Preview
FILED
4/5/2023 6:06 PM
FELICIA PITRE
1SOS/ESERVE DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Martin Reyes DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-01568
TIMOTHY HUFFMAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § 298TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND §
CROW WORKS, LLC §
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION
AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
COMES NOW, TIMOTHY HUFFMAN, Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered
cause of action, complaining of Defendants, STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND CROW
WORKS LLC, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN (LEVEL 2)
1.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 190.3, the discovery of this case is to be conducted
under Level 2 Discovery Control Plan.
II.
PARTIES
2.1 Timothy Huffman (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Richardson, Dallas County, Texas.
2.2 Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant Starbucks”) is a company doing business in
Texas and may be served with process by service upon its registered agent, CORPORATION
SERVICE COMPANY DBA CSC-LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE COMPANY,
211 E. 7TH STREET, SUITE 620 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
2.3 Crow Works, LLC (“Defendant Crow Works”) is a foreign company which has in
the past done business and/or is currently doing business in the state of Texas, as defined by TEX.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 1
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §17.042, but has failed to appoint and maintain a registered agent for
service of process in Texas. Further, Defendant Crow Works is required by Texas law to maintain
a registered agent and registered office for service of process, but has failed to do so. TEX. BUS.
ORG. CODE § 5.201. Because Defendant Crow Works has failed to appoint a registered agent, it is
deemed to have appointed the Secretary of the State of Texas as its registered agent for service of
process, and, therefore, the Petition and Citation should be served by serving the Secretary of the
State of Texas. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.044(b); TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE §5.251.
Therefore, two (2) copies of the Petition and Citation (along with any required fees) will
be delivered to the Secretary of the State of Texas pursuant to TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE §5.252, and
the Secretary of the State of Texas should thereafter mail one (1) copy of the Petition and Citation
– via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested – to Defendant Crow Works, by and through its
home office located at 179 Straits Lane, Killbuck, Ohio 44637, pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE §17.045(a).
III.
JURISDICTION and VENUE
3.1 This Court has jurisdiction in this cause since the damages to Plaintiff are within
the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
3.2 Venue is proper pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002 because the
events giving rise to this suit occurred in Dallas County, Texas.
3.3 All conditions precedent have occurred.
IV.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 47(c)(1), Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief is
only monetary relief of $250,000 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 2
penalties, and attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff specifically claims monetary relief of no more than
$74,999.00.
V.
FACTS
5.1 On or about July 12, 2021, Plaintiff was an invitee on the premises owned and
operated by Defendant Starbucks located at 12262 Inwood Road, Dallas, Texas 75244. Plaintiff
was sitting in a chair on the premises when the chair collapsed causing Plaintiff to fall. This
collision caused severe injuries to Plaintiff.
5.2 At the time of the incident in question, Plaintiff was an invitee of Defendant
Starbucks. Defendant Starbucks knew or should have known of the unreasonably dangerous
condition and neither corrected nor warned Plaintiff of it. Plaintiff did not have any knowledge of
the dangerous condition and could not have reasonably been expected to discover it. Defendant
Starbucks either created the condition and/or failed to correct the condition or to warn Plaintiff
about the dangerous condition, which constituted negligence, and such negligence was the
proximate cause of the occurrence in question and Plaintiff’s resulting injuries.
5.3 The chair Plaintiff was sitting on was designed and manufactured by Defendant
Crow Works. It was placed into the stream of commerce by Defendant Crow Works. Defendant
Crow Works actually knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, at the time the
chair was sold that the chair it was supplying was defective. The defect was a proximate cause of
the damages to Plaintiff. Defendant Crow Works never warned Plaintiff of any defects.
VI.
NEGLIGENCE
6.1 Plaintiff would show that, based on the above-described facts, Defendant Starbucks
was negligent. Defendant Starbucks, as occupier and owner of the premises, with control over the
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 3
premises, had a duty to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition and make safe the dangerous
condition existing on Defendant Starbuck’s premises.
6.2 Defendant Starbucks is liable to Plaintiff under the theory of premises liability and
negligence based on the following negligent conduct:
a. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition;
b. Failure to inspect the premises where the dangerous condition existed;
c. Failure to correct the condition by taking reasonable measures to safeguard persons
who entered premises;
d. Failure to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition existing on the premises;
d. Failure to act as a reasonably prudent premises owner would act in the same or
similar situation; and
e. Other acts deemed negligent;
6.3 Each of the foregoing acts or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any
combination, constitutes negligence, and was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages
listed below.
VII.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
7.1 The chair in question was defectively designed, manufactured, and/or marketed by
Defendant Crow Works. The propensity of the legs of the chair to collapse created an
unreasonably dangerous condition leading to the collapse while Plaintiff sat in the chair under
normal and foreseeable use of the chair. At the time the chair was manufactured and marketed, a
safer alternative design existed. Further, Defendant Crow Works did not adequately warn Plaintiff
of the reasonably foreseeable dangers. Defendant Crow Works is also liable for negligently
designing, manufacturing, and/or marketing the subject chair.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 4
VIII.
INDIVISIBLE INJURY
8.1 Plaintiff would show that negligence of the Defendants joined to produce an
indivisible injury to Plaintiff that cannot be apportioned with reasonable certainty to any individual
defendant. Accordingly, each defendant is jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of
Plaintiff’s damages.
IX.
DAMAGES
9.1 As a result of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit described in the preceding
paragraphs and the negligence and/or negligence per se of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained
significant injuries and damages in the past and will in reasonable probability sustain these
damages in the future.
9.2 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trier of fact determine the amount of the
damages and losses that he has incurred in the past and will reasonably incur in the future, as well
as the monetary value of these damages, which include, but are not limited to:
a. Physical pain and mental anguish;
b. Disfigurement;
c. Physical impairment;
d. Medical care expenses;
e. Loss of earning capacity; and
f. Out-of-pocket economic losses.
9.3 Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because the aforementioned actions of
Defendant were grossly negligent. Defendant acted with flagrant and malicious disregard of
Plaintiff’s health and safety and for the health and safety of others. Defendant’s acts and omissions
involved an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 5
Plaintiff and others. Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, and consciously
disregarded such risk.
X.
CLAIM FOR PREJUDGMENT
AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
10.1 Plaintiff herein claims interest in accordance with TEX. FINANCE CODE §304.001
et seq. and any other applicable law.
XI.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
11.1 Request is made that Defendant disclose the information or material described in
TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 194.2 (b)(1)-(12).
XII.
RULE 193.7 NOTICE
12.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 193.7, Plaintiff hereby gives notice to Defendant
that any and all documents produced may be used against the Defendant producing the document
at any pretrial proceeding and/or at the trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating
the documents.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited in
terms of law to appear and answer herein, that upon final trial and hearing hereof, that Plaintiff
recover damages in accordance with the evidence, that Plaintiff recover punitive or exemplary
damages, that Plaintiff recover costs of court herein expended, that Plaintiff recover interest to
which Plaintiff is justly entitled under the law, and for such other further relief, both general and
special, both in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 6
Respectfully submitted,
By: ______________________________
LIZETH BECERRA
State Bar No. 24106980
E-Mail: LBecerra@linklawpc.com
FELIPE B. LINK
State Bar No. 24057968
E-Mail: flink@linklawpc.com
(Above emails are not for service of documents)
LINK & ASSOCIATES
10440 North Central Expy., Ste. 950
Dallas, Texas 75231
Telephone: (214) 214-3001
Facsimile: (214) 521-5871
Designated Service E-mail: e-filing@linklawpc.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon all counsel of record
in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure on April 5, 2023.
_______________________________
LIZETH BECERRA
Via Email— jrobinson@namanhowell.com
Jackie Robinson
Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC
1300 Summit Ave Suite 700
Fort Worth, TX 76102
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 7
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.
Link & Associates E-Filing service on behalf of Lizeth Becerra
Bar No. 24106980
e-filing@linklawpc.com
Envelope ID: 74386585
Filing Code Description: Amended Petition
Filing Description: 1ST
Status as of 4/13/2023 7:24 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Felipe B.Link flink@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT
Monica Isaac monica@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT
Sara Link sara@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT
Link & Associates E-Filing service e-filing@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT
Lizeth G.Becerra lbecerra@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: STARBUCKS CORPORATION
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jackie Robinson jrobinson@namanhowell.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT
Katina Kilian kkilian@namanhowell.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 4/5/2023 6:06 PM FELICIA PITRE 1SOS/ESERVE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Martin Reyes DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-01568 TIMOTHY HUFFMAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § VS. § 298TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND § CROW WORKS, LLC § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE COMES NOW, TIMOTHY HUFFMAN, Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause of action, complaining of Defendants, STARBUCKS CORPORATION AND CROW WORKS LLC, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN (LEVEL 2) 1.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 190.3, the discovery of this case is to be conducted under Level 2 Discovery Control Plan. II. PARTIES 2.1 Timothy Huffman (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Richardson, Dallas County, Texas. 2.2 Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant Starbucks”) is a company doing business in Texas and may be served with process by service upon its registered agent, CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY DBA CSC-LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE COMPANY, 211 E. 7TH STREET, SUITE 620 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701. 2.3 Crow Works, LLC (“Defendant Crow Works”) is a foreign company which has in the past done business and/or is currently doing business in the state of Texas, as defined by TEX. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 1 CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §17.042, but has failed to appoint and maintain a registered agent for service of process in Texas. Further, Defendant Crow Works is required by Texas law to maintain a registered agent and registered office for service of process, but has failed to do so. TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE § 5.201. Because Defendant Crow Works has failed to appoint a registered agent, it is deemed to have appointed the Secretary of the State of Texas as its registered agent for service of process, and, therefore, the Petition and Citation should be served by serving the Secretary of the State of Texas. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.044(b); TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE §5.251. Therefore, two (2) copies of the Petition and Citation (along with any required fees) will be delivered to the Secretary of the State of Texas pursuant to TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE §5.252, and the Secretary of the State of Texas should thereafter mail one (1) copy of the Petition and Citation – via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested – to Defendant Crow Works, by and through its home office located at 179 Straits Lane, Killbuck, Ohio 44637, pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §17.045(a). III. JURISDICTION and VENUE 3.1 This Court has jurisdiction in this cause since the damages to Plaintiff are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 3.2 Venue is proper pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002 because the events giving rise to this suit occurred in Dallas County, Texas. 3.3 All conditions precedent have occurred. IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 4.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 47(c)(1), Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief is only monetary relief of $250,000 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 2 penalties, and attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff specifically claims monetary relief of no more than $74,999.00. V. FACTS 5.1 On or about July 12, 2021, Plaintiff was an invitee on the premises owned and operated by Defendant Starbucks located at 12262 Inwood Road, Dallas, Texas 75244. Plaintiff was sitting in a chair on the premises when the chair collapsed causing Plaintiff to fall. This collision caused severe injuries to Plaintiff. 5.2 At the time of the incident in question, Plaintiff was an invitee of Defendant Starbucks. Defendant Starbucks knew or should have known of the unreasonably dangerous condition and neither corrected nor warned Plaintiff of it. Plaintiff did not have any knowledge of the dangerous condition and could not have reasonably been expected to discover it. Defendant Starbucks either created the condition and/or failed to correct the condition or to warn Plaintiff about the dangerous condition, which constituted negligence, and such negligence was the proximate cause of the occurrence in question and Plaintiff’s resulting injuries. 5.3 The chair Plaintiff was sitting on was designed and manufactured by Defendant Crow Works. It was placed into the stream of commerce by Defendant Crow Works. Defendant Crow Works actually knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, at the time the chair was sold that the chair it was supplying was defective. The defect was a proximate cause of the damages to Plaintiff. Defendant Crow Works never warned Plaintiff of any defects. VI. NEGLIGENCE 6.1 Plaintiff would show that, based on the above-described facts, Defendant Starbucks was negligent. Defendant Starbucks, as occupier and owner of the premises, with control over the PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 3 premises, had a duty to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition and make safe the dangerous condition existing on Defendant Starbuck’s premises. 6.2 Defendant Starbucks is liable to Plaintiff under the theory of premises liability and negligence based on the following negligent conduct: a. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition; b. Failure to inspect the premises where the dangerous condition existed; c. Failure to correct the condition by taking reasonable measures to safeguard persons who entered premises; d. Failure to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition existing on the premises; d. Failure to act as a reasonably prudent premises owner would act in the same or similar situation; and e. Other acts deemed negligent; 6.3 Each of the foregoing acts or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any combination, constitutes negligence, and was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages listed below. VII. PRODUCTS LIABILITY 7.1 The chair in question was defectively designed, manufactured, and/or marketed by Defendant Crow Works. The propensity of the legs of the chair to collapse created an unreasonably dangerous condition leading to the collapse while Plaintiff sat in the chair under normal and foreseeable use of the chair. At the time the chair was manufactured and marketed, a safer alternative design existed. Further, Defendant Crow Works did not adequately warn Plaintiff of the reasonably foreseeable dangers. Defendant Crow Works is also liable for negligently designing, manufacturing, and/or marketing the subject chair. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 4 VIII. INDIVISIBLE INJURY 8.1 Plaintiff would show that negligence of the Defendants joined to produce an indivisible injury to Plaintiff that cannot be apportioned with reasonable certainty to any individual defendant. Accordingly, each defendant is jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of Plaintiff’s damages. IX. DAMAGES 9.1 As a result of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit described in the preceding paragraphs and the negligence and/or negligence per se of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained significant injuries and damages in the past and will in reasonable probability sustain these damages in the future. 9.2 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trier of fact determine the amount of the damages and losses that he has incurred in the past and will reasonably incur in the future, as well as the monetary value of these damages, which include, but are not limited to: a. Physical pain and mental anguish; b. Disfigurement; c. Physical impairment; d. Medical care expenses; e. Loss of earning capacity; and f. Out-of-pocket economic losses. 9.3 Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because the aforementioned actions of Defendant were grossly negligent. Defendant acted with flagrant and malicious disregard of Plaintiff’s health and safety and for the health and safety of others. Defendant’s acts and omissions involved an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 5 Plaintiff and others. Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, and consciously disregarded such risk. X. CLAIM FOR PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST 10.1 Plaintiff herein claims interest in accordance with TEX. FINANCE CODE §304.001 et seq. and any other applicable law. XI. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 11.1 Request is made that Defendant disclose the information or material described in TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 194.2 (b)(1)-(12). XII. RULE 193.7 NOTICE 12.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 193.7, Plaintiff hereby gives notice to Defendant that any and all documents produced may be used against the Defendant producing the document at any pretrial proceeding and/or at the trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating the documents. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited in terms of law to appear and answer herein, that upon final trial and hearing hereof, that Plaintiff recover damages in accordance with the evidence, that Plaintiff recover punitive or exemplary damages, that Plaintiff recover costs of court herein expended, that Plaintiff recover interest to which Plaintiff is justly entitled under the law, and for such other further relief, both general and special, both in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 6 Respectfully submitted, By: ______________________________ LIZETH BECERRA State Bar No. 24106980 E-Mail: LBecerra@linklawpc.com FELIPE B. LINK State Bar No. 24057968 E-Mail: flink@linklawpc.com (Above emails are not for service of documents) LINK & ASSOCIATES 10440 North Central Expy., Ste. 950 Dallas, Texas 75231 Telephone: (214) 214-3001 Facsimile: (214) 521-5871 Designated Service E-mail: e-filing@linklawpc.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure on April 5, 2023. _______________________________ LIZETH BECERRA Via Email— jrobinson@namanhowell.com Jackie Robinson Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC 1300 Summit Ave Suite 700 Fort Worth, TX 76102 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 7 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. Link & Associates E-Filing service on behalf of Lizeth Becerra Bar No. 24106980 e-filing@linklawpc.com Envelope ID: 74386585 Filing Code Description: Amended Petition Filing Description: 1ST Status as of 4/13/2023 7:24 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Felipe B.Link flink@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT Monica Isaac monica@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT Sara Link sara@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT Link & Associates E-Filing service e-filing@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT Lizeth G.Becerra lbecerra@linklawpc.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT Associated Case Party: STARBUCKS CORPORATION Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jackie Robinson jrobinson@namanhowell.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT Katina Kilian kkilian@namanhowell.com 4/5/2023 6:06:38 PM SENT