On January 03, 2023 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Langford, Chaddrick O.,
and
Pillaca, Adriana,
Pillaca, Ceferino,
for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
1/30/2023 10:12 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Rosa Delacerda DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-00012
CHADDRICK LAN GFORD § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffi §
§
VS. § 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
ADRIANA PILLACA AND CEFERINO §
PILLACA §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY REQUEST
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Adriana Pillaca and Ceferino Pillaca, Defendants in the above-styled
and numbered cause, and in answer to Plaintiff’ s Original Petition filed against them by
Chaddrick Langford, files this their Original Answer for which they say:
I.
Defendants generally deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained in
Plaintiff’s Original Petition and, in accordance with the law, demands that Plaintiff prove by a
preponderance of the credible evidence all allegations contained therein.
II.
Answering flirther and without waiving any of the foregoing matters, Defendants would
show that Plaintiff s recovery of medical or healthcare expenses incurred is limited to the amount
actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
Code § 41.0105.
III.
In the alternative, and without waiving any of the foregoing matters, Defendants
affirmatively plead and state that no party is entitled to recover punitive damages or exemplary
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY REQUEST -1-
damages in any form or fashion in this cause of action in that it would Violate Defendants’ rights
under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Texas in the
following respects:
(i) The contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution is
violated because any party’s claim of punitive damages is an attempt to impose
punitive damages through retrospective application of new judicially created
substantive law. Due process requires fair notice of the type of conduct that will
subject a person or entity to monetary punishment, and fair notice of a range of any
monetary punishment that may be imposed for deviation from the standard.
(ii) Due process requires proof of gross negligence and punitive damages by a standard
greater than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Due process requires
proof of such claims by at least a clear and convincing standard of proof. Lack of a
sufficient standard governing punitive damages in Texas violates the due process
clause of the Constitution of the United States.
(iii) The assessment of punitive damages, a remedy that is essentially criminal in nature,
without safeguards greater than those afforded by Texas procedural and statutory
law, constitutes infliction of a criminal penalty without the safeguards guaranteed
by the Fifth, Six, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, and of Article I, Section l9 of the Constitution of the State of Texas.
(iV) Punitive damages under Texas procedural and statutory law constitute an excessive
fee in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,
and of Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas.
(V) Punitive damages under Texas procedural and statutory law Violate and are not in
accord with those standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Cooper
Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, lnc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001).
(vi) Punitive damages under Texas law are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and of Article I,
Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas.
IV.
Defendants respectfully request a jury trial.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing
by reason of his suit, for costs of suit, and for such other and further relief, both at law or in equity,
to which they may be justly entitled.
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY REQUEST -2-
Respectfully submitted,
Chad Kimble, State Bar 24007483
Kyle L. Smith, State Bar 24102512
KIMBLE & SMITH, P.C.
1204 S. White Chapel Boulevard
Southlake, Texas 76092
eservice@kimblesmithlaw.com
817.766.7488
817.423.7492 fax
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on the 30th day of January, 2023, a true copy of the foregoing
has been served on all parties in accordance with Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
/¢/%—
Kyle L. Smith
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY REQUEST -3-
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.
Chad Kimble
Bar No. 24007483
eservice@kimblesmithlaw.com
Envelope ID: 72255283
Status as of 1/30/2023 11:06 AM CST
Associated Case Party: CHADDRICKO. LANGFORD
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Felipe B.Link flink@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT
Monica Isaac monica@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT
Sara Link sara@|inklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT
Link & Associates E-Filing service e-filing@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT
Luke Schaffner lschaffner@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT
Andres Beteta andres@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: ADRIANA PILLACA
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
CHAD KIMBLE eservice@kimblesmithlaw.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: CEFERINO PILLACA
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
CHAD KIMBLE eservice@kimblesmithlaw.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT
Document Filed Date
January 30, 2023
Case Filing Date
January 03, 2023
Category
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED 1/30/2023 10:12 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Rosa Delacerda DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-00012 CHADDRICK LAN GFORD § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffi § § VS. § 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § ADRIANA PILLACA AND CEFERINO § PILLACA § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY REQUEST TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Adriana Pillaca and Ceferino Pillaca, Defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause, and in answer to Plaintiff’ s Original Petition filed against them by Chaddrick Langford, files this their Original Answer for which they say: I. Defendants generally deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and, in accordance with the law, demands that Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence all allegations contained therein. II. Answering flirther and without waiving any of the foregoing matters, Defendants would show that Plaintiff s recovery of medical or healthcare expenses incurred is limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 41.0105. III. In the alternative, and without waiving any of the foregoing matters, Defendants affirmatively plead and state that no party is entitled to recover punitive damages or exemplary DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY REQUEST -1- damages in any form or fashion in this cause of action in that it would Violate Defendants’ rights under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Texas in the following respects: (i) The contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution is violated because any party’s claim of punitive damages is an attempt to impose punitive damages through retrospective application of new judicially created substantive law. Due process requires fair notice of the type of conduct that will subject a person or entity to monetary punishment, and fair notice of a range of any monetary punishment that may be imposed for deviation from the standard. (ii) Due process requires proof of gross negligence and punitive damages by a standard greater than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Due process requires proof of such claims by at least a clear and convincing standard of proof. Lack of a sufficient standard governing punitive damages in Texas violates the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States. (iii) The assessment of punitive damages, a remedy that is essentially criminal in nature, without safeguards greater than those afforded by Texas procedural and statutory law, constitutes infliction of a criminal penalty without the safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth, Six, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and of Article I, Section l9 of the Constitution of the State of Texas. (iV) Punitive damages under Texas procedural and statutory law constitute an excessive fee in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and of Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas. (V) Punitive damages under Texas procedural and statutory law Violate and are not in accord with those standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, lnc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001). (vi) Punitive damages under Texas law are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and of Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas. IV. Defendants respectfully request a jury trial. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by reason of his suit, for costs of suit, and for such other and further relief, both at law or in equity, to which they may be justly entitled. DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY REQUEST -2- Respectfully submitted, Chad Kimble, State Bar 24007483 Kyle L. Smith, State Bar 24102512 KIMBLE & SMITH, P.C. 1204 S. White Chapel Boulevard Southlake, Texas 76092 eservice@kimblesmithlaw.com 817.766.7488 817.423.7492 fax ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the 30th day of January, 2023, a true copy of the foregoing has been served on all parties in accordance with Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. /¢/%— Kyle L. Smith DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY REQUEST -3- 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. Chad Kimble Bar No. 24007483 eservice@kimblesmithlaw.com Envelope ID: 72255283 Status as of 1/30/2023 11:06 AM CST Associated Case Party: CHADDRICKO. LANGFORD Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Felipe B.Link flink@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT Monica Isaac monica@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT Sara Link sara@|inklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT Link & Associates E-Filing service e-filing@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT Luke Schaffner lschaffner@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT Andres Beteta andres@linklawpc.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT Associated Case Party: ADRIANA PILLACA Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status CHAD KIMBLE eservice@kimblesmithlaw.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT Associated Case Party: CEFERINO PILLACA Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status CHAD KIMBLE eservice@kimblesmithlaw.com 1/30/2023 10:12:54 AM SENT