Preview
3/7/2024 2:44 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 85318571
2024-14946 / Court: 125 By: Patricia Jones
Filed: 3/7/2024 2:44 PM
CAUSE NO.
MARIA HERNANDEZ-BARDALES IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Vv. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
FORD RESTAURANT GROUP, INC
and RUDY’S TEXAS BAR-B-Q, — JUDICIAL DISTRICT
LLC
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
COMES NOW, Maria Hernandez-Bardales and files this Original Petition, complaining of
Ford Restaurant Group, Inc. and Rudy’s Texas BAR-B-Q, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) and
would respectfully show as follows:
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1 Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery
is intended in this lawsuit to be conducted under Level 2.
PARTIES
2 Plaintiff, Maria Hernandez-Bardales is a resident of Harris County, Texas.
3 Defendant Ford Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Ford”) is doing business in Texas and
may be served with process through its registered agent: REGISTERED AGENT SOLUTIONS,
INC., at 5301 SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, SUITE 400, AUSTIN, TX 78735 or wherever it may
be found.
4 Defendant Rudy’s Texas BAR-B-Q, LLC (“Rudy’s) is doing business in Texas and
may be served with process through its registered agent: REGISTERED AGENT SOLUTIONS,
INC., at 5301 SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, SUITE 400 AUSTIN, TX 78735 or wherever it may
be found.
JURISDICTION
5 The court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this lawsuit and the amount in
controversy is above the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court. Pursuant to Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Plaintiff is seeking monetary relief more than $250,000 but not more
than $1,000,000.
VENUE
6 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE § 15.002(a)(1) because it is the county in which all or a substantial amount of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim made the basis of this lawsuit occurred.
FACTS
7 On or about February 27, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Hernandez-Bardales was driving on
Bridge Park Drive. At the same time A vehicle being driven by Celeste Martinez (“Martinez”) was
traveling East on West Road. Suddenly and without warning, Martinez failed to control her speed,
failed to yield the right of way, failed to use her headlights, causing Plaintiff's vehicle to strike
Martinez. Defendants Rudy’s and Ford were the owners of the vehicle that Martinez was operating
at the time of the crash. Defendants were negligent in its entrustment of their vehicle to Martinez.
Additionally, Martinez was within the scope and course of her employment for Defendants at the
time of the crash.
8 Asa result of the collision, Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff sustained injuries and
suffered damages.
CAUSES OF ACTION
A. NEGLIGENCE AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
9 Defendants Rudy’s and Ford are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior
for the acts and omissions of their agents, servants, employees, and statutory employees and
agents, including Martinez as listed above. Defendants’ Rudy’s and Ford employee, Martinez,
committed various acts and/or omissions during the course and scope of his employment, which
proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries and damages. Each of the above and foregoing acts, both
of commission and omission, singularly or in combination with others, constituted negligence,
which proximately caused the collision made the basis of this suit and Plaintiff's injuries and
damages.
10. Defendants Rudy’s and Ford negligently trained, retained, and supervised
Martinez, which proximately caused the collision made the basis of this suit and Plaintiff's injuries
and damages which resulted therefrom. Defendants Rudy’s and Ford are independently liable for
their negligent training, retention, and supervision of Martinez.
11 Defendants Rudy’s and Ford’s negligent training, retention, and supervision of its
employees is both a cause-in-fact and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
B. NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT—DEFENDANTS
12. On the day of the incident, Defendants entrusted their vehicle to Martinez. Martinez
was incompetent and/or reckless driver. Defendants knew or should have known that Martinez
was incompetent, and/or a reckless driver. At the time and on the occasion in question, Martinez
was negligent and failed to use ordinary care by various acts and/or omissions, as stated herein,
each of which singularly or in combination was a proximate cause of the incident in question
Plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by Martinez negligent, careless, and/or reckless
disregard of said duty
DAMAGES
13 As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered injuries. Plaintiff brings
this action for the following damages, jointly and severally
a. Past physical pain and suffering of Plaintiff, and that which he will in all probability
suffer in the future;
Past mental anguish of Plaintiff, and that which he will in all probability suffer in
the future;
Disability and impairment of Plaintiff, and that which he will in all probability
suffer in the future;
The medical expenses that Plaintiff has incurred in the past and will in all
reasonable probability continue to incur in the future;
Loss of use and property damage;
Past and future lost earnings or loss of wage-earning capacity; and
Any and all other damages to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
14. Plaintiff seeks both prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, for
all costs of court, actual damages, compensatory damages, and all other relief, both in law and in
equity, to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
15 Plaintiff hereby request and demand that Defendants preserve and maintains all
evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit,
or the damages resulting therefrom, including photographs; videotapes; audiotapes; recordings;
business or medical records; bills; estimates; invoices; checks; correspondence, memoranda; files;
facsimiles; email; voice mail; text messages; investigation; cellular telephone records; calendar
entries; and any electronic image, data, or information related to Plaintiff, the referenced incident,
or any damages resulting therefrom. Failure to maintain such items will constitute spoliation of
the evidence.
PRAYER
16. Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited in terms of law to appear and answer herein,
that upon final trial and hearing hereof, Plaintiff recover damages from Defendants in accordance
with the evidence; that Plaintiff recover costs of court herein expended; that Plaintiff recover
interest to which Plaintiff is justly entitled under the law, both prejudgment and post-judgment;
that Plaintiff recover actual damages; that Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages;
and for such other further relief, both general and special, both in law and in equity, to which
Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
CRIACO & SAMPERI
/s/ Ciro J. Samperi
Ciro J. Samperi
Texas Bar Number: 24075006
363 N. Sam Houston Pkwy E., Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77060
T: (713) 663-6600
F: (713) 663-7923
samperi@criacolaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Preview
3/7/2024 2:44 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 85318571 2024-14946 / Court: 125 By: Patricia Jones Filed: 3/7/2024 2:44 PM CAUSE NO. MARIA HERNANDEZ-BARDALES IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Vv. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS FORD RESTAURANT GROUP, INC and RUDY’S TEXAS BAR-B-Q, — JUDICIAL DISTRICT LLC PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION COMES NOW, Maria Hernandez-Bardales and files this Original Petition, complaining of Ford Restaurant Group, Inc. and Rudy’s Texas BAR-B-Q, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) and would respectfully show as follows: DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1 Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is intended in this lawsuit to be conducted under Level 2. PARTIES 2 Plaintiff, Maria Hernandez-Bardales is a resident of Harris County, Texas. 3 Defendant Ford Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Ford”) is doing business in Texas and may be served with process through its registered agent: REGISTERED AGENT SOLUTIONS, INC., at 5301 SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, SUITE 400, AUSTIN, TX 78735 or wherever it may be found. 4 Defendant Rudy’s Texas BAR-B-Q, LLC (“Rudy’s) is doing business in Texas and may be served with process through its registered agent: REGISTERED AGENT SOLUTIONS, INC., at 5301 SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, SUITE 400 AUSTIN, TX 78735 or wherever it may be found. JURISDICTION 5 The court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this lawsuit and the amount in controversy is above the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Plaintiff is seeking monetary relief more than $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000. VENUE 6 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(1) because it is the county in which all or a substantial amount of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim made the basis of this lawsuit occurred. FACTS 7 On or about February 27, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Hernandez-Bardales was driving on Bridge Park Drive. At the same time A vehicle being driven by Celeste Martinez (“Martinez”) was traveling East on West Road. Suddenly and without warning, Martinez failed to control her speed, failed to yield the right of way, failed to use her headlights, causing Plaintiff's vehicle to strike Martinez. Defendants Rudy’s and Ford were the owners of the vehicle that Martinez was operating at the time of the crash. Defendants were negligent in its entrustment of their vehicle to Martinez. Additionally, Martinez was within the scope and course of her employment for Defendants at the time of the crash. 8 Asa result of the collision, Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff sustained injuries and suffered damages. CAUSES OF ACTION A. NEGLIGENCE AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 9 Defendants Rudy’s and Ford are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts and omissions of their agents, servants, employees, and statutory employees and agents, including Martinez as listed above. Defendants’ Rudy’s and Ford employee, Martinez, committed various acts and/or omissions during the course and scope of his employment, which proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries and damages. Each of the above and foregoing acts, both of commission and omission, singularly or in combination with others, constituted negligence, which proximately caused the collision made the basis of this suit and Plaintiff's injuries and damages. 10. Defendants Rudy’s and Ford negligently trained, retained, and supervised Martinez, which proximately caused the collision made the basis of this suit and Plaintiff's injuries and damages which resulted therefrom. Defendants Rudy’s and Ford are independently liable for their negligent training, retention, and supervision of Martinez. 11 Defendants Rudy’s and Ford’s negligent training, retention, and supervision of its employees is both a cause-in-fact and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages. B. NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT—DEFENDANTS 12. On the day of the incident, Defendants entrusted their vehicle to Martinez. Martinez was incompetent and/or reckless driver. Defendants knew or should have known that Martinez was incompetent, and/or a reckless driver. At the time and on the occasion in question, Martinez was negligent and failed to use ordinary care by various acts and/or omissions, as stated herein, each of which singularly or in combination was a proximate cause of the incident in question Plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by Martinez negligent, careless, and/or reckless disregard of said duty DAMAGES 13 As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered injuries. Plaintiff brings this action for the following damages, jointly and severally a. Past physical pain and suffering of Plaintiff, and that which he will in all probability suffer in the future; Past mental anguish of Plaintiff, and that which he will in all probability suffer in the future; Disability and impairment of Plaintiff, and that which he will in all probability suffer in the future; The medical expenses that Plaintiff has incurred in the past and will in all reasonable probability continue to incur in the future; Loss of use and property damage; Past and future lost earnings or loss of wage-earning capacity; and Any and all other damages to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. 14. Plaintiff seeks both prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, for all costs of court, actual damages, compensatory damages, and all other relief, both in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be entitled. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE 15 Plaintiff hereby request and demand that Defendants preserve and maintains all evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, or the damages resulting therefrom, including photographs; videotapes; audiotapes; recordings; business or medical records; bills; estimates; invoices; checks; correspondence, memoranda; files; facsimiles; email; voice mail; text messages; investigation; cellular telephone records; calendar entries; and any electronic image, data, or information related to Plaintiff, the referenced incident, or any damages resulting therefrom. Failure to maintain such items will constitute spoliation of the evidence. PRAYER 16. Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited in terms of law to appear and answer herein, that upon final trial and hearing hereof, Plaintiff recover damages from Defendants in accordance with the evidence; that Plaintiff recover costs of court herein expended; that Plaintiff recover interest to which Plaintiff is justly entitled under the law, both prejudgment and post-judgment; that Plaintiff recover actual damages; that Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages; and for such other further relief, both general and special, both in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, CRIACO & SAMPERI /s/ Ciro J. Samperi Ciro J. Samperi Texas Bar Number: 24075006 363 N. Sam Houston Pkwy E., Suite 800 Houston, Texas 77060 T: (713) 663-6600 F: (713) 663-7923 samperi@criacolaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF