the solicitations. Defendants wrongful acts are harming the reputation and goodwill of Datamark
Inc.
19. Defendants are using the Mark to advertise and promoting a fraud of their services through their solicitations over the phone to potential customers throughout the United States, including in this judicial district.
20. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with their fraudulent practices, services are likely to continue causing confusion, mistake, and to deceive potential customers as to an affiliation, approval, license, endorsement, sponsorship, or other connection with Datamark Inc. when none exists.
21. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with their services is likely to dilute and/or tarnish the distinctiveness, reputation and goodwill enjoyed by Datamark Inc.
22. Defendants’ use of the Mark in connection with their fraud including their call center services is without Plaintiff’s consent or permission.
23. Based on their past conduct, Defendants intend to continue their fraud, unauthorized infringing activities unless required to cease such activities by this Court.
V. IRREPARABLE INJURY TO DATAMARK INC.
24. Defendants’s unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with their offering call center and related services allows Defendants to unfairly receive and enjoy the benefits of goodwill, acceptance, and recognition that Datamark Inc. has acquired over an extended period in connection with its registered Mark at great effort and expense. It further allows Defendants to unfairly gain acceptance for its call centers and related services based not upon Defendants’ own merits, but instead based on the reputation and goodwill that Datamark Inc. has achieved, and that are associated with its protected Mark.
25. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with offering call center and related services, constitutes an invasion of the valuable property rights of Datamark Inc. in its Mark and the attendant goodwill in a manner that unjustly enriches Defendants.
26. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with offering calling center and related services effectively places the valuable reputation and goodwill of Datamark Inc. in the hands of Defendants, over whom Datamark Inc. has absolutely no control.
27. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark in connection with offering calling center and related services has caused, and continues to cause, injury to Datamark Inc.’s business reputation and property interests in the Mark.
28. Because of the value imbued by Datamark Inc. in the Mark, including its future value, Datamark Inc. has no adequate financial remedy. Unless Defendants’ unauthorized and infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, they will continue to cause irreparable injury to
Datamark Inc. and to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The Court has an obligation to protect the public from fraud.
VI. Federal Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114 et seq.
29. As described above, Defendants’ unauthorized acts constitute trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1114(1).
30. As describe above, Defendants’ unauthorized acts make this an exceptional case entitling Datamark Inc. to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
VII. False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
31. As described above, Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Mark constitutes false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).
32. Defendants have acted in bad faith with full knowledge and conscious disregard of Datamark Inc.’s rights in the Mark, and with a willful and deliberate intent to trade on Datamark Inc.’s goodwill. In view of the willful nature of Defendants’ infringement, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1117(a).
VIII. Trademark Dilution
33. As described above, Defendants’ unauthorized acts constitute trademark dilution in violation of Texas Business & Commerce Code §16.103.
IX. Unfair Competition
34. As described above, Defendants’ unauthorized, fraudulent acts constitute unfair competition under the Texas common law.
X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Datamark Inc. prays that:
35. Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, related companies, and all those acting in concert with any of them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined and restrained from conducting business, in connection with the sale, promotion, advertising, or offering of calling center or any other services, any name or mark including the Mark, or any other name, mark, or device confusingly similar to the Mark; in connection with Broker activities, and financial instruments.
36. Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, related companies, and all those acting in concert with any of them, be required to deliver to the Court for destruction, or to show proof of destruction of, any and all displays, signs, circulars, promotional materials, advertisements and any other materials that bear or depict the Mark, or any name, mark, or device confusingly similar thereto and/or any branded merchandise, as well as all plates, molds, casts, and other means of reproducing, counterfeiting, copying or otherwise imitating Datamark Inc.’s Mark or any name or mark confusingly similar thereto;
37. Defendants be ordered to file with this Court and to serve upon Datamark Inc., within thirty (30) days after the entry of an injunction, a report in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction;
38. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), Datamark Inc. recover its reasonable attorney’s fees, including such fees associated with all trial and appellate proceedings; and
39. That this Court award Datamark Inc. recovery of its costs incurred in this action, including the closing of Defendants fraudulent business and such other and further relief as this Court may determine appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
KEMP SMITH LLP
P.O. Box 2800
El Paso, Texas 79999-2800
915.533.4424
915.546.5360 (FAX)
By: /s/ Mark Osborn
Mark N. Osborn
State Bar No. 15326700 mosborn@kempsmith.com
1 1324741v.1 12976/01600
Comments
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION
DATAMARK HRI, LLC, HAYWOOD S. HULLENDER, INTERNATIONAL ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC, INTEGRATED ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, and IAG, LLC
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) . Civil Action No. 3: I 6-cv-00085-FM
)
)
)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On this day the Court considered Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss based on a settlement entered into by Plaintiff and Defendants. The Court is of the opinion that the Motion should in all things be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above-styled and numbered cause is dismissed in its entirety
SIGNED this 18 day of May, 2016.