LAW OFFICE OF CESAR A. FERNANDEZ, P.C.

2298 First Avenue, Second Floor

New York, New York 10035
Tel: 212.348.3334 Fax: 212.348.3449

Cesar Fernandez, Esq. E-Mail: cfernandezlaw@yahoo.com

August 14, 2014
Honorable William H. Pauley, III
United States District Court J udge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

RE: LaGuerre v. The League of United Latin American Citizens, Inc., et al.
Civil Action No. 14-CV-6004 (WHP)

Dear J udge Pauley:

We represent Eduardo LaGuerre, the Plaintiff, in the above-referenced matter and write
this letter in response to the letter submitted by Defendants counsel pursuant to Rule III(a)(ii) of
Your Honor's Individual Practices for leave to dismiss the Verified Complaint pursuant to FRCP
l2(b)(2),(4), (5), (6); and 2l; for lack of standing and mootness; and because certain claims are
duplicative of prior pending actions.
Defendant The League of United Latin American Citizens, Inc. ("LULAC") is one
of the oldest and largest national Hispanic civil rights organizations in the country.
Defendant Margaret Moran was LULAC's National President and defendant Manuel
Escobar was the National Legal Advisor. Mr. LaGuerre is the State Director for New
York State. On Friday, J uly 11, 2014, one day prior to LULAC's 2014 National
Convention and elections, Mr. LaGuerre obtained a temporary restraining order ("TRO")
from New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, restraining defendants from utilizing
rules that ran afoul of the corporate Constitution and By-Laws.
With the application for the TRO, Mr. L aGuerre filed the instant Complaint,
which seeks, among other things, an order restraining Defendants from taking any actions
with relation to the 2014 LULAC National Convention Rules as well as damages for
defendants Moran and Escobar's alleged breach of their duties as officers of LULAC in
connection with the unauthorized sale of a LULAC residential property and the
misappropriation of government f unds in violation of Sections 715, 716, 717 and 719
of New York's Not-For-Profit Corporation Law ("N-PCL"). For the reasons stated
herei n, thi s matter shoul d be set for a prel i mi nary heari ng i n order to
Case 1:14-cv-06004-WHP Document 8 Filed 08/19/14 Page 1 of 4
extend the TRO and confi rm the newl y el ected offi cers duri ng the J ul y
11, 2014 el ecti ons.
The TRO was properly served on Saturday prior to the election on Margaret Moran
(Moran), Manuel Escobar (Escobar) and LULAC. The TRO was clearly intended to prevent
Moran and Escobar or any of their designees from enforcing Rule 12 and 21 of the LULAC
Election Rules which are unconstitutional according to the LULAC Constitution and its bylaws.
Mr. LaGuerre found it necessary to seek a TRO in order to prevent the LULAC National Legal
Advisor from usurping the National Committees power over the elections process, which would
have resulted in disenfranchising more than 1600 delegates. Unfortunately, the TRO was, and
continues to be, a necessity inasmuch as the elections process has been tampered with in the past
during the LULAC Texas State election in 2013 and the LULAC National Election in Las Vegas
against Domingo Garcia in 2013.

In fact, notwithstanding the served the TRO, Moran and Escobar unilaterally attempted to
cancel the elections, in violation of the LULAC Constitution, its bylaws and worst in violation of
the TRO. Fortunately, elections did in fact continue in accordance with LULACs Constitution
and By-Laws. That notwithstanding, Moran and Escobar refuse to recognize the newly elected
LULAC National Officers and remain in control of LULAC in complete violation of LULACs
Constitution, which has very clearly defined term limits for their respective offices.

I. Personal Jurisdiction

The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and the Defendants were
properly served. The Plaintiff has the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence with all affidavits, allegations, and doubts resolved in the
Plaintiffs favor. See Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d. Cir.
1994); A.I. Trade Fin, Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1993). To determine
personal jurisdiction, the court must look to the long arm statute of the forum state and the
plaintiff must show that the non-domiciliary defendant transacted business in New York, the
claim against the defendant arose from that business activity or one specific event that gave rise
to a claim. Boehner v. Heise, 410 F. Supp. 2d 228, 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Here, Mr. Moretti
argues that LULAC is not subject to personal jurisdiction because it has not engaged in a
continuous and systematic course of doing businesses in New York. However the specific
event that gave rise to this particular claim was the LULAC national election that took place in
New York City. Personal jurisdiction is therefore satisfied under Section 302 of the New York
Civil Procedure Laws and Rules. Moreover, LULAC has multiple offices and conducts business
within New York State routinely. All defendants were properly served with the TRO during the
convention on the convention floor on J uly 12, 2014. Indeed, as noted in Mr. Morettis letter,
Moran and Escobar took the opportunity to unilaterally call off the election.

II. Mr. LaGuerre Should Proceed With The Complaint.

Mr. LeGuerres Complaint should be heard for the following reasons.

Case 1:14-cv-06004-WHP Document 8 Filed 08/19/14 Page 2 of 4
a. As State Director, LaGuerre has Standing to Sue and because Defendants fail
to recognize the newly elected Board of Directors, Mr. LaGuerre, along with
other LULAC members, continues to suffer damages.

Because Moran and Escobar unilaterally cancelled the election and refuse to recognize
the newly elected officers, Mr. LaGuerre, along with a multitude of other LULAC members, was
and continues to be harmed. To be sure, the election was conducted in accordance with the
LULAC Constitution and its bylaws. Moran and Escobar, after being presented the TRO,
wanted legal counsel to find a way around the TRO. They continued the election process by
reading the election rules, reading the preliminary delegate report and other processes. Then the
election was recessed until 2:30 p.m. At approximately 2:15 p.m., Luis Vera, election judge
announced that per Morans instruction the election was cancelled. He claimed that the TRO
prohibited LULAC from any action, including holding an election. Clearly, the intent of the TRO
was to have fair and open elections not to stop them altogether. Under the LULAC Constitution
and By-Laws, neither Moran nor Vera have the authority to cancel an election. That
notwithstanding, Moran and several other members just left the stage in an attempt to make it
appear as if they had authority to cancel the election.

When she left, however, the LULAC National Executive Committee, having quorum,
held a meeting. And, upon proper motion, discussion and vote taken, an Interim President was
elected. Thereafter, the Interim President selected an election judge, the honorable Belen Robles
who is a LULAC Past National President and a 60 year LULAC member. The election judge
certified the delegation; a vote was taken to approve the election rules without rule 12, and 21,
and the election commenced. After the nominations and voting were validated, the amendments
and resolutions were tabled, a new National Board was sworn in. All of the foregoing was
conducted in accordance with the LULAC Constitution and its By-Laws.

Currently, the old Board of Directors, including Moran and Escobar, refuse to recognize
the newly elected Board. As such, they continue to exercise control over the daily operations of
the organization. Therefore, there is a clear injury that requires judicial intervention, thus giving
Mr. LaGuerre standing to sue for, among other things, a declaratory judgment certifying the
elections of J uly 12, 2014.

b. Mr. LaGuerre has a meritorious claim against Defendants because they
breached their fiduciary duties by selling LULAC property at a depressed
price and without Board approval.

In his letter Defendants counsel points out that when a party files a suit related to a
previously-pending suit, the Court applies the "prior pending action doctrine" to determine
whether the subsequent action should remain pending, be stayed, or be dismissed. Curtis v.
Citibank, N A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000); Daugherty v. Popick, 89 F.R.D. 642, 644
(S.D.N.Y. 1981) ("[I]n the interests of judicial economy, comity, and federalism, a diversity
action may be stayed pending decision in an identical prior state court action."). A suit is
duplicative of a prior-filed suit if "the same or connected transactions are at issue and the
same proof is needed to support the claims in both suits." Lexico Ent., Inc. v. Cumberland
Farms, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 2d 221, 224 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (citations omitted). Here, however, Mr.
Case 1:14-cv-06004-WHP Document 8 Filed 08/19/14 Page 3 of 4
LaGuerre seeks legal redress for acts that were committed outside of the scope of the Texas
litigation-namely, the unauthorized sale of corporate assets and the illegal implementation of
arbitrary rules, and because LULAC is now being sued because of Morans and Escobars actions,
among other things. See Dovalina v. Moran, No. 2013-CCV-61062-3 (TX County Court, Nueces
County) and City of Corpus Christi v. Texas League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Apartments of the Village, et al., No. 2014-DCV-1755-G (TX District Court, Nueces County).

III. This Action Should Remain in the Southern District of New York

As a direct result of the pending litigation in New York, attorney, Luis Vera, filed suit in
Texas on behalf of Rosa Rosales and Elia Mendoza against several LULAC members who reside
in New York, including Mr. LaGuerre, among others. See Elia Mendoza, et al. v Eduardo
Laguerre, et al., 2014-CI-11299, 131
st
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. In that
lawsuit Plaintiffs obtained a TRO seeking to keep those officers who were voted out during the
election and termed out by the term limits set forth in the LULAC Constitution and By-Laws.
Presently, there are five termed-out officers who continue to serve because of the Bexar County
TRO, one of them being Rosa Rosales.

Given the basis for the lawsuit in Texas and the diversity of residency of the plaintiffs
and defendants in this and the matter in Texas, this Court should not only retain jurisdiction over
this case, but should also sua sponte consolidate both matters in the interest of justice and
judicial economy. Indeed, Mr. LaGuerre is entitled to equitable relief in the form of a
declaratory judgment from this honorable Court upholding and certifying as valid the J uly 12,
2014, LULAC elections of the new Board Of Directors, which elections occurred here in New
York.


For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Your Honor schedule a pre-
trial conference to discuss these matters and deny Defendants request to dismiss the Verified
Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,



Cc: Daniel S. Moretti, Esq., (via e-mail and ECF)


Case 1:14-cv-06004-WHP Document 8 Filed 08/19/14 Page 4 of 4