Preview
FILED
6/30/2022 1:47 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Treva Parker-Ayodele DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-04901
TONY EVANS SR., and ARETHA EVANS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Individually and 0n behalf of their minor son,
T.E., deceased, FAITH TANKSLEY on behalf of
minor T.E., III, Individually and on behalf of
His father, T.E., deceased and
DEON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v. 162ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TASACOM REAL ESTATE, LLC d/b/a
HAWTHORN SUITES DALLAS LOVE FIELD
HAWTHORN SUITES FRANCHISING, INC.,
WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.,
MOHAMlVIAD SADIQ NOSHAHI,
DIAMOND STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, and
WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC,
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS TASACOM REAL ESTATE, LLC D/B/A HAWTHORN SUITES
DALLAS LOVE FIELD, MOHAMMAD SADIQ NOSHAHI, AND DIAMOND
STAFFING SERVICES, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:
Defendants Tasacom Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites Dallas Love Field,
Mohammad Sadiq Nashahi and Diamond Staffing Services, LLC, hereinafter referred to below
as “Defendants,” in the above styled and numbered case, files their First Amended Answer and
Affirmative Defenses and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
GENERAL DENIAL
1.1 Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants deny all
and singular, each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition
1
10828309v1
12777.002
and any subsequent petition filed by Plaintiffs and demands stIict proof of the same by a
preponderance of the evidence.
II.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Pleading further if the same be necessary, Defendant asserts the following defenses:
2.1 Defendants specifically invoke the doctrines of contributory negligence,
contribution, comparative responsibility, and proportionate responsibility, as set forth in
Chapters 32 and 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Each Plaintiff’ s recovery
should therefore be reduced in accordance With the percentage of negligence which the finder of
fact places on Tony Evans, Sr., Aretha Evans, T.E. or Deon Williams for causing or contributing
to the incident in question. Likewise, each Plaintiff should be barred from recovery should the
finder of fact place more than 50% of the responsibility for the accident upon each Plaintiff.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Section 33.001. At this time, discovery is in its early stage and the
events leading up to the shooting are currently not fully known. In an abundance of caution,
Defendants assert the affirmative defense of contributory negligence on the part of Plaintiffs
Tony Evans, Sr., Aretha Evans, T.E. and Deon Williams as the full facts leading up to the event
or not currently known. Defendants reserve the right to amend this petition once Defendants
have more information as uncovered by the investigation of this by Dallas PD.
2.2 For further answer, if such be necessary, Defendants allege that in accordance
with Section 33.013 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Defendant may not be held
jointly and severally liable for any amount of damages claimed herein unless the percentage of
responsibility of each Defendant, when compared with that of each other defendant, each settling
party, and each responsible third party, is greater than fifty percent (50%). Further, the
responsibility of each party, including Plaintiff, any settling parties, and any responsible third
10828309v1
12777.002
panics, should be submitted to the trier of fact as required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§33.003.
2.3 Defendants assert their rights under common law and Chapters 32 and 33 of the
Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code to receive an offset, credit, and/or reduction in
judgment based on any settlement Plaintiff has made or may make with any other person or
entity or for any amounts of money collected from any other person or entity by settlement,
compromise, or agreement or in payment or partial payment of any judgment entered in this
case. In accordance with Chapter 33 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, specifically
CPRC §33.012, Defendant seeks a settlement credit as to all sums paid by any and all settling
paIties. Accordingly, if Plaintiffs are awarded any amount as damages in this cause, the award
must be reduced by the dollar amount of any and all settlements or by a dollar credit determined
by applying the statutory formula credit set forth in §33.012 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code.
2.4 Defendants would filrther show that, in the unlikely event that they are found
liable for medical expenses, any such recovery of medical expenses would be limited pursuant to
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §4l.0105.
2.5 The sole proximate cause of the injuries or damages alleged in the Petition, if any,
was the negligence and/or tortious conduct of persons or entities other than Defendants, and
therefore Plaintiffs are barred from obtaining a recovery herein against Defendants, or,
alternatively, any such recovery must be reduced in proportion to the negligence and tortious
conduct of others, including all limitations set forth in the Comparative Responsibility Act, Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 33.001, et seq., or otherwise under applicable law. Specifically, it is
10828309v1
12777.002
believed that Keyshawn Harris shot T.E. and Deon Williams. Defendants assert he is solely
responsible for the injuries and damages sought by Plaintiff.
2.6 The incident which is the subject of Plaintiffs’ Petition was neither caused in fact
nor proximately caused by any fault, negligence, act, omission, conduct, or breach of duty
attributable to Defendants.
2.7 The injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiffs were the result of an unforeseeable
intervening and superseding causes for which Defendants cannot be held liable. Specifically, an
armed assailant, presumably Keyshawn Harris, shot T.E. and Deon Williams which was an
unforeseeable, criminal act.
2.8 Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages, if any exist, were caused in whole or in
part by a new and independent cause.
2.9 Defendants would further show that, in the unlikely event that they are found
liable to Plaintiffs, Defendants are entitled to offset, credit, contribution, and submission of
comparative responsibility as to all potentially responsible parties pursuant to Chapters 32 and 33
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
2.10 Plaintiffs have failed to join one or more indispensable parties necessary for the
proper adjudication of this action.
2.11 Plaintiffs’ claims for economic losses are barred or subject to setoff to the extent
Plaintiffs received, or are entitled to receive, payments outside the scope of the collateral source
rule from non-parties.
2.12 Any right to recovery by Plaintiffs in this action, and any liability on the part of
Defendants, which is expressly denied, is limited in accordance with the provisions of the
applicable wrongful death statutes and common law.
10828309v1
12777.002
2.13 Any applicable limitations on damages, including but not limited to those set forth
in Section 41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, should be applied in this case.
2.14 Defendants specifically allege that Plaintiffs’ Decedent and Deon Williams were
not invitees nor licensees at the time of the subject incident. Plaintiffs were not registered guests
of the hotel nor were they staying with a registered guest of the hotel.
2.15 Defendants further allege that Plaintiffs have no standing to bring a claim against
Defendants for misrepresentation or under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46.
2.16 To the extent that Plaintiffs are attempting to assert a breach of contract claim
against Defendants arising from the Franchise Agreement or any other agreements to which
Plaintiffs are not a party, Plaintiffs cannot establish that they are third-party beneficiaries to such
agreement(s) and thus cannot establish that they have any standing to bring such claims against
Defendants.
2.17 Plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46, because there was no business
relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs were not registered guests of
the hotel nor were they staying with a registered guest of the hotel.
2.18 Plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery under their claim for misrepresentation,
because there was no business relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs
were not registered guests of the hotel nor were they staying with a registered guest of the hotel.
2.19 Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy all pre-suit requirements for a claim arising under
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §
17.46 as prescribed by statute.
10828309v1
12777.002
2.20 Plaintiffs have failed to allege conduct warranting imposition of exemplary or
punitive damages under applicable Texas law.
2.21 Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts which support the imposition or award of
attorneys’ fees.
2.22 Defendants assert that any award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs is subject to
the limitations and caps imposed by Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.
2.23 For further answer, Defendants assert that an award of exemplary damages in this
case would be inconsistent with, and would violate Defendant’s rights under the United States
and Texas Constitutions as follows:
A. An award of exemplary damages would violate Defendant’s right to due process
and equal protection as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article l, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution in that:
1. No provision of Texas law provides any adequate or meaningful standard
or guide for fixing, determining, or reviewing the amount of an award of exemplary damages.
Defendant has no notice of nor means of ascertaining the amount of the penalty that they would
be or might be subject to for the conduct upon which the award is ostensibly to be based;
2. Under the laws of the State of Texas, the determination of Whether to
award exemplary damages is left to the arbitrary discretion of the trier of fact. There is no
adequate or meaningful standard or guide for exercising said discretion;
3. No provision of Texas law provides any adequate or meaningfiil standard
or guide for determining the nature of the conduct upon which an award of exemplary damages
may be based. Defendant has no notice of nor means of ascertaining the nature of the conduct
for which they might be held subject to an exemplary damages award;
10828309v1
12777.002
4. No provision of Texas law provides adequate procedural safeguards for
the imposition of an award of exemplary damages; and
5. The very concept of exemplary damages, whereby an award is made to a
private plaintiff not by way of compensation, but by way of a windfall incident to punishing a
defendant, represents the taking of property Without due process.
B. An exemplary damages award would Violate the prohibition against excessive
fines contained in the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution as embodied in the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment.
2.24 Plaintiffs Tony Evans, Sr. and Aretha Evans are not entitled to recover punitive
damages as no such recovery is allowed under Chapter 71 of the Texas Civil Practices and
Remedies Code.
2.25 Defendants assert that any award of punitive damages to Plaintiff is subject to the
limitations and caps imposed by Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.
2.26 According to police records and the deposition testimony of Plaintiff Deon
Williams, Keyshawn Harris is believed to be the person who shot Plaintiffs. Shortly after the
incident occurred, Keyshawn Harris was arrested and indicted by a grand jury on the charges of
the murder of Decedent T.E. and aggravated assault of Plaintiff Deon Williams. Although
Defendants dispute all of Plaintiffs’ allegations, if any of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages are proven,
Defendants allege that Keyshawn Harris’s tortious conduct proximately caused Plaintiffs’
injuries and, in the absence of Keyshawn Harris’s tortious conduct, Plaintiffs would not have
suffered any gunshot injuries. Keyshawn Harris a responsible third-party within the meaning of
the Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.011(6) because, if Plaintiffs’ allegations are true and
accurate, Keyshawn Harris proximately caused or contributed to the alleged harm for which
10828309v1
12777.002
recovery of damages are sought by Plaintiffs in this action. Accordingly, Keyshawn Harris
should be designated as a responsible third-party under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §
33.0040).
III.
JURY DEMAND
3.1 Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants hereby
demand a trial by jury and tenders the required fee.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants pray that the Plaintiffs take
nothing by their suit and that Defendants have judgment for their costs.
10828309v1
12777.002
Respectfully submitted,
THOMPSON, COE, COUSIN S & IRONS, L.L.P.
By:
Tasha L. Barnes
State Bar No. 00796163
Eva DeLeon
State Bar No. 24074774
Morgan J. Wells
State Bar N0. 24106562
Samantha C. Jeffers
State Bar No. 24120924
701 Brazos Suite 1500
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 708-8200 — Telephone
(512) 708-8777 — Fax
tbarnes@thompsoncoe.com
edeleon@thompsoncoe.com
mwells@thompsoncoe.com
sieffers@thompsoncoe.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEF ENDANTS
TASASCOM REAL ESTATE, LLC D/B/A
HAWTHORN SUITES DALLAS LOVE FIELD,
MOHAMMAD SADIQ NOSHAHI AND
DIAMOND STAFFING SERVICES, LLC
10828309v1
12777.002
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By my signature above, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has
been delivered on this the 30m day of June, 2022, to the following counsel of record Via e-mail:
Nuru Witherspoon Jason Hopkins
Emily Taylor DLA PIPER LLP w S)
The Witherspoon Law Group, PLLC 1900 N. Pearl St., Suite 2200
5565 Deer Creek, Unit A Dallas, Texas 75201
Dallas, Texas 75228 Jason.hopkins@dlapiper.com
witherspoon@twlglawyers.com
taylor@nvlglawyers.com And
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Christopher B. Donovan
DLA PIPER LLP (U S)
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2800
Houston, Texas 77002
Christopher.b.donovan@dlapiper.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
HAWTHORN SUITES FRANCHISING,
INC. AND WYNDHAM HOTELS &
RESORTS, INC.
10
10828309v1
12777.002
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.
Kiyomi Armistead on behalf of Eva DeLeon
Bar No. 24074774
KArmistead@thompsoncoe.com
Envelope ID: 65934105
Status as of 6/30/2022 2:17 PM CST
Associated Case Party: TASACOM REAL ESTATE, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Tasha LBarnes tbarnes@thompsoncoe.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Morgan Wells mwells@thompsoncoe.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Samantha Jeffers sjeffers@thompsoncoe.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: HAWTHORN SUITES FRANCHISING, INC.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Christopher BDonovan Christopher.B.Donovan@dlapiper.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Jason Hopkins 24059969 jason.hopkins@dlapiper.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Ronald DHinds rdhinds@verizon.net 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
RoseMarie Chambers rose.chambers@dlapiper.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
NURU WITHERSPOON witherspoon@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Ronald DHinds rdhinds@verizon.net 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Alicia Nixon anixon@reedsmith.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Witherspoon Litigation litigation@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.
Name
Jason Hopkins
Christopher BDonovan
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.
Kiyomi Armistead on behalf of Eva DeLeon
Bar No. 24074774
KArmistead@thompsoncoe.com
Envelope ID: 65934105
Status as of 6/30/2022 2:17 PM CST
Associated Case Party: WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.
Ronald DHinds rdhinds@verizon.net 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: TONY EVANS
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Nuru Witherspoon witherspoon@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Witherspoon Litigation litigation@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Aubrey "Nick" Pittman pittman@thepittmanlawfirm.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Emily Taylor taylor@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: T. E.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Nuru Witherspoon Witherspoon@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Emily Taylor taylor@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Aubrey "Nick" Pittman pittman@thepittmanlawfirm.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: MOHAMMADSADIQNOSHAHI
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Ronald DHinds rdhinds@verizon.net 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Eva DeLeon edeleon@thompsoncoe.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: ARETHA EVANS
Name
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.
Kiyomi Armistead on behalf of Eva DeLeon
Bar No. 24074774
KArmistead@thompsoncoe.com
Envelope ID: 65934105
Status as of 6/30/2022 2:17 PM CST
Associated Case Party: ARETHA EVANS
Aubrey "Nick" Pittman pittman@thepittmanlawfirm.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Emily Taylor taylor@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT
Nuru Witherspoon Witherspoon@twlglawyers.com 6/30/2022 1:47:15 PM SENT