Preview
CAUSE NO. 23 301421
SHAFFER BROOKS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
DISCOUNT TIRE DIRECT, INC.
AND JOHN DOE
Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANT DISCOUNT TIRE COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. (INCORRECTLY
NAMED DISCOUNT TIRE DIRECT, INC.) ORIGINAL ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
COMES NOW Defendant, Discount Tire Company of Texas, Inc., incorrectly named as
Discount Tire Direct, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”), and hereby files this Original Answer to
Plaintiff’s Original Petition and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
ENERAL ENIAL
Defendant generally denies each and every allegation and cause of action contained
in Plaintiff s Original Petition in accordance with Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant demand strict proof of the charges and allegations contained in Plaintiff s Original
Petition as required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas.
THER EFENSES
Defendant’ investigation of Plaintiff’s claims is in its initial state. Until Defendant
afforded the opportunity to avail itself rights of discovery, Defendant cannot determine
with certainty which, if any, of the following defenses will be asserted at trial. These defenses are
pleaded in order to preserve Defendant’ right to assert such defenses at trial and to give notice of
their intention to assert these defenses and to avoid a waiver of any defenses.
3. For further answer, Defendant specifically denies any act and/or omission of
negligence on its part which Plaintiff alleges proximately caused the incident giving rise to this
lawsuit or the damages and injuries which Plaintiff claims resulted therefrom.
4. For further answer, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s
contributory negligence.
5. For further answer, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s
failure to mitigate his damages.
6. For further answer, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s own acts caused or contributed
to cause the incident made the basis of this suit.
7. For further answer, Defendant affirmatively avers that the occurrence, injuries and
damages made the basis of this lawsuit were proximately caused and produced in whole or in part by
the acts and omissions of Plaintiff and/or third parties over whom Defendant had no control nor right
of control at the time of the occurrence in question, and such conduct was the proximate and/or sole
proximate, and/or producing and/or sole producing, and/or new independent cause of any injuries or
damages to Plaintiff.
8. For further answer, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or
in part, by the existence of an intervening cause. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by
intervening acts of others which were the proximate cause of any injuries or damage to Plaintiff. The
independent cause was the immediate and efficient cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, such that the negligent
acts or omissions which Plaintiff complains as to Defendant were not the cause of any damages or
injuries sustained by Plaintiff.
2
9. For further answer, Defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on sole proximate cause
and new and independent or superseding cause.
10. For further answer, Defendant reserves its right to submit other persons or entities,
known or unknown, shown by the evidence as being responsible for their proportionate share of
responsibility for Plaintiff’s injuries, harm and/or damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code Chapter 33, whether the result of their contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, or any
other breach of a legal standard permitted under the statute.
11. For further answer, Defendant would show that Plaintiff at the time and on the
occasion in question failed to use ordinary care for his own safety.
12. For further answer, Defendant denies that conditions precedent to the filing of this suit
have been met.
13. For further answer, Defendant invokes its legal right to a reduction of any dollar
verdict which may be rendered in this cause by credit for payments made by Plaintiff or other persons
or entities, or by percentage reductions to which Defendant would be entitled as a result of jury
findings against Plaintiff or parties other than Defendant. In this connection, Defendant reserves the
right to submit issues against parties, including but not limited to Plaintiff as well as any other
responsible third party, who may be present in this case or absent from the case at the time the matter
is passed to the jury for fact determinations. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.003.
14. D For further answer, efendant asserts the limitation on recovery of medical or
healthcare expenses as set forth in Section 41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
which provides that recovery of medical or health care expenses incurred by limited to the amount
actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant. See Haygood v. de Escobedo, 2011 WL
2601363 (Tex. 2011).
3
15. For further answer, Defendant asserts that any damages assessed for loss of past or
future wage-earning capacity must be limited to the net loss after reduction for income tax payments
or unpaid tax liability pursuant to Federal Income Tax law. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
18.091.
16. For further answer, Defendant affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to
recover for some or all of the damages sought, including but not limited to, past and future physical
pain and suffering, and past and future mental anguish.
17. For further answer, if such be necessary, Defendant requests that in the event at the
time of submission Plaintiff seeks recovery for loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, loss of
contributions of a pecuniary value, etc., that in accordance with the statutory requirements imposed
by Section 18.091 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code the Court “instruct the jury as to
whether any recovery for compensatory damages sought by the claimant is subject to federal or state
income taxes.”
18. For further answer, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover medical expenses that would
be reimbursable pursuant to the mandatory coverage required by the Affordable Care Act.
19. For further answer, Defendant asserts the limitation on recovery of medical or
healthcare expenses as set forth in Section 41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
which provides that recovery of medical or health care expenses, past or future, incurred is limited
to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant. To the extent Plaintiff
seeks recovery for medical bills, expenses, and services incurred, but which were never charged
to Plaintiff and, thus, were never paid or in fact incurred by her, Defendant would show that
Plaintiff is not entitled to recover those amounts. Defendant is entitled to credit for any offset or
4
discount from fees for services; specifically, Plaintiff may only recover medical or healthcare
expenses that were actually paid or that were incurred by or on Plaintiff’s behalf.
20. For further answer, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or
in part by estoppel.
21. For further answer, Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages against Defendant
cannot be sustained because an award of punitive damages under Texas law without proof of every
element beyond a reasonable doubt would violate Defendant’s rights under Amendments IV, V,
VI, and XIV of the United States Constitution and by Sections 9, 10, 14, and 19 of Article I of the
Texas Constitution.
22. For further answer, Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations of gross negligence and
hereby object to the claims made against it for an award of exemplary damages and would show
that any such award of exemplary damages would be a denial of Defendant’s Constitutional rights
pursuant to the Texas and United States Constitutions for reasons including, but not limited to, the
following:
(A) Defendant would show that the standard for an award of punitive damages is
unconstitutionally vague. It allows virtually standardless discretion to the jury to
determine punishment. It further deprives Defendant of adequate prior notice of the
specific conduct for which they could be punished or the specific magnitude of the
potential punishment. Accordingly, Defendant would show that the standard for
the imposition of punitive damages is unconstitutionally vague and is further
constitutionally defective as an ex post facto legal penalty as proscribed by the
Texas and United States Constitutions.
(B) Defendant would show that any award of punitive or exemplary damages would
violate Defendant’s rights to due process of law. Any award of punitive damages
is clearly in the nature of a criminal penalty. However, unlike a standard for
recognized criminal penalties, the current applicable standard for an award of
punitive damages places little or no restrictions on a jury’s discretion. Defendant
is given no advance notice that a particular course of conduct may subject them to
punishment and are given no notice as to the particular amount or magnitude of
5
punishment that may result. Consequently, any award of punitive damages against
Defendant would violate its due process rights pursuant to the Texas and United
States Constitutions.
(C) Defendant would show that the civil justice system is intended only to allow a
claimant to be made whole and not intended to impose punishment. Defendant
would show that any award of damages in excess of Plaintiff’s actual damages
would violate its rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law, and
would constitute an unconstitutional excessive fine as forbidden by the Texas and
United States Constitutions.
(D) Defendant would show that the admission of any evidence concerning the size or
wealth of Defendant will create an undue risk of an improper verdict on each issue
concerning liability, the measure of compensatory damages, whether to award
punitive damages, and the measure of punitive damages. As such, the admission
of any such evidence violates Defendant’s rights to due process of law and equal
protection of the law pursuant to the Texas and United States Constitutions.
(E) Defendant is subjected to all the hazards and risks of what amounts to a fine and, in
fact, such awards often exceed normal criminal fines, but Defendant receives none
of the basic rights accorded to a criminal defendant when being subjected to
possible criminal penalties.
23. For further answer, Defendant would show that the assessment and award of
punitive and/or exemplary damages violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution as it applies to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution in that such awards potentially constitute an
excessive fine imposed without the protection of fundamental due process.
24. For further answer, Defendant invokes its rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and respectfully request that this Court disallow
the award of punitive and/or exemplary damages inasmuch as an award in this case would violate
Defendant’s constitutional rights under the United States Constitution. See Defendants Industries,
6
Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001) (citing BMW of North America, Inc. v.
Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)).
25. For further answer, Defendant would further invoke its right under the Fifth
Amendment of the United States Constitution wherein it reads in part, “No person shall be . . .
deprived of . . . property, without due process of law[.]” for the same reasons enumerated above.
26. For further answer, and in the alternative, Defendant asserts its right to demand
proof of punitive and/or exemplary damages by clear and convincing evidence of each element of
such damages, as required by Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
27. For further answer, Defendant invokes, in the alternative, its right to limitation on
the amount of punitive and/or exemplary damages pursuant to Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code.
28. For further answer, Defendant pleads § 304.003 of the Texas Finance Code
regarding the proper statutory computation of post-judgment interest. The pre-judgment interest
rate is the same as the post- judgment interest rate pursuant to Texas Finance Code § 304.103.
Pursuant to § 304.1045 of the Texas Finance Code, pre-judgment interest is not recoverable on a
finding, if any, of future damages found by the trier of fact.
III.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
29. Defendant agrees to conduct discovery in accordance with Discovery Control Plan
Level 2 under Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
IV.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
30. Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer as permitted by the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure.
7
V.
DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL
31. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, T. Christopher Trent, is
hereby designated as lead trial counsel for Defendant.
VI.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
32. Defendant asserts its right to a trial by jury, under Texas Constitution Article I,
Section 15 and makes its demand for a jury trial at least 30 days before this case is set for trial, in
accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216. The Jury Fee has previously been tendered.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Discount Tire Company of Texas,
Inc. prays that this Honorable Court, upon final hearing of this matter, dismiss all of Plaintiff’s
claims, deny all such relief sought in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and grant Defendant such other
and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may show itself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSON, TRENT & TAYLOR, L.L.P.
By: /s/ T. Christopher Trent
T. Christopher Trent
Texas Bar No. 20209400
919 Milam, Suite 1500
David J. Baluk
Texas Bar No. 24078186
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-2323
Facsimile: (713) 222-2226
Email: ctrent@johnsontrent.com
Email: dbaluk@johnsontrent.com
and
8
Christian K.G. Henrichsen
Texas Bar No. 24073395
DISCOUNT TIRE
20225 N. Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
Telephone: (480) 606-6973
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
DISCOUNT TIRE COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC.
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all
counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 3rd day of April
2023.
Alex P. Boylhart Via E-File
KWOK DANIEL LTD., L.L.P.
9805 Katy Freeway, Suite 850
Houston, Texas 77024
/s/ T. Christopher Trent
T. Christopher Trent
10
Preview
CAUSE NO. 23 301421 SHAFFER BROOKS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS DISCOUNT TIRE DIRECT, INC. AND JOHN DOE Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT DISCOUNT TIRE COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. (INCORRECTLY NAMED DISCOUNT TIRE DIRECT, INC.) ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION COMES NOW Defendant, Discount Tire Company of Texas, Inc., incorrectly named as Discount Tire Direct, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”), and hereby files this Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: ENERAL ENIAL Defendant generally denies each and every allegation and cause of action contained in Plaintiff s Original Petition in accordance with Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant demand strict proof of the charges and allegations contained in Plaintiff s Original Petition as required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas. THER EFENSES Defendant’ investigation of Plaintiff’s claims is in its initial state. Until Defendant afforded the opportunity to avail itself rights of discovery, Defendant cannot determine with certainty which, if any, of the following defenses will be asserted at trial. These defenses are pleaded in order to preserve Defendant’ right to assert such defenses at trial and to give notice of their intention to assert these defenses and to avoid a waiver of any defenses. 3. For further answer, Defendant specifically denies any act and/or omission of negligence on its part which Plaintiff alleges proximately caused the incident giving rise to this lawsuit or the damages and injuries which Plaintiff claims resulted therefrom. 4. For further answer, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s contributory negligence. 5. For further answer, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his damages. 6. For further answer, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s own acts caused or contributed to cause the incident made the basis of this suit. 7. For further answer, Defendant affirmatively avers that the occurrence, injuries and damages made the basis of this lawsuit were proximately caused and produced in whole or in part by the acts and omissions of Plaintiff and/or third parties over whom Defendant had no control nor right of control at the time of the occurrence in question, and such conduct was the proximate and/or sole proximate, and/or producing and/or sole producing, and/or new independent cause of any injuries or damages to Plaintiff. 8. For further answer, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the existence of an intervening cause. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by intervening acts of others which were the proximate cause of any injuries or damage to Plaintiff. The independent cause was the immediate and efficient cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, such that the negligent acts or omissions which Plaintiff complains as to Defendant were not the cause of any damages or injuries sustained by Plaintiff. 2 9. For further answer, Defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on sole proximate cause and new and independent or superseding cause. 10. For further answer, Defendant reserves its right to submit other persons or entities, known or unknown, shown by the evidence as being responsible for their proportionate share of responsibility for Plaintiff’s injuries, harm and/or damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 33, whether the result of their contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, or any other breach of a legal standard permitted under the statute. 11. For further answer, Defendant would show that Plaintiff at the time and on the occasion in question failed to use ordinary care for his own safety. 12. For further answer, Defendant denies that conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been met. 13. For further answer, Defendant invokes its legal right to a reduction of any dollar verdict which may be rendered in this cause by credit for payments made by Plaintiff or other persons or entities, or by percentage reductions to which Defendant would be entitled as a result of jury findings against Plaintiff or parties other than Defendant. In this connection, Defendant reserves the right to submit issues against parties, including but not limited to Plaintiff as well as any other responsible third party, who may be present in this case or absent from the case at the time the matter is passed to the jury for fact determinations. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.003. 14. D For further answer, efendant asserts the limitation on recovery of medical or healthcare expenses as set forth in Section 41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which provides that recovery of medical or health care expenses incurred by limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant. See Haygood v. de Escobedo, 2011 WL 2601363 (Tex. 2011). 3 15. For further answer, Defendant asserts that any damages assessed for loss of past or future wage-earning capacity must be limited to the net loss after reduction for income tax payments or unpaid tax liability pursuant to Federal Income Tax law. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 18.091. 16. For further answer, Defendant affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover for some or all of the damages sought, including but not limited to, past and future physical pain and suffering, and past and future mental anguish. 17. For further answer, if such be necessary, Defendant requests that in the event at the time of submission Plaintiff seeks recovery for loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, loss of contributions of a pecuniary value, etc., that in accordance with the statutory requirements imposed by Section 18.091 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code the Court “instruct the jury as to whether any recovery for compensatory damages sought by the claimant is subject to federal or state income taxes.” 18. For further answer, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover medical expenses that would be reimbursable pursuant to the mandatory coverage required by the Affordable Care Act. 19. For further answer, Defendant asserts the limitation on recovery of medical or healthcare expenses as set forth in Section 41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which provides that recovery of medical or health care expenses, past or future, incurred is limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant. To the extent Plaintiff seeks recovery for medical bills, expenses, and services incurred, but which were never charged to Plaintiff and, thus, were never paid or in fact incurred by her, Defendant would show that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover those amounts. Defendant is entitled to credit for any offset or 4 discount from fees for services; specifically, Plaintiff may only recover medical or healthcare expenses that were actually paid or that were incurred by or on Plaintiff’s behalf. 20. For further answer, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by estoppel. 21. For further answer, Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages against Defendant cannot be sustained because an award of punitive damages under Texas law without proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt would violate Defendant’s rights under Amendments IV, V, VI, and XIV of the United States Constitution and by Sections 9, 10, 14, and 19 of Article I of the Texas Constitution. 22. For further answer, Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations of gross negligence and hereby object to the claims made against it for an award of exemplary damages and would show that any such award of exemplary damages would be a denial of Defendant’s Constitutional rights pursuant to the Texas and United States Constitutions for reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Defendant would show that the standard for an award of punitive damages is unconstitutionally vague. It allows virtually standardless discretion to the jury to determine punishment. It further deprives Defendant of adequate prior notice of the specific conduct for which they could be punished or the specific magnitude of the potential punishment. Accordingly, Defendant would show that the standard for the imposition of punitive damages is unconstitutionally vague and is further constitutionally defective as an ex post facto legal penalty as proscribed by the Texas and United States Constitutions. (B) Defendant would show that any award of punitive or exemplary damages would violate Defendant’s rights to due process of law. Any award of punitive damages is clearly in the nature of a criminal penalty. However, unlike a standard for recognized criminal penalties, the current applicable standard for an award of punitive damages places little or no restrictions on a jury’s discretion. Defendant is given no advance notice that a particular course of conduct may subject them to punishment and are given no notice as to the particular amount or magnitude of 5 punishment that may result. Consequently, any award of punitive damages against Defendant would violate its due process rights pursuant to the Texas and United States Constitutions. (C) Defendant would show that the civil justice system is intended only to allow a claimant to be made whole and not intended to impose punishment. Defendant would show that any award of damages in excess of Plaintiff’s actual damages would violate its rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law, and would constitute an unconstitutional excessive fine as forbidden by the Texas and United States Constitutions. (D) Defendant would show that the admission of any evidence concerning the size or wealth of Defendant will create an undue risk of an improper verdict on each issue concerning liability, the measure of compensatory damages, whether to award punitive damages, and the measure of punitive damages. As such, the admission of any such evidence violates Defendant’s rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law pursuant to the Texas and United States Constitutions. (E) Defendant is subjected to all the hazards and risks of what amounts to a fine and, in fact, such awards often exceed normal criminal fines, but Defendant receives none of the basic rights accorded to a criminal defendant when being subjected to possible criminal penalties. 23. For further answer, Defendant would show that the assessment and award of punitive and/or exemplary damages violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution as it applies to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution in that such awards potentially constitute an excessive fine imposed without the protection of fundamental due process. 24. For further answer, Defendant invokes its rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and respectfully request that this Court disallow the award of punitive and/or exemplary damages inasmuch as an award in this case would violate Defendant’s constitutional rights under the United States Constitution. See Defendants Industries, 6 Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001) (citing BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)). 25. For further answer, Defendant would further invoke its right under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution wherein it reads in part, “No person shall be . . . deprived of . . . property, without due process of law[.]” for the same reasons enumerated above. 26. For further answer, and in the alternative, Defendant asserts its right to demand proof of punitive and/or exemplary damages by clear and convincing evidence of each element of such damages, as required by Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 27. For further answer, Defendant invokes, in the alternative, its right to limitation on the amount of punitive and/or exemplary damages pursuant to Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 28. For further answer, Defendant pleads § 304.003 of the Texas Finance Code regarding the proper statutory computation of post-judgment interest. The pre-judgment interest rate is the same as the post- judgment interest rate pursuant to Texas Finance Code § 304.103. Pursuant to § 304.1045 of the Texas Finance Code, pre-judgment interest is not recoverable on a finding, if any, of future damages found by the trier of fact. III. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 29. Defendant agrees to conduct discovery in accordance with Discovery Control Plan Level 2 under Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. IV. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 30. Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer as permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 V. DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL 31. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, T. Christopher Trent, is hereby designated as lead trial counsel for Defendant. VI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 32. Defendant asserts its right to a trial by jury, under Texas Constitution Article I, Section 15 and makes its demand for a jury trial at least 30 days before this case is set for trial, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216. The Jury Fee has previously been tendered. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Discount Tire Company of Texas, Inc. prays that this Honorable Court, upon final hearing of this matter, dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims, deny all such relief sought in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and grant Defendant such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may show itself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, TRENT & TAYLOR, L.L.P. By: /s/ T. Christopher Trent T. Christopher Trent Texas Bar No. 20209400 919 Milam, Suite 1500 David J. Baluk Texas Bar No. 24078186 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-2323 Facsimile: (713) 222-2226 Email: ctrent@johnsontrent.com Email: dbaluk@johnsontrent.com and 8 Christian K.G. Henrichsen Texas Bar No. 24073395 DISCOUNT TIRE 20225 N. Scottsdale Road Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 Telephone: (480) 606-6973 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DISCOUNT TIRE COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 3rd day of April 2023. Alex P. Boylhart Via E-File KWOK DANIEL LTD., L.L.P. 9805 Katy Freeway, Suite 850 Houston, Texas 77024 /s/ T. Christopher Trent T. Christopher Trent 10