EL RRUN RRUN
http://rrunrrun.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY CONTRACT LAWYER SOSSI SUED FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE...AGAIN
---------------------------------------------------------------
By <strong>Juan Montoya</strong><br /><br />When it rains, it pours, on city contract attorney Mark E. Sossi, that is.<br /><br />For the second time within the last three months, yet another dissatisfied customer is seeking relief in the local courts alleging that Sossi's performance in their litigation amounts to nothing more than legal malpractice. The lawsuit was filed April 23 in the 138th District Court.<br /><br />The case is similar to that filed against Sossi â€" also through Zavalett'a law office â€" by Brownsville Independent School District teacher and soccer coach Jesus Abete. Abete filed his lawsuit against the city's contract attorney Feb. 13 in the 357th District Court.<br /><br />Abete claimed s in his lawsuit that he "duly signed a contract" with Sossi and that the attorney signed the contract to represent him to recover legal damages sustained as a result of the accident. The Oliveira Middle School algebra and math teacher also claims that Sossi represented to him that the case was timely filed in court.<br /><br />"In the ensuing months, (Sossi) repeatedly lied to (Abete), and misrepresented the true facts of the underlying lawsuit to (him).<br /><br />"The truth is that (Sossi) never filed suit on behalf of Abete, and by law, suit had to be filed before the statute of limitations expired. The statute of limitations is two years from the<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiccweT8_DXzewgx1vAVfPhxip-W5iEX6J3u6GUsTvU-VCBjSEDL6VoSHf3Iw7Brjpd2I1Ke3rPlIQcvIdAHd4cuMITMJfYQtSSAeH1ho6vQP3jKln4oqQiIMV6IS-fCx7sLuoW_FOdOUA/s1600/sossi.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 400px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 300px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5740966677876736690" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiccweT8_DXzewgx1vAVfPhxip-W5iEX6J3u6GUsTvU-VCBjSEDL6VoSHf3Iw7Brjpd2I1Ke3rPlIQcvIdAHd4cuMITMJfYQtSSAeH1ho6vQP3jKln4oqQiIMV6IS-fCx7sLuoW_FOdOUA/s400/sossi.jpg" /></a> date of the accident (January 2, 2009) Jan. 8, 2011. If the suit was not filed by then, (Abete's) rights would have been forever extinguished," the lawsuit states.<br /><br />"(Sossi) failed to file (Abete's) suit," it continues. "Now that the statute of limitations has expired, (Abete) is forever barred from recovering damages for the serious personal injuries he suffered in the (crash).<br /><br />This time Rogelio and Ingrid Gonzalez, also of Brownsville, say that in representing them in a real-estate dispute with a bank and title company, Sossi:<br /><br />* engaged in conduct, acts, and omissions below acceptable professional standards;<br /><br />* engaged in conduct, acts, and omissions below standards of good and workmanlike legal services;<br /><br />*was negligent;<br /><br />* breached a warranty implied in law of good and workmanlike legal services; breached an express warranty of competence and skill to handle this type of case;<br /><br />*breached an implied warranty of competence and skill to handle this type of case;<br /><br />*committed acts and omissions of professional negligence;<br /><br />*breached his contract to represent plaintiff in a skilled and competent manner; and<br /><br />*committed fraud.<br /><br />The Gonzalez's lawsuit stems from a purchase of two lots in the Gem Estates Subdivision that unbeknownst to them carried a lien from a bank (Hibernia) and when that bank was bought out by another, the new bank Capitol Bank, it moved to foreclose on them, as it did another couple who also had interest in the lots.<br /><br />Like Abete, the couple charged that even though Sossi told them he was on top of the case, in the end, they found out that he had not been totally truthful with them and that their lawsuit had been dismissed by the court "for want of prosecution" on Sossi's part.<br /><br />The Gonzalezs, as did Abete, said Sossi had failed in his duty and had by his actions allowed their case to be dismissed by not acting on their behalf as per their contract with him for his services.<br /><br />The couple had contracted Sossi to represent them on January 28, 2008 and after years of delays, found out that the court had dismissed their case on Sept. 16, 2010.<br /><br />They found out that one of the defendants in the case â€" Southern Texas Title Company â€" filed a "motion to dismiss for want of prosecution" which was later submitted to the court Sept. 14.<br /><br />According to court records, on the date of the status hearing (Sept. 15) "Mark E. Sossi...failed to appear."<br /><br />Counsel for the company addressed the "repeated failures of (Sossi) to comply with the court's instructions of June 3, 2009, the agreement of plaintiffs' counsel announced in open court at a hearing on Oct. 14, 2009, to amend their pleadings to correct certain deficiencies of parties."<br /><br />The court, after reviewing and considering the pleadings on file in the case, the procedural history of the case, the docket entries in the case, all of which reflect the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with the court;'s instructions and orders or to prosecute their case with due diligence...the court is of the opinion that...the above-styled and numbered case should be dismissed."<br /><br />Even after the dismissal and the receipt of an email from the company to the court and copied to Sossi of the signed court order, Sossi never challenged or appealed from the dismissal of his clients' cae, including that of the Gonzalez's."<br /><br />In fact, the couple said that Sossi never even informed them of the dismissal or replied to her email on Sept. 26, 2010 inquiring about the progress of their claim.<br /><br />Like Abete before them, the Gonzalez couple claimed that Sossi committed legal malpractice:<br /><br />*In failing to timely comply with court orders that he correct the defects in parties and correct pleading deficiencies;<br /><br />*In failing to convene the telephone conferences setting trial as ordered by the court;<br /><br />*In failing to respond to the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution;<br /><br />*In failing to appear at a hearing on the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution;<br /><br />*In failing to move to reinstate, or to move for a new trial following entry of the order dismissing the case for want of prosecution; and<br /><br />*In failing to timely appeal the order dismissing the case for want of prosecution.<br /><br />The couple â€" as did Abete before them â€" ask the court to grant them actual damages plus interest as required by law, punitive damages, interest on the judgement at the highest legal rate, attorney's fees, costs of court and any other relief as may be justified."<br /><br />The Abete vs. Sossi case is scheduled for announcements Aug. 29 with a trial to follow Sept. 4, 2012. The Gonzalez case has not been set.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6016803033174468094-1105190511663205444?l=rrunrrun.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>
LINK: http://rrunrrun.blogspot.com/2012/05/city-contract-lawyer-sossi-charged-with.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN DEFENSE OF VILLALOBOS: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
---------------------------------------------------------------
<div>By <strong>Juan Montoya</strong></div><br /><div>The ink has yet to dry on the federal indictment of Cameron County District Attorney (and congressional candidate) Armando Villalobos and already the sanctimonious among us are yelping about paying his legal fees for his defense.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhopi-wCiZNL4gA4-_iUrtEahPc11-Meh9cCgfXBgLj_ihF9-5Lk85nHLcAfm79GR1J4bINDqFmBapAZpwG4L7p_4kzQr9bFm_9DqPnDLoXUfXCLb186XlJOpnhQv3vvEPD2PUfWP3Y260/s1600/armandov.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 440px; float: right; height: 269px;" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5740942490618780738" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhopi-wCiZNL4gA4-_iUrtEahPc11-Meh9cCgfXBgLj_ihF9-5Lk85nHLcAfm79GR1J4bINDqFmBapAZpwG4L7p_4kzQr9bFm_9DqPnDLoXUfXCLb186XlJOpnhQv3vvEPD2PUfWP3Y260/s400/armandov.JPG" border="0" /></a></div><br /><div>Let's see if we go this straight.</div><br /><div>Villalobos, as a county district attorney, allegedly committed these acts that might (or might not) turn out to be illegal or criminal. In fact, the federal indictment is based on the fact that he was acting in his official capacity when he allegedly committed the acts named in the 12-count indictment.</div><br /><div>Nobody at this point knows if he is guilty or not. And we're sure that Mandos' defense will make every effort to prove that their client is innocent.</div><br /><div>Until Villalobos is found guilty or pleads to one or any of the counts, he remains as innocent as you or me. About the only person who stated this among the candidates to the 34th Congressional District was Paul Haring, the one-issue (anti-abortion) candidate with a zilch chance of merging as the GOP nominee.</div><br /><div>"He is innocent until proven guilty," he said if we are to believe the local daily whose high priestess editor and prima donna reporters were still smarting for being "slighted" at a recent Villalobos press conference. The Herald wanted five of its staff admitted to the conference and Villalobos would only allow three. Good for him. It ain't a Whitewings game, guys.</div><br /><div>County commissioner David Garza was perhaps the most sanctimonious of them all. He has not only made up his mind about the DA's guilt, but he said â€" as a Supreme Court justice once said about pornography â€" "I know it when I see it."</div><br /><div>He even wants the daughter of Villalobos' defense attorney, Stephanie Rollins, not be hired under contract because he feels he would be an "accomplice" to some unspecified crime that he has concocted in his mind. She has been working at the DA's office for the last two years and Garza had no problem with that. Why now? What does this woman's employment (and her household's livelihood) have anything to do with her boss' legal problems?</div><br /><div>Garza apparently has already made up his mind about Villalobos' guilt. God forbid he ever gets on a jury where one of us is charged.</div><br /><div>One of his Democratic opponents (Juan Angel Guerra) who has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, has gone as far as to file a petition to remove Villalobos as DA. Doesn't he remember when he himself was removed from office on bogus charges filed by his political opponents when he was a DA in Willacy County? You remember the theatrics he pulled. He setup a desk outside the courthouse complete with goats and chickens to call attention to his plight.</div><br /><div>Those charges against him, by the way, were later dismissed. Now he wants to remove Villalobos just as he was locked out of his elective office. History, we are told, repeats itself, the first time as a tragedy, the second as a farce.</div><br /><div>As Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos said: "We're not going down that path."</div><br /><div>While we're at it, why not withdraw the legal representation for the four Brownsville Independent School District trustees (Ruben Cortez, Rick Zayas, Rolando Aguilar and Joe Colunga) who have been charged in lawsuits filed in state and federal court with conspiring to violate the civil rights of the former Chief Financial Officer Tony Juarez, former Superintendent Hector Gonzales, and former Special Needs Department Director Art Rendon?</div><br /><div>As a part of the Juarez lawsuit, they are also charged with conspiring to rig the Stop-Loss insurance contract for the district so their long-time political benefactor Johnny Cavazos could get the business. The lawsuit alleges that they retaliated against the defendants and used the district's grievance process to play one district employee against another to justify their termination.</div><br /><div>These lawsuit have been ongoing for the best part of two years and their defense has cost not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where's the outrage there? The current board majority, rather than dragging out the case and enriching lawyers, chose to cut its losses and settle with Rendon.</div><br /><div>In the other two cases, the legal cost to defend the four trustees are still being paid for by the district, and, indirectly, the taxpayer.</div><br /><div>What's it going to take? Will Villalobos have to sue the commissioners court and ask for a Texas Attorney General opinion to have the defense he is almost certainly entitled to have?</div><br /><div>Where will this lead? If the commissioners deny Villalobos the legal defense that he, as an elected official performing his duties, on charges that he incurred while in that role, will they then waste the taxpayers' dollars trying to deny him that defense? </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6016803033174468094-3128557390423804693?l=rrunrrun.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>
LINK: http://rrunrrun.blogspot.com/2012/05/in-defense-of-villalobos-innocent-until.html
RSS URL: http://rrunrrun.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
This email sponsored by:
1&1 Internet - 6 Months Free on new Hosting packages
http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=7538907
This email is a service of QuickThreads.com.
To manage your subscriptions, login here:
http://www.quickthreads.com/myaccount.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment