If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Sherman, Texas civil litigation lawyers represented Defendants sued by Plaintiff claiming that Defendants stole gold rings.


Jostens, Inc. (“Jostens”) brought this action against Jerry, alleging he stole gold rings from Jostens' Denton, Texas location while employed there as a security guard. This Court granted Jostens' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on March 19, 2020, and on April 16, 2020, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against Jerry (Dkt. #13).

The preliminary injunction restricts Jerry “and his agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with him who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise” from, among other things, “assigning, conveying, transferring, encumbering, dissipating, concealing, or otherwise disposing of any assets, moneys, or other property in [Jerry's] name or under his control” (Dkt. #13 at p. 10).

On August 7, 2020, Jostens amended its complaint to add Jerry's wife, Sandra Louise Arnold Hammons (“Sandra”), as a party in this action (Dkt. #26). Jostens alleges that Sandra and Jerry used the proceeds from the stolen items to purchase a number of assets that they could not have afforded otherwise. More specifically, Jostens asserts that Sandra and Jerry:

claim that they paid for all of their assets using gambling winnings, but even when one considers the amounts [they] claimed in their tax returns for gambling winnings and losses, their income still was not sufficient to pay for all of their assets. The only plausible means by which [Jerry and Sandra] could have acquired their assets was by using the proceeds of the items they stole from Jostens.


On May 17, 2022, Jostens filed an emergency motion against Jerry and Sandra, asserting they have placed a “For Sale” sign on their 1966 Ford Mustang (the “Mustang”) and positioned the vehicle at a prominent spot in front of their home in Valley View, Texas. Jostens claimed this attempt to sell the vehicle was a direct violation of the Court's preliminary injunction. The Court held a hearing on May 24, 2022 (the “Hearing”) to determine whether to hold Jerry or Sandra or both in contempt. On May 26, 2022, the Court denied the motion on the grounds that Jerry was not in control of the asset in question and Sandra was not subject to the Court's preliminary injunction (Dkt. #116). However, at the Hearing, the Court indicated it would grant a motion to add Sandra as a party to the original preliminary injunction. Jostens now moves to add Sandra as a party to the preliminary injunction. Sandra responded on June 20, 2022 (Dkt. #136). Jostens replied the same day, supplementing its motion with a transcript from Sandra's deposition (Dkt. #137).



Beginning on June 27, 2022, this case was tried in front of a jury. On June 29, 2022, the jury returned a verdict finding for Plaintiff Jostens, Inc. on all claims against both Defendants. Specifically, the jury found Jerry and Sandra liable for civil theft under the Texas Liability Act and awarded $5 million in damages; the jury found Jerry and Sandra liable for conversion and awarded $2 million in damages; the jury found Jerry liable for breach of fiduciary duty and Sandra liable for knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty and awarded $1 million in damages. Further, the jury assessed $1 million in punitive damages against Jerry and $500,000 in punitive damages against Sandra. Because it could only recover actual damages on one of the claims, Jostens elected remedies in the amount of $5 million for its successful claim of civil theft.

Following the verdict, the parties discussed issues with the Court that would potentially require post-trial briefing, such as a permanent injunction and the creation of a constructive trust. For this, Plaintiff wished to proceed with its motion to add Sandra to the preliminary injunction against Jerry, hoping to protect any assets in Sandra's control during the period prior to final judgment. Sandra requested that the injunction be limited to prohibiting the sale or transfer of her assets. The parties could not agree on the scope.

Outcome:
It is hereby ORDERED that Sandra Hammons and her agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with her who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise, are hereby enjoined from:

a. transferring, liquidating, converting, selling, loaning, pledging, assigning, granting a lien or security interest or other interest in, concealing, dissipating, spending, gambling, withdrawing, or otherwise disposing of, or assisting others in transferring, liquidating, converting, selling, loaning, pledging, assigning, granting a lien or security interest or other interest in, concealing, dissipating, spending, gambling, withdrawing, or otherwise disposing of, any personal or business assets, now existing or hereinafter acquired, including but not limited to real and/or personal property, “goods,” “equipment,” “fixtures,” “general intangibles,” “inventory,” “checks,” “notes,” “instruments” (as these terms are defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), lines of credit, chattels, leaseholds, contracts, mail or other deliveries, shares of stock, accounts, credits, premises, receivables, funds, and cash (collectively, “Assets”), wherever located, whether owned, controlled, held by, in whole or in part, for the benefit of, or subject to access by, or belonging to Mrs. Hammons,

7

in the actual or constructive possession of Mrs. Hammons, or in the actual or constructive possession of, or owned, controlled, or held by, or subject to access by, or belonging to, any business organization, trust, partnership, or other entity directly or indirectly owned, managed, or controlled by or under common control with Mrs. Hammons, including, but not limited to, any Assets held by or for Mrs. Hammons in any account at any bank or savings and loan institution, or with any precious metal dealer, mobile payment application, credit card processing agent, automated clearing house processor, network transaction processor, bank debit processing agent, customer service agent, commercial mail receiving agency, or mail holding or forwarding company, or any credit union, retirement fund custodian, money market or mutual fund, storage company, trustee, or with any broker-dealer, escrow agent, title company, commodity trading company, or other financial institution or depository of any kind, without the prior written consent of Jostens or court approval;

b. opening or causing to be opened any safety deposit boxes, safe, vault, commercial mail boxes, or storage facilities titled in Mrs. Hammons' name, or subject to access by Mrs. Hammons or under Mrs. Hammons' control, without providing Jostens' attorneys prior notice and an opportunity to inspect the contents in order to determine that they contain no Assets covered by this Order;

c. incurring liens or encumbrances on real property, personal property, or other assets in the name, singly or jointly, of Mrs. Hammons and/or any corporation, partnership, or other entity directly or indirectly owned, managed, or controlled by Mrs. Hammons; and/or

d. wasting, injuring, or otherwise impairing any property in Mrs. Hammons' possession to devalue the property or make it unsalable.

It is further ORDERED Jostens is not required to post any bond in connection with this order modifying the preliminary injunction.

It is further ORDERED that this Order shall take effect immediately and shall remain in effect until such time as the Court modifies or dissolves it.

Except as expressly modified herein, this Order has no effect on the existing preliminary injunction (Dkt. #13), which remains in effect until further order of the Court.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: