CAUSE NO.

DC-22-08603

HILDA RAMIREZ DUARTE; RENE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

MARTINEZ; HENRY RODRIGUEZ; §
FEDERICO GARZA; and HECTOR §
CARRILLO, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § 162nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
SINDY BENAVIDES; ERIC §
CEDILLO; DOMINGO GARCIA; §
RICHARD ESTRADA; ELSIE §
VALDES RAMOS; MARI §
CORUGEDO; ANDRES §
RODRIGUEZ; ELIA MENDOZA; §
LINDA CHAVEZ; JOSE LOPEZ; §
RALINA CARDONA; IVONNE §
QUINONES; and PAUL MARTINEZ, §
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST

SINDY BENAVIDES and PAUL “PABLO” MARTINEZ
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Domingo Garcia (“Garcia”), and files this Original Cross-Claims

complaining of and against Cross-Defendants Sindy Benavides (“Cross-Defendant

Benavides”) and Paul “Pablo” Martinez (“Cross-Defendant Martinez”) (collectively

hereinafter “Cross-Defendants”), and, in support thereof, would respectfully show unto the

Court the following:

DISCOVERY LEVEL

1. Discovery should be conducted in accordance with a Level III discovery

control plan under TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.4.

PARTIES

2. Cross-Plaintiff Domingo Garcia is an individual residing in Dallas

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 1

1027606
County, Texas.

3. Cross-Defendant Sindy Benavides is an individual who has already

appeared in this case who may be served by and through her counsel of record.

4. Cross-Defendant Paul “Pablo” Martinez is an individual who has

already appeared in this case who may be served by and through his counsel of record.

Predatory Affiliations

5. Cross-Plaintiff believes and hereby alleges, on information and belief, that

at all times mentioned herein, each of the Cross-Defendants were the agents, servants,

employees, partners and/or co-conspirators of one or more or all of the other Cross-

Defendants, and acted within the scope and authority of such agency, master-servant

relationship, employer-employee relationship, and/or partnership, joint venture or co-

venture, and with the knowledge, consent, approval, direction, understanding,

agreement, and/or ratification of one or more or all of the Cross-Defendants.

6. Unless a particular Cross-Defendant is named, whenever this Petition

references the acts of any Cross-Defendant such allegation shall be deemed to mean the

acts of those Cross-Defendants named in the particular cause of action and each other

Cross-Defendant acting individually, jointly and severally.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as the relief requested falls within the

jurisdictional limits of the Court. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to

Section 15.017 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because, among other

reasons, Dallas County is the county in which the Plaintiff resided at the time of the

accrual of the cause of action.

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 2

1027606
 8. Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 47, the Cross-Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over

$10,000,000.00. 1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

9. False accusations are one of the surest ways to destroy another person’s

reputation and credibility. Reporting a fabricated offense to a law enforcement agency is

a crime. In today’s society, newsworthy events go viral in a matter of minutes. A mere

event becomes a narrative told in the voice of another, published under a catchy headline,

trending across computer screens, smartphones, and reconstructed by social media.

10. Cross-Defendant Benavides is an individual who has made false, misleading

and/or defamatory statements about Garcia. The Cross-Defendant Benavides published

false, misleading and/or defamatory remarks about Garcia, his business practices, his

operations, his professionalism, his moral character, his methods and manner of doing

business, his law practice and/or his position with the League of United Latin American

Citizens (“LULAC”) in an effort to publicly humiliate Garcia and damage his personal and

business reputation while also preventing him from performing his responsibilities for

LULAC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11. As a child of Mexican immigrants and an architect of his own success,

Garcia embodies the notion that one man’s hard work, persistence, and passion for social

justice can unite an entire nation of Latino Americans. From serving as a shoeshine boy,

bus boy, construction worker, and eventually becoming a University of North Texas

student, Garcia fought tooth and nail for every opportunity to not only better himself, but

1Cross-Plaintiff
reserves the right to amend, decrease and/or increase the amount of damages plead based
on evidence developed before trial.

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 3

1027606
to pave a path for other Hispanic individuals to achieve the same.

12. Continuing on to earn a Master’s degree from El Colegio de Mexico and

eventually a Juris Doctorate from Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Garcia uses the

opportunities presented and the education he received for the betterment of Latinos in

many capacities. All while operating a successful law practice and raising two children,

Garcia dedicated his free time to advocating for the rights of Latinos in America.

13. In 2018, Garcia was elected to be the 51st President of LULAC, the largest

and oldest Hispanic organization in the United States. LULAC advances the economic

condition, educational attainment, political influence, housing, health and civil rights of

Hispanic Americans through community-based programs operating at more than 1,000

LULAC councils nationwide.

14. However, during the months leading up to LULAC’s national convention to

be held in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Garcia began to feel pushback from members of LULAC

National staff that began to push boundaries that protect the non-partisan organization

from political involvement.

15. After over 370 Puerto Rican LULAC councils were formed within a period

of weeks, LULAC members across the nation suspected the involvement of a pro-

statehood political party in Puerto Rico known as the Partido Nuevo Progresiva (“PNP”).

Discoveries unfolded concerning LULAC Executive Board members, particularly Cross-

Defendant Benavides, and their involvement with the efforts in Puerto Rico to bolster

their votes in opposition of Garcia by using PAC money and other partisan funds.

16. As a result, on or about August 9, 2022, Cross-Defendant Benavides, who is

the chief executive officer (“CEO”) for LULAC, was temporarily suspended pending an

investigation by the personnel committee of LULAC. Upon information and belief, the

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 4

1027606
Cross-Defendant Benavides and Cross-Defendant Martinez (who is the National

Treasurer of LULAC) conspired with the New Progressive Party (PNP in Spanish), a pro-

statehood political party in Puerto Rico, to devise a scheme to rigg LULAC’s recent

elections to place LULAC under the irreversible control of a foreign political party in

violation of LULAC.

17. After being suspended from her position as CEO of LULAC, Cross-

Defendant Benavides, undeterred blatantly disobeyed the order and proceeded to the

LULAC National office in Washington, DC located at 1133 19th St. NW, Washington, DC

20036 (“DC Office”). Garcia soon learned of Cross-Defendant Benavides refusal to obey

the suspension and received information indicating that Cross-Defendant Benavides

planned to potentially erase incriminating files and documents from the DC Office

computers related to the Cross-Defendants actions. Concerned about the safety of

LULAC’s data and in an attempt to preserve the evidence related to the Cross-Defendants’

unlawful acts, Garcia traveled to the DC Office to safeguard LULAC’s data and restore the

organization’s order in his capacity as President.

18. On August 24, 2022, Garcia arrived at the DC Office around 9:30 a.m.

accompanied by Military affairs Co-Chair, Mrs. Rafaela Schwan, Mr. Hector Flores,

LULAC’s Past National President, and AnaLuisa Carrillo-Tapia, a LULAC District

Director. Garcia and those individuals scheduled a 10 a.m. meeting at the LULAC

National Headquarters with 6 service members to facilitate a scheduled Zoom meeting

for service members unable to travel. However, when Garcia attempted to access the

building, his key would not work.

19. The front desk security officer then informed Garcia that “direct orders were

given not to let you all in by Maritza.” Confused by this development, Garcia then asked

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 5

1027606
that the security officer call Maritza to come down to the door and discuss the order given.

Approximately 20-25 minutes passed when Cross-Defendant Benavides approached the

security officer. Garcia and the others waited patiently in the breezeway just outside the

National Office entrance for someone in the LULAC office to grant them access or explain

the sudden lockout. Unfortunately, Garcia and the group were not afforded the privilege

of addressing Cross-Defendant Benavides, as she remained inside the building and spoke

solely to the security officer.

20. Shortly after, Garcia and other witnesses learned that Cross-Defendants

conspired with other LULAC personnel in the DC Office to deny Garcia’s access to the DC

Office by deactivating Garcia’s key and instructed the security guard to deny him access.

21. While Garcia and the others were confined to waiting outside the National

Office, an unknown individual in the LULAC office called the police. During this time,

Cross-Defendant Benavides remained at the security desk, attempting to substantiate the

lockout of LULAC’s President. At no point did she say anything towards Garcia or the

others. Cross-Defendant Benavides spoke only to the security officer and two male police

officers, depriving Garcia and the others of any opportunity to amicably resolve the

matter. Thereafter, the police officers informed Garcia that Cross-Defendant Benavides,

incredibly, planned to file paperwork barring him from his National Office

permanently. Garcia never once spoke to Cross-Defendant Benavides, nor did Cross-

Defendant Benavides attempt to speak with Garcia or the others. Concerned by the

seriousness of Cross-Defendant Benavides allegations, Garcia peacefully left the premises

and contacted legal counsel.

22. To avoid any confusion as to her intentions, Cross-Defendant Benavides

took it upon herself to provide a false statement to the Metropolitan Police Department

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 6

1027606
of D.C. (“MPD”), prompting an officer to arrive at the scene. In Cross-Defendant

Benavides’ false statement, she alleged that Garcia engaged in “harassment and

intimidation of CEO/staff.” However, Garcia was not able to access the LULAC office

period that morning and no such “harassment or intimidation” occurred, as

demonstrated by statements of multiple witnesses to the encounter. 2

23. As a result of Cross-Defendant Benavides false statements to MPD, Garcia

received an official “Barring Notice,” effectively prohibiting Garcia from entering the DC

Office and carrying out his duties as President of LULAC. Even further, any attempt by

Garcia to enter onto the LULAC premises in which he serves as President will result in

criminal charges being pressed against him. Cross-Defendant Benavides false

statements to MPD, LULAC Board Members, and to LULAC hinder Garcia from serving

in his capacity as President and from protecting the organization from partisan

interference.

24. The Cross-Defendant’s false statements regarding Garcia’s conduct in and

around the DC Office were intended to damage Garcia’s reputation, interfere with his

mandated duties as President of LULAC, and in turn, prohibit Garcia from protecting

LULAC from Cross-Defendants and protecting LULAC’s intellectual and real property.

CAUSES OF ACTION

DEFAMATION/LIBEL/SLANDER (Benavides)

25. Pursuant to Texas State Law, Plaintiff pleads causes of action against

Defendant for defamation and slander. The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs

2 See Exhibits “A,” and “B,” which are true and correct copy of affidavits from witnesses.

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 7

1027606
of this Petition are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes

as if set forth in full.

26. On the occasions in question, Defendant published false statements

purporting to be facts about Plaintiff to third persons. No privilege, absolute or

conditional, attaches to these statements. Defendant’s false statements and omissions

caused damages to Plaintiff’s reputation.

27. Each of the above-referenced acts and omissions, single or in combination

with others, constituted defamation and caused the damages suffered by Plaintiff that are

in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court and in excess of

$10,000,000.00.

DEFAMATION PER SE (Benavides)

28. Pursuant to Texas State law, Garcia pleads a cause of action against Cross-

Defendant for defamation per se. The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of this

Petition are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as if

set forth in full.

29. On the occasions in question, Cross-Defendant’s false statements negatively

affected Garcia in his business profession or occupation.

30. Each of the above-referenced acts and omissions, singly or in combination

with others, constituted defamation per se, which proximately caused the general and

special damages suffered by Garcia which are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional

limits of this Court and in excess of $10,000,000.00.

BUSINESS DISPARAGEMENT(Benavides)

31. Pursuant to Texas State law, Garcia pleads a cause of action against Cross-

Defendant for business disparagement. The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 8

1027606
of this Petition are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes

as if set forth in full.

32. On the occasions in question, Cross-Defendant published disparaging

words that injured Garcia’s profession or occupation, which were false. These comments

constitute defamation per se. The statements negatively affected Garcia in his business

reputation and economic interests.

33. Each of the above-referenced acts and omissions, singly or in combination

with others, constituted business disparagement, which proximately caused the general

and special damages suffered by Garcia, which are in excess of the minimum

jurisdictional limits of this Court or in excess of $10,000,000.00.

TORTIOUS INTERERENCE (Benavides and Martinez)

34. Pursuant to Texas State law, Garcia pleads a cause of action against Cross-

Defendant for tortuous interference with business relations. The allegations contained in

all of the paragraphs of this Petition are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by

reference for all purposes as if set forth in full.

35. Garcia has potential business and economical relationships that could result

in new business for his operations. Garcia also has business relationships with current

employees and other businesses in the community. Cross-Defendant has tortiously

interfered with these current and future business relationships as set forth herein.

36. Cross-Defendant tortiously interfered with these current business

relationships in an attempt to harm Garcia and his business operations.

37. Cross-Defendant was aware that current and/or prospective business

relationships existed.

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 9

1027606
 38. As a proximate result of the tortious interference, Garcia has suffered

economic damages, including potential lost costs, lost profits and exemplary damages for

which Garcia is entitled to recover.

CONSPIRACY TO DEFAME, DISPARAGE, LIBEL AND INTERFERE

39. Pursuant to Texas State law, Garcia pleads a cause of action against Cross-

Defendant for conspiracy to defame, disparage, libel and interfere with business relations.

The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of this Petition are hereby re-alleged

and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as if set forth in full.

40. The Cross-Defendants were members of a combination of two or more

persons. The object of the combination was to accomplish (1) an unlawful purpose, or (2)

a lawful purpose by unlawful means.

41. The members had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action.

42. One of the members committed an unlawful, overt act to further the object

or course of action.

43. The Cross-Plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the wrongful act

which proximately caused the general and special damages suffered by Garcia, which are

in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court or in excess of

$10,000,000.00.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

44. Garcia re-alleges each and every paragraph as though they are set forth fully

herein.

45. The acts of Cross-Defendant complained of herein were committed

knowingly, willfully, intentionally, with actual awareness, or with actual malice. In order

to punish Cross-Defendant for such unconscionable overreaching and to deter such

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 10

1027606
actions and/or omissions in the future, Garcia seeks recovery from Cross-Defendant of

exemplary damages as provided by Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code.

N O W AIVER

46. By filing this lawsuit, Garcia does not waive or release any rights, claims,

causes of action, or defenses or make any election of remedies that he has, but

expressly reserve such rights, claims, causes of action and defenses.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

47. All conditions precedent to Garcia’s right to recovery has been performed,

have occurred, and/or have been waived.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Cross-Plaintiff Domingo Garcia

requests that Cross-Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and that on final trial,

Cross-Plaintiff have judgment against Cross-Defendant as follows:

1. Judgment against Cross-Defendant for economic damages in

an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court;

2. That judgment be entered for Cross-Plaintiff and against

Cross-Defendants for Defamation, Libel, Slander, Defamation Per Se,
Business Disparagement and Tortious Interference and conspiracy to
Defamation, Libel, Slander, Defamation Per Se, Business Disparagement
and Tortious Interfere;

3. That Cross-Plaintiff be awarded actual, consequential, and

exemplary damages as a consequence of Cross-Defendants intentional, and
fraudulent conduct;

4. That Cross-Plaintiff be awarded its attorneys’ fees incurred in

the trial of this matter as well as all pre/post judgment interest and
contingent interest for all possible appeals pursuant to a cause of action for
attorneys’ fees herein;

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 11

1027606
 5. That all costs of court be assessed against Cross-Defendants;
and, that the Court grant such other, further, and different relief as the court
deems proper under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, L.L.P.

/s/ Lawrence J. Friedman

by:______________________________
Lawrence J. Friedman
State Bar No. 07469300
lfriedman@fflawoffice.com
Jason H. Friedman
State Bar No. 24059784
jason@fflawoffice.com

5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75254
(972) 788-1400 (Telephone)

ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS-PLAINTIFF

DOMINGO GARCIA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was served in accordance with
the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE on this 2nd day of September 2022.

/s/ Lawrence J. Friedman

ATTORNEY

DOMINGO GARCIA’S ORIGINAL CROSS-CLAIMS PAGE 12

1027606
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
DocuSign Envelope ID: 74900240-49C0-4489-828B-B077A13EE0E9

AFFIDAVIT OF ANALUISA CARRILLO-TAPIA

STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BELL §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, on this day personally appeared the person

whose name is subscribed below, who, under oath, deposed and stated as follows:

1. “My name is AnaLuisa Carrillo-Tapia. I am over the age of 21. I am of sound mind, and I
am competent and authorized to make this affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and they are true and correct.

2. On Wednesday August 24, 2022, at approximately 9:25 a.m., I arrived at LULAC

National Headquarters/Verizon Building accompanied by Military affairs Co-Chair, Mrs.
Rafaela Schwan, Mr. Hector Flores, LULAC Past National President, and our LULAC
National President, Mr. Domingo Garcia.

3. We were there to hold a scheduled meeting at LULAC National Headquarters at 10 a.m.

with 6 service members in conjunction with a scheduled Zoom meeting for service
members who were not able to travel. The service members reside throughout the United
States i.e., California, Texas, Virginia, New Jersey, and North Carolina, and consist of
people who have been wrongfully accused of sexual misconduct.

4. Our meeting was not able to be held because we were denied access to our Building. One
soldier from Virginia that was able to travel to Washington, D.C. was directed to sit with
us across the street at an open sky cafe where strangers could overhear our conversation
and view sensitive documents. We weren't able to have the zoom meeting because of the
street noise in the background. It was a terrible impression for the oldest and most
respected Latino civil rights organization.

5. This atrocity started at approximately 9:25 a.m. when Mr. Garcia’s access badge did not
work at the door and the front desk security Officer, whom we had spoken with the day
prior when we had held a briefing, that 'direct orders were given not to let you all in
through by Maritza.’

6. Mr. Garcia asked that she call Maritza to come down to the door. Approximately 20-25
minutes passed when Sindy Benevides approached the security officer. There's an outside
door and a middle section, that's where we were allowed to stand while waiting for
someone from the LULAC office to allow us access. We were not able to hear what was
being said nor able to speak with anyone inside the building.

7. The police were called by someone in the LULAC office. At which time Sindy
Benavides approaches and remains at the security desk throughout this time. At no time
did she say anything towards us, her conversation was solely with the security officer and
two male police officers.

1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 74900240-49C0-4489-828B-B077A13EE0E9

8. Mr. Garcia was told by the police officers that Sindy was filing paperwork to bar him
from the property permanently. The police officer said that 'she can't bar you from the
building, just the 10th floor and Verizon management could bar him if he returns, given
the climate of violence they just don't want anything to happen this a civil matter just
know it's not the police department barring him from his office.’

9. Mr. Garcia was 10 steps away talking on his cell phone, he showed true professionalism
and restraint. He was respectful of the police officers, never raised his voice and never
said anything to Sindy Benevides. LULAC National President, Domingo Garcia,
exemplified true leadership in the face of adversity and on this day sadly from one of our
own!

10. Insubordination paves the way to destruction. We need leadership that sets the example
of respect, selfless dedication, integrity, knowledge of policy of our organization and
strong morals. None of these characteristics were exemplified by Sindy Benavides.

11. Please respect the work we have done and the cases in progress by selecting a CEO of
LULAC that will carry out his/her position by giving their best and supporting the
mission of LULAC as a priority above themselves. This is clearly not what we have in
place as a CEO of LULAC today!”

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

_______________________________
AnaLuisa Carrillo-Tapia

SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, on

this the 1st day of September 2022.