Preview
FILED
2/7/2022 12:00 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Madison McCarrier DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-03496
MARILYN WILLIAMS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
V. § 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
PABLO ROMO, III; J RU §
PROPERTIES, LLC D/B/A 4 WHEEL §
DRIVE AUTO; AND JOE UNELL § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION
T0 THE HONORABLE JUDGE 0F SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Joe Unell, and file this Defendant’s Original Answer to Plaintiff’ s Second
Amended Petition and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
RULE 193.7
I.
Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendant hereby gives
notice to the Plaintiff that Defendant intends to use all documents exchanged and produced
between the parties (including, but not limited to, correspondence, pleadings, records, and
discovery responses) during the trial of this matter as authenticated.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
II.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiffs Second
Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges:
“Medical expenses in the past and future”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state
DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 1
10000.1012
the name of each health care provider and/or physician who treated her for injuries allegedly
suffered as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit, and the amount paid to or owed to
such health care providers and/or physicians. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the
amount of medical expenses she anticipates incurring in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or
refiise to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken
in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
III.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiffs Second
Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges:
“Lost wages in the past and loss of earning capacity in the future”
Rule 56 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state
the amount of wages which she allegedly lost as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit.
Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the amount of earning capacity and wages she
anticipates she will lose in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her Petition,
the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief
supported by the same automatically denied.
IV.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiff’ s Second
Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges:
“Property damage and loss of use of Plaintiff‘s vehicle”
Rule 5 6 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when items of special damages
are claimed, they shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead her
damages for each element with specificity. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her
DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 2
10000.1012
Petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stIicken in their entirety and all
relief supported by the same automatically denied.
V.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiff’ s Second
Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges:
“Physical impairment in the past and future”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of What physical impairment Plaintiff is claiming,
including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be
required to state What physical impairment the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the fiiture. Should
Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be
automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
VI.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges:
“Physical pain and suffering in the past and future”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of What physical pain and suffering Plaintiff is claiming,
including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be
required to state what physical pain and suffering the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future.
Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should
be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 3
10000.1012
VII.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiffs Second
Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges:
“Mental anguish in the past and future”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what mental anguish Plaintiff is claiming, including
the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state
what mental anguish the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or
refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken
in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
VIII.
Defendant further specifically invokes § 41.0105 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, which
provides that recovery of medical or health care expenses incurred are limited to the amount
actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff.
IX.
Defendant further alleges that Plaintiffs claims for pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest are limited by the dates and amounts set forth in TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. § 304 (2015).
X.
Defendant specifically denies that he has committed any act or omission which would
justify Plaintiffs claims for gross negligence or exemplary or punitive damages. Defendant alleges
that Plaintiffs claims for exemplary or punitive damages are in violation of Defendant's rights
under the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section
DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 4
10000.1012
3 and 19 of the Texas Constitution, in that such claims as made are arbitrary, unreasonable,
excessive, and in Violation of this Defendant's right to due process of law and equal protection of
the law. Further, Plaintiff‘s claims for exemplary or punitive damages should be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution, or in the alternative,
should be proved by clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to a mere preponderance of the
evidence.
XI.
In the unlikely event that Defendant is found liable for exemplary damages, Defendant
affirmatively alleges that any such liability he may have is limited as set forth in Section 41.007,
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
GENERAL DENIAL
XII.
Defendant Joe Unell denies all and singular the material allegations of fact contained in
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the
evidence, pursuant to Rule 92 of the TEXAS RULES 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE.
JURY DEMAND
XIII.
Defendant respectfiilly demands a trial by jury with respect to any and all issues of fact.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that, upon trial hereof, Plaintiff
takes nothing, Defendant go hence without delay and recover his costs, and for such other and
further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may be justly entitled.
DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 5
10000.1012
Respectfully submitted,
THE LECRONE LAW FIRM, PC
Wall Street Plaza
123 North Crockett Street, Suite 200
Sherman, TX 75090
TEL: 903.813.1900
FAX: 903.813.1944
By: /s/ Mark fl. (Teaaue
MARK A. TEAGUE
State Bar No. 24003039
JOHN W. BREEZE
State Bar No. 00796248
HILLARY LUCKETT CLARK
State Bar No. 24077714
ALEXANDRIA K. CARPENTER
State Bar No. 24101596
RHONDA D. HOLCOMB
State Bar No. 24099024
BLAISE S. WILCOTT
State Bar No. 24086481
SELENE DOMINGUEZ PENA
State Bar No. 24106929
MOLLY J. KAELIN
State Bar No. 24122949
ESERVICEGDLECRONELAWCOM
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on the 6th day of February, 2022, the foregoing instrument was
forwarded to the following counsel of record:
Ms. Lauren Jobin
WITHERITE LAW GROUP, PLLC
10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75231
/s/9Mark fl. Teaque
MARK A. TEAGUEE
DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 6
10000.1012
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Marcie Carpenter on behalf of Mark Teague
Bar No. 24003039
marcie@lecronelaw.com
Envelope ID: 61478992
Status as of 2/7/2022 8:57 AM CST
Associated Case Party: JRU PROPERTIES, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Adam LeCrone eservice@lecronelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: MARILYN WILLIAMS
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Samantha Hanks samantha.hanks@witheritelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT
Lauren Jobin lauren.jobin@witheritelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: PABLO ROMO
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Mark A.Teague eservice@lecronelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: JOE UNELL
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Mark A.Teague eservice@lecronelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 2/7/2022 12:00 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Madison McCarrier DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-03496 MARILYN WILLIAMS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § V. § 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § PABLO ROMO, III; J RU § PROPERTIES, LLC D/B/A 4 WHEEL § DRIVE AUTO; AND JOE UNELL § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION T0 THE HONORABLE JUDGE 0F SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Joe Unell, and file this Defendant’s Original Answer to Plaintiff’ s Second Amended Petition and would respectfully show the Court as follows: RULE 193.7 I. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendant hereby gives notice to the Plaintiff that Defendant intends to use all documents exchanged and produced between the parties (including, but not limited to, correspondence, pleadings, records, and discovery responses) during the trial of this matter as authenticated. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS II. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiffs Second Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges: “Medical expenses in the past and future” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 1 10000.1012 the name of each health care provider and/or physician who treated her for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit, and the amount paid to or owed to such health care providers and/or physicians. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the amount of medical expenses she anticipates incurring in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refiise to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. III. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiffs Second Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges: “Lost wages in the past and loss of earning capacity in the future” Rule 56 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state the amount of wages which she allegedly lost as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the amount of earning capacity and wages she anticipates she will lose in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her Petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. IV. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiff’ s Second Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges: “Property damage and loss of use of Plaintiff‘s vehicle” Rule 5 6 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when items of special damages are claimed, they shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead her damages for each element with specificity. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 2 10000.1012 Petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stIicken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. V. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiff’ s Second Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges: “Physical impairment in the past and future” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of What physical impairment Plaintiff is claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state What physical impairment the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the fiiture. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. VI. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges: “Physical pain and suffering in the past and future” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of What physical pain and suffering Plaintiff is claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state what physical pain and suffering the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 3 10000.1012 VII. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraphs VII and XI. of Plaintiffs Second Amended Petition wherein Plaintiff alleges: “Mental anguish in the past and future” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what mental anguish Plaintiff is claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state what mental anguish the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES VIII. Defendant further specifically invokes § 41.0105 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, which provides that recovery of medical or health care expenses incurred are limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff. IX. Defendant further alleges that Plaintiffs claims for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest are limited by the dates and amounts set forth in TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. § 304 (2015). X. Defendant specifically denies that he has committed any act or omission which would justify Plaintiffs claims for gross negligence or exemplary or punitive damages. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims for exemplary or punitive damages are in violation of Defendant's rights under the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 4 10000.1012 3 and 19 of the Texas Constitution, in that such claims as made are arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and in Violation of this Defendant's right to due process of law and equal protection of the law. Further, Plaintiff‘s claims for exemplary or punitive damages should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution, or in the alternative, should be proved by clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to a mere preponderance of the evidence. XI. In the unlikely event that Defendant is found liable for exemplary damages, Defendant affirmatively alleges that any such liability he may have is limited as set forth in Section 41.007, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. GENERAL DENIAL XII. Defendant Joe Unell denies all and singular the material allegations of fact contained in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence, pursuant to Rule 92 of the TEXAS RULES 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE. JURY DEMAND XIII. Defendant respectfiilly demands a trial by jury with respect to any and all issues of fact. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that, upon trial hereof, Plaintiff takes nothing, Defendant go hence without delay and recover his costs, and for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may be justly entitled. DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 5 10000.1012 Respectfully submitted, THE LECRONE LAW FIRM, PC Wall Street Plaza 123 North Crockett Street, Suite 200 Sherman, TX 75090 TEL: 903.813.1900 FAX: 903.813.1944 By: /s/ Mark fl. (Teaaue MARK A. TEAGUE State Bar No. 24003039 JOHN W. BREEZE State Bar No. 00796248 HILLARY LUCKETT CLARK State Bar No. 24077714 ALEXANDRIA K. CARPENTER State Bar No. 24101596 RHONDA D. HOLCOMB State Bar No. 24099024 BLAISE S. WILCOTT State Bar No. 24086481 SELENE DOMINGUEZ PENA State Bar No. 24106929 MOLLY J. KAELIN State Bar No. 24122949 ESERVICEGDLECRONELAWCOM ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 6th day of February, 2022, the foregoing instrument was forwarded to the following counsel of record: Ms. Lauren Jobin WITHERITE LAW GROUP, PLLC 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75231 /s/9Mark fl. Teaque MARK A. TEAGUEE DEFENDANT JOE UNELL’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 2ND AMENDED PETITION PAGE 6 10000.1012 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Marcie Carpenter on behalf of Mark Teague Bar No. 24003039 marcie@lecronelaw.com Envelope ID: 61478992 Status as of 2/7/2022 8:57 AM CST Associated Case Party: JRU PROPERTIES, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Adam LeCrone eservice@lecronelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT Associated Case Party: MARILYN WILLIAMS Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Samantha Hanks samantha.hanks@witheritelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT Lauren Jobin lauren.jobin@witheritelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT Associated Case Party: PABLO ROMO Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Mark A.Teague eservice@lecronelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT Associated Case Party: JOE UNELL Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Mark A.Teague eservice@lecronelaw.com 2/6/2022 5:29:42 PM SENT