Preview
FILED
11/17/2023 5:23 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Debra Clark DEPUTY
FLX.15716
CAUSE NO. DC-22-01976
MONTIQUE JACKSON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
Vv. § 13474 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
FLIXBUS, INC., and §
WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD: NT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, FLIXBUS, INC. (hereinafter, “FlixBus”), a Defendant in the above
numbered and styled cause, and files this, its Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rules
166a(c) and 166a(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and for same would respectfully show
unto the Court as follows:
I.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Stated plainly, FlixBus did not own or operate the bus that was involved in the accident
and did not employ the driver of the bus that was involved in the accident.
FlixBus therefore contends that it is entitled to traditional summary judgment because the
summary judgment evidence conclusively negates one or more of the essential elements of
Plaintiffs’ negligence claims against FlixBus.
Alternatively, FlixBus contends that it is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment
because there is less than a scintilla of evidence in support of one or more of the essential elements
of Plaintiffs’ negligence claims against FlixBus.
DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 1
IL.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This cause arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred at approximately 9:20am on
December 19, 2021, on Market Center Boulevard, near its intersection with Wycliff Avenue, in
Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.' The accident involved two (2) vehicles:
1 a bus owned by Defendant Wynne Transportation, LLC (hereinafter, “Wynne”) and
driven by Wynne employee Eugenia Dickerson;? and
2. a 2013 black Chevrolet Impala driven by Defendant Jean Loic Alain Amon.>
Importantly, for the purposes of this Motion, FlixBus did not own or operate the bus that was
involved in the accident.4 Likewise, FlixBus did not employ the bus driver, Ms. Dickerson.5
HI.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
FlixBus hereby submits the following items of summary judgment evidence and
incorporates same herein by reference:
A. Exhibit A Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report (12/19/21)
B. Exhibit B Defendant Wynne Transportation, LLC’s Response to FlixBus, Inc.’s First
Request for Admission (7/20/23)
FlixBus reserves its right to supplement this summary judgment evidence and/or to use any
summary judgment evidence submitted by any other party.
1 See Exhibit A, Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report (12/19/21).
2 Id.; see also Exhibit B, DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’s RESPONSE TO FLIXBUS, INC.’S FIRST
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (7/20/23).
31d.
4 See Exhibit B.
51d.
DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 2
Iv.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS
A. Traditional Summary Judgment
Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs traditional summary
judgment practice in Texas, states in relevant part:
The motion for summary judgment shall state the specific grounds
therefor... The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if (i) the deposition
transcripts, interrogatory answers, and other discovery responses referenced or set
forth in the motion or response, and (ii) the pleadings, admissions, affidavits,
stipulations of the parties, and authenticated or certified public records ... show that,
except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues
expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response.
TEX. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (2022). The standards for a traditional summary judgment under Texas
law are well-established:
1 It is the movant's burden to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law;
In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary
judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true; and
Every reasonable inference is indulged and all doubts are resolved in favor of the
non-movant.
Doe v. Boys' Club of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex. 1995); Nixon v. Mr. Property
Management Co., 690 8. W.2d 546, 548-549 (Tex. 1985). To prevail on a traditional summary
judgment, a defendant may conclusively negate at least one element of each theory pleaded by the
plaintiff or conclusively establish each element of an affirmative defense pleaded by the defendant.
Warnick v. Casas, 856 S.W.2d 732, 733 (Tex. 1993).
In this case, FlixBus are entitled to traditional summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligence
claims because the evidence conclusively negates one or more of the essential elements of
Plaintiff's negligence claim against FlixBus.
DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 3
B. No-Evidence Summary Judgment
Rule 166a(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs no-evidence summary
judgment practice in Texas, states as follows:
After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary
judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no
evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an
adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial. The motion must state the
elements as to which there is no evidence. The court must grant the motion unless
the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of
material fact.
TEX. R. Civ. P. 166a(i) (2022). A no-evidence summary judgment must be granted if the non-
movant fails to bring forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to an essential element of the non-movant’s claim on which the non-movant would
have the burden of proof at trial. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706,
711 (Tex. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1119, 118 S.Ct. 1799, 140 L.Ed.2d 939 (1998). If the
evidence supporting a finding rises to a level that would enable reasonable, fair-minded persons to
differ in their conclusions, then more than a scintilla of evidence exists. /d. Less than a scintilla
of evidence exists when the evidence is “so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or
suspicion” of a fact, and the legal effect is that there is no evidence. Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc.,
650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983).
In this case, FlixBus is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence
claims because there is not more than a scintilla of evidence in support of one or more of the
essential elements of Plaintiff's negligence claim against FlixBus.
DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 4
Ve
NEGLIGENCE
A. Negligence
Negligence actions in Texas require a legal duty owed by one person to another, a breach
of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v.
Escoto, 288 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex.2009) (citing E/ Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311
(Tex.1987)).
1. Duty
To prove an action for negligence, the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant had
a legal duty. Nabors Drilling, 288 S.W.3d at 404. Whether a duty exists is a question of law for
the court. Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193, 209 (Tex.2015); General Elec. Co. v.
Moritz, 275 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Tex.2008).
In the present cause, the summary judgment evidence conclusively negates this duty
element with respect to FlixBus, which did not own or operate the bus or employ the bus driver.®
Alternatively, there is not more than a scintilla of evidence in support of this duty element with
respect to FlixBus. FlixBus is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims.
2. Breach
To prove an action for negligence, the plaintiff must next establish that the defendant
breached a legal duty. Nabors Drilling, 288 S.W.3d at 404. In this case, Plaintiff must prove that
FlixBus failed to use ordinary care; that is, failing to do that which a comparable employer of
ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances or doing that which
an employer of ordinary prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances.
TEX. PIC § 2.1 (2018).
6 See Exhibits A and B.
DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 5
In the present cause, the summary judgment evidence conclusively negates this breach
element with respect to FlixBus, which did not own or operate the bus or employ the bus driver.’
Alternatively, there is not more than a scintilla of evidence in support of this breach element with
respect to FlixBus. FlixBus is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims.
3. Proximate Cause
Proximate cause has two elements: cause in fact and foreseeability. Western Investments,
Inc. v. Urena, 547, 551 (Tex.2005) (citing Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94, 98
(Tex.1992)). “These elements cannot be established by mere conjecture, guess, or speculation.”
Id. (quoting Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. 907 S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex.1995)). The test
for cause in fact is whether the act or omission was a substantial factor in causing the injury without
which the harm would not have occurred. /d. (citing Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724,
727 (Tex.2003)). If the defendant's negligence merely furnished a condition that made the injuries
possible, there can be no cause in fact. /d. (citing LHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Tex., Inc.
v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 799 (Tex.2004)).
In the present cause, the summary judgment evidence conclusively negates this proximate
cause element with respect to FlixBus, which did not own or operate the bus or employ the bus
driver.’ Alternatively, there is not more than a scintilla of evidence in support of this proximate
cause element, with respect to FlixBus. FlixBus is therefore entitled to summary judgment on
Plaintiff's claims.
71d.
81d.
DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 6
Vv.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant FLIXBUS, INC. prays that this
Motion be in all respects granted; that Plaintiffs’ claims against this Defendant be dismissed with
prejudice; that Plaintiff take nothing by this suit from this Defendant; that this Defendant go hence
with its costs without delay; and for such other and further relief, both general and special, at law
and in equity, to which this Defendant may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
FEE, SMITH & SHARP, LLP
/s/ Scott W. Self
SCOTT W. SELF
State Bar No. 24033176
self@feesmith.com
CRYSTAL G. GIBSON
State Bar. No. 24027322
gibson@feesmith.com
Three Galleria Tower
13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75240
972-934-9100
972-934-9200 [Fax]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
FLIXBUS, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the above and foregoing document has been served
upon all counsel of record pursuant to local rules on this the 17" day of November, 2023.
/s/ Scott W. Self’
SCOTT W. SELF
DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 7
EXHIBIT A
Law Enforcement and TXDOT Use ONLY Frotal Totes [00T 18656944.1
CIFATAL Demy [JscHoo.sus [JRAILROAD []MAB TISUPPLEMENT C1 SERO6L zone [Unis | 1 2 lum, [Prsns.| 1 B Crashio 12021633527) |
‘Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report (Form CR-3 1/1/2018)
* Malte: Texas Department of Transportation, Crash Data and Analysis, P.O. Box 149348, Austin, TX 78714. Questions? Call 844/274-7457
oat Refer to Attached Code Sheet for Numbered Fields
These fields are required on all additional sheets submitted for this crash (ex.: additional vehicles, occupants, injured, etc.) Page 1 of 2
crash Date Local Use
(aumorvyy) 12/is/2021 (@4HRMM) | 0) 9 | 2) 0 0 226261-2021 RELATED $226203-2021
“county
Name DALLAS Nome DALLAS [o ‘Outside
ity Lire
s tpyur opiniondhs 1rashperson's retinapropeny? Ne
Ye
[stan 1 L 1 1 1 (ieee |
tude —
ees i 1 1 1
IS ROAD ON WHICH CRASH OCCURRED
a “Row. rR wy.
Num.
‘Crash Occurred on a Private Drive or
fa Rawy. 1
Toll Rosd/ [Speed
je 2500 fa Street
Prone |
Cons. Eves Workers D]ves ‘Steet
‘Seat@ MARKET CENTER
| Steet
Suttx pip
Slo Rond/Private Property/Perking Lot Toll Line Limit 30 Zone [no Present BEJNo Dose,
INTERSECTING ROAD, OR IF CRASH NOT AT INTERSECTION, NEAREST INTERSECTING ROAD OR REFERENCE MARKER
a OY IR Fwy. a. Re 3 Strat [4 Stroot AVE
EEINo sys Num. Part 1 Num, 1700 Prot Name WECLIFF Sut
[Distance trom int EFT 3 lr tom int [Reference stroot
lor Ref. Marker 35 [mi Jor Ret, Markor SE Marker Dose. Num 1 l 1 1 l
fart iS Unit Parked Hitand LP LF
Num, Dese,3 1D Vehice Run State ax Num. ngo896 wy) Ty By oy RM) A, 8 K , 1 , 0 ;0 10424643
6. ven, ‘Ven 7 Body ol rgeicy
Fes Explain in
Year 2) 0) 24 9 |Color mmr [Make TEMSA BUS Model ms45 style BU Nareativeif chece
DUD
Type 2
[Address (Street,
pup
State ae
LAD
Num. 91082882 | s0L
Class 5
7OCOL
End, Bs |
11 DL
Resta, P16 (omooryyy Yt 0.3 | 1 1,9,/5,6 1 | 1
(Cty, State, ZIP) 16 LIVE OAK DR DESOTO, TX 75115
B/S
ie
elE 8in8
ss lke Name: Last, First, Middle
Enter Driver or Primary Person for this Unit on first line
Bel
Be
nk
£5
ole £ i3
Ri Ag| 28 By i a5
ie
ele 1 1 |DICKERSON, EZUGENIA REED 68 2 99 97 N 96 96 97 97
|
isua Not Applicable - Alcohol and
1g Results ate only reported
4 for Driver/Primary Pesson for
: Bz Owner lOwner/Lesseo
eat ni
LLessee Namo & Address wyewNE TRANSPORTATION, 7650 ESTERS BLVD IRVING, 7 75063
Prootot Ph ¥es LC} Expired | 26 Fin, Fin. Res Fin. Resp.
Frese. []No [1 Exomst | Resp. Type 2 Nemo CAROLINA CASUALTY Narn, 10510
Fin. Resp. [27 Veticio [27 Vehicio Venice Lives
Phone Num.713 877 8975 Damage Rating 1 | 1 1 1 1 [Damage Rating 2 | 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 Invertovied [No
Towed Towed
By To
Gat fs unt Parked Hitand ce CP
Num. Dose. OD veride | Run Stato mx Num. seW6572 WN 2) 6) a; Wye, s 3,8 )D,4)3 aiaicenie
é. ven, Von, ven. 7 Body x cyan
Weer) 24) 3)3 [Color BLK Make CHEVROLET Model TMPALA Style Pa O Nava checkes) in
ls oun DUD oui aot Fo cok TOL 1 9,2
type. 1 State me Num. 45374000 Class c End, 96 Rest. 9g emooryyy| ° fai
rt 0) eb 1 1 L 1
[Address (Steet,
[cty, State, ZIP) 15255 PRESTON RD. # 1126 DALLAS, TX 75249
Bel 38]
ge5],2 2/82
|e 2|sein& ag
Name: Last, First, Middle
Enter Driver or Primary Person for this Unit on first line
2¢
28 2&
als ge
® Jo:22/82 Bl Se)og gles
Rag,
Re x.
42)
aS)
3] a 1 |AWON, SEAN ToTC ALAIN 29 97 " 96 96 97 97
[Not Applicable Akcohol and
Drug Results are only reported
{forDriver/Primary Person for
‘each Unk.
Tz] Owner [ownarntesseo
Lessee Name & Address DUDA akin EBB Suske ciel Fille
Tooter [ves Lewis [2Sem, = ee lene eas SlFivre
Fin Resp. -] No Exemot | Resp. Type 2 Name COLONIAL COUNTY MUTUAL Num. 78423198320
Fin. 27 Vehicte 27 Vehicle Venide Byes
Phone Num. 800-423-7675 Damage Rating 1 | 1 1 1 2
1 1 Damage Rating 2 | 1 L 1 ee L inventoried F}No
Towed Frowes
By MASSEY WRECKER SERVICE HT 1955 VILBIG RD DALLAS, TX
Wynne 000188
Law Enforcement and TxDOT (Case xD Page
2 of 2
FormCF (Rev. 1/1/2018) 1D 22828: 021 Crash ID 18656944. 1/2021633527
Unit Taken To Taken By late of Death ‘Time of Death
Num, | Num. IMIDDIVYYY) Ht )
1
3g
Es !
J
1 !
J ! |
Unit | Prsn. Charge Citatio/Reference Num.
Num. | Num:
Damaged Property Other Than Vehicles ‘Owner's Name ‘Owner's Address —
Oo HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Tyevcarncry Jew pees CI 1o_| Oper.
‘Unit 10,0014 “TRANSPORTING Yes [28 Veh, 129 Carrier
Num. 1 Les. 1 1D Type 1 (D Num, 03232499
(Carier's (Carriers: 30 Veh.
(Comp. Name WYNNE TRANSPORTATION Primary Addr. 7650 ESTERS BLVD IRVING, TX 75063 [Type 4
ToRcw [33 Cargo
eSI Type
‘31 Bus
4
HazMat [J Yes /32 HazMat
Desvwr | 1514 [010 10 [Released F]No [Class Num.
HazMat
ID Num, a i 1 l | Class Num.
132 HazMat HazMat
ID Num.| Ul 1 | ! |Body Type 2
Unit ORG 34 Tar. CMV Disabling []Yes| Unit 34 Ter [CMV Disabling []Yes
Num, Cicwr | 1 | Type Damage? No Num. Ocwr | 1 Type Damage? No
[Sequence 35 S0q, 1 intermodal Shipping Yes) Total Num.
os
Of Events
Unit
13
35 Seq. 2
intributing Factors (Investigators Opinion)
Contributing
36
May Have Contrib,
Seq. 3 35 Seq. 4
‘37 Vehicle fects (Investigators Opinion)
Contibuting
[Container Permit
May Have Contrib. 38 39
Li at
ronmental
40
J | Axles
and Roadway Conditions
4 42 43 44
eeS)
Weather itt | Entang | Roadway | Roadway] Surtace Traffic
iz Roads Type | Alignment] Condition | Control
1 1 97 2 4 1 17
Investigator's Narrative Opinion of What Happened Fleld Diagram: Not
to Scale
(Attach Additional Sheets if Necessary) ‘SN# 228281-2021
jee Related SN#228283-2021 Unit 1 was traveling in a S/E Dallas Police Dept
xection in the second lane, N/E of the S/W curb of 2500 Market Traffic Unit
enter Blvd. Unit 2 was traveling in a S/E direction in the |
‘irst lane, N./E of the S/W curb of 2500 Market Center Blvd.
river of Unit 1 changed lanes when unsafe and collided the To; Daag Trade
ight back gtr of Unit 1 into the left front qtr of Unit 2 ng Loy West
ter the collision, Driver of Unit 1 fled in Unit 1 without
topping as required by state law. Driver of Unit 2 stated as
Ihe was traveling towards Stemmons Fwy, that Unit 1 changed lanes
Sjand collided into Unit 2 Driver of Unit 1 was not claiming
ISinjury. The crash scene and all interviews were recorded on
[3 body worn camera. The video and/or photos were saved to
Es
I idence.com on ID# 21-228283-2021 Driver of Unit 2 stated
that Unit 1 had the name of Go Wynne 1/0 contacted the company
a gathered the information for Unit 1 and Driver 1's
[|
=
S linformation. \\
se=
%
7 3\\\ %
//
1700 Wyclif Ave
i
Col om ustodia ai
le
8) aan rey 8 Ft NetiedDTSPANCHED anew o)913 42 (MM/DDIYYYY) sarseigoes
Invest, Byes Investigator Nom 6774
a (No Name (Printed) CHACON, ALBERT 1
S[Num.
[7 1X [0 [oO Jo jo |o jo 4s "AGENCY DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT seve a) a2 | Ly
Wynne 000189
EXHIBIT B
CAUSE NO. DC-22-01976
MONTIQUE JACKSON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
vs. 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FLIXBUS, INC.
Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S RESPONSE
TO FLIXBUS, INC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
To Defendant, FlixBus, Inc., by and through its attorneys of record, Scott W. Self and Crystal
G. Gibson, FEE, SMITH & SHARP, LLP, Three Galleria Tower, 13155 Noel Road, Suite
1000, Dallas, Texas 75240.
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198, Defendant Wynne Transportation, LLC
serves its Response to Defendant’s First Request for Admissions.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Read Reily
JOHN S. KENEFICK
Texas Bar No. 24006294
JKenefick@MacdonaldDevin.com
JENNIFER A. CHEEK
Texas Bar No. 24095098
JCheek@MacdonaldDevin.com
READ H. REILY
Texas Bar No. 24080126
RReily@MacdonaldDevin.com
MACDONALD DEVIN MADDEN
KENEFICK & HARRIS, P.C.
12770 Coit Road, Suite 12100
Dallas, Texas 75251
(214) 744-3300 Telephone
(214) 747-0942 Facsimile
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC
DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S RESPONSE
TO FLIXBUS, INC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2751.22
PAGE 1 OF3 2499793
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded
to all counsel of record, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on this 20th day
of July, 2023, through the e-filing manager:
SCOTT W. SELF
CRYSTAL G. GIBSON
Three Galleria Tower
13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75240
sself@feesmith.com
cgibson@feesmith.com
/s/ Read Reily
READ H. REILY
DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S RESPONSE
TO FLIXBUS, INC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2751.22
PAGE 2 OF 3 2499793
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Eugenia Dickerson was not an employee of
FlixBus at the time of the incident.
RESPONSE: Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Eugenia Dickerson was an employee of
Wynne at the time of the incident.
RESPONSE: Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that Eugenia Dickerson was not acting in the
course and scope of employment with FlixBus at the time of the incident.
RESPONSE: Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Eugenia Dickerson was acting in the course
and scope of her employment with Wynne at the time of the incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Eugenia Dickerson was employed with Wynne at the time of
the incident but denies the balance of request as it is a merits-preclusive request for admission for
which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof, and, as such, Defendant is not required to make any
admission, particularly at this stage of the litigation.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that FlixBus did not own the bus that was involved
in the incident.
RESPONSE: Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Wynne owned the bus that was involved in
the incident.
RESPONSE: Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that FlixBus did not operate the bus that was
involved in the incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Wynne Transportation operated the bus as a third-party
independent contractor to FlixBus.
DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S RESPONSE
TO FLIXBUS, INC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2751.22
PAGE 3 OF 3 2499793
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 chang
Preview
FILED 11/17/2023 5:23 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Debra Clark DEPUTY FLX.15716 CAUSE NO. DC-22-01976 MONTIQUE JACKSON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § Vv. § 13474 JUDICIAL DISTRICT § FLIXBUS, INC., and § WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD: NT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, FLIXBUS, INC. (hereinafter, “FlixBus”), a Defendant in the above numbered and styled cause, and files this, its Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rules 166a(c) and 166a(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and for same would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS Stated plainly, FlixBus did not own or operate the bus that was involved in the accident and did not employ the driver of the bus that was involved in the accident. FlixBus therefore contends that it is entitled to traditional summary judgment because the summary judgment evidence conclusively negates one or more of the essential elements of Plaintiffs’ negligence claims against FlixBus. Alternatively, FlixBus contends that it is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment because there is less than a scintilla of evidence in support of one or more of the essential elements of Plaintiffs’ negligence claims against FlixBus. DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 1 IL. SUMMARY OF FACTS This cause arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred at approximately 9:20am on December 19, 2021, on Market Center Boulevard, near its intersection with Wycliff Avenue, in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.' The accident involved two (2) vehicles: 1 a bus owned by Defendant Wynne Transportation, LLC (hereinafter, “Wynne”) and driven by Wynne employee Eugenia Dickerson;? and 2. a 2013 black Chevrolet Impala driven by Defendant Jean Loic Alain Amon.> Importantly, for the purposes of this Motion, FlixBus did not own or operate the bus that was involved in the accident.4 Likewise, FlixBus did not employ the bus driver, Ms. Dickerson.5 HI. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE FlixBus hereby submits the following items of summary judgment evidence and incorporates same herein by reference: A. Exhibit A Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report (12/19/21) B. Exhibit B Defendant Wynne Transportation, LLC’s Response to FlixBus, Inc.’s First Request for Admission (7/20/23) FlixBus reserves its right to supplement this summary judgment evidence and/or to use any summary judgment evidence submitted by any other party. 1 See Exhibit A, Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report (12/19/21). 2 Id.; see also Exhibit B, DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’s RESPONSE TO FLIXBUS, INC.’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (7/20/23). 31d. 4 See Exhibit B. 51d. DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 2 Iv. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS A. Traditional Summary Judgment Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs traditional summary judgment practice in Texas, states in relevant part: The motion for summary judgment shall state the specific grounds therefor... The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if (i) the deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, and other discovery responses referenced or set forth in the motion or response, and (ii) the pleadings, admissions, affidavits, stipulations of the parties, and authenticated or certified public records ... show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response. TEX. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (2022). The standards for a traditional summary judgment under Texas law are well-established: 1 It is the movant's burden to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true; and Every reasonable inference is indulged and all doubts are resolved in favor of the non-movant. Doe v. Boys' Club of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex. 1995); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 8. W.2d 546, 548-549 (Tex. 1985). To prevail on a traditional summary judgment, a defendant may conclusively negate at least one element of each theory pleaded by the plaintiff or conclusively establish each element of an affirmative defense pleaded by the defendant. Warnick v. Casas, 856 S.W.2d 732, 733 (Tex. 1993). In this case, FlixBus are entitled to traditional summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligence claims because the evidence conclusively negates one or more of the essential elements of Plaintiff's negligence claim against FlixBus. DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 3 B. No-Evidence Summary Judgment Rule 166a(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs no-evidence summary judgment practice in Texas, states as follows: After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial. The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. The court must grant the motion unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. TEX. R. Civ. P. 166a(i) (2022). A no-evidence summary judgment must be granted if the non- movant fails to bring forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the non-movant’s claim on which the non-movant would have the burden of proof at trial. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1119, 118 S.Ct. 1799, 140 L.Ed.2d 939 (1998). If the evidence supporting a finding rises to a level that would enable reasonable, fair-minded persons to differ in their conclusions, then more than a scintilla of evidence exists. /d. Less than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence is “so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion” of a fact, and the legal effect is that there is no evidence. Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983). In this case, FlixBus is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claims because there is not more than a scintilla of evidence in support of one or more of the essential elements of Plaintiff's negligence claim against FlixBus. DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 4 Ve NEGLIGENCE A. Negligence Negligence actions in Texas require a legal duty owed by one person to another, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto, 288 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex.2009) (citing E/ Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987)). 1. Duty To prove an action for negligence, the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant had a legal duty. Nabors Drilling, 288 S.W.3d at 404. Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court. Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193, 209 (Tex.2015); General Elec. Co. v. Moritz, 275 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Tex.2008). In the present cause, the summary judgment evidence conclusively negates this duty element with respect to FlixBus, which did not own or operate the bus or employ the bus driver.® Alternatively, there is not more than a scintilla of evidence in support of this duty element with respect to FlixBus. FlixBus is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims. 2. Breach To prove an action for negligence, the plaintiff must next establish that the defendant breached a legal duty. Nabors Drilling, 288 S.W.3d at 404. In this case, Plaintiff must prove that FlixBus failed to use ordinary care; that is, failing to do that which a comparable employer of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances or doing that which an employer of ordinary prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances. TEX. PIC § 2.1 (2018). 6 See Exhibits A and B. DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 5 In the present cause, the summary judgment evidence conclusively negates this breach element with respect to FlixBus, which did not own or operate the bus or employ the bus driver.’ Alternatively, there is not more than a scintilla of evidence in support of this breach element with respect to FlixBus. FlixBus is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims. 3. Proximate Cause Proximate cause has two elements: cause in fact and foreseeability. Western Investments, Inc. v. Urena, 547, 551 (Tex.2005) (citing Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94, 98 (Tex.1992)). “These elements cannot be established by mere conjecture, guess, or speculation.” Id. (quoting Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. 907 S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex.1995)). The test for cause in fact is whether the act or omission was a substantial factor in causing the injury without which the harm would not have occurred. /d. (citing Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724, 727 (Tex.2003)). If the defendant's negligence merely furnished a condition that made the injuries possible, there can be no cause in fact. /d. (citing LHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Tex., Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 799 (Tex.2004)). In the present cause, the summary judgment evidence conclusively negates this proximate cause element with respect to FlixBus, which did not own or operate the bus or employ the bus driver.’ Alternatively, there is not more than a scintilla of evidence in support of this proximate cause element, with respect to FlixBus. FlixBus is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims. 71d. 81d. DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 6 Vv. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant FLIXBUS, INC. prays that this Motion be in all respects granted; that Plaintiffs’ claims against this Defendant be dismissed with prejudice; that Plaintiff take nothing by this suit from this Defendant; that this Defendant go hence with its costs without delay; and for such other and further relief, both general and special, at law and in equity, to which this Defendant may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, FEE, SMITH & SHARP, LLP /s/ Scott W. Self SCOTT W. SELF State Bar No. 24033176 self@feesmith.com CRYSTAL G. GIBSON State Bar. No. 24027322 gibson@feesmith.com Three Galleria Tower 13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75240 972-934-9100 972-934-9200 [Fax] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the above and foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record pursuant to local rules on this the 17" day of November, 2023. /s/ Scott W. Self’ SCOTT W. SELF DEFENDANT FLIXBUS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 7 EXHIBIT A Law Enforcement and TXDOT Use ONLY Frotal Totes [00T 18656944.1 CIFATAL Demy [JscHoo.sus [JRAILROAD []MAB TISUPPLEMENT C1 SERO6L zone [Unis | 1 2 lum, [Prsns.| 1 B Crashio 12021633527) | ‘Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report (Form CR-3 1/1/2018) * Malte: Texas Department of Transportation, Crash Data and Analysis, P.O. Box 149348, Austin, TX 78714. Questions? Call 844/274-7457 oat Refer to Attached Code Sheet for Numbered Fields These fields are required on all additional sheets submitted for this crash (ex.: additional vehicles, occupants, injured, etc.) Page 1 of 2 crash Date Local Use (aumorvyy) 12/is/2021 (@4HRMM) | 0) 9 | 2) 0 0 226261-2021 RELATED $226203-2021 “county Name DALLAS Nome DALLAS [o ‘Outside ity Lire s tpyur opiniondhs 1rashperson's retinapropeny? Ne Ye [stan 1 L 1 1 1 (ieee | tude — ees i 1 1 1 IS ROAD ON WHICH CRASH OCCURRED a “Row. rR wy. Num. ‘Crash Occurred on a Private Drive or fa Rawy. 1 Toll Rosd/ [Speed je 2500 fa Street Prone | Cons. Eves Workers D]ves ‘Steet ‘Seat@ MARKET CENTER | Steet Suttx pip Slo Rond/Private Property/Perking Lot Toll Line Limit 30 Zone [no Present BEJNo Dose, INTERSECTING ROAD, OR IF CRASH NOT AT INTERSECTION, NEAREST INTERSECTING ROAD OR REFERENCE MARKER a OY IR Fwy. a. Re 3 Strat [4 Stroot AVE EEINo sys Num. Part 1 Num, 1700 Prot Name WECLIFF Sut [Distance trom int EFT 3 lr tom int [Reference stroot lor Ref. Marker 35 [mi Jor Ret, Markor SE Marker Dose. Num 1 l 1 1 l fart iS Unit Parked Hitand LP LF Num, Dese,3 1D Vehice Run State ax Num. ngo896 wy) Ty By oy RM) A, 8 K , 1 , 0 ;0 10424643 6. ven, ‘Ven 7 Body ol rgeicy Fes Explain in Year 2) 0) 24 9 |Color mmr [Make TEMSA BUS Model ms45 style BU Nareativeif chece DUD Type 2 [Address (Street, pup State ae LAD Num. 91082882 | s0L Class 5 7OCOL End, Bs | 11 DL Resta, P16 (omooryyy Yt 0.3 | 1 1,9,/5,6 1 | 1 (Cty, State, ZIP) 16 LIVE OAK DR DESOTO, TX 75115 B/S ie elE 8in8 ss lke Name: Last, First, Middle Enter Driver or Primary Person for this Unit on first line Bel Be nk £5 ole £ i3 Ri Ag| 28 By i a5 ie ele 1 1 |DICKERSON, EZUGENIA REED 68 2 99 97 N 96 96 97 97 | isua Not Applicable - Alcohol and 1g Results ate only reported 4 for Driver/Primary Pesson for : Bz Owner lOwner/Lesseo eat ni LLessee Namo & Address wyewNE TRANSPORTATION, 7650 ESTERS BLVD IRVING, 7 75063 Prootot Ph ¥es LC} Expired | 26 Fin, Fin. Res Fin. Resp. Frese. []No [1 Exomst | Resp. Type 2 Nemo CAROLINA CASUALTY Narn, 10510 Fin. Resp. [27 Veticio [27 Vehicio Venice Lives Phone Num.713 877 8975 Damage Rating 1 | 1 1 1 1 [Damage Rating 2 | 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 Invertovied [No Towed Towed By To Gat fs unt Parked Hitand ce CP Num. Dose. OD veride | Run Stato mx Num. seW6572 WN 2) 6) a; Wye, s 3,8 )D,4)3 aiaicenie é. ven, Von, ven. 7 Body x cyan Weer) 24) 3)3 [Color BLK Make CHEVROLET Model TMPALA Style Pa O Nava checkes) in ls oun DUD oui aot Fo cok TOL 1 9,2 type. 1 State me Num. 45374000 Class c End, 96 Rest. 9g emooryyy| ° fai rt 0) eb 1 1 L 1 [Address (Steet, [cty, State, ZIP) 15255 PRESTON RD. # 1126 DALLAS, TX 75249 Bel 38] ge5],2 2/82 |e 2|sein& ag Name: Last, First, Middle Enter Driver or Primary Person for this Unit on first line 2¢ 28 2& als ge ® Jo:22/82 Bl Se)og gles Rag, Re x. 42) aS) 3] a 1 |AWON, SEAN ToTC ALAIN 29 97 " 96 96 97 97 [Not Applicable Akcohol and Drug Results are only reported {forDriver/Primary Person for ‘each Unk. Tz] Owner [ownarntesseo Lessee Name & Address DUDA akin EBB Suske ciel Fille Tooter [ves Lewis [2Sem, = ee lene eas SlFivre Fin Resp. -] No Exemot | Resp. Type 2 Name COLONIAL COUNTY MUTUAL Num. 78423198320 Fin. 27 Vehicte 27 Vehicle Venide Byes Phone Num. 800-423-7675 Damage Rating 1 | 1 1 1 2 1 1 Damage Rating 2 | 1 L 1 ee L inventoried F}No Towed Frowes By MASSEY WRECKER SERVICE HT 1955 VILBIG RD DALLAS, TX Wynne 000188 Law Enforcement and TxDOT (Case xD Page 2 of 2 FormCF (Rev. 1/1/2018) 1D 22828: 021 Crash ID 18656944. 1/2021633527 Unit Taken To Taken By late of Death ‘Time of Death Num, | Num. IMIDDIVYYY) Ht ) 1 3g Es ! J 1 ! J ! | Unit | Prsn. Charge Citatio/Reference Num. Num. | Num: Damaged Property Other Than Vehicles ‘Owner's Name ‘Owner's Address — Oo HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Tyevcarncry Jew pees CI 1o_| Oper. ‘Unit 10,0014 “TRANSPORTING Yes [28 Veh, 129 Carrier Num. 1 Les. 1 1D Type 1 (D Num, 03232499 (Carier's (Carriers: 30 Veh. (Comp. Name WYNNE TRANSPORTATION Primary Addr. 7650 ESTERS BLVD IRVING, TX 75063 [Type 4 ToRcw [33 Cargo eSI Type ‘31 Bus 4 HazMat [J Yes /32 HazMat Desvwr | 1514 [010 10 [Released F]No [Class Num. HazMat ID Num, a i 1 l | Class Num. 132 HazMat HazMat ID Num.| Ul 1 | ! |Body Type 2 Unit ORG 34 Tar. CMV Disabling []Yes| Unit 34 Ter [CMV Disabling []Yes Num, Cicwr | 1 | Type Damage? No Num. Ocwr | 1 Type Damage? No [Sequence 35 S0q, 1 intermodal Shipping Yes) Total Num. os Of Events Unit 13 35 Seq. 2 intributing Factors (Investigators Opinion) Contributing 36 May Have Contrib, Seq. 3 35 Seq. 4 ‘37 Vehicle fects (Investigators Opinion) Contibuting [Container Permit May Have Contrib. 38 39 Li at ronmental 40 J | Axles and Roadway Conditions 4 42 43 44 eeS) Weather itt | Entang | Roadway | Roadway] Surtace Traffic iz Roads Type | Alignment] Condition | Control 1 1 97 2 4 1 17 Investigator's Narrative Opinion of What Happened Fleld Diagram: Not to Scale (Attach Additional Sheets if Necessary) ‘SN# 228281-2021 jee Related SN#228283-2021 Unit 1 was traveling in a S/E Dallas Police Dept xection in the second lane, N/E of the S/W curb of 2500 Market Traffic Unit enter Blvd. Unit 2 was traveling in a S/E direction in the | ‘irst lane, N./E of the S/W curb of 2500 Market Center Blvd. river of Unit 1 changed lanes when unsafe and collided the To; Daag Trade ight back gtr of Unit 1 into the left front qtr of Unit 2 ng Loy West ter the collision, Driver of Unit 1 fled in Unit 1 without topping as required by state law. Driver of Unit 2 stated as Ihe was traveling towards Stemmons Fwy, that Unit 1 changed lanes Sjand collided into Unit 2 Driver of Unit 1 was not claiming ISinjury. The crash scene and all interviews were recorded on [3 body worn camera. The video and/or photos were saved to Es I idence.com on ID# 21-228283-2021 Driver of Unit 2 stated that Unit 1 had the name of Go Wynne 1/0 contacted the company a gathered the information for Unit 1 and Driver 1's [| = S linformation. \\ se= % 7 3\\\ % // 1700 Wyclif Ave i Col om ustodia ai le 8) aan rey 8 Ft NetiedDTSPANCHED anew o)913 42 (MM/DDIYYYY) sarseigoes Invest, Byes Investigator Nom 6774 a (No Name (Printed) CHACON, ALBERT 1 S[Num. [7 1X [0 [oO Jo jo |o jo 4s "AGENCY DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT seve a) a2 | Ly Wynne 000189 EXHIBIT B CAUSE NO. DC-22-01976 MONTIQUE JACKSON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, vs. 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FLIXBUS, INC. Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S RESPONSE TO FLIXBUS, INC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION To Defendant, FlixBus, Inc., by and through its attorneys of record, Scott W. Self and Crystal G. Gibson, FEE, SMITH & SHARP, LLP, Three Galleria Tower, 13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000, Dallas, Texas 75240. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198, Defendant Wynne Transportation, LLC serves its Response to Defendant’s First Request for Admissions. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Read Reily JOHN S. KENEFICK Texas Bar No. 24006294 JKenefick@MacdonaldDevin.com JENNIFER A. CHEEK Texas Bar No. 24095098 JCheek@MacdonaldDevin.com READ H. REILY Texas Bar No. 24080126 RReily@MacdonaldDevin.com MACDONALD DEVIN MADDEN KENEFICK & HARRIS, P.C. 12770 Coit Road, Suite 12100 Dallas, Texas 75251 (214) 744-3300 Telephone (214) 747-0942 Facsimile COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S RESPONSE TO FLIXBUS, INC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2751.22 PAGE 1 OF3 2499793 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on this 20th day of July, 2023, through the e-filing manager: SCOTT W. SELF CRYSTAL G. GIBSON Three Galleria Tower 13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75240 sself@feesmith.com cgibson@feesmith.com /s/ Read Reily READ H. REILY DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S RESPONSE TO FLIXBUS, INC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2751.22 PAGE 2 OF 3 2499793 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Eugenia Dickerson was not an employee of FlixBus at the time of the incident. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Eugenia Dickerson was an employee of Wynne at the time of the incident. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that Eugenia Dickerson was not acting in the course and scope of employment with FlixBus at the time of the incident. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Eugenia Dickerson was acting in the course and scope of her employment with Wynne at the time of the incident. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Eugenia Dickerson was employed with Wynne at the time of the incident but denies the balance of request as it is a merits-preclusive request for admission for which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof, and, as such, Defendant is not required to make any admission, particularly at this stage of the litigation. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that FlixBus did not own the bus that was involved in the incident. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Wynne owned the bus that was involved in the incident. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that FlixBus did not operate the bus that was involved in the incident. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Wynne Transportation operated the bus as a third-party independent contractor to FlixBus. DEFENDANT WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S RESPONSE TO FLIXBUS, INC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2751.22 PAGE 3 OF 3 2499793 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 chang