Preview
FILED
1/20/2023 9:41 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Kellie Juricek DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-15312
KEITH WILKINS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§§§§§§§§§
Plaintiffi
V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
LA FRONTEM HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant. 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
COMES NOW Defendant La Frontera Holdings, LLC (“Defendant”) in support of this its
Original Answer to Plaintiff s Original Petition, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
GENERAL DENIAL
1. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff‘s Original Petition and
enters this, its general denial, in accordance with Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant demands strict proof of all allegations made by Plaintiff as required by law and reserves
the right to amend or supplement this answer in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
II.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2. In the unlikely event Plaintiff recovers from the Defendant, the Defendant is
entitled to contribution, set off, and/or indemnity, either in whole or in part, from all persons or
entities whose negligence or fault proximately caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff’s alleged
damages, if any, and asserts and invokes the proportionate responsibility provisions of Chapter 33
of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, or any other applicable statute or common-law rule.
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 1
3. Defendant asserts and invokes the damage limitation provisions/requirements
(including the limitations regarding exemplary/punitive damages) as set forth in Chapter 41 of the
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE.
4. The sole proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages, if any were sustained, was the
negligence of a person or persons or entity or entities for whose acts or omissions the Defendant
was, and is, in no way liable.
5. Defendants owed no duty to Plaintiff because he was an employee of an
independent contractor, and the Defendant did not exercise actual control over the work or have a
right to control the means, methods or details of the work.
6. If Plaintiff has been damaged, the injuries complained of by Plaintiff were brought
about by a new and independent cause or causes not reasonably foreseeable by the Defendant
which cause or causes became the immediate and efficient cause or causes of any alleged injury.
7. If Plaintiff has been damaged, the Defendant would show that no action or inaction
by the Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, if any, and any injuries
or damages Plaintiff may have sustained were the result of events and/or conditions wholly beyond
the scope and control of the Defendant and for which the Defendant is not responsible.
8. If Plaintiff has been damaged, Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were proximately
caused by a superseding and/or intervening act which disrupted the chain of causation and was
beyond the control of the Defendant.
9. If Plaintiff has been damaged, Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, and failed to
exercise reasonable care to avoid the consequences of harms, if any, in that, among other things,
Plaintiff failed to use reasonable diligence in preventing or caring for any injury, failed to use
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 2
reasonable means to prevent aggravation of any injury, and failed to take reasonable precautions
to reduce any injury or damage.
10. In the event that any settlement is or has been made by any alleged tortfeasors, then
the Defendant is entitled to a full credit, offset, prorated reduction or percentage reduction, based
on the percentage of the fault or causation attributable to the settling defendant, and the Defendant
will avail itself of its rights under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.012(c) as to any settlements
that may be reached.
11. Defendant further alleges that any claims by Plaintiffs for pre-judgment and post
judgment interest are limited by the dates and amounts set forth in the following:
Art. 5069-105 § 6, TEX. R. CIV. STAT.;
CHAPTER 304, TEXAS FINANCE CODE; and
CHAPTER 41, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE.
12. In addition to the defenses raised above, without limitation or waiver, the Defendant
fiirther asserts that any recovery by Plaintiff for medical or healthcare expenses should be limited
to the amount actually paid or incurred. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 41.0105. Specifically,
Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of damages for medical bills for which no obligation to pay
exists and/or ever existed.
13. Should the Defendant be held liable to Plaintiff, which liability is specifically
denied, the Defendant would be entitled to a set off for the total of all amounts paid to Plaintiffs
from all collateral sources.
14. Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages is in contravention of the
Defendant’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 3
Constitution of the United States of America and the analogous provisions of the Texas
Constitution, on grounds including the following:
a. It is a Violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the
Texas Constitution, to impose punitive damages, which are penal in nature, against a civil
defendant upon plaintiff satisfying a burden of proof which is less than the “beyond a reasonable
doubt” burden of proof required in criminal cases;
b. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded may result
in the award of joint and several judgments against multiple defendants for different alleged acts
of wrongdoing, which infringes upon the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the
Texas Constitution;
c. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded fail to
provide a reasonable limit on the amount of the award against defendants, which thereby violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the
analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution;
d. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded fail to
provide specific standards for the amount of the award of punitive damages, which thereby violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the
analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution;
e. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded result in
the imposition of different penalties for the same or similar acts, and thus violate the Equal
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 4
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the
analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution;
f. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded permit the
imposition of punitive damages in excess of the maximum criminal fine for the same or similar
conduct, which thereby infringes upon the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution;
g. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded permit the
imposition of excessive fines, in Violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution;
h. The award of punitive damages to Plaintiff in this action would constitute a
deprivation of property without due process of law; and
i. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded permit the
imposition of an excessive fine and penalty.
15. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred by Chapter 95 of the TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE
III.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
16. Defendant Specially Excepts to Section V.A of the Petition as it contains nothing
more than a laundry list of tort claims with no factual basis or explanation for the claims alleged.
As a result, the allegations fail to provide the Defendant with the required fair notice of the claims
made and/or factual allegations supporting a cause of action and the Defendant, therefore, cannot
properly prepare its defense. TEX. R. CIV. P. 47(a). As such, this Court should require Plaintiff to
adequately replead or dismiss Plaintiff’ s vague and conclusory cause of action from the Petition.
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 5
17. Defendant Specially Excepts to Section V..B. of the Petition as it contains nothing
more than a conclusory statement/summary of the requirements of a “gross negligence” claim with
no factual basis or explanation for the claim alleged. As a result, the allegations fail to provide the
Defendant with the required fair notice of the claims made and/or factual allegations supporting
the cause of action and the Defendant, therefore, cannot properly prepare its defense. TEX. R. CIV.
P. 47(a). As such, this Court should require Plaintiff to adequately replead or dismiss Plaintiff’s
vague and conclusory cause of action from the Petition.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that (1) the Court grant
Defendant’s Special Exceptions and order Plaintiff to replead or dismiss the allegations, and (2)
upon trial hereof, Plaintiff takes nothing by this suit, that Defendant recovers all costs incurred in
defense of Plaintiff’s claims, and (3) that the Court grants Defendant all fiirther relief to which it
may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
BLACKWELL, BLACKBURN,
HERRING & SINGER, LLP
/S/ Walter A. Herring
Walter A. Herring
Texas Bar No. 09535300
Robert Blackwell
Texas Bar No. 24001744
Lindsey Reinhardt
Texas Bar No. 24070485
7557 Rambler Road, Suite 1450
Dallas, Texas 75231
Telephone: (214) 442-9602
Facsimile: (214) 442-9621
Email: wherring@bbhsllp.com
Email: bblackwell@bbhsllp.com
Email: lreinhardt@bbhsllp.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 20th day of January 2023, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing instrument was served on all counsel of record in compliance with the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
/s/ Walter A. Herring
Walter A. Herring
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 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.
Sharon Bruner on behalf of Walter Herring
Bar No. 9535300
sbruner@bbhsllp.com
Envelope ID: 71973759
Status as of 1/20/2023 10:13 AM CST
Associated Case Party: LA FRONTERA HOLDINGS, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Lindsey Reinhardt Ireinhardt@bbhsllp.com 1/20/2023 9:41 :40 AM SENT
Walter A.Herring wherring@bbhsllp.com 1/20/2023 9:41:40 AM SENT
Sharon Bruner sbruner@bbhsllp.com 1/20/2023 9:41:40 AM SENT
Robert Blackwell bblackwell@bbhsllp.com 1/20/2023 9:41:40 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
ANTHONY GBUZBEE TBUZBEE@TXATTORNEYS.COM 1/20/2023 9:41 :40 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 1/20/2023 9:41 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Kellie Juricek DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-15312 KEITH WILKINS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF §§§§§§§§§ Plaintiffi V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS LA FRONTEM HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant. 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/ SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS COMES NOW Defendant La Frontera Holdings, LLC (“Defendant”) in support of this its Original Answer to Plaintiff s Original Petition, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. GENERAL DENIAL 1. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff‘s Original Petition and enters this, its general denial, in accordance with Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant demands strict proof of all allegations made by Plaintiff as required by law and reserves the right to amend or supplement this answer in accordance with the applicable procedural rules. II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2. In the unlikely event Plaintiff recovers from the Defendant, the Defendant is entitled to contribution, set off, and/or indemnity, either in whole or in part, from all persons or entities whose negligence or fault proximately caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, and asserts and invokes the proportionate responsibility provisions of Chapter 33 of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, or any other applicable statute or common-law rule. DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 1 3. Defendant asserts and invokes the damage limitation provisions/requirements (including the limitations regarding exemplary/punitive damages) as set forth in Chapter 41 of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. 4. The sole proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages, if any were sustained, was the negligence of a person or persons or entity or entities for whose acts or omissions the Defendant was, and is, in no way liable. 5. Defendants owed no duty to Plaintiff because he was an employee of an independent contractor, and the Defendant did not exercise actual control over the work or have a right to control the means, methods or details of the work. 6. If Plaintiff has been damaged, the injuries complained of by Plaintiff were brought about by a new and independent cause or causes not reasonably foreseeable by the Defendant which cause or causes became the immediate and efficient cause or causes of any alleged injury. 7. If Plaintiff has been damaged, the Defendant would show that no action or inaction by the Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, if any, and any injuries or damages Plaintiff may have sustained were the result of events and/or conditions wholly beyond the scope and control of the Defendant and for which the Defendant is not responsible. 8. If Plaintiff has been damaged, Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were proximately caused by a superseding and/or intervening act which disrupted the chain of causation and was beyond the control of the Defendant. 9. If Plaintiff has been damaged, Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, and failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the consequences of harms, if any, in that, among other things, Plaintiff failed to use reasonable diligence in preventing or caring for any injury, failed to use DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 2 reasonable means to prevent aggravation of any injury, and failed to take reasonable precautions to reduce any injury or damage. 10. In the event that any settlement is or has been made by any alleged tortfeasors, then the Defendant is entitled to a full credit, offset, prorated reduction or percentage reduction, based on the percentage of the fault or causation attributable to the settling defendant, and the Defendant will avail itself of its rights under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.012(c) as to any settlements that may be reached. 11. Defendant further alleges that any claims by Plaintiffs for pre-judgment and post judgment interest are limited by the dates and amounts set forth in the following: Art. 5069-105 § 6, TEX. R. CIV. STAT.; CHAPTER 304, TEXAS FINANCE CODE; and CHAPTER 41, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. 12. In addition to the defenses raised above, without limitation or waiver, the Defendant fiirther asserts that any recovery by Plaintiff for medical or healthcare expenses should be limited to the amount actually paid or incurred. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 41.0105. Specifically, Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of damages for medical bills for which no obligation to pay exists and/or ever existed. 13. Should the Defendant be held liable to Plaintiff, which liability is specifically denied, the Defendant would be entitled to a set off for the total of all amounts paid to Plaintiffs from all collateral sources. 14. Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages is in contravention of the Defendant’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 3 Constitution of the United States of America and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution, on grounds including the following: a. It is a Violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution, to impose punitive damages, which are penal in nature, against a civil defendant upon plaintiff satisfying a burden of proof which is less than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof required in criminal cases; b. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded may result in the award of joint and several judgments against multiple defendants for different alleged acts of wrongdoing, which infringes upon the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution; c. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded fail to provide a reasonable limit on the amount of the award against defendants, which thereby violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution; d. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded fail to provide specific standards for the amount of the award of punitive damages, which thereby violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution; e. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded result in the imposition of different penalties for the same or similar acts, and thus violate the Equal DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 4 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution; f. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded permit the imposition of punitive damages in excess of the maximum criminal fine for the same or similar conduct, which thereby infringes upon the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution; g. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded permit the imposition of excessive fines, in Violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution; h. The award of punitive damages to Plaintiff in this action would constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law; and i. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded permit the imposition of an excessive fine and penalty. 15. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred by Chapter 95 of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE III. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 16. Defendant Specially Excepts to Section V.A of the Petition as it contains nothing more than a laundry list of tort claims with no factual basis or explanation for the claims alleged. As a result, the allegations fail to provide the Defendant with the required fair notice of the claims made and/or factual allegations supporting a cause of action and the Defendant, therefore, cannot properly prepare its defense. TEX. R. CIV. P. 47(a). As such, this Court should require Plaintiff to adequately replead or dismiss Plaintiff’ s vague and conclusory cause of action from the Petition. DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 5 17. Defendant Specially Excepts to Section V..B. of the Petition as it contains nothing more than a conclusory statement/summary of the requirements of a “gross negligence” claim with no factual basis or explanation for the claim alleged. As a result, the allegations fail to provide the Defendant with the required fair notice of the claims made and/or factual allegations supporting the cause of action and the Defendant, therefore, cannot properly prepare its defense. TEX. R. CIV. P. 47(a). As such, this Court should require Plaintiff to adequately replead or dismiss Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory cause of action from the Petition. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that (1) the Court grant Defendant’s Special Exceptions and order Plaintiff to replead or dismiss the allegations, and (2) upon trial hereof, Plaintiff takes nothing by this suit, that Defendant recovers all costs incurred in defense of Plaintiff’s claims, and (3) that the Court grants Defendant all fiirther relief to which it may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, BLACKWELL, BLACKBURN, HERRING & SINGER, LLP /S/ Walter A. Herring Walter A. Herring Texas Bar No. 09535300 Robert Blackwell Texas Bar No. 24001744 Lindsey Reinhardt Texas Bar No. 24070485 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 1450 Dallas, Texas 75231 Telephone: (214) 442-9602 Facsimile: (214) 442-9621 Email: wherring@bbhsllp.com Email: bblackwell@bbhsllp.com Email: lreinhardt@bbhsllp.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Page 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 20th day of January 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel of record in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/ Walter A. Herring Walter A. Herring DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 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. Sharon Bruner on behalf of Walter Herring Bar No. 9535300 sbruner@bbhsllp.com Envelope ID: 71973759 Status as of 1/20/2023 10:13 AM CST Associated Case Party: LA FRONTERA HOLDINGS, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Lindsey Reinhardt Ireinhardt@bbhsllp.com 1/20/2023 9:41 :40 AM SENT Walter A.Herring wherring@bbhsllp.com 1/20/2023 9:41:40 AM SENT Sharon Bruner sbruner@bbhsllp.com 1/20/2023 9:41:40 AM SENT Robert Blackwell bblackwell@bbhsllp.com 1/20/2023 9:41:40 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status ANTHONY GBUZBEE TBUZBEE@TXATTORNEYS.COM 1/20/2023 9:41 :40 AM SENT