ACCEPTED 05-14-01312-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 6/7/2018 12:16 PM LISA MATZ CLERK No. 05-14-01312-CV FILED IN In the 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS 6/7/2018 12:16:43 PM FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS LISA MATZ DALLAS, TEXAS Clerk

Chan IL Pak Appellant V. AD Villarai, LLC, The Ashley Nicole Williams Trust, and Villas on Raiford Carrollton Senior Housing, LLC.

Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

APPELLEE'S STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION

Appellees and Cross-Appellants AD Villarai, L.L.C., The Ashley Nicole Williams Trust, and Villas on Raiford Carrollton Senior Housing, L.L.C. ("Villas"), following Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.2, hereby exercise their option not to file a full response, unless the Court so requests.

This option is exercised because the Appellant's Motion for Rehearing, filed June 5, 2018, raises no new arguments. Specifically, Mr. Pak again repeats his

STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION Page 1 of 4 G:\Q\AN23-4 Anderson -Chan Lawsuit\Appeal 14-01312\DRAFTS\Response 06-06-18.docx argument that no corporate action can ever be taken against him by Villas, unless he consents to that action, despite the unopposed findings that he has committed a prior material breach of the Villas Company Agreement 1 and that violating members can be removed from Villas based upon the vote of the "remaining members" 2 meaning the members other than Mr. Pak. These arguments have already been raised and addressed by the parties and by the Court. For example, see Mr. Pak's argument I. in his Appellant's Brief: "This court cannot interpret the company agreements to exclude any requirements that Chan Pak consent to his own expulsion." Chan Pak' s Amended Appellant Brief, December 1, 201 7, at p. 66. A large portion of the Motion for Rehearing again addresses that Article 5.11 of the Company Agreement and Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 101.359, allowing corporate entities to function by signed written consents, are somehow inapplicable here. (Motion for Rehearing pp. 16-24.) The same arguments were presented in the Amended Appellant's Brief of December 1, 2017 at pages 61-64.

The Motion for Rehearing also fails to clearly identify any new or different argument or any specific aspect of the Court's Judgment and Opinion which is being challenged. It has failed to meet the standards that a motion for rehearing "must clearly state the points relied on for the rehearing." Tex. App. Proc. Rule 49.1.

Conclusion of Law 5 Pltfs' Tr. Exs. 2 and 8, each at Article 8.6(e), and Findings of Fact 12 and 63.

STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION Page 2 of 4 G:\Q\AN23-4 Anderson -Chan Lawsuit\Appeal 14-01312\DRAFTS\Response 06-06-18. docx Appellees pray that the motion for rehearing be denied without requiring further response. In the alternative, Appellees pray that this Court advise Appellees to file a full response to the motion for rehearing, and for such other and further relief to which Appellees show themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, By: William F. LePage William F. LePage State Bar No. 12216800 Peter C. D' Apice State Bar No. 05377783 STUTZMAN, BROMBERG, ESSERMAN & PLIFKA, P.C.

2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-4900 Telecopy: (214) 969-4999 lepage@s bep-law. com COUNSEL FOR CROSS APPELLANTS AND APPELLEES AD VILLARAI, LLC, THE ASHLEY NICOLE WILLIAMS TRUST AND VILLAS ON RAIFORD CARROLLTON SENIOR HOUSING, LLC Co-counsel: David M. Pruessner State Bar No. 16364500 Law Offices of David M. Pruessner 4111 Joshua Lane Dallas, Texas 75287 (214) 543-6827 Fax: (972) 716-1899

STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION Page 3 of 4 G:\Q\AN23-4 Anderson -Chan Lawsuit\Appeal 14-01312\DRAFTS\Response 06-06-18.docx CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify a true and correct copy of the above response has been served electronically through the State's electronic manager to Chan Pak on this the 7th day of June, 2018.

Isl William F. LePage William F. LePage

STATEMENT OF RULE 49.2 OPTION Page 4 of 4 G:\Q\AN23-4 Anderson -Chan Lawsuit\Appeal 14-01312\DRAFTS\Response 06-06-18.docx