Texas Plumber Says Jihadi Video Ruined His Business and His Life 
 
 HOUSTON (CN) - A Texas Ford dealer resold a plumber's work truck without removing company decals, which ruined his life when a photo of jihadis shooting an anti-aircraft gun from the truck went viral, the plumber claims in court. 
 
 Mark Oberholtzer owns Mark-1 Plumbing in Texas City, an hour southeast of Houston. 
 
 He traded in his Ford pickup to AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway in October 2013 for a newer model, and as he waited for the deal to close he started peeling the "Mark-1 Plumbing" stickers off the truck, he says in a Wednesday lawsuit in Harris County Court. 
 
 A salesman told him to stop, because it "would blemish the vehicle paint" and "the dealership had something better for removal," Oberholtzer says in the complaint. 
 
 He says his secretary dropped a bombshell on Dec. 17, 2014 when she called as he drove to Corpus Christi. 
 
 Two days earlier, a member of Ansar al-Deen, a jihadi group, had tweeted a "propaganda photograph" with a message stating: "using plumbing truck against regime in #Aleppo," according to the complaint, which includes the photo. 
 
 "Plaintiffs' logo and phone number were still on the vehicle door," Oberholtzer says in the complaint. He says the media picked up the story and by the time he heard from his secretary the backlash was in full swing. 
 
 "By the end of the day, Mark-1's office, Mark-1's business phone, and Mark's personal cellphone had received over 1,000 phone calls from the around the nation. These phone calls were in large part harassing and contained countless threats of violence, property harm, injury and even death," the lawsuit states. 
 
 Oberholtzer says his secretary was too scared to go to the office and that he, afraid for himself and his family, went to McAllen for nine days to escape the hostile onslaught. 
 
 "While in McAllen, Mark called defendant to discuss the situation. Defendant stated that they 'never touched the truck,' but instead sent it to Dallas," according to the complaint. 
 
 Oberholtzer says he obtained a vehicle history report that showed the truck was sold at auction in Texas in November 2013, then shipped the next month from Houston to Turkey. 
 
 The video and media attention threw his life into turmoil, Oberholtzer says. Besides the constant requests for interviews, from "USA Today, CBS, NBC and Inside Edition" among others, he got visits from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, whose agents told him "there are crazy people out there" and to "protect himself" so he started packing a gun. 
 
 The Colbert Report's final episode on Dec. 18, 2014 "began with the segment 'Texan's Truck in Syria'" and featured Oberholtzer's truck. "The episode was watched by 2.481 million viewers, making it the most watched episode ever in the show's history," the complaint states. 
 
 A year later, Oberholtzer says, he still gets threatening phone calls "whenever ISIS commits an atrocity that is reported nationally." 
 
 He seeks more than $1 million in punitive damages for fraud, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, invasion of privacy and deceptive trade. 
 
 He is represented by Craig Eiland in Galveston. 
 
 The defendant is Charlie Thomas Ford Ltd. dba AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway. 
 
 Its sales manager did not respond to a phone message seeking comment. 

 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1 
 
 CAUSE NO. ________________ 
 
 
 
 MARK OBERHOLTZER AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
 
 MARK-1 PLUMBING, INC. § 
 
 § 
 
 Plaintiffs, § 
 
 § 
 
 v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 
 
 § 
 
 CHARLIE THOMAS FORD, LTD. § 
 
 D/B/A AUTONATION FORD § 
 
 GULF FREEWAY § 
 
 § 
 
 Defendant. § _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT 
 
 
 
 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION 
 
 
 
 TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 
 
 
 
 COME NOW, MARK OBERHOLTZER and MARK-1 PLUMBING, INC., Plaintiffs 
 
 in the above-styled cause, hereby complaining of CHARLIE THOMAS FORD, LTD. 
 
 D/B/A AUTONATION FORD GULF FREEWAY, Defendant, and for this cause of action 
 
 would respectfully show the Court as follows: 
 
 I. 
 
 DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 
 
 1. Plaintiffs intend to conduct this cause under a Level Two (2) discovery 
 
 control plan, pursuant to Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 
 
 II. 
 
 PARTIES AND SERVICE 
 
 2. Plaintiff, MARK OBERHOLTZER (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or 
 
 “Mark”), is an individual residing in Galveston County, Texas and may be contacted 
 
 through his undersigned attorneys at 2211 Strand, Suite 201, Galveston, Texas 77550. 
 
 3. Plaintiff, MARK-1 PLUMBING, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” 
 
 or “Corporation”), is a for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of 
 
 12/9/2015 2:58:43 PM 
 
 Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County 
 
 Envelope No. 8161034 
 
 By: Nelson Cuero 
 
 Filed: 12/9/2015 2:58:43 PM 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 
 
 
 
 Texas and may be contacted through its undersigned attorneys at 2211 Strand, Suite 201, 
 
 Galveston, Texas 77550. 
 
 4. Defendant, CHARLIE THOMAS FORD, LTD. D/B/A/ AUTONATION 
 
 FORD GULF FREEWAY (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), is a Texas limited 
 
 partnership with its principal office address as 12227 Gulf Freeway, Houston, Texas, 
 
 77034 and may be served with process by serving its registered agent Corporation Service 
 
 Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company at 211 E. 7 
 
 th 
 
 St. Ste. 620, 
 
 Austin, Texas 78701-3218. 
 
 III. 
 
 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
 
 5. The exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction over the Defendant is proper. This 
 
 Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it avails itself of the privilege of 
 
 doing business in the State of Texas, and the subject matter of this action arises under the 
 
 common law and statutes of the State of Texas. The amount in controversy exceeds the 
 
 minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 
 
 6. Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas because all or a substantial part of 
 
 the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Harris County, Texas. TEX. 
 
 CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(1) 
 
 IV. 
 
 BACKGROUND 
 
 7. On October 23, 2013. Plaintiff, Mark-1 Plumbing, Inc. (“Mark-1”) entered 
 
 into a transaction with Defendant involving the trade-in of a 2005 Ford F-250 pickup 
 
 truck, VIN 1FTSX21P15EC91985, in exchange for a 2012 Ford F-250 pickup truck, VIN 
 
 1FT7W2BT2CEA10391, plus an installment sales contract. This was Plaintiff’s first and 
 
 only transaction with Defendant. 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 
 
 
 
 8. The transactional documents between Mark-1 and the Defendant included 
 
 a “Retail Purchase Agreement,” on its face applicable to a “‘Seller’ or ‘Dealer’ Retail 
 
 Purchase Agreement for a Motor Vehicle,” which contained an “Arbitration Agreement,” 
 
 and a “Conditional Delivery Agreement.” While such written documents admittedly 
 
 applied to the sale of the new vehicle Mark-1 purchased, they do not apply to the traded- 
 
 in vehicle and/or they are wholly and completely silent as to subsequent, intervening, 
 
 superseding torts committed by the Defendant which breached common law duties owed 
 
 to Plaintiffs, such breaches causing severe permanent injury to Plaintiffs and 
 
 consequential and punitive damages. Moreover, the Arbitration Clause in particular and 
 
 the total documents generally give no indication, nor do they evidence the exchange of 
 
 consideration which would reasonably support any contention that such Clause would 
 
 limit claims assertable for the Defendant’s subsequent sale, lease, loan or transfer of the 
 
 traded-in vehicle with clearly identifiable markings of Plaintiffs upon it to criminals, 
 
 terrorists, jihadists or others of obviously ill-motive. 
 
 9. While waiting for the paperwork to be processed, Plaintiff began peeling off 
 
 the “Mark-1 Plumbing, Inc.” decal located on the truck’s doors when Defendant’s 
 
 salesman, Edgar Velasquez, instructed Plaintiff to stop. Mr. Velasquez told Plaintiff not 
 
 to worry about the decal and that peeling the decal off would blemish the vehicle paint. 
 
 Consistent with Defendant’s advertising to potential customers to “let them handle it” 
 
 (see Exhibit A), Mr. Velasquez further stated that the dealership had something that 
 
 works better for removal and they would use it to remove the decal. In relying on Mr. 
 
 Velasquez’s statements, Plaintiff ceased peeling off the decal and trusted that the decals 
 
 would be removed prior to resale. At no time did Velasquez or any other agent, servant or 
 
 employee of the Defendant tell Plaintiff that Defendant would leave the decals on the 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 
 
 
 
 truck, which would be transferred in some fashion to international jihadists conducting 
 
 warfare upon innocents in Syria; and, Plaintiff was not in any conceivable way told, 
 
 informed or placed on notice that precisely such an incomprehensible and horrific 
 
 eventuality would actually occur. 
 
 10. Over the years, Plaintiffs have sold as many as five to ten trucks to different 
 
 dealers in Texas. Through these transactions, Plaintiffs found it to be common practice 
 
 for dealerships to remove the decals on vehicles prior to reselling them. On none of those 
 
 occasions have any of those dealers transferred to international jihadists the traded-in 
 
 vehicle with Plaintiffs’ identifying markings still upon them. 
 
 11. According to a CARFAX Vehicle History Report (see Exhibit B), the vehicle 
 
 was listed as a dealer vehicle sold at a Texas auto auction on November 11, 2013. On 
 
 December 18, 2013 the vehicle was exported from Houston, Texas and imported to 
 
 Mersin, Turkey. 
 
 12. On December 15, 2014, 
 
 Caleb Weiss, a member of Ansar al- 
 
 Deen, a jihadist group operating near 
 
 Aleppo in Syria, tweeted the 
 
 following propaganda photograph of 
 
 Plaintiffs’ Ford F-250 with an anti- 
 
 aircraft gun mounted on it fighting 
 
 on the front lines in Syria. Plaintiffs’ 
 
 logo and phone number were still on 
 
 the vehicle door. 
 
 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 
 
 
 
 Within 48 hours, the photograph had gone viral via the Internet and multiple news 
 
 outlets. 
 
 13. On December 17, 2014, while travelling to Corpus Christi, Mark received a 
 
 phone call from his secretary, Juli Hammonds. Ms. Hammonds explained to him the 
 
 breaking news stories. His initial reactions were of utter shock and sheer disbelief. 
 
 14. By the end of the day, Mark-1’s office, Mark-1’s business phone, and Mark’s 
 
 personal cell phone had received over 1,000 phone calls from around the nation. These 
 
 phone calls were in large part harassing and contained countless threats of violence, 
 
 property harm, injury and even death. These phone calls included, but were not limited 
 
 to, individuals who were: 
 
 (a) irate and yelling expletives at whomever answered the 
 
 phone; 
 
 (b) degrading to whomever answered the phone regarding 
 
 their stupidity; 
 
 (c) singing in Arabic for the duration of the phone call or voice 
 
 message recording; 
 
 (d) making threats of injury or death against Mark-1’s 
 
 employees, family, children, and grandchildren in violent, 
 
 lurid and grossly specific terms; and, 
 
 (e) directing expletive-laced death threats to whomever 
 
 answered the phone. 
 
 Only a precious few of the calls contained support for the Plaintiffs knowing that Plaintiffs 
 
 did not support terrorists. However, that scant number of positive calls in no way 
 
 mitigated or eliminated the shock, fear, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation and 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6 
 
 
 
 degradation Plaintiffs and their employees, family members and relatives experienced 
 
 and continue to experience. 
 
 15. Plaintiffs’ secretary, Juli Hammonds, refused to return to the office as she 
 
 feared for her life and well-being. Mark himself was fearful. Mark’s entire family was 
 
 terrified. As a result, Mark was forced to shut Mark-1’s office and all business operations 
 
 down for seven days, costing substantial lost revenues and business good will. 
 
 16. During this forced shutdown, Mark left Texas City, Texas and travelled to 
 
 McAllen, Texas as to avoid having to deal with this uncontrollable and terrifying situation. 
 
 He had initially planned to be out of town for only two days. However, due to the 
 
 magnitude and growing hostility of the situation, he remained out of town for nine days. 
 
 All this while, Mark-1’s revenues were lost and the company’s reputation and standing in 
 
 the business and local community was irretrievably damaged. 
 
 17. While in McAllen, Texas, Mark called the Defendant to discuss the situation. 
 
 Defendant stated that they “never touched the truck,” but instead sent it to Dallas, Texas. 
 
 Defendant stated that it was not their responsibility to remove the decal prior to sending 
 
 it to Dallas, Texas and it expressed not the slightest regret, concern or even compassion 
 
 with Mark’s horrific situation. Then, the employee of Defendant with whom Mark was 
 
 talking hung up on Mark. Callously putting its own profit and convenience entirely over 
 
 the needs of its customer, Defendant has made no effort whatever to contact Mark, 
 
 attempt in any way to mitigate or resolve his threatening situation of take any 
 
 responsibility whatever in causing this appalling situation and no additional contact has 
 
 occurred between Plaintiffs and Defendant. 
 
 18. On or about December 17, 2015, four agents from the United States 
 
 Department of Homeland Security arrived at Plaintiff’s office in Texas City, Texas. The 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7 
 
 
 
 Homeland Security Agents met with Vice President of Mark-1 for approximately one to 
 
 two hours. During this time period, he was not allowed to leave the premises. After 
 
 concluding their investigation, the Homeland Security Agents left him with the sinister 
 
 admonition that “there are crazy people out there” and to “protect himself at all times.” 
 
 19. In early January 2015, Mark was met by FBI agents at his office. The FBI 
 
 Agents conducted a very brief and cordial investigation. After concluding their 
 
 investigation, the FBI Agents once again reiterated that Mark must “protect himself.” 
 
 20. In relying on the advice from both the Homeland Security and FBI Agents, 
 
 Mark began carrying around a handgun for personal protection. Additionally, local police 
 
 made it routine to include his home and office on its routes. But, these steps in no way 
 
 diminish or mitigate the fear, anxiety, mental anguish, and apprehension Mark feels for 
 
 his family or that of his family members. 
 
 21. Throughout the duration of this situation, TV stations and news agencies, 
 
 both local and national, have constantly contacted Plaintiffs for an interview. Camera 
 
 crews were found videotaping Mark-1’s and its employee’s personal automobiles. Camera 
 
 crews went to Mark’s house in an attempt to cover the story. One news crew even went as 
 
 far as arriving at Mark-1’s secretary, Juli Hammond’s, daughter’s apartment requesting 
 
 an interview. 
 
 22. Demonstrating the breadth and depth of the dissemination, Mark has been 
 
 contacted by a vast number of news agencies regarding this situation, including, but not 
 
 limited to USA Today, CBS, NBC, and Inside Edition. 
 
 23. On December 18, 2014, the final episode of the late-night comedy television 
 
 series, The Colbert Report, began with the segment “Texan’s Truck in Syria” which was a 
 
 news story about a Mark-1 Plumbing truck now being used as an anti-aircraft gun in Syria. 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 8 
 
 
 
 This episode was watched by 2.481 million viewers, making it the most watched episode 
 
 ever in the show’s history. As of December 7, 2015, the segment “Texan’s Truck in Syria” 
 
 has an additional 67,557 views on Comedy Central’s website. The widespread viewing of 
 
 the segment increased the volume of the harassing and threatening phone calls and has 
 
 immeasurably added to the suffering of Mark, his family, his employees and their families. 
 
 24. The harassing and threatening phone calls continued for at least three 
 
 weeks from when the news story was officially reported. Plaintiffs experienced at least 
 
 100-200 phone calls per day over this span of time. Since that time, Plaintiffs continue to 
 
 receive one or two phone calls per week. However, whenever ISIS commits an atrocity 
 
 that is reported nationally, which occurs with distressing frequency, Plaintiffs receive 
 
 more phone calls than normal all over again. 
 
 25. On September 20, 2015, the 67 
 
 th 
 
 Primetime Emmy Awards were held. The 
 
 Colbert Report was nominated for “Outstanding Directing for a Variety Series.” As part of 
 
 its show time nomination, The Colbert Report included a bit of “Texan’s Truck in Syria.” 
 
 The 67 
 
 th 
 
 Primetime Emmy Awards was watched by 11.9 million viewers. As a result, 
 
 Plaintiffs suffered yet another period of non-stop phone calls, averaging 100-200 phone 
 
 calls per day. Plaintiff continues to receive threatening and harassing phone calls 
 
 practically each day. Nearly one year has passed since the initial news story broke and 
 
 Plaintiffs still receive harassing phone calls and threats to this day. 
 
 26. Through absolutely no fault of their own, Plaintiffs have suffered and 
 
 continue to suffer damages directly resulting from Defendant’s failure to remove the decal 
 
 prior to resale as promised. Plaintiffs’ plumbing repair work and all other sources of its 
 
 revenues have been substantially impacted and its reputation damaged beyond 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 9 
 
 
 
 rehabilitation. As a direct result of the damage to Plaintiffs’ reputation, Plaintiffs have lost 
 
 an excess of $1,000,000.00. 
 
 V. 
 
 CAUSES OF ACTION 
 
 A. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 
 
 27. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of 
 
 this Petition. At all times material to this Petition, Defendant’s salesman was an employee 
 
 or agent of Defendant. The acts of the employee were performed while in the employment 
 
 of Defendant and were within the course and scope of that employment or within the 
 
 authority delegated to the employee. Employee was acting in furtherance of Defendant’s 
 
 business, the accomplishment for which the employee was hired. 
 
 28. Defendant is liable for the negligent acts and omissions of its employees 
 
 under the doctrine of vicarious liability, or respondeat superior. 
 
 29. As a result of Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have 
 
 suffered pecuniary harm and request compensatory and punitive damages in an amount 
 
 to be determined at trial. 
 
 B. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY 
 
 30. Additionally, Defendant is directly liable for the acts and omissions of its 
 
 agents, servants and employees in allowing a traded-in vehicle with clearly identifiable 
 
 marking of its previous business owner to be placed into the stream of commerce without 
 
 first removing said identifying markings, such that the truck could fall into the hands of 
 
 criminals, terrorists or jihadists and be photographed in circumstances which could and 
 
 did bring about Plaintiff’s severe injury and their incurring of consequent damages. 
 
 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 10 
 
 
 
 C. LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND COMMON 
 
 LAW TORTS 
 
 
 
 31. As hereinafter set out in detail, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for its 
 
 negligence and common law torts and for all economic and/or compensatory damages 
 
 which have been suffered in the past and which, in reasonable probability will be suffered 
 
 in the future. Moreover, Defendant’s conduct has been so outrageous, malicious and 
 
 consciously indifferent to the overwhelmingly likely severe harm of the Plaintiffs as to 
 
 constitute gross negligence as that term is understood in Texas law, for which Plaintiffs 
 
 herein seek punitive damages, as permitted by common law and/or Texas Civil Practice 
 
 & Remedies Code § 41.002. 
 
 D. COMMON-LAW FRAUD 
 
 32. Plaintiffs incorporate, as set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of 
 
 this Petition. Defendant made a material representation regarding removal of the decals 
 
 to Plaintiff to induce him into the transaction. Defendant either knew its material 
 
 representation regarding removal of the decals was false when stated or Defendant 
 
 recklessly stated its material representations as positive assertions without knowledge of 
 
 their truth. Defendant made these representations with the intent that Plaintiff rely on 
 
 them. Plaintiff did rely on the representations to his detriment. 
 
 33. Defendant’s false representations directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs 
 
 to suffer substantial past damages and in reasonable probability will cause Plaintiffs to 
 
 continue to suffer damages into the future. 
 
 34. Defendant’s actions were fraudulent, malicious, and/or grossly negligent 
 
 and subject it to exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. 
 
 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 11 
 
 
 
 E. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 
 
 35. In the alternative, or in supplement thereto, Defendant committed 
 
 negligent misrepresentation. In the course of Defendant’s business and in transactions 
 
 involving its own pecuniary interest, Defendants made representations to Plaintiffs that 
 
 the Defendants would remove Plaintiffs’ decals from Plaintiffs’ truck prior to resale. 
 
 Defendants had an interest in Plaintiffs selling their truck to Defendant. Plaintiffs 
 
 released their truck to Defendant under the pretense that the decals would be removed 
 
 prior to resale. Defendant negligently supplied false, misleading and deceptive 
 
 information to Plaintiffs regarding the transaction, to induce that very transaction. 
 
 Defendant wholly failed to exercise that reasonable care and competence of a vehicle 
 
 dealership in same or similar circumstances in ensuring the decals were removed prior to 
 
 resale. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the representations made by Defendant during the 
 
 transaction, to their enormous and continuing injury and damage. 
 
 36. Defendant’s misrepresentations proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer 
 
 substantial damages in the past and will, in reasonable probability, continue to do so into 
 
 the future. 
 
 37. Defendant’s actions were negligent, malicious, and/or grossly negligent and 
 
 subject it to exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. 
 
 F. LIBEL PER SE 
 
 38. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of 
 
 this Petition. Defendant’s failure to remove the decals from Plaintiff’s truck amounted to 
 
 Defendant implicitly accepting Mark-1 Plumbing, Inc.’s decals as its own statement which 
 
 was subsequently published nationally. Defendant’s failure the remove the decal makes 
 
 the statement defamatory per se under the common law because, when taken as a whole 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 12 
 
 
 
 and as would have been perceived by a reasonable viewer, Defendant imputed terroristic 
 
 and/or jihadist ties and support to the Plaintiffs. As a result, Plaintiffs were injured in 
 
 their profession and occupation and, in reasonable probability, will continue to be so 
 
 injured into the future. Such tortious conduct makes the Defendant strictly liable to 
 
 Plaintiff under Texas law because it is libelous per se. 
 
 39. Defendant’s statement severely and irretrievably injured Plaintiffs’ 
 
 reputation and exposed Plaintiffs to national public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and 
 
 financial injury and, in reasonable probability, will continue to do so into the future. 
 
 40. Plaintiffs have suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendant’s 
 
 defamatory statements, including but not limited to injury to character and reputation, 
 
 mental anguish, loss of past and future income and loss of earning capacity and, in 
 
 reasonable probability, will continue to do so into the future. 
 
 G. INVASION OF PRIVACY BY APPROPRIATION OF NAME 
 
 41. Plaintiffs incorporate, as set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of 
 
 this Petition. Defendant appropriated Plaintiffs’ name when it failed to remove the 
 
 traded-in truck’s decals prior to resale. Plaintiff can be identified from the publication 
 
 through the plethora of news articles that include the propaganda photograph. Defendant 
 
 received advantage in cutting costs by not removing the decals prior to resale. 
 
 42. As a result of Defendant’s appropriation, Plaintiff suffered injury to its 
 
 reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, and public interest and, in reasonable 
 
 probability, will continue to do so into the future. 
 
 43. Plaintiff has suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendant’s invasion 
 
 of privacy by appropriation of Plaintiff’s name, including but not limited to injury to 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 13 
 
 
 
 character and reputation, mental anguish, loss of past and future income and loss of 
 
 earning capacity. 
 
 H. VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 
 
 BUSINESS & COMMERCE CODE § 17.46 
 
 
 
 44. Plaintiffs incorporate, as set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of 
 
 this Petition. Defendant violated Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.46, in the 
 
 following particulars: (2) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, 
 
 sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods: (3) causing confusion or 
 
 misunderstanding as to the affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by 
 
 another; (4) using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in 
 
 connection with goods; (5) representing that goods have sponsorship, approval, which 
 
 they do not have, for all of which violations, Defendant is liable per se. 
 
 45. Regarding such violations Plaintiffs herein seek damages for past and future 
 
 mental anguish, all past and future proximately caused economic damages, taxable costs 
 
 of court and reasonable attorney’s fees, together with interest as provided by law, all in 
 
 conformity with Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.50. 
 
 VI. 
 
 REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 
 
 46. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request 
 
 that Defendant disclose, within the time provided by the Rules, the information or 
 
 material described in Rule 194.2. 
 
 VII. 
 
 STATEMENT OF RELIEF 
 
 47. Pursuant to Rule 47(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs seek 
 
 monetary relief over $1,000,000.00. 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 14 
 
 
 
 48. Plaintiffs seek damages that are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 JURY DEMAND 
 
 49. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial and tender the appropriate fee with this 
 
 Petition. 
 
 IX. 
 
 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 
 
 50. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend their complaint to assert such 
 
 additional causes of action as may be revealed during discovery. 
 
 X. 
 
 PRAYER 
 
 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, MARK OBERHOLTZER 
 
 and MARK-1 PLUMBING, INC., pray that Defendant be cited to appear and answer 
 
 herein and, upon final hearing, that Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment and all relief sought 
 
 herein against Defendant as follows: 
 
 a. all economic and compensatory damages proved by a 
 
 preponderance of evidence; 
 
 b. punitive damages as proved by clear and convincing evidence; 
 
 c. reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees; 
 
 d. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; 
 
 e. court costs; and, 
 
 f. all other relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff is justly 
 
 entitled. 
 
 
 
 
 
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 15 
 
 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 LAW OFFICES OF A. CRAIG EILAND 
 
 By: ________________________ 
 
 A. Craig Eiland 
 
 State Bar No. 06502380 
 
 Austin Martin 
 
 State Bar No. 24090245 
 
 Old Galveston Square 
 
 2211 The Strand, Suite 201 
 
 Galveston, Texas 77550 
 
 Telephone: (409) 763-3260 
 
 Facsimile: (409) 763-8154 
 
 ceiland@eilandlaw.com 
 
 amartin@eilandlaw.com 
 
 
 
 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

– The Texas plumber whose truck infamously ended up in the hands of jihdists is suing a car dealership for more than $1 million, the Houston Chronicle reports. At issue: the dealership’s failure to remove a decal bearing the name and phone number of the Texas City man's business, which he says destroyed his livelihood and resulted in ongoing "shock, fear, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation, and degradation" after a photo of his truck in Syria was widely circulated. In the suit filed last week, Mark Oberholtzer of Mark-1 Plumbing claims that, as he traded in the 2005 Ford F-250 in October 2013, he began to remove the decal, but a salesman said to "let them handle it." The suit traces the pickup's journey from a local auto auction to Mersin, Turkey. At some point, it entered Syria, as evidenced by a photo of the vehicle in Aleppo tweeted last December by an Ansar al-Deen militant. The photo showed the truck, now outfitted with an anti-aircraft weapon, with "plaintiffs' logo and phone number … still on the vehicle door," the suit says. Further, that photo reached millions of people through social media and TV (the final episode of the Colbert Report, for one). On Dec. 17, 2014, the suit says, Oberholtzer’s business and personal phones received more than 1,000 calls from people who variously yelled expletives, sang in Arabic, and made "threats of injury or death." In his suit, Oberholtzer alleges that AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway admitted to having "never touched the truck"; said removing the decal wasn't its responsibility; and hung up on him. Oberholtzer, per Courthouse News, continues to get phone threats "whenever ISIS commits an atrocity that is reported nationally." (ISIS somehow keeps getting this particular kind of pickup truck.)