3rd TRO - TI

FILED
12/14/2022 1:25 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Margaret Thomas DEPUTY
CAUSE N0. DC-22-08603
HILDA RAMIREZ DUARTE; RENE THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
1N
MARTINEZ; HENRY RODRIGUEZ;
FEDERICO GARZA; and HECTOR
CARRILLO,
Plaintifls,
v.
SINDY BENAVIDES; DOMINGO

GARCIA; ELSIE VALDES RAMOS;
LINDA CHAVEZ; RALINA CARDONA;
IVONNE QUINONES; PAUL
MARTINEZ, LEAGUE OF UNITED
LATIN ANIERIC AN CITIZENS, INC.;
and LULAC INSTITUTE, INC.,
Defendants.
DOMINGO GARCIA,
162ml JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Cross-Plaintim
v.
PAUL MARTINEZ,
Cross-Defendant- DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
NOW COME, Plaintiffs Hilda Ramirez Duarte, Rene Martinez, Henry Rodriguez, Federico
Garza, and Hector Carrillo (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), as Members of the League of United Latin
American Citizens and file this Second Amended Petition (“Petition”) and Application for a Third

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PAGE 1 0F 27
Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction against Defendant Sindy Benavides,
Domingo Garcia, Elsie Valdes Ramos, Linda Chavez, Ralina Cardona, Ivonne Quinones, and Paul
Martinez, and against the League of United Latin American Citizens, Inc., a Texas Corporation,
and LULAC Institute, Inc., a District of Columbia Corporation. In support thereof, Plaintiffs
would show as follows:
I. NATURE OF THIS SUIT
1. This case concerns a Puerto Rican political party’s attempt to unlawfully infiltrate
and gain control of LULAC, a major Texas nonprofit organization. This action was originally
filed by Plaintiffs to temporarily enjoin Defendants from interfering with the results of LULAC’s
2022 National Elections (the “Elections”), acting in their capacity as members of LULAC’s Board
of Directors, and in violation of their legal authority as set forth in LULAC’s Constitution and
Bylaws, and for declaratory relief relating to former members of the Board of Directors’ lack of
authority to conduct a per se fraudulent election. Due to Defendants’ continued and unlawfiil
attempts to seize control of LULAC, including Defendants’ violations of and blatant disregard for
the Court’s July 29, 2022, Temporary Restraining Order (the “ls‘ TR ”) and the Court’s
September 30, 2022, Temporary Restraining Order (the “2nd TRO”), Plaintiffs file this Second
Amended Petition and Application for a Third Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary
Injunction (“3rd TRO”).
2. In support of this action, Plaintiffs file this Second Amended Petition along with
the attached evidence supporting the matters and facts asserted herein.
II. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

3. Plaintiffs request a Level 3 discovery control plan.

III. PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
4. Plaintiff Hilda Ramirez Duarte is an individual residing in the State of Texas and
may be served at 1413 Range Drive #210 Mesquite, Texas 75149. Hilda Ramirez Duarte is
currently the President of LULAC Council #4782.
5. Plaintiff Rene Martinez is an individual residing in the State of Texas and may be
served at 7007 Arboreal Drive, Dallas, TX 75231. Rene Martinez is the President of LULAC
Council #100, located in Dallas County, Texas.
6. Plaintiff Henry Rodriguez is an individual residing in the State of Texas and may
be served at 501 Oak Wood Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78228. Henry Rodriguez is the Founder
and Executive Director of LULAC Concilio Zapatista #4383.
7. Plaintiff Federico Garza is an individual residing in the State of Texas and may be
served at 29267 Resaca Drive, San Benito, Texas 78586. Federico Garza is District 13 Director
and President of LULAC Council #22347
8. Plaintiff Hector Carrillo is an individual residing in the State of Texas and may be
served at 740 N Sylvania Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76111. Hector Carrillo is currently President
of LULAC Council #22315 located in Fort Worth, Texas.
B. The Individual Defendants
9. Defendants Sindy Benavides, Domingo Garcia, Elsie Valdes Ramos, Linda
Chavez, Ralina Cardona, Ivonne Quinones, Paul Martinez, (together, the “Individual Defendants”)
are hereby being sued in their capacity as members of the LULAC Board of Directors.
10. Defendants (excluding Defendant Garcia) include current and former executive
officers, LULAC National Board of Directors members (“LNO Board”), LULAC Executive

Committee Members (“LNO Executive Committee”) and LULAC Institute Executive Committee
members (“LNI Committee”).

11. Defendant Sindy Benavides (“Defendant Benavides”) was the former Chief
Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the LNI and the LNO. Defendant Benavides has appeared in this
case and can be served by and through her current counsel.
12. Defendant Domingo Garcia (“Defendant Garcia”) has served as the 51St President
of LULAC (“LNO”) and the acting Chairman of the LNI since 2018. Defendant Garcia is an
individual residing in the State of Texas. Defendant Garcia has appeared in this case and may be
served by and through his counsel of record. Defendant Garcia’s office as President of LULAC is
located in Dallas County, Dallas, Texas.
13. Defendant Elsie Valdes Ramos (“Defendant Valdes”) was a former member of the
LNO Board and LNO Committee. Defendant Valdes has appeared in this case and can be served
by and through her current counsel.
14. Defendant Linda Chavez (“Defendant Chavez”) is an individual residing in the
State of Texas and was a former member of the LNO Board and LNO Committee. Defendant
Chavez has appeared in this case and can be served by and through her current counsel.
15. Defendant Ralina Cardona (“Defendant Cardona”) was a former member of the
LNO Board, LNO Committee, and LNI Committee. Defendant Cardona has appeared in this case
and can be served by and through her current counsel.
l6. Defendant Ivonne Quinones (“Defendant Quinones”) was a former member of the
LNO Board, LNO Committee, and LNI Committee. Defendant Quinones has appeared in this case
and can be served by and through her current counsel.

17. Defendant Paul Martinez (“Defendant Martinez”) was a former member of the
LNO Board, LNO Committee, and LNI Committee. Defendant Martinez has appeared in this case
and can be served by and through his current counsel.
C. The LULAC Entity Defendants.
18. Defendant League of United Latin American Citizens, Inc. (“LULAC” and/or
“LNO”) is a Texas non-profit entity incorporated as a 501(c)(4) organization and registered in the
State of Texas under the provisions of the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act, and can be served at
1133 19th Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036 or by serving its National Legal
Advisor, Eric Cedillo at the Law Offices of Eric Cedillo, P.C. 1725 Greenville Ave, Dallas, TX
75206.
l9. Defendant LULAC Institute, Inc. (“LNI”) is a District of Columbia Corporation
and a Wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant LULAC, , and can be served at 1133 19th Street,
NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036 or by serving its National Legal Advisor, Eric Cedillo at
the Law Offices of Eric Cedillo, P.C. 1725 Greenville Ave, Dallas, TX 75206.
IV. JURISDICTION & VENUE
20. Plaintiffs state in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 47(0) that Plaintiffs seek
monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief of declaratory and injunctive relief.
This Court has jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiffs seek relief in an amount and character
Within this Court’s jurisdiction.
21. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to Section 15.017 of the TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE because, among other reasons, Dallas County is the county in which the
majority of the Plaintiffs resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action. Further, venue
is proper in this Court under Sections 15.002, 15.003, or 15.005 of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE because all, or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein
occurred in Dallas County, Texas.
22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Chapter 37
of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants,
who are current and former LULAC executive officers and members of the LNO Board and LNI
Committee, because LULAC is based in Texas and is a Texas non-profit incorporated as a
501(c)(4) organization. Further, LULAC is registered in the State of Texas under the provisions of
the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act.
V. FACTS
A. History of LULAC.
23. LULAC is the oldest, largest, and most widely respected Hispanic civil rights
organization in the United States. The LULAC organization consists of affiliated councils
chartered by LULAC’s National Board of Directors (“LNO Board”) under the authority of the
National Assembly. Under LULAC’s chartering rules, a council is formed by completion of a
Charter Application listing at least eleven individuals and payment of state and/or district dues.
24. Under LULAC’s Constitution and Bylaws (the “Constitution” and “Bylaws,”
respectively), the supreme authority of LULAC is its “National Assembly” (“Assembly”), which
is composed of the National Board of Directors, the District Directors, and the Certified
Delegations of the Councils. The Assembly convenes annually at the National Convention to elect
LULAC’s national officers.
B. Puerto Rico’s New Progressive Party’s unlawful scheme to take over LULAC.
25. Leading up to the 2022 National Convention in San Juan, Puerto Rico, LULAC
leadership and members uncovered evidence that a Puerto Rican political party with a history of
corruption intended to take over LULAC. Plaintiffs learned that the New Progressive Party, or the
Partido Nuevo Progresista, (the “PNP”) of Puerto Rico, a party that is known for its corruption
and aggressive push for Puerto Rican statehood, used Puerto Rican government and political party
resources to purchase more than 1,480 illegitimate LULAC votes—which constituted the majority
of eligible votes.1 Discovery from the membership director and other Defendants in this case
revealed the extent of the Individual Defendants’ involvement in preparing and submitting
Council—formation forms and related fees to the membership offices in Texas.
26. The PNP’s ultimate goal, demonstrated by the select Individual Defendants’ actions
within LULAC, is to use LULAC as a platform for the PNP’s political campaigns, primarily to
lobby for Puerto Rico’s statehood. Because the PNP’s goal is to use LULAC as a platform to
promote the party’s controversial political push for statehood, the PNP’s efforts to take over
LULAC directly contradicts LULAC’s Constitution, which requires that LULAC be free from all
involvement in partisan politics as an organization. See LULAC Constitution, Article HI, § 6,
Article IV, § l (a)(7).
C. Defendants’ violations of the 1“ and 2"“ TROs, and LULAC’s Constitution and
Bylaws.
27. On July 29, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ 13‘ TRO, restraining each Individual
Defendant from taking action related to the 2022 National Election and/or actions resulting in the
election or appointment of any national officers?
28. The very next day, Defendants Benavides, Cardona, Valdes and Quinones ignored
this Court’s TRO and attempted to hold an “unofficial” election for LULAC National President.
In response, Defendant Garcia properly asserted his authority as President of LULAC and
1
As stated herein and as fully set forth in Exhibit 4 to the Decl. of D. Garcia (Exhibit A), it has come to light that in
the last few months leading up to the National Convention, the PNP spent at least $710 000 to ensure its complete
control over LULAC’s elections and to ensure that its complicit candidates reach a majority on LULAC’s Board.
2
Plaintiffs’ 15‘ TRO and the corresponding Order are incorporated by reference as fiilly set forth herein.

suspended Defendants Benavides, Cardona, Rodriguez, Valdes, and Quinones pursuant to
Benavides’ employment contracts and LULAC’s Constitution.
D. Defendants’ Violation of 2"" TRO.
29. In retaliation for the 15‘ TRO and their suspensions, and as part of their overall
scheme to take control of LULAC, the Individual Defendants attempted to unilaterally reinstate
Defendant Benavides as CEO, recruited Puerto Rican individuals to file baseless impeachment
charges against Defendant Garcia, and improperly called an unauthorized Special Board meeting
on October 1, 2022, to attempt an improper “impeachment hearing.”
30. On September 6th and 8th, 2022, pursuant to their respective duties, LULAC’s
National Parliamentarian, Ray Mancera (“Mr. Mancera”), and LULAC’s National Legal Advisor,
Eric Cedillo (“Mr. Cedillo”), issued binding opinions declaring the October l meeting null and
void. Further, on September 29, 2022, a quorum of the LNO Board convened and, in an 11-1 vote,
ratified that the October 1 “meeting” was improper, unauthorized, and illegitimate.3
31. Defendants’ defiance of this Court’s authority precipitated Plaintiffs’ filing of their
2nd TRO.4 On September 30, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ 2nd TRO, restraining each
Defendant from “[p]articipating in, convening, or exercising any power, or taking any action
relating to the October 1 Meeting.”
32. The September 30, 2022 Order was clear, unambiguous, specific, and susceptible
only to one interpretation. The Court enjoined Defendants from “Participating in, convening, or
exercising any power, or taking any action relating to the October 1 Meeting.” Yet, the Individual
Defendants and their agents proceeded to hold the October l meeting regardless, convening as if
3
See Exhibit A (Exhibits 12 & 13 to Decl. of D. Garcia).
4
Plaintiffs Application for a 2nd TRO and the corresponding Order are incorporated by reference as fillly set forth
herein.

this Court’s Order did not apply to them. As the evidence now shows, several Individual
Defendants proceeded with a Board meeting on October l to impeach and/or discuss the
impeachment of Defendant Garcia. Several Individual Defendants blatantly violated this Court’s
2nd TRO to advance their scheme of appointing national officers supportive of ceding effective
control of LULAC to a foreign political party. Even worse, Plaintiffs discovered evidence that the
Individual Defendants used LULAC’s own resources and funds to pay for the hotel and travel
expenses incurred in attending this illicit meeting.
E. Defendants’ unauthorized hiring of outside counsel for Defendant Benavides, the

LULAC Institute, and LULAC.
33. During the deposition of Individual Defendant Benavides, Valdes, Chavez,
Cardona, and Martinez, Plaintiffs learned that Defendant Benavides used LULAC funds to retain
two outside law firms without the knowledge, authority, or consent of the LNI Committee and the
LNO Board.
34. First, Defendant Benavides testified that the LNI retained the D.C. law firm,
Kiyonaga & Soltis, P.C. (“Kiyonaga”), in August 2022 to represent her in her personal capacity
concerning an alleged employment dispute between her and the President of LULAC. Further,
Defendant Benavides testified that she paid Kiyonaga’s legal fees, totaling $56,500.00, using LNI
funds from the LNI bank account. Neither the LNI Committee nor the LNO Board authorized the
hiring of outside counsel nor the payment of Defendant Benavides’ legal fees for her own personal
benefit, nor is there any evidence Defendant Benavides even requested the use of those funds.
35. Second, Defendant Benavides testified that in August 2022, the LNI retained D.C.
law firm, Tenenbaum Law Group PLLC (“Tenenbaum”), to purportedly represent the organization
regarding internal LULAC governance issues. In her deposition, Defendant Benavides testified
that payments were remitted to Tenenbaum using LNI funds from the LNI bank account. Exhibit

B (Depo. of S. Benavides at 213-214). Once again, neither the LNI Committee nor the LNO Board
authorized the hiring of outside counsel nor the payment of legal fees for such services.5
36. This transaction was patently improper. LULAC Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”),
Lisa Smith (“Ms. Smith”), has testified that she asked Defendant Benavides why Tenenbaum was
being retained “on behalf of LULAC” and being paid out of LULAC bank accounts. Defendant
Benavides refused to explain and instructed Ms. Smith to pay the fees. Today, it is evident that
Defendant Benavides misled Ms. Smith by telling her that the LULAC Board had approved the
expenses.“ They had not.
F. Defendants freeze LULAC’s bank accounts without the authority and consent of the
LNO Board and LNI Committee.
37. In October 2022, unbeknownst to the Committee members not aware of
Tenenbaum’s representation, Tenenbaum contacted Wells Fargo—the bank for the LNI and LNO,
and, upon information and belief, represented to Wells Fargo that there was an “ownership
dispute” as to the accounts. Wells Fargo immediately froze the accounts, but not before
Tenenbaum’s fees were paid (without actual authorization). What “ownership dispute” may have
existed was a singular result of the Individual Defendants’ deceptive design, not actual
disagreement or dispute.
38. In November 2022, also unbeknownst to the same Committee members,
Tenenbaum contacted Morgan Stanley, the financial advisors managing the LNI and LNO
investment accounts. Once again, Tenenbaum provided false information that resulted in the
account being frozen. It is clear that Defendant Benavides, with or without certain Individual
5
Even filrther, Defendant Benavides testified that Tenenbaum exclusively provided legal advice to the LNI Committee
members who agreed with Benavides’ position, namely the rogue faction attempting to take over LULAC leadership.
See Exhibit B (Dep. of S. Benavides at 198-204).
6
See Exhibit C (Dep. of Lisa Smith at 109218-22).

Defendants, seeks to hold LULAC’s bank accounts hostage and halt LULAC’s ordinary course of
business, forcing Plaintiffs to acquiesce to her personal agenda.
39. During Ms. Smith’s deposition, Ms. Smith could not articulate any explanation for
how such freezes relate to the current dispute, stressing how harmful such freezes were to the
LULAC organization as a whole. See, e.g., Exhibit C (Dep. of Lisa Smith at 105:22-24) (“I've
never, in my 30 years of being a CFO, encountered a situation of having a bank account frozen
until this situation”).
40. Further, Ms. Smith testified that, by freezing these accounts, the Individual
Defendants imminently jeopardized LULAC’s ability to fund hundreds of thousands of dollars
relating to educational initiatives, comply with grants and make payroll. Notably, LULAC’s
failure to compensate their employees puts LULAC’s very existence at risk.7 Ms. Smith stressed
that such freezes particularly impact the underservices Hispanic community that benefits the most
from LULAC’s initiatives. LULAC’s inability to access the frozen accounts is also delaying future
initiatives and preventing LULAC from positively impacting even more Latino Americans. Both
the present and future of LULAC are in immediate danger.
41. In short, Ms. Smith testified that in her opinion as the Chief Financial Officer for
both the LNI and LNO organizations, that the accounts should be unfrozen immediately:
See, e.g., Exhibit C (Dep. of Lisa Smith at 96:15-97:19. 98:18-23).

7

Q. Would it benefit the operations of LULAC to
have those accounts unfrozen?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Do you agree that the sooner that the accounts
are unfrozen, the better?
A. Absolutely. That way we can continue on with
our mission; and those programs under LI, we're able to
execute them. And we can gear up for our new membership
10 year for LNO, absolutely. The funds are ours and we
11 deserve to have them.
Exhibit C (Dep. of Lisa Smith of Lisa Smith at 106:2-11).
G. Defendants’ illegal meeting on October 215t-22n“ .
42. The Individual Defendants did not just defy this Court’s TROs; they steadfastly
continue to Violate the law and LULAC’s own Constitution. Although the LNO Board meeting
was set to occur on October 21-22, 2022, in Washington, D.C., certain Individual Defendants’
conduct made that meeting impossible.
43. First, Defendant Benavides previously lodged false allegations to prevent
Defendant Garcia from entering the LULAC headquarters. Second, certain Individual Defendants
directed the D.C. office staff to not cooperate With the LULAC Board. That insubordination,
failure to cooperate, and complete lack of support from the Washington D.C. office has continued
for months. Third, the Widespread loss of confidence in the Washington D.C. staff, the exorbitant
cost of travel to Washington D.C., and eruption of hostility all prompted the LULAC Board to
change the location of the meeting to Dallas, Texas.

44. After ensuring that there was a quorum of the LNO Board and properly calling for
a vote, the LNO Board voted in favor of holding the Board meeting in Dallas, Texas. Defendant
Garcia immediately sent a letter to the LNO Board providing notice that the October 21-22 meeting
would take place in Dallas. Defendant Garcia also called for a Special Meeting, pursuant to
LULAC’s Constitution, to discuss the upcoming LNO Board meeting in Dallas. See Article VI,
Section 2, (d)(2).8 Despite receiving proper notice of the LNO Board’s vote changing the meeting
location and the Motion at the Special Meeting, certain Individual Defendants conspired to hold a
rogue meeting in Washington, D.C.
45. In a subsequent press release, certain Individual Defendants falsely represented that
a quorum of the LNI Committee would be present at the rogue meeting taking place on October
21 in Washington D.C. The Individual Defendants that planned and attended the rogue meeting
failed to produce any evidence, such as an attendance sheet, suggesting that the meeting had a
quorum or was properly noticed or called? By contrast, the minutes from the LNI Committee
meeting in Dallas indicated that a quorum of five (5) Committee members was present, including
President Garcia, Roger Rocha, Richard Estrada, Jose Lopez, and Euler Torres were in
attendance.”
8
At the October 11th Special Meeting, a Motion was passed “to authorize President Garcia to officially move the
National Board Meeting on October 21 & 22 to Dallas, Texas due to non-compliance issues with staff.” See Exhibit
D. Indeed, the ratifying votes recognized the emergency nature of the situation. All LNO Board Members and LNI
Committee Members received adequate notice of the Board meeting venue change through two different means.
9
Pursuant to the LNI Bylaws, “A majority of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business at any meeting of the Board.” Article III, § 6. Taking into account the suspended LNI Committee Members,
Defendant Cardona and Quinones, at the time of the rogue D.C. meeting, only seven (7) Committee Members were
eligible to vote. Based on information provided by LULAC’s Director of Technology, George Trasmonte, only two
(2) LULAC Institute Committee Members attended the rogue meeting in D.C. on October 21, Defendant Chavez and
Martinez. Considering the absence of a meeting roster and the information provided by Mr. Trasmonte, a quorum
could not possibly be present at the October 21 rogue meeting in D.C.
1°
Under the LNI Bylaws, “The act of a majority of the Directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present
shall be the act of the Board of Directors. . .” Article III, § 7.

46. Under the LULAC Constitution, a quorum and proper notice are required for a
Board meeting.“ Thus, because a quorum of the LNI Committee was not present at a meeting on
October 215‘ in Washington D.C., any acts, motions or resolutions purportedly made at such
meeting are per se null and void. The minutes from the properly noticed and called LNI Committee
meeting in Dallas confirm that only the business conducted at the Dallas meeting is binding on the
LNI and LNO organizations and their members.
47. Defendants’ campaign continued. On October 22nd, certain Individual Defendants
published an “Official Statement” purportedly on behalf of the LULAC Institute, falsely reporting
that Defendant Garcia was removed as Chairman of the LULAC Institute and replaced by Roger
Rocha, with Defendant Cardona stepping into Rocha’s former position.
48. Rocha was not, however, privy to the rogue Individual Defendants’ plans. The
following day, Rocha released the following statement:
“Fellow LULAC members and friends, I was notified this afternoon that
I
there is false information being distributed stating that was elected the
Chair of the LULAC National Institute (LNI); however, the position I hold
within the LNI is as its Vice Chairman. There is only one LULAC National
Institute (LNI), and that is the one that is officially recognized by the
LULAC National Board (LNO). The Chairman of the LNI is Mr.
Domingo Garcia, and as such, the rest of the LNI Board members and I
work with him for the betterment of our community?”
49. All of that happened in one day: October 21, 2022.
50. On the 2nd day of the Washington D.C. “meeting,” the rogue Individual Defendants
and those complicit in their scheme purported to take additional unauthorized actions on behalf of
Accounting for the suspended LNO Board Members, at the time of the rogue D.C. meeting, 31 LNO Board Members
11
were eligible to vote, requiring a quorum of 11 LNO Board Members to conduct business.
12
See Exhibit E, LULAC Focuses ofFuture After New Members are Named to Organization ’s Leadership (October
23, 2022), available at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lulac-f0cuses-future-members-named—200900303.html (last
visited: November 18, 2022) (emphasis added).

LULAC. Again, because there was neither a quorum of the LNO Board or proper notice, the acts,
motions or resolutions purportedly made at October 22nd meeting in Washington D.C. are improper
and Without legal effect as, under the LULAC Constitution, “[a]ny action of the National Board of
Directors taken without a quorum shall be invalid.” Article VI, § 2(e).
51. In their attempt to validate their insubordination, Individual Defendants published
a false “Official Statement” on behalf of LULAC. The “statement” was formatted to mimic the
style of LULAC’s “official statement” and incorrectly reported that Domingo Garcia was removed
from his position as LULAC National President and replaced by Defendant Cardona. That was,
of course, not true.
52. The unlawful actions taken by Individual Defendant Benavides, Ramos, Chavez,
Cardona, Quinones, and Martinez in planning and holding an improper LNI Committee and LNO
Board meeting, as well as circulating fraudulent press releases on behalf of both organizations,
demonstrates how far such Individual Defendants are willing to go to accomplish their unlawful
scheme.
H. Impact of the October 21-22 LNI and LNO meetings in Dallas.
53. During the October 21-22 LULAC Institute meeting in Dallas, the following
motions were duly passed:
a. “To authorize the CFO and the President of the League who is also the
chair of LNI to open a new bank account at the bank of the President’s
choosing. And to transfer the balance of all of the current bank accounts
related to LNI to the new account set up at the bank of the President’s
choosing.”
b. “To exercise paragraph 9 in CEO Benavides’ Employment Contract,

‘tennination of Contract’ without cause.”
c. “To authorize the National President/Chair to send a letter to any

attorneys that have been contracted without authorization by the LNI
Board and terminate any agreements that may have been signed by
unauthorized personnel or Board Representatives that do not represent

this legitimate board. A11 money unauthorized to be paid back by those
who used the unauthorized funds.”
54. During the October 21 -22 LULAC National Board meeting in Dallas, the following
motions were duly passed:
a. “To authorize the CFO and the National President (Domingo Garcia) of
the League who is also the chair of LNI to open a new bank account at
the bank of the President's choosing and to transfer the balance of all of
the current bank accounts related to LNI to the new account set up at the
bank of the President’s choosing.”
b. “To terminate Sindy Benavides’ Contract without cause (based on

executive session discussion) and pay the balance of her contract.
Contract payment balance is to be held in a trustee account pending
review of unauthorized charges by Ms. Benavides.
c. “To impeach and remove Ralina Cardona Vice President for North
East.”
d. “To impeach and remove Elsie Valdes Ramos Vice President for
Women.”
e. “To impeach and remove Yvonne Quinones Vice President for South
East.”
f. “To impeach and remove Pablo Martinez National Treasurer and refund
his dues.”
g. “To dismiss the impeachment charges against Defendant Garcia] due to

the fact that no one who submitted the charges against National
President Garcia presented themselves in person or virtually to speak on
behalf of the impeachment charges made and therefore the charges are
stricken from the record.”
h. “To remove Linda Chavez as VP for the Southwest due to being

ineligible when she ran for office.”
55. These motions were duly passed. Indeed, the minutes from the LNO Board meeting
in Dallas noted that a quorum of twenty (20) individuals were in attendance: President Garcia,
Roger Rocha, Richard Estrada III, Elia Mendoza, Richard Estrada, Jose Lopez, Euler Torres, Rudy
Rosales, Jose Reynaldo Palacios, Jose Barrera, Malu Elizondo, Jesse Garcia, Nicolas Salazar,

Belia Paz, Hector Flores, Margaret Morgan, Oscar Moran, Belen Robles, Rosa Rosales, and
William D. Bonilla.
56. On the other hand, based on information provided by LULAC’s Director of
Technology, George Trasmonte, only four (4) LNO Board Members attended the rogue meeting
in Washington D.C. on October 22: Fred Baca, Cramer Verde, and Defendant Martinez and
Chavez. Based on the LULAC records, it is mathematically impossible for the Washington D.C.
meeting to have had a quorum. Under LULAC’s Constitution, “One third (1/3) of the voting
members of the National Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum to transact business.” Article
VI, § 2(e). That condition was not met and thus no LULAC business could have been conducted.
57. Despite the fact that Defendants’ purported Board meetings failed to comply with
the LULAC Constitution’s express notice and quorum requirements, the rogue Individual
Defendants (all Defendants save Domingo Garcia) have continued to mislead LULAC members
and the public into believing these false and improper attempts to control and takeover the
organizations and its funding. As a consequence, the harm and injury Plaintiffs Wished to avoid
with the 15‘ TRO and 2nd TRO continues to take place. For these reasons, Plaintiffs bring the
following causes of action and request for injunctive relief.
VI. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(Against Defendants Sindy Benavides, Elsie Valdes Ramos, Linda Chavez, Ralina Cardona,
Ivonne Quinones, and Paul Martinez)
58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs
above as if fully stated herein.
59. During all times relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach offlduciary duty, Plaintiffs
were members of LULAC and leaders in their local LULAC organizations.

60. The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the following: (l)
the plaintiff and defendant had a fiduciary relationship, (2) the defendant breached their fiduciary
duty to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant’s breach proximately caused injury to the plaintiff or resulted
in a benefit to the defendant.
61. As Officers of LULAC, LULAC Institute Committee Members, LULAC National
Board Members and/or LULAC Executive Committee Members, and pursuant to the LNI Bylaws,
LULAC Constitution and Bylaws, and other governing documents, the Individual Defendants
owed fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs, including the duty of good faith and loyalty, duty to not engage
in self—dealing, the duty to not usurp corporate opportunities for personal gain, and/or the duty of
full disclosure.
62. Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, by, inter alia:
a. accepting and/or using funds from a Puerto Rico partisan group(s)

for the purpose of funding the formation of LULAC councils;
b. accepting and/or using funds from a Puerto Rico partisan group(s)

for the purpose of paying an individual’s LULAC membership fees;
c. accepting and/or using funds from a Puerto Rico partisan group(s)

for the purpose of funding delegate travel and/or accommodations
for a LULAC National Convention;
d. infringing on Plaintiffs’ rights to vote and have a legitimately

elected National President and Board;
e. ignoring President Domingo Garcia’s cancellation of the National

Election;
f. ignoring President Domingo’s suspension of Sindy Benavides and

other board members;
g. calling illegitimate Board meetings, allowing such meetings to

continue to take place;
h. refusing to attend properly called and noticed Board meetings;
i. refusing to turn over financial documents and records; and

j. attemptingto seize control and/or freeze of the LNI and LULAC
bank accounts.
63. Plaintiffs have been injured by the Defendants’ foregoing breaches and have
suffered damages as a result, for which they now seek relief.
VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Against All Defendants)
64. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs
above as if fully stated herein.
65. Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37, Plaintiffs respectfully request that
the Court enter the following declaration:
a. Defendants accepted and/0r used funds from a Puerto Rico partisan

group(s) for the purpose of funding the formation of LULAC
councils, in Violation of Article III, §6 of the Constitution;
b. Defendants accepted and/or used using funds from a Puerto Rico

partisan group(s) for the purpose of paying an individual’s LULAC
membership fees, in Violation of Article III, §6 of the Constitution;
c. Defendants accepted and/or used funds from a Puerto Rico partisan

group(s) for the purpose of funding delegate travel and/or
accommodations for a LULAC National Convention, in violation of
Article III, §6 of the Constitution;
d. The purported LNO and LNI Board meetings held in D.C. on

October 215‘ and 22nd, 2022, and any action purportedly taken at
those purported board meetings, are illegitimate, null, and void;
e. Defendants, and/or their agents, including Defendant Benavides,

had no authority to attempt to seize control and/or freeze of the LNI
and LULAC bank accounts;
f. Defendants’ attempted formation of a rogue LNO Board and LNI

Committee violated numerous provisions of the LNO Constitution
and Bylaws and LNI Bylaws and therefore, any/all actions taken by
such rogue groups are null and void.

VIII. APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
A. Argument and Authorities.

66. In order to preserve the status quo of LULAC, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
additional temporary restraining order against Defendants Sindy Benavides, Elsie Valdes Ramos,
Linda Chavez, Ralina Cardona, Ivonne Quinones, and Paul Martinez and set this application for
temporary injunction for hearing and, after the hearing, to issue a temporary injunction against
these Defendants, enjoining Defendants from abusing the LULAC Constitution to advance their
illegal agenda.
67. “The purpose of a [temporary] injunction is always to prevent irreparable injury so
as to preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits.” Jamaho v. Dema,
No. 4:21—CV—4l75, 2022 WL 2305773, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 27, 2022) (granting, in part,
injunctive relief, to prevent leadership of a nonprofit organization from skirting constitutional
provisions). This Court has authority to grant a new temporary restraining order restraining
Defendants as enumerated because each listed action either violates the LULAC Constitution
and/or is part of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme to place LULAC under irreversible control of
PNP. See Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t. v. RW Trophy Ranch, LTD, No. 05-22-00306-CV, 2022
WL 1314692, at *1 (Tex. App—Dallas May 3, 2022, pet. filed) (dismissing appeal of temporary
restraining order where trial court issued two temporary restraining orders enjoining the same or
related behavior).
B. Legal standards for Temporary Restraining Orders and Temporary Injunctions

68. “In general, a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and does not issue
as a matter of right.” Patel v. St. Luke’s Sugar Land P’ship, L.L.P., 445 S.W.3d 413, 419 (Tex.
App—Houston [lst Dist] 2013, pet. Denied) (quoting Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 57
(Tex. 1993) (per curiam)). “The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo, Which the supreme

court has defined as ‘the last, actual, peaceable, non-contested status which preceded the pending
controversy.” In re Spiritas Ranch Enters, L.L.P., 218 S.W.3d 887, 895 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2007, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. CIV. P. 680.
69. To obtain a temporary injunction, an applicant must establish: (1) a probable,
imminent and irreparable injury in the interim; and (2) a probable right to the relief sought for a
cause of action against the defendants. Patel, 445 S.W.3d at 419. The applicant need only
establish the applicant is entitled to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending
trial on the merits; not that the applicant will prevail at trial. See id. Here, Plaintiffs readily meet
this standard.
70. The Court prevented Defendants from allowing PNP to take over LULAC through
a fraudulent election on July 30, 2022. Undeterred, Defendants revised and renewed their plan of
attack in pursuit of the same objective: impeach President Garcia and appoint a national president
of their choosing. Defendants’ efforts to do so started during the pendency of the first TRO and,
unless enjoined, will continue and cause harm similar to the irreparable injury described in
Plaintiffs’ Original Application and Amended Petition.
71. The Court already found that Plaintiffs satisfied the requirements to obtain two
Temporary Restraining Orders. See 15‘ TRO at 1] 5; 2nd TRO at 11 4-5. Among other things, the
Court restrained Defendants from taking any action that directly or indirectly results in, or leads
to, the appointment of any 2022 LULAC national officers. See 15‘ TRO, 11 6.
72. Irreparable harm exists today for the same reasons it existed at the time the Court
issued the 15‘ and 2nd TROs. “An injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately
compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any pecuniary standard.” See
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). As one Texas court has recognized,

plaintiffs establish an irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief when they show, as here, that
defendants are Violating the provisions of the constitution of a nonprofit organization. See Jamaho,
2022 WL 2305773, at *7. As that court explained:
“When an organization is governed by a constitution or set of bylaws, the

leadership’s failure to abide by such mles threatens the legitimacy of the
organization and threatens the organization and its members alike.
Certainly, if the term limitations set forth in the [nonprofit’s] constitution
are free to be ignored, the organization and its members will be deprived of
the ability to have a voice in [nonprofit] ’s leadership.”
Id. As such, a leadership’s disregard for an entity’s governing documents establishes irreparable
injury weighing in favor of injunctive relief. See id.
73. The irreparable harm to Plaintiffs arises from Defendants Sindy Benavides, Elsie
Valdes Ramos, Linda Chavez, Ralina Cardona, Ivonne Quinones, and Paul Martinez (l) acting as
an illegitimate “board” holding itself out as LULAC; and (2) these Defendants holding themselves
out as current directors and officers of LULAC, by, for example:
a. confusing and misleading LULAC members concerning the legitimacy of the

current LNO Board, LNO Committee and LNI Committee and any official actions
taken, and press releases;
b. confusion and misleading of LULAC’s vendors and other non-profits (including

grant organizations, sponsors, and donors);
c. confusion and misleading of LULAC’s business relationships and banking

establishments, including banks managing LULAC’s operations, payroll, and
investment accounts; and
d. theft of LULAC’s goodwill and tarnishing of LULAC’s established reputation as

the leader among Hispanic civil rights organizations.
74. Plaintiffs” immediate harm arises from Defendants’ (Sindy Benavides, Elsie Valdes
Ramos, Linda Chavez, Ralina Cardona, Ivonne Quinones, and Paul Martinez) repeated violations
of LULAC’s Constitution, including the actions at the illegitimate October 215‘ meeting in

Washington, D.C., which has been deemed null and void by the LULAC National Parliamentarian
and LULAC National Legal Advisor. See Exhibit A (Exhibits 12 & l3 to Decl. of D. Garcia).
75. Only court intervention will prevent the irreparable injury stated herein if
Defendants continue to take actions that began at the October “meetings” held by Defendants.
Incorporating the evidence in Plaintiffs’ Original Application, Plaintiffs’ Second Application, and
the additional evidence attached hereto, Defendants’ design to appoint a LULAC national
president will allow a foreign political party to use LULAC for political purposes and partisan
activities violates LULAC’s Constitution and mission. These threatened injuries to Plaintiffs, as
members of LULAC and leaders of local LULAC Councils, outweigh any injury or legal right
which may be asserted by Defendants. First and foremost, Defendants have no legal right to violate
LULAC’s Constitution to further their own political and personal agendas.
76. Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Defendants are
breaching the express terms of LULAC’s Constitution and have continued doing so since before
this Court entered the 15‘ TRO.
77. Plaintiffs and LULAC’s constituents will suffer immediate and irreparable loss,
injury and damage if Defendants (Sindy Benavides, Elsie Valdes Ramos, Linda Chavez, Ralina
Cardona, Ivonne Quinones, and Paul Martinez) and their respective agents are not immediately
enjoined from:
a. enforcing and/or implementing any actions arising out of the October 21-22
meetings in Washington D.C., including but not limited to, resolutions and
appointments;
b. interfering—directly, indirectly, or through counsel—with LULAC’s business

affairs by continuing to present themselves as officers of LULAC despite having
been suspended or terminated;
c. interfering—directly, indirectly, or through counsel—with LULAC’s bank

accounts, including accounts held by the LNO and LNI, including the following
accounts:

LULAC Institute’s accounts at Wells Fargo, including its Operating,
Payroll, Convention, and Women’s Commission accounts. (Accounts
ending in **22, **20, **84, **66, respectively).
ii. League of United Latin American Citizens’ accounts at Wells Fargo,

including its Operating and Payroll accounts. (Accounts ending in **83,
**46, respectively).
iii. LULAC Institute’s Investment account at Morgan Stanley. (Account

ending in *20).
iV. League of United Latin American Citizens’ Investment account at

Morgan Stanley. (Account ending in *20).
d. representing or holding themselves out to be to signatories or otherwise authorized

to affect, access, manage, or direct any transfers involving LNO and LNI bank
accounts listed above;
e. delegating, transferring, or conferring any power relating to the October 21-22

meetings in Washington D.C.;
f. interfering—directly, indirectly, or through counsel—with LULAC’s grant

initiatives, continuing business operations, and contracts With third-parties;
g. defaming the LULAC organization, its officers, its directors, and other
employees in the media;
h. publishing unauthorized press releases that are held out as coming from the
LULAC organization or purporting to be authorized by the LULAC
organization; and
i. further violation (directly or indirectly) the provisions in LULAC’s

Constitution and Bylaws.
78. As shown by the specific facts in the attached evidence, Plaintiffs will be
irreparably harmed without an adequate remedy at law if Defendants (Sindy Benavides, Elsie
Valdes Ramos, Linda Chavez, Ralina Cardona, Ivonne Quinones, and Paul Martinez) are not
restrained from such actions.
79. In sum, Plaintiffs readily meet the standards for a temporary restraining order. That
relief is necessary to preserve the status quo and to prevent the imminent, irreparable harm
confronting Plaintiffs, their councils, and thousands of other LULAC members in Texas. Relying

on and incorporating by reference Plaintiffs’ Original Application and Plaintiffs’ Second
Application, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an Order enjoining the above outlined conduct.
See supra 11 80.
C. Application for Temporary Injunction

80. Plaintiffs further request a temporary injunction extending the effect of the
temporary restraining order until a judgment is entered in the case.
81. As set forth above, Plaintiffs have evidence of the conduct described herein
establishing the necessary elements for a temporary injunction and that Will be gathered and
presented to the Court through Witness testimony and otherwise at the temporary injunction
hearing.
82. Plaintiffs are prepared to give security in the form of a bond or as the Court deems
appropriate; however, the bond should be nominal since the provisions in LULAC’s Constitution
are clear and a restraining order will only preserve the status quo with no damages to Defendants.”
Plaintiffs also request that the bond already ordered and given pursuant to the 15‘ and 2nd
83. Under TEX. CIV PRAC. & REM. CODE § 65.011 and general principles of equity,
Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant a temporary injunction enjoining Defendants from:
a. enforcing and/or implementing any actions from the rogue Board Meetings, as
described herein, including but not limited to, resolutions and appointments;
b. interfering with LULAC’s affairs by continuing to present themselves as officers

of LULAC despite having been suspended or terminated;
c. interfering with LULAC’s bank accounts, including accounts held by the LNO and
LNI, including representing themselves to be signatories or otherwise authorized
representatives of LULAC in connection with the accounts;
d. participating in, convening, or exercising any power or taking any action
13
Plaintiffs will provide Defendants with the required notice contemplated by Local Rule 2.02 and notify Defendants
that Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief against Defendants with notice of the time and place of such hearing.

relating to any rogue Board Meeting, as described herein;
e. delegating, transferring, or conferring any power relating to the rogue Board

Meetings, as described herein;
f. interfering with LULAC’s grant initiatives, continuing business operations,

and contracts with third-parties;
g. forming or renewing any LULAC council in Puerto Rico using funds from
a partisan or governmental source.
IX. PRAYER
In consideration of the above, Plaintiffs pray that the Court (l) enter judgment on Plaintiffs’
claims against Defendants; (2) grant Plaintiffs’ Application for a Third Temporary Restraining
Order, and, upon hearing, grant Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Injunction; (3) upon a trial
on the merits, enter a Permanent Injunction; and (4) grant Plaintiffs all such other and further relief
at law or in equity that the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: December 13, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
_/S/Jeffrev M. Tillotson
Jeffrey M. Tillotson
Texas Bar No. 20039200
[email protected]
J. Austen Irrobali
[email protected]
Enrique Ramirez
[email protected]
TILLOTSON JOHNSON & PATTON
1807 Ross Avenue, Suite 325
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 382-3041
Facsimile: (214) 292-6564
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

HILDA RAMIREZ DUARTE;
RENE MARTINEZ; HENRY
RODRIGUEZ; FEDERICO
GARZA; and HECTOR
CARRILLO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The above and foregoing document is being served upon all counsel of record by E-Service
on December 13, 2022.
/s/ Jeffrey M Tillotson

Jeffrey M. Tillotson


3rd TRO - TI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3rd TRO - TI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3rd TRO - TI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED

CAUSE N0. DC-22-08603

HILDA RAMIREZ DUARTE; RENE THE DISTRICT COURT

SINDY BENAVIDES; DOMINGO

Cross-Defendant- DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

would show as follows:

I. NATURE OF THIS SUIT

Injunction (“3rd TRO”).

II. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

currently the President of LULAC Council #4782.

Council #100, located in Dallas County, Texas.

and Executive Director of LULAC Concilio Zapatista #4383.

and President of LULAC Council #22347

of LULAC Council #22315 located in Fort Worth, Texas.

B. The Individual Defendants

9. Defendants Sindy Benavides, Domingo Garcia, Elsie Valdes Ramos, Linda

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

members (“LNI Committee”).

case and can be served by and through her current counsel.

located in Dallas County, Dallas, Texas.

by and through her current counsel.

14. Defendant Linda Chavez (“Defendant Chavez”) is an individual residing in the

and can be served by and through her current counsel.

and can be served by and through her current counsel.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

and can be served by and through his current counsel.

C. The LULAC Entity Defendants.

l9. Defendant LULAC Institute, Inc. (“LNI”) is a District of Columbia Corporation

IV. JURISDICTION & VENUE

Within this Court’s jurisdiction.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

occurred in Dallas County, Texas.

Committee, because LULAC is based in Texas and is a Texas non-proﬁt incorporated as a

the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act.

National Assembly. Under LULAC’s chartering rules, a council is formed by completion of a

LULAC’s national ofﬁcers.

Council—formation forms and related fees to the membership ofﬁces in Texas.

involvement in partisan politics as an organization. See LULAC Constitution, Article HI, § 6,

Article IV, § l (a)(7).

election or appointment of any national ofﬁcers?

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

Benavides’ employment contracts and LULAC’s Constitution.

D. Defendants’ Violation of 2"" TRO.

on October 1, 2022, to attempt an improper “impeachment hearing.”

relating to the October 1 Meeting.”

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

expenses incurred in attending this illicit meeting.

E. Defendants’ unauthorized hiring of outside counsel for Defendant Benavides, the

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

expenses.“ They had not.

37. In October 2022, unbeknownst to the Committee members not aware of

38. In November 2022, also unbeknownst to the same Committee members,

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR A THIRD

business, forcing Plaintiffs to acquiesce to her personal agenda.

until this situation”).

Defendants imminently jeopardized LULAC’s ability to fund hundreds of thousands of dollars