Please Note: Nothing on this website or in this publishing should be taken as legal advice.
UPDATE: Prior Cameron County Judge’s Lawsuit Has a Cross-Claim
We have previously published on a lawsuit filed by past Cameron County Magistrate Judge Louis Sorola. The lawsuits involves concerns surrounding his campaign to be the 404th District Court Judge.
Interestingly enough, the prior 404th District Court Judge Elia Cornell Lopez is the counsel for Judge Sorola.
There was a hearing on March 29, 2023. We are awaiting the orders on the hearing; however, on March 28, 2023, a Cross Claim was filed.
Cross Claim Filed on Defendants in Prior Cameron County Judge’s Defamation Lawsuit
Now Dora Guzman and Rubi Moreno have filed a cross claim through Attorney Rafael Pizana III in San Antonio. The cross claim involves three non-parties to the lawsuit. Recently, two of the non-parties have attempted to intervene in the lawsuit, but have filed non-party filings.
Please note, the cross claim document referenced in this publishing is a legal document filed in a public case file and holds an obligation under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Practice.
The cross claim filing begins as follows:
Come now, Dora Guzman and Rubi Moreno and file this Cross Claim against Ricardo Adobbati, Judge Erin Hernandez Garcia, individually and in her official capacity as Judge of the Magistrate Court, and Eduardo Aldrete for Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Legal Malpractice, Fraud and Fraud in the Inducement, Civil Conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and Respondeat Superior.
Dora Guzman and Rubi Moreno’s Cross Claim against Judge Ricardo Adobbati, Judge Erin Hernandez Garcia, individually and in her official capacity as the Magistrate Court Judge, and Eduardo Aldrete, filed March 28, 2023, by Attorney Rafael Pizana III in Cameron County Cause 2020-DCL-5869-C
Guzman and Moreno Indicate a Magistrate Judge Required Their Presence to Meet Ricardo Adobbati
Please note, the cross claim document referenced in this publishing is a legal document filed in a public case file and holds an obligation under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Practice.
The cross claim states the following:
On or about January 2020 Judge Erin Hernandez Garcia while on judicial duties at the Magistrate Court, in her official capacity, informed Guzman and Moreno while they were working and Judge Garcia’s subordinates that they must meet with Ricardo Adobbati who was requesting a meeting to discuss Sorola.
Guzman and Moreno respectfully told their boss, Judge Garcia, that they had no interest in discussing Sorola with Adobbati. However, Judge Garcia insisted and Guzman and Moreno finally caved and agreed to meet with Ricardo Adobbati.
After much insistence by Adobbati and Judge Garcia, the meeting eventually took place on January 26, 2020, at the Law Offices of Judge Garcia located at 915 East Los Ebanos, Brownsville, Texas.
Present at[] the meeting were Ricardo Adobbati, Judge Garcia, Dora Guzman, Mr. Vasquez[,] who is Dora’s husband, and Ernie Hernandez.
At the meeting, Adobbati and Judge Garcia suggested Guzman and Moreno make a video and both Adobbati and Judge Garcia both provided legal advice to Guzman and Moreno stating, “You have the first amendment right, you can’t get in any trouble, you can’t be sued because Sorola is a public official running for office, like the presidential candidate you can say whatever you want to about him, and you can’t get sued.[“]
Adobbati and Judge Garcia added, “you are a concerned citizen talking about a public concern and you have the protections of the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA). If anything happens, we will be there for you and we will defend you.”
Dora Guzman and Rubi Moreno’s Cross Claim against Judge Ricardo Adobbati, Judge Erin Hernandez Garcia, individually and in her official capacity as the Magistrate Court Judge, and Eduardo Aldrete, filed March 28, 2023, by Attorney Rafael Pizana III in Cameron County Cause 2020-DCL-5869-C
The Cross Claim Filing Goes into Allegations that Adobbati and Judge Garcia Committed Legal Malpractice.
Please note, the cross claim document referenced in this publishing is a legal document filed in a public case file and holds an obligation under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Practice.
The cross claim filing states the following:
Adobbati and Judge Garcia committed legal malpractice by giving the wrong negligent legal advice to Guzman and Moreno and both Adobbati and Judge Garcia engaged in legal malpractice. Guzman and Moreno sue for Adobbati and Judge Garcia for legal malpractice. The legal advice of Adobbati and Judge Garcia proved to be incorrect when the Texas Supreme Court declined the Writ and the 13th Court of Appeals’ opinion was affirmed by the rejection of the Writ. The 13th Court of Appeals held that Guzman and Moreno defamed Plaintiff Judge Sorola. The date of the 13th Court of Appeals’ opinion is January 27, 2022. The Texas Supreme Court denied Writ June 2022.
Dora Guzman and Rubi Moreno’s Cross Claim against Judge Ricardo Adobbati, Judge Erin Hernandez Garcia, individually and in her official capacity as the Magistrate Court Judge, and Eduardo Aldrete, filed March 28, 2023, by Attorney Rafael Pizana III in Cameron County Cause 2020-DCL-5869-C
Conflict of Interest is Suggested by the Cross Claim through Breach of Contract
Please note, the cross claim document referenced in this publishing is a legal document filed in a public case file and holds an obligation under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Practice.
It is claimed or alleged that Attorney Mark Sossi was hired by Judge Garcia to represent Guzman and Moreno. Per the cross claim filing:
[H]owever, as it turns out Mark Sossi had a conflict of interest and Mark Sossi did not have the best interest of Guzman and Moreno at heart. Mark Sossi instructed Guzman and Moreno to take full responsibility for the videos and Sossi demanded that Guzman and Moreno not disclosed to the Plaintiff and the Court that Adobbati, Judge Garcia, and Aldrete’s involvement with the videos. Clearly, Sossi was paid by Judge Garcia to represent Judge Garcia’s best interest and not Guzman and/or Moreno.
To the best knowledge of Guzman and Moreno, Adobbati did not pay for the alleged defense of Guzman and Moreno legal representative. Judge Garcia informed Guzman and Moreno that Adobbati wanted to distance himself from Guzman and Moreno and was asking that they not mention his involvement at all. Judge Garcia said, “Judge Adobbati cannot get involved in this matter. Adobbati is actual asking that you protect him.”
Dora Guzman and Rubi Moreno’s Cross Claim against Judge Ricardo Adobbati, Judge Erin Hernandez Garcia, individually and in her official capacity as the Magistrate Court Judge, and Eduardo Aldrete, filed March 28, 2023, by Attorney Rafael Pizana III in Cameron County Cause 2020-DCL-5869-C
Cross Claims Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Please note, the cross claim document referenced in this publishing is a legal document filed in a public case file and holds an obligation under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Practice.
The cross claim filing states the following:
Adobbati and Judge Garcia are both attorneys and judges. At the time of the filming, Adobbati was the Municipal Court Judge of the City of Rancho Viejo and Judge Garcia was an attorney and the Magistrate Judge of Cameron county. Adobbati and Judge Garcia both are fiduciaries because they are both attorneys. Adobbati and Judge Garcia were in a fiduciary relationship with Guzman and Moreno. Attorneys owe a fiduciary duty to their clients. Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. 1988).
Adobbati and Judge Garcia took the time to explain the law regarding Guzman and Moreno making the videos. Adobbati and Judge Garcia told Guzman and Moreno that they have a First Amendment right of free speech, that Guzman and Moreno could say whatever they wanted about Sorola without any consequences, that Sorola could not sue them, and if Sorola did sue they would represent them and/or hire an attorney for Guzman and Moreno, that they would pay for the attorney to represent Guzman and Moreno’ best interest and that Guzman and Moreno had the TCPA and the case would be dismissed and Sorola would be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
The breach of the fiduciary duty of Adobbati and Judge Garcia to and of Guzman and Moreno caused Guzman and Moreno damage. The benefit to the defendant Adobbati is that the videos of Guzman and Moreno were the proximate cause of Adobbati winning the election March 2020 to the 404th District Court against Sorola. Adobbati would misrepresent the law to get Guzman and Moreno to do the videos against Sorola. No one benefitted more than Adobbati with the defamatory and libelous videos than Adobbati at the detriment to Guzman and Moreno-Barrios.
The benefit to Judge Garcia is that the man she and her mother Norma Hernandez LOATHE was the subject of a defamatory and slanderous videos made by the employees and subordinates of Judge Garcia whom she manipulated and played like a guitar. Norma Hernandez spent days texting the video and the link to the video to her telephone list and emailing same. The benefit to Judge Garcia is that she got Sorola back and derailed his campaign as Judge Garcia texted her intentions to Guzman and Moreno. This victory for Judge Garcia was at the damage and expense of Guzman and Moreno.
Dora Guzman and Rubi Moreno’s Cross Claim against Judge Ricardo Adobbati, Judge Erin Hernandez Garcia, individually and in her official capacity as the Magistrate Court Judge, and Eduardo Aldrete, filed March 28, 2023, by Attorney Rafael Pizana III in Cameron County Cause 2020-DCL-5869-C
The cross claim filing also has claims of fraud and fraud in the inducement, civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting. The cross claim, since it is a claim of damages, has not official been served on any parties. The request for citation has been made. Once served, defendants typically have about 21 days or longer to reply to the allegations made towards them.
As we have stated numerous times in this publishing the cross claim document referenced in this publishing is a legal document filed in a public case file and holds an obligation under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Practice. We are simply presenting information filed in a public lawsuit. The lawsuit seems to have a overlap with Cameron County Judiciary. We make no claims or suggest anything of the filing other than to present the information to our readers.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may find our publishing on claims made by defense counsel related to allegations of perjury towards a Texas Ranger.
Or you may be interested in reading our publishing on the City of Harlingen and its attempt to withhold public records.
Follow Us on Social Media
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
TWITTER: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News