Preview
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
CAUSE NO.: CL-23-4789-B
ALMA E. MARTINEZ § IN THE COUNTY COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § AT LAW NO. 2
§
JONATHAN I. ESPINOZA REYES, §
AND CTR LOGISTICS TX, LLC §
Defendant. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff Alma E. Martinez (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) files this first amended
original petition against Defendants Jonathan I. Espinoza Reyes (hereinafter referred to as
“Defendant Reyes” or “Reyes”) and CTR Logistics TX, LLC (hereinafter referred to as
“Defendant CTR” or “CTR”), (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) and alleges as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN & RELIEF
1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 190.4 because this suit involves only monetary relief totaling $750,000 or less,
including damages of any kind, penalties, court costs, expenses, and prejudgment interest.
2 Plaintiff has suffered losses and damages in a sum within the jurisdictional limits
of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of $750,000.00
or less and nonmonetary relief. Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(4). Plaintiff reserves the right to either file
a trial amendment or an amended pleading on the issue of damages if subsequent evidence shows
that the range of damages is either too high or too low.
II.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Alma E. Martinez is an individual who is a resident of Hidalgo County,
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 1
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
Texas.
4. Defendant Jonathan I. Espinoza Reyes is an individual and a resident of the State
of Texas who has been served and has answered.
5. Defendant CTR Logistics TX, LLC, a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Texas who has been served and has answered.
6. When in this petition it is stated and alleged that Defendant Reyes committed or
omitted any act or thing, it is meant and alleged that said Defendant committed said act and/or
omission, both in his individual capacity and also in his capacity as Defendant CTR’s agent,
servant or employee acting within the course and scope of his employment for said Defendant.
Further, that said act and/or omission was done as an officer, agent, servant, employee, and/or a
representative of said Defendant CTR and/or said commission and/or omission was done by such
act or thing with the full authorization and/or ratification of said Defendants and that the
commission and/or omission of the act was done in the normal and routine scope of employment
as authorized by officers, agents, servants, employees and/or representatives of same.
III.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
7. Plaintiff would show that venue is proper in Hidalgo County, Texas, pursuant to
Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, in that Hidalgo County is the
county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
8. Jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court in that this is a lawsuit seeking damages in
excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the district courts of the State of Texas, and this
Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as set out above. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess
of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 2
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
9. Jurisdiction would not be proper in federal court as there is no diversity of
citizenship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in this case. Moreover, Plaintiff is not
asserting any claims or causes of action based on federal statutes, treaties, or laws at this time.
Furthermore, this lawsuit asserts no claims against the United States, nor does it involve any claims
based on maritime law.
IV.
FACTS
10. On or about October 29, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants were traveling northbound
on Bentsen Palm Dr., approximately 300 feet north of Brandy Street, Hidalgo County, Texas. At the
same date and time, a commercial motor vehicle, controlled, operated, and insured by Defendant
CTR, was being driven by Defendant Reyes while in the course and scope of his employment and
under the authority of and for Defendant CTR. As Plaintiff traveled northbound behind Defendants’
vehicle, Defendant Reyes slowed down and drove off the roadway. As Plaintiff cautiously proceeded
to the left of Defendants’ vehicle to pass him, and when Plaintiff was parallel to Defendants’ vehicle,
Defendant Reyes, who was not paying attention to the traffic conditions on the road, either due to
fatigue or cell phone use, made an unsafe U-Turn to head southbound on Bentsen Palm Dr. Defendant
Reyes failed to control his vehicle safely and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle on her right front quarter panel.
As a proximate result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered debilitating personal injuries and other
damages as a result of the magnitude and force of the impact. Defendants failed to conform their
conduct to a standard of conduct that a reasonably prudent operator in the same or similar
circumstances would have done in operating their commercial motor vehicle.
11. At all relevant times, Defendant Reyes was acting in the course and scope of his
employment with Defendant CTR and acting in furtherance of a mission for Defendant CTR’s benefit
and subject to its control. Additionally, Defendant Reyes was driving a commercial motor vehicle
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 3
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
owned and maintained by Defendant CTR and was operating the vehicle with Defendant CTR’s
authority.
12. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence, a
collision occurred between the 2023 White Ford Transit Van operated by Defendant and the 2014
Black Ford Escape operated by Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages that have been more
fully described below.
13. Plaintiff has incurred property damage to her vehicle in the amount of $6,068.85.
V.
CAUSES OF ACTION
A. Plaintiff’s Claim of Negligence and Negligence Per Se Against Defendant Johnathan
I. Espinoza Reyes
14. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
15. Defendant Reyes had a duty to exercise ordinary care, meaning the degree of care
that a reasonably careful, prudent person operating a commercial vehicle would use to avoid harm
to others under circumstances similar to those described herein. On the occasion in question,
Defendant Reyes committed various acts and/or omissions constituting negligence and negligence
per se. Defendant Reyes’ wrongful conduct proximately caused the incident, injuries, and damages
suffered by Plaintiff.
16. Specifically, Defendant Reyes breached the duty of care that he owed to Plaintiff
and to all other drivers on the roadway by:
a) In that Defendant Reyes failed to turn when safe in violation of Tex. Transp. Code
§545.103, striking Plaintiff’s front right quarter panel;
b) In that Defendant Reyes changed lanes when unsafe in violation of Tex Transp.
Code § 545.060;
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 4
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
c) In that Defendant Reyes failed to keep and maintain a proper lookout for Plaintiff’s
safety that an operator of a commercial motor vehicle would have maintained under
the same or similar circumstances, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.062(a);
d) In that Defendant Reyes failed to properly apply his brakes as an operator of a
commercial motor vehicle, would have done under the same or similar
circumstances, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.351;
e) In that Defendant Reyes failed to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic before
making his U-Turn, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.152;
f) In that Defendant Reyes failed to obtain or have the necessary knowledge, training,
and experience to operate his commercial motor vehicle that a prudent operator of
a commercial motor vehicle similarly situated would have maintained under the
same or similar circumstances;
g) In that Defendant Reyes failed to maintain proper control of his commercial motor
vehicle as a person using ordinary care would have done under the same or similar
circumstances;
h) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have the required knowledge of the importance
of proper visual search and proper visual search methods of seeing to the sides of
his commercial motor vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.111;
i) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have the required basic commercial motor vehicle
control skills of the ability to observe the road and the behavior of other motor
vehicles, particularly before turning in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.113;
j) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have the required skills of the ability to use proper
visual search methods to the sides of his commercial motor vehicle in violation of
49 C.F.R. § 383.113;
k) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have the required skills of the ability to maintain
a safe space cushion to the sides of his commercial motor vehicle and Plaintiff’s
vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.113;
l) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have knowledge and compliance with the
regulations as an operator of a commercial motor vehicle would have had under the
same or similar circumstances in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 390.3;
m) In that Defendant Reyes was texting or using a handheld mobile telephone while
driving the commercial motor vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.80 or 392.82;
n) In that Defendant Reyes was negligent by driving his vehicle recklessly with willful
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property in violation of Tex.
Transp. Code § 545.401; and
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 5
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
o) In that Defendant Reyes failed to exercise ordinary care to protect Plaintiff.
17. These statutes are designed to prevent harm to drivers, their passengers, and
vehicles traveling on public roads. Plaintiff belongs to the class of persons the Texas
Transportation Code, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations were designed to protect.
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages are of a type that the Texas Transportation Code was designed to
prevent. Defendant Reyes’s breach of these statutes constitutes negligence and negligence per se.
18. Defendant Reyes’ negligence and unexcused violations of the above-referenced
statutes are both causes-in-fact and proximate causes of Plaintiff’s damages. Defendant Reyes
failed to conform his conduct to a standard of conduct that a reasonably prudent commercial motor
vehicle operator would have done in operating his vehicle.
19. Each of the foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendant Reyes, singularly or in
combination, constituted negligence and was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and
damages.
B. Plaintiff’s Claim of Gross Negligence and Exemplary Damages Against Defendant
Jonathan I. Espinoza Reyes
20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
21. Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages for personal injuries caused by Defendant
Reyes’ gross negligence under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003 (a)(3), as
defined by section 41.001 (1).
22. Defendant Reyes's acts or omissions described above, when viewed from the
standpoint of Defendant Reyes at the time of the act or omission, involved an extreme degree of
risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiff and others.
23. Defendant Reyes had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved in the
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 6
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
above-described acts or omissions but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the
rights, safety, or welfare of Plaintiff and other motorists on Texas roadways when he turned while
unsafe into Plaintiff’s vehicle and with driver inattention disregarded Plaintiff welfare and
wellbeing while she attempted to safely pass Defendant Reyes in the passing lane. On the facts
stated herein, Plaintiff requests exemplary damages be awarded to Plaintiff from and against
Defendant Reyes.
C. Plaintiff’s Claim of Negligence and/or Negligence per se Against Defendant CTR
Logistics TX, LLC
24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
25. Defendant CTR violated numerous federal and state statutes designed to protect
and safeguard the motoring public, including Plaintiff. Defendant CTR is, therefore, liable for
negligence and/or negligence per se. Such acts and/or omissions were a proximate cause of the
damage in question.
26. On or about October 29, 2023, Defendant CTR owned the commercial motor
vehicle operated by Defendant Reyes, which caused this collision in question. Prior to and at the
time in question, Defendant CTR entrusted its commercial motor vehicle to Defendant Reyes for
the purposes of operating it on public streets and highways in the State of Texas. Thereafter,
Defendant Reyes operated said commercial motor vehicle with Defendant CTR's knowledge,
consent, and permission of Defendant CTR
27. At such time, Defendant CTR knew or should have known that Defendant Reyes
was incompetent or unfit to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle on public streets and
highways in that Defendant Reyes was reckless.
28. At such time, Defendant CTR knew, or in the exercise of due care, should have
known that Defendant Reyes was an incompetent and unqualified driver and would create an
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 7
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
unreasonable risk of danger to persons or property on public streets and highways in Texas.
29. On October 29, 2023, Defendant CTR, by and through its agent/driver Defendant
Reyes, owed Plaintiff a duty to operate its commercial motor vehicle under control with the highest
degree of care so as not to injure, maim, or harm Plaintiff. Defendant CTR breached the above-
defined duty by operating its commercial motor vehicle in a reckless, careless, and negligent
manner consisting of, but not limited to, one or more of the following acts or omissions:
a) In that Defendant CTR entrusted its commercial motor vehicle to Defendant Reyes;
b) In that Defendant CTR hired Defendant Reyes to operate its commercial motor
vehicle;
c) In that Defendant CTR failed to turn when safe in violation of Tex. Transp. Code
§545.103, striking Plaintiff’s front right quarter panel;
d) In that Defendant CTR changed lanes when unsafe in violation of Tex Transp. Code
§ 545.060;
e) In that Defendant CTR failed to apply the vehicle’s brakes before striking
Plaintiffs’ vehicle, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.351;
f) In that Defendant CTR permitted the vehicle to collide with another vehicle on the
roadway;
g) In that Defendant CTR failed to keep and maintain a proper lookout for Plaintiff’s
safety that an operator of a commercial motor vehicle would have maintained under
the same or similar circumstances, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.062(a);
h) In that Defendant CTR failed to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic before
making his U-Turn, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.152;
i) In that Defendant CTR failed to have the required knowledge of safe operations
regulations and procedures of its driver Reyes, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.111;
j) In that Defendant CTR failed to have the appropriate medical fitness/wellness to
operate a commercial motor vehicle;
k) In that Defendant CTR failed to qualify Defendant Reyes as a commercial driver
pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR § 383;
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 8
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
l) In that Defendant CTR failed to qualify Defendant Reyes’s previous driving record
and safety performance history and/or maintain the necessary documents in
compliance with 49 CFR § 391;
m) In that Defendant CTR failed to implement to its driver Reyes of the required safe
driving skills, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.113;
n) In that Defendant CTR failed to have knowledge and compliance with safety
regulations, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 390;
o) In that Defendant CTR failed to have knowledge of and maintain compliance with
the regulations in violation of 49 CFR § 390.3;
p) In that Defendant CTR failed to observe driver regulations, in violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 390.11;
q) In that Defendant CTR aided, abetted, and/or encouraged its driver Reyes to violate
the law, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 390.13;
r) In that Defendant CTR failed to operate its commercial motor vehicle in accordance
with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of its driver Reyes, in violation of 49
C.F.R. § 392.2 and 396;
s) In that Defendant CTR aided, abetted, and/or encouraged its driver Reyes to text or
use a handheld mobile telephone while driving the commercial motor vehicle in
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.80 or 392.82 at the time of the collision;
t) In that Defendant CTR failed to properly inspect or maintain the subject vehicle or
otherwise assure that it was free from any defect or want of repair pursuant to 49
CFR § 396, which may have been a contributing cause of the collision;
u) In that Defendant CTR failed to properly train Defendant Reyes in the use of its
commercial motor vehicle;
v) In that Defendant CTR permitted Defendant Reyes to operate its commercial motor
vehicle in an unsafe manner;
w) In that Defendant CTR failed to properly supervise and train Defendant Reyes and
its management and administrative staff to ensure that any safety and compliance
measures in place would be reviewed and enforced to protect motorists like
Plaintiff from fatigued, unsafe, poorly trained and/or unqualified commercial
drivers;
x) In that Defendant CTR delegated its non-delegable duty, as a licensed, authorized,
and insured motor carrier under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 9
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
to be solely responsible for the safe operation of the commercial motor vehicle
involved in this collision; and
y) In that Defendant CTR failed to establish, enforce and follow its safety policies and
procedures.
30. Defendant CTR was required to observe those rules and regulations violated by
Defendant Reyes as listed above. Therefore, the conduct of Defendant CTR, in this case, was
negligence and/or negligence per se, which was the proximate cause of the occurrence made basis
of this lawsuit and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
31. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered past and/or future damages in an amount
exceeding the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff requests that Defendant CTR be held
accountable for the breach of its duty and the damages it caused. Plaintiff reserves the right to
amend these pleadings upon the completion of discovery to include additional acts of negligence
should the same be discovered.
D. Plaintiff’s Claim of Negligent Entrustment Against Defendant CTR Logistics TX,
LLC
32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
33. At the time and on the occasion in question, Defendant CTR knew or, by exercising
reasonable care and diligence, should have known that Defendant Reyes was a reckless and
incompetent driver. Therefore, in allowing a reckless or incompetent driver, namely Defendant
Reyes, to operate a commercial motor vehicle at the time and under the circumstances presented
herein, Defendant CTR is liable to the Plaintiff under the doctrine of negligent entrustment for the
acts and/or omissions of the negligence of Defendant Reyes, which were a proximate cause of the
collision in question and the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the
right to amend these pleadings upon the completion of discovery to include additional acts of
negligence should the same be discovered.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 10
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
E. Plaintiff’s Claim of Respondeat Superior Against Defendant CTR Logistics TX, LLC
34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
35. At the time of the occurrence of the act in question and immediately prior thereto,
Defendant Reyes was acting within the course and scope of his employment for Defendant CTR.
36. At the time of the occurrence of the act in question and immediately prior thereto,
Defendant Reyes was engaged in the furtherance of the business affairs of Defendant CTR’s
business.
37. At the time of the occurrence of the act in question and immediately prior thereto,
Defendant Reyes was engaged in accomplishing a business task for which Defendant Reyes was
employed by Defendant CTR.
38. Plaintiff invokes the doctrine of Respondent Superior against Defendant CTR.
F. Plaintiff’s Claim of Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision Against Defendant
CTR Logistics TX, LLC
39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendant CTR negligently hired, trained, and
supervised Defendant Reyes. Defendant CTR’s failure to properly hire, train, monitor, observe,
and supervise Defendant Reyes with regard to his driving habits and lack of driving safely
proximately caused the crash and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Defendant CTR is
independently liable for its negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision of its employee,
Defendant Reyes.
41. Defendant CTR’s negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision of its
employee is both a cause-in-fact and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 11
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
G. Plaintiff’s Claim of Gross Negligence and Exemplary Damages Against Defendant
CTR Logistics TX, LLC
42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
43. Defendant CTR is a motor carrier regulated by the FMCSR that makes a profit by
transporting general freight. Plaintiff asserts that the conduct, acts, and/or omissions of CTR were
grossly negligent and/or acted with malice. More specifically, the conduct of Defendant CTR
described above, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of Plaintiff at the time of the
incident in question, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude
of the potential harm to others. In addition, Defendant CTR was actually subjectively aware of the
risk involved but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or
welfare of others.
44. This is based in part but is not necessarily limited to, the following acts/or
omissions:
a) Failing to properly screen and/or investigate Defendant Reyes’s background upon
receipt of his employment application;
b) Failing to implement and/or enforce adequate screening policies for its drivers;
c) Failing to properly screen and/or qualify its driver(s) upon employment;
d) Failing to develop, implement and/or enforce a driver training system applicable to
its drivers;
e) Failing to ensure adequate and/or proper training, testing and/or supervision of its
commercial motor vehicle drivers;
f) Failing to properly train Defendant Reyes in the operation of commercial motor
vehicles;
g) Failing to develop, implement and/or enforce company safety policies and/or
procedures applicable to drivers;
h) Failing to conduct adequate safety meetings;
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 12
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
i) Operating a motorized transportation business with unsafe, untrained, unqualified
and/or incompetent drivers;
j) Entrusting a motor vehicle to an incompetent and/or reckless driver;
k) Failing to act as a reasonable and prudent motor carrier and/or general freight
company would have acted under same or similar circumstances;
l) Failing to comply with regulations and standards that are an element of the duty of
care applicable to Defendant CTR or its employee Defendant Reyes and which
were a proximate cause of bodily injury to Plaintiff;
m) Failing to comply with or enforce legal requirements established by law that are
evidence of Defendant CTR’s negligence, including:
a. Reyes was driving the vehicle in an unsafe manner when he failed to turn
when safe, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.103, at the time of the
accident;
b. Reyes was operating, and CTR allowed him to operate the vehicle in an
unsafe manner when prohibited from doing so under 49 C.F.R. § 383.111,
383.113, 390.3, 390.11, 390.13, 392.2 and 396, or Tex. Transp. Code §
545.401, as applicable, on the day of the accident; and
c. Reyes was texting or using a handheld mobile device while driving the
vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.80 or 392.82 at the time of the
accident.
45. Defendant CTR was aware of the above-referenced FMCSR and Texas traffic laws
requiring it to significantly operate a commercial motor vehicle under such circumstances and
avoid collisions with other vehicles on the roadway. Despite these federal and state mandates,
Defendant CTR continued to proceed with turning when unsafe and failed to keep a proper lookout
in an appropriate manner to avoid a collision.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the unsafe operation of Defendant CTR’s
commercial motor vehicle and the conscious disregard of the vehicles on the roadway and safety
regulations, Defendant CTR caused a collision with Plaintiff resulting in severe injuries to
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 13
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
47. Such conduct, acts, and/or omissions were reckless and grossly negligent and/or
were committed with malice in that Defendant CTR completely disregarded the rights, health,
safety, and welfare of persons such as Plaintiff, which proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and
damages as set forth herein. As such, Plaintiff not only seeks the special and economic damages
pleaded herein but also seeks punitive and/or exemplary damages as allowed under Texas law.
Accordingly, Plaintiff, having stated the above reasons, respectfully requests that the trier of fact
award her punitive damages of, from, and against Defendant CTR herein and for the aggravating
circumstances of Plaintiff’s injuries in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court that
is fair and reasonable to compensate Plaintiff and to deter future, similar wrongdoing by
Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend these pleadings upon the completion of discovery
to include additional acts of negligence should the same be discovered.
H. Plaintiff’s Claim of Spoilation of Evidence
48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
49. Plaintiff requests that Defendants preserve for inspection, maintain and prevent
from spoliation of evidence relating to this crash, Defendants 2023 Ford Transit Van (VIN
1FTBW1X86PKA72991), its accident register, driver's logs, vehicle inspections, brakes, brake
records, tire inspections and purchase records, maintenance records, vehicle records, vehicle
checklists and inspection reports, black box devices and reports, onboard video(s) of the crash and
vehicles, photographs of the accident, and company records (including documents, electronic data,
videotape, physical property, and other materials), on the date of the crash. Defendants are
requested to preserve Defendant Reyes’ personal and/or business cell phone records on the day of
the accident by contacting his cell phone provider and persevering the records, and through any
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 14
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
and all previous letters sent demanding that Defendants and his agents, representatives, and
employees preserve cell phone records and other evidence.
50. Plaintiff shows that Defendants have a duty to preserve evidence "when a party
knows or reasonably should know that there is a substantial chance that a claim will be filed and
that evidence in possession or control will be material and relevant to that claim. A substantial
change of litigation arises when litigation is more than merely an abstract possibility or
unwarranted fear. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9, 20 (Tex. 2014). "Common
sense dictates that a party may reasonably anticipate suit being filed before the Plaintiffs manifests
an intent to sue.” Brookshire id.
51. In this case, Plaintiff filed her claim on October 31, 2023, just two days after the
vehicle collision occurred. Although a spoilation letter was not sent, a notice letter was sent to the
Defendant's insurance. (See attached “Exhibit A”). This notice letter sent to Defendant’s insurance
serves as a clear notice to Defendants of the need to preserve specific evidence. Further, this notice
put the Defendants on alert that there was a substantial chance of a claim being filed and that the
vehicle would be material and relevant to this claim, thereby triggering a duty to preserve the
vehicle as evidence. See Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 957 (Tex. 1998).
52. In Defendants’ Initial Disclosures, produced on February 28, 2024, Defendants
attached multiple repair estimates, invoices, and photographs of the repair to Defendant’s 2023
Ford Transit Van (VIN 1FTBW1X86PKA72991), all of which were dated after Plaintiff had sent
her notice letter to Defendants insurance company. (See attached “Exhibit B”). This evidence of
repairs to Defendants’ vehicle is alternative to the physical evidence Plaintiff requires to complete
their investigation into the facts of the case. Defendants possessed a duty to preserve the evidence,
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 15
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
and Defendants negligently or intentionally breached their duty to exercise reasonable care to do
so. See In re Larsen, 635 S.W.3d 386, 394 (Tex. App. 2021).
53. Defendants failed to preserve material evidence when Defendants had notice of
Plaintiff’s claims prior to suit. Therefore, Plaintiff will seek an instruction from the court for
spoliation of evidence and seeks remedies that are proportionate and related directly to Defendants’
conduct.
VI.
DAMAGES - PLAINTIFF ALMA E. MARTINEZ
54. As a direct and proximate cause of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit,
Plaintiff was caused to suffer personal injuries and damages, and to incur the following damages:
a) Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past. Plaintiff incurred these expenses for the
necessary care and treatment of her injuries resulting from the accident complained of
herein, and such charges are reasonable and were usual and customary charges for such
services in Hidalgo County, Texas;
b) Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses, which will in all reasonable
probability be incurred in the future;
c) Physical pain and suffering in the past;
d) Physical pain and suffering in the future;
e) Physical impairment in the past;
f) Physical impairment, which, in all reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future;
g) Mental anguish in the past;
h) Mental anguish in the future; and
i) Property damage to Plaintiff’s 2015 Ford Escape utility van in the amount of $6,068.85, in
total loss.
55. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 16
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
VII.
JURY DEMAND
56. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and has tendered the appropriate fees in her Original
Petition.
VIII.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
57. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claim for relief have been performed and/or
have occurred.
IX.
OBJECTION TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE
58. Plaintiff objects to the referral of this case to an associate judge for hearing a trial
on the merits or presiding at a jury trial.
X.
PRAYER
59. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that Defendants
Jonathan I. Espinoza Reyes and CTR Logistics TX, LLC be cited to appear and answer and that
on final hearing, Plaintiff be awarded a judgment against Defendants for the following: actual
damages, exemplary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, court costs, and all other relief to
which Plaintiff may be justly entitled, at law or in equity.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 17
Electronically Submitted
3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Alejandra Lara
C-2302-24-E
Respectfully submitted,
GUERRA LAW FIRM, P.C.
By:
Manuel Guerra, III
Texas Bar No. 00798226
320 Pecan Blvd.
McAllen, Texas 78501
(956) 618-2557 Phone
(956) 618-1690 Fax
litigation@glf-pc.com – e-Service
manuel@glf-pc.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 18
Electronically Electronically
Filed Submitted
5/16/2024 2:22 PM3/15/2024 5:36 PM
Hidalgo County District
HidalgoClerks
County Clerk
Accepted
Reviewed by: Alejandra
By: Armando Cantu Lara
C-2302-24-E
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this instrument was served via electronic
service, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the 15th day of March 2024, to
counsel of record as follows:
Mr. Bret A. Sanders
Mr. John D. Plumlee
Fee, Smith & Sharp, L.L.P.
5301 Southwest Parkway, Ste. 460
Austin, Texas 78735
Via eService: bsanders@feesmith.com, jplumlee@feesmith.com
Manuel Guerra, III
Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 19
Electronically Filed
5/16/2024 2:22 PM
Hidalgo County District Cle
Preview
Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E CAUSE NO.: CL-23-4789-B ALMA E. MARTINEZ § IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintiff, § § V. § AT LAW NO. 2 § JONATHAN I. ESPINOZA REYES, § AND CTR LOGISTICS TX, LLC § Defendant. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiff Alma E. Martinez (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) files this first amended original petition against Defendants Jonathan I. Espinoza Reyes (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Reyes” or “Reyes”) and CTR Logistics TX, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant CTR” or “CTR”), (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) and alleges as follows: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN & RELIEF 1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4 because this suit involves only monetary relief totaling $750,000 or less, including damages of any kind, penalties, court costs, expenses, and prejudgment interest. 2 Plaintiff has suffered losses and damages in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of $750,000.00 or less and nonmonetary relief. Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(4). Plaintiff reserves the right to either file a trial amendment or an amended pleading on the issue of damages if subsequent evidence shows that the range of damages is either too high or too low. II. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Alma E. Martinez is an individual who is a resident of Hidalgo County, Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 1 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E Texas. 4. Defendant Jonathan I. Espinoza Reyes is an individual and a resident of the State of Texas who has been served and has answered. 5. Defendant CTR Logistics TX, LLC, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas who has been served and has answered. 6. When in this petition it is stated and alleged that Defendant Reyes committed or omitted any act or thing, it is meant and alleged that said Defendant committed said act and/or omission, both in his individual capacity and also in his capacity as Defendant CTR’s agent, servant or employee acting within the course and scope of his employment for said Defendant. Further, that said act and/or omission was done as an officer, agent, servant, employee, and/or a representative of said Defendant CTR and/or said commission and/or omission was done by such act or thing with the full authorization and/or ratification of said Defendants and that the commission and/or omission of the act was done in the normal and routine scope of employment as authorized by officers, agents, servants, employees and/or representatives of same. III. JURISDICTION & VENUE 7. Plaintiff would show that venue is proper in Hidalgo County, Texas, pursuant to Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, in that Hidalgo County is the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 8. Jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court in that this is a lawsuit seeking damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the district courts of the State of Texas, and this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as set out above. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 2 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E 9. Jurisdiction would not be proper in federal court as there is no diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in this case. Moreover, Plaintiff is not asserting any claims or causes of action based on federal statutes, treaties, or laws at this time. Furthermore, this lawsuit asserts no claims against the United States, nor does it involve any claims based on maritime law. IV. FACTS 10. On or about October 29, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants were traveling northbound on Bentsen Palm Dr., approximately 300 feet north of Brandy Street, Hidalgo County, Texas. At the same date and time, a commercial motor vehicle, controlled, operated, and insured by Defendant CTR, was being driven by Defendant Reyes while in the course and scope of his employment and under the authority of and for Defendant CTR. As Plaintiff traveled northbound behind Defendants’ vehicle, Defendant Reyes slowed down and drove off the roadway. As Plaintiff cautiously proceeded to the left of Defendants’ vehicle to pass him, and when Plaintiff was parallel to Defendants’ vehicle, Defendant Reyes, who was not paying attention to the traffic conditions on the road, either due to fatigue or cell phone use, made an unsafe U-Turn to head southbound on Bentsen Palm Dr. Defendant Reyes failed to control his vehicle safely and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle on her right front quarter panel. As a proximate result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered debilitating personal injuries and other damages as a result of the magnitude and force of the impact. Defendants failed to conform their conduct to a standard of conduct that a reasonably prudent operator in the same or similar circumstances would have done in operating their commercial motor vehicle. 11. At all relevant times, Defendant Reyes was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant CTR and acting in furtherance of a mission for Defendant CTR’s benefit and subject to its control. Additionally, Defendant Reyes was driving a commercial motor vehicle Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 3 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E owned and maintained by Defendant CTR and was operating the vehicle with Defendant CTR’s authority. 12. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence, a collision occurred between the 2023 White Ford Transit Van operated by Defendant and the 2014 Black Ford Escape operated by Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages that have been more fully described below. 13. Plaintiff has incurred property damage to her vehicle in the amount of $6,068.85. V. CAUSES OF ACTION A. Plaintiff’s Claim of Negligence and Negligence Per Se Against Defendant Johnathan I. Espinoza Reyes 14. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above. 15. Defendant Reyes had a duty to exercise ordinary care, meaning the degree of care that a reasonably careful, prudent person operating a commercial vehicle would use to avoid harm to others under circumstances similar to those described herein. On the occasion in question, Defendant Reyes committed various acts and/or omissions constituting negligence and negligence per se. Defendant Reyes’ wrongful conduct proximately caused the incident, injuries, and damages suffered by Plaintiff. 16. Specifically, Defendant Reyes breached the duty of care that he owed to Plaintiff and to all other drivers on the roadway by: a) In that Defendant Reyes failed to turn when safe in violation of Tex. Transp. Code §545.103, striking Plaintiff’s front right quarter panel; b) In that Defendant Reyes changed lanes when unsafe in violation of Tex Transp. Code § 545.060; Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 4 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E c) In that Defendant Reyes failed to keep and maintain a proper lookout for Plaintiff’s safety that an operator of a commercial motor vehicle would have maintained under the same or similar circumstances, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.062(a); d) In that Defendant Reyes failed to properly apply his brakes as an operator of a commercial motor vehicle, would have done under the same or similar circumstances, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.351; e) In that Defendant Reyes failed to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic before making his U-Turn, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.152; f) In that Defendant Reyes failed to obtain or have the necessary knowledge, training, and experience to operate his commercial motor vehicle that a prudent operator of a commercial motor vehicle similarly situated would have maintained under the same or similar circumstances; g) In that Defendant Reyes failed to maintain proper control of his commercial motor vehicle as a person using ordinary care would have done under the same or similar circumstances; h) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have the required knowledge of the importance of proper visual search and proper visual search methods of seeing to the sides of his commercial motor vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.111; i) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have the required basic commercial motor vehicle control skills of the ability to observe the road and the behavior of other motor vehicles, particularly before turning in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.113; j) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have the required skills of the ability to use proper visual search methods to the sides of his commercial motor vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.113; k) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have the required skills of the ability to maintain a safe space cushion to the sides of his commercial motor vehicle and Plaintiff’s vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.113; l) In that Defendant Reyes failed to have knowledge and compliance with the regulations as an operator of a commercial motor vehicle would have had under the same or similar circumstances in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 390.3; m) In that Defendant Reyes was texting or using a handheld mobile telephone while driving the commercial motor vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.80 or 392.82; n) In that Defendant Reyes was negligent by driving his vehicle recklessly with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.401; and Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 5 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E o) In that Defendant Reyes failed to exercise ordinary care to protect Plaintiff. 17. These statutes are designed to prevent harm to drivers, their passengers, and vehicles traveling on public roads. Plaintiff belongs to the class of persons the Texas Transportation Code, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations were designed to protect. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages are of a type that the Texas Transportation Code was designed to prevent. Defendant Reyes’s breach of these statutes constitutes negligence and negligence per se. 18. Defendant Reyes’ negligence and unexcused violations of the above-referenced statutes are both causes-in-fact and proximate causes of Plaintiff’s damages. Defendant Reyes failed to conform his conduct to a standard of conduct that a reasonably prudent commercial motor vehicle operator would have done in operating his vehicle. 19. Each of the foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendant Reyes, singularly or in combination, constituted negligence and was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages. B. Plaintiff’s Claim of Gross Negligence and Exemplary Damages Against Defendant Jonathan I. Espinoza Reyes 20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above. 21. Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages for personal injuries caused by Defendant Reyes’ gross negligence under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003 (a)(3), as defined by section 41.001 (1). 22. Defendant Reyes's acts or omissions described above, when viewed from the standpoint of Defendant Reyes at the time of the act or omission, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiff and others. 23. Defendant Reyes had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved in the Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 6 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E above-described acts or omissions but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of Plaintiff and other motorists on Texas roadways when he turned while unsafe into Plaintiff’s vehicle and with driver inattention disregarded Plaintiff welfare and wellbeing while she attempted to safely pass Defendant Reyes in the passing lane. On the facts stated herein, Plaintiff requests exemplary damages be awarded to Plaintiff from and against Defendant Reyes. C. Plaintiff’s Claim of Negligence and/or Negligence per se Against Defendant CTR Logistics TX, LLC 24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above. 25. Defendant CTR violated numerous federal and state statutes designed to protect and safeguard the motoring public, including Plaintiff. Defendant CTR is, therefore, liable for negligence and/or negligence per se. Such acts and/or omissions were a proximate cause of the damage in question. 26. On or about October 29, 2023, Defendant CTR owned the commercial motor vehicle operated by Defendant Reyes, which caused this collision in question. Prior to and at the time in question, Defendant CTR entrusted its commercial motor vehicle to Defendant Reyes for the purposes of operating it on public streets and highways in the State of Texas. Thereafter, Defendant Reyes operated said commercial motor vehicle with Defendant CTR's knowledge, consent, and permission of Defendant CTR 27. At such time, Defendant CTR knew or should have known that Defendant Reyes was incompetent or unfit to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle on public streets and highways in that Defendant Reyes was reckless. 28. At such time, Defendant CTR knew, or in the exercise of due care, should have known that Defendant Reyes was an incompetent and unqualified driver and would create an Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 7 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E unreasonable risk of danger to persons or property on public streets and highways in Texas. 29. On October 29, 2023, Defendant CTR, by and through its agent/driver Defendant Reyes, owed Plaintiff a duty to operate its commercial motor vehicle under control with the highest degree of care so as not to injure, maim, or harm Plaintiff. Defendant CTR breached the above- defined duty by operating its commercial motor vehicle in a reckless, careless, and negligent manner consisting of, but not limited to, one or more of the following acts or omissions: a) In that Defendant CTR entrusted its commercial motor vehicle to Defendant Reyes; b) In that Defendant CTR hired Defendant Reyes to operate its commercial motor vehicle; c) In that Defendant CTR failed to turn when safe in violation of Tex. Transp. Code §545.103, striking Plaintiff’s front right quarter panel; d) In that Defendant CTR changed lanes when unsafe in violation of Tex Transp. Code § 545.060; e) In that Defendant CTR failed to apply the vehicle’s brakes before striking Plaintiffs’ vehicle, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.351; f) In that Defendant CTR permitted the vehicle to collide with another vehicle on the roadway; g) In that Defendant CTR failed to keep and maintain a proper lookout for Plaintiff’s safety that an operator of a commercial motor vehicle would have maintained under the same or similar circumstances, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.062(a); h) In that Defendant CTR failed to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic before making his U-Turn, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.152; i) In that Defendant CTR failed to have the required knowledge of safe operations regulations and procedures of its driver Reyes, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.111; j) In that Defendant CTR failed to have the appropriate medical fitness/wellness to operate a commercial motor vehicle; k) In that Defendant CTR failed to qualify Defendant Reyes as a commercial driver pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR § 383; Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 8 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E l) In that Defendant CTR failed to qualify Defendant Reyes’s previous driving record and safety performance history and/or maintain the necessary documents in compliance with 49 CFR § 391; m) In that Defendant CTR failed to implement to its driver Reyes of the required safe driving skills, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 383.113; n) In that Defendant CTR failed to have knowledge and compliance with safety regulations, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 390; o) In that Defendant CTR failed to have knowledge of and maintain compliance with the regulations in violation of 49 CFR § 390.3; p) In that Defendant CTR failed to observe driver regulations, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 390.11; q) In that Defendant CTR aided, abetted, and/or encouraged its driver Reyes to violate the law, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 390.13; r) In that Defendant CTR failed to operate its commercial motor vehicle in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of its driver Reyes, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.2 and 396; s) In that Defendant CTR aided, abetted, and/or encouraged its driver Reyes to text or use a handheld mobile telephone while driving the commercial motor vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.80 or 392.82 at the time of the collision; t) In that Defendant CTR failed to properly inspect or maintain the subject vehicle or otherwise assure that it was free from any defect or want of repair pursuant to 49 CFR § 396, which may have been a contributing cause of the collision; u) In that Defendant CTR failed to properly train Defendant Reyes in the use of its commercial motor vehicle; v) In that Defendant CTR permitted Defendant Reyes to operate its commercial motor vehicle in an unsafe manner; w) In that Defendant CTR failed to properly supervise and train Defendant Reyes and its management and administrative staff to ensure that any safety and compliance measures in place would be reviewed and enforced to protect motorists like Plaintiff from fatigued, unsafe, poorly trained and/or unqualified commercial drivers; x) In that Defendant CTR delegated its non-delegable duty, as a licensed, authorized, and insured motor carrier under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 9 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E to be solely responsible for the safe operation of the commercial motor vehicle involved in this collision; and y) In that Defendant CTR failed to establish, enforce and follow its safety policies and procedures. 30. Defendant CTR was required to observe those rules and regulations violated by Defendant Reyes as listed above. Therefore, the conduct of Defendant CTR, in this case, was negligence and/or negligence per se, which was the proximate cause of the occurrence made basis of this lawsuit and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 31. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered past and/or future damages in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff requests that Defendant CTR be held accountable for the breach of its duty and the damages it caused. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend these pleadings upon the completion of discovery to include additional acts of negligence should the same be discovered. D. Plaintiff’s Claim of Negligent Entrustment Against Defendant CTR Logistics TX, LLC 32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above. 33. At the time and on the occasion in question, Defendant CTR knew or, by exercising reasonable care and diligence, should have known that Defendant Reyes was a reckless and incompetent driver. Therefore, in allowing a reckless or incompetent driver, namely Defendant Reyes, to operate a commercial motor vehicle at the time and under the circumstances presented herein, Defendant CTR is liable to the Plaintiff under the doctrine of negligent entrustment for the acts and/or omissions of the negligence of Defendant Reyes, which were a proximate cause of the collision in question and the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend these pleadings upon the completion of discovery to include additional acts of negligence should the same be discovered. Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 10 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E E. Plaintiff’s Claim of Respondeat Superior Against Defendant CTR Logistics TX, LLC 34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above. 35. At the time of the occurrence of the act in question and immediately prior thereto, Defendant Reyes was acting within the course and scope of his employment for Defendant CTR. 36. At the time of the occurrence of the act in question and immediately prior thereto, Defendant Reyes was engaged in the furtherance of the business affairs of Defendant CTR’s business. 37. At the time of the occurrence of the act in question and immediately prior thereto, Defendant Reyes was engaged in accomplishing a business task for which Defendant Reyes was employed by Defendant CTR. 38. Plaintiff invokes the doctrine of Respondent Superior against Defendant CTR. F. Plaintiff’s Claim of Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision Against Defendant CTR Logistics TX, LLC 39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above. 40. Upon information and belief, Defendant CTR negligently hired, trained, and supervised Defendant Reyes. Defendant CTR’s failure to properly hire, train, monitor, observe, and supervise Defendant Reyes with regard to his driving habits and lack of driving safely proximately caused the crash and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Defendant CTR is independently liable for its negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision of its employee, Defendant Reyes. 41. Defendant CTR’s negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision of its employee is both a cause-in-fact and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 11 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E G. Plaintiff’s Claim of Gross Negligence and Exemplary Damages Against Defendant CTR Logistics TX, LLC 42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above. 43. Defendant CTR is a motor carrier regulated by the FMCSR that makes a profit by transporting general freight. Plaintiff asserts that the conduct, acts, and/or omissions of CTR were grossly negligent and/or acted with malice. More specifically, the conduct of Defendant CTR described above, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of Plaintiff at the time of the incident in question, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. In addition, Defendant CTR was actually subjectively aware of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. 44. This is based in part but is not necessarily limited to, the following acts/or omissions: a) Failing to properly screen and/or investigate Defendant Reyes’s background upon receipt of his employment application; b) Failing to implement and/or enforce adequate screening policies for its drivers; c) Failing to properly screen and/or qualify its driver(s) upon employment; d) Failing to develop, implement and/or enforce a driver training system applicable to its drivers; e) Failing to ensure adequate and/or proper training, testing and/or supervision of its commercial motor vehicle drivers; f) Failing to properly train Defendant Reyes in the operation of commercial motor vehicles; g) Failing to develop, implement and/or enforce company safety policies and/or procedures applicable to drivers; h) Failing to conduct adequate safety meetings; Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 12 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E i) Operating a motorized transportation business with unsafe, untrained, unqualified and/or incompetent drivers; j) Entrusting a motor vehicle to an incompetent and/or reckless driver; k) Failing to act as a reasonable and prudent motor carrier and/or general freight company would have acted under same or similar circumstances; l) Failing to comply with regulations and standards that are an element of the duty of care applicable to Defendant CTR or its employee Defendant Reyes and which were a proximate cause of bodily injury to Plaintiff; m) Failing to comply with or enforce legal requirements established by law that are evidence of Defendant CTR’s negligence, including: a. Reyes was driving the vehicle in an unsafe manner when he failed to turn when safe, in violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.103, at the time of the accident; b. Reyes was operating, and CTR allowed him to operate the vehicle in an unsafe manner when prohibited from doing so under 49 C.F.R. § 383.111, 383.113, 390.3, 390.11, 390.13, 392.2 and 396, or Tex. Transp. Code § 545.401, as applicable, on the day of the accident; and c. Reyes was texting or using a handheld mobile device while driving the vehicle in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.80 or 392.82 at the time of the accident. 45. Defendant CTR was aware of the above-referenced FMCSR and Texas traffic laws requiring it to significantly operate a commercial motor vehicle under such circumstances and avoid collisions with other vehicles on the roadway. Despite these federal and state mandates, Defendant CTR continued to proceed with turning when unsafe and failed to keep a proper lookout in an appropriate manner to avoid a collision. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the unsafe operation of Defendant CTR’s commercial motor vehicle and the conscious disregard of the vehicles on the roadway and safety regulations, Defendant CTR caused a collision with Plaintiff resulting in severe injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 13 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E 47. Such conduct, acts, and/or omissions were reckless and grossly negligent and/or were committed with malice in that Defendant CTR completely disregarded the rights, health, safety, and welfare of persons such as Plaintiff, which proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages as set forth herein. As such, Plaintiff not only seeks the special and economic damages pleaded herein but also seeks punitive and/or exemplary damages as allowed under Texas law. Accordingly, Plaintiff, having stated the above reasons, respectfully requests that the trier of fact award her punitive damages of, from, and against Defendant CTR herein and for the aggravating circumstances of Plaintiff’s injuries in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court that is fair and reasonable to compensate Plaintiff and to deter future, similar wrongdoing by Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend these pleadings upon the completion of discovery to include additional acts of negligence should the same be discovered. H. Plaintiff’s Claim of Spoilation of Evidence 48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above. 49. Plaintiff requests that Defendants preserve for inspection, maintain and prevent from spoliation of evidence relating to this crash, Defendants 2023 Ford Transit Van (VIN 1FTBW1X86PKA72991), its accident register, driver's logs, vehicle inspections, brakes, brake records, tire inspections and purchase records, maintenance records, vehicle records, vehicle checklists and inspection reports, black box devices and reports, onboard video(s) of the crash and vehicles, photographs of the accident, and company records (including documents, electronic data, videotape, physical property, and other materials), on the date of the crash. Defendants are requested to preserve Defendant Reyes’ personal and/or business cell phone records on the day of the accident by contacting his cell phone provider and persevering the records, and through any Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 14 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E and all previous letters sent demanding that Defendants and his agents, representatives, and employees preserve cell phone records and other evidence. 50. Plaintiff shows that Defendants have a duty to preserve evidence "when a party knows or reasonably should know that there is a substantial chance that a claim will be filed and that evidence in possession or control will be material and relevant to that claim. A substantial change of litigation arises when litigation is more than merely an abstract possibility or unwarranted fear. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9, 20 (Tex. 2014). "Common sense dictates that a party may reasonably anticipate suit being filed before the Plaintiffs manifests an intent to sue.” Brookshire id. 51. In this case, Plaintiff filed her claim on October 31, 2023, just two days after the vehicle collision occurred. Although a spoilation letter was not sent, a notice letter was sent to the Defendant's insurance. (See attached “Exhibit A”). This notice letter sent to Defendant’s insurance serves as a clear notice to Defendants of the need to preserve specific evidence. Further, this notice put the Defendants on alert that there was a substantial chance of a claim being filed and that the vehicle would be material and relevant to this claim, thereby triggering a duty to preserve the vehicle as evidence. See Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 957 (Tex. 1998). 52. In Defendants’ Initial Disclosures, produced on February 28, 2024, Defendants attached multiple repair estimates, invoices, and photographs of the repair to Defendant’s 2023 Ford Transit Van (VIN 1FTBW1X86PKA72991), all of which were dated after Plaintiff had sent her notice letter to Defendants insurance company. (See attached “Exhibit B”). This evidence of repairs to Defendants’ vehicle is alternative to the physical evidence Plaintiff requires to complete their investigation into the facts of the case. Defendants possessed a duty to preserve the evidence, Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 15 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E and Defendants negligently or intentionally breached their duty to exercise reasonable care to do so. See In re Larsen, 635 S.W.3d 386, 394 (Tex. App. 2021). 53. Defendants failed to preserve material evidence when Defendants had notice of Plaintiff’s claims prior to suit. Therefore, Plaintiff will seek an instruction from the court for spoliation of evidence and seeks remedies that are proportionate and related directly to Defendants’ conduct. VI. DAMAGES - PLAINTIFF ALMA E. MARTINEZ 54. As a direct and proximate cause of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, Plaintiff was caused to suffer personal injuries and damages, and to incur the following damages: a) Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past. Plaintiff incurred these expenses for the necessary care and treatment of her injuries resulting from the accident complained of herein, and such charges are reasonable and were usual and customary charges for such services in Hidalgo County, Texas; b) Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses, which will in all reasonable probability be incurred in the future; c) Physical pain and suffering in the past; d) Physical pain and suffering in the future; e) Physical impairment in the past; f) Physical impairment, which, in all reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future; g) Mental anguish in the past; h) Mental anguish in the future; and i) Property damage to Plaintiff’s 2015 Ford Escape utility van in the amount of $6,068.85, in total loss. 55. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 16 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E VII. JURY DEMAND 56. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and has tendered the appropriate fees in her Original Petition. VIII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 57. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claim for relief have been performed and/or have occurred. IX. OBJECTION TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE 58. Plaintiff objects to the referral of this case to an associate judge for hearing a trial on the merits or presiding at a jury trial. X. PRAYER 59. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that Defendants Jonathan I. Espinoza Reyes and CTR Logistics TX, LLC be cited to appear and answer and that on final hearing, Plaintiff be awarded a judgment against Defendants for the following: actual damages, exemplary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, court costs, and all other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled, at law or in equity. Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 17 Electronically Submitted 3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Alejandra Lara C-2302-24-E Respectfully submitted, GUERRA LAW FIRM, P.C. By: Manuel Guerra, III Texas Bar No. 00798226 320 Pecan Blvd. McAllen, Texas 78501 (956) 618-2557 Phone (956) 618-1690 Fax litigation@glf-pc.com – e-Service manuel@glf-pc.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 18 Electronically Electronically Filed Submitted 5/16/2024 2:22 PM3/15/2024 5:36 PM Hidalgo County District HidalgoClerks County Clerk Accepted Reviewed by: Alejandra By: Armando Cantu Lara C-2302-24-E CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this instrument was served via electronic service, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the 15th day of March 2024, to counsel of record as follows: Mr. Bret A. Sanders Mr. John D. Plumlee Fee, Smith & Sharp, L.L.P. 5301 Southwest Parkway, Ste. 460 Austin, Texas 78735 Via eService: bsanders@feesmith.com, jplumlee@feesmith.com Manuel Guerra, III Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition Page 19 Electronically Filed 5/16/2024 2:22 PM Hidalgo County District Cle