An Interactive Case Story
Case No. 24-C-02716-S5: Patel v. Ruiz
Scroll down to explore the story. Click on each chapter to reveal the details.
CHAPTER ONE
The Fraud
2022
A dangerously defective build, an expert's damning report, and a written admission of guilt set the stage.
Inside Chapter One
This is a case of consumer fraud. An expert from Paul Davis Restoration (PDR) confirmed the deck was:
- Illegal: Built without any permits.
- Unsafe: Structurally unsound, missing critical components, and at genuine **risk of collapse**.
Crucial Evidence: The Admission of Guilt
In July 2022, before any lawsuit, the contractor's associate, Lena Chanlatte, admitted fault in writing. She promised they would "cover material and labor to fix previous issues." When the full severity was revealed, they abandoned the job and created their liability.
CHAPTER TWO
The Misdirection
2023
Litigation begins, but a catastrophic communication failure by the homeowner's own attorney immediately sends the case off course.
Inside Chapter Two
In December, opposing counsel offered a paltry $5,000 from insurance and asked about "lawn damage," completely ignoring the illegal structure.
The Core Conflict is Born from Attorney Failure
The homeowner's counsel, Chris Adams, failed to correct this. He allowed the defense to believe the claim was for minor damages, not the ~$47,000 cost to demolish and rebuild. The homeowner explicitly urged Adams to clarify that the suit was about the "entire deck, not vicarious lawn damage," but the misdirection was never corrected. This created the "Remediation vs. Refund" conflict that would plague the case.
CHAPTER THREE
The Failure
2024
Procedural errors mount as the strategic rift between the homeowner and his counsel deepens into a complete breakdown.
Inside Chapter Three
The Court twice ordered the Plaintiff to file a "More Definite Statement" (April & Sept), confirming the initial complaint was too vague to proceed. This was a direct result of the flawed strategy.
Evidence Not Seen Accurately
The attorney-client relationship deteriorated. Counsel focused on billing disputes and complained about the homeowner's "tone," while continuing to demand proof of the original payments to Ruiz. This reinforced the defense's false "refund" narrative. The homeowner insisted the claim, like a car accident, is based on the REPAIR BILLS from PDR and Ponder—evidence that was available but not being used effectively.
CHAPTER FOUR
The Impasse
2025
Representation collapses. The case now grinds to a halt as opposing counsel ceases all communication with the unrepresented homeowner.
Inside Chapter Four
After a two-week communication delay, Chris Adams withdrew in May. The homeowner (now Pro Se) met with opposing counsel on July 3rd. Counsel agreed a follow-up with the contractor was needed to review the evidence.
Current Status: Total Deadlock
Since that meeting, opposing counsel has not responded to multiple follow-ups. This stonewalling has halted all resolution attempts, forcing the matter towards a costly trial.
The Financial Reality: Underinsured Contractor
The total repair cost is **$47,664.51**. The contractor's insurance limit is only **$25,000**. This leaves Jesuan Ruiz personally liable for the remaining **$22,664.51**, plus potential legal fees and other damages.