Preview
FILED
5/14/2024 2:25 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS 00., TEXAS
Phyllis Vaughn DEPUTY
DC-24-O7088
CAUSE NO.
MEL ADRIAN YNOSTROZA and IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§§§§§§§§§
DYLAN ALVAREZ,
Plaintlffs,
6th
1gt
vs.
1
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ALBERT PEREZ and CIRCLE P
TRANSPORT, INC.,
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiffs, MEL ADRMN YNOSTROZA (“YNOSTROZ ”) and DYLAN ALVAREZ
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby file this Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and complains
of Defendants ALBERT PEREZ (“m”) and CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC.
(collectively “Defendants”) as follows:
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Pursuant to Rule 190.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby express
their intent for discovery in this case to be conducted under Rule 190.3 (Level 3).
II. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff MEL ADRIAN YNOSTROZA is an individual residing in the State of Texas.
3. Plaintiff DYLAN ALVAREZ is an individual residing in the State of Texas.
4. Defendant ALBERT PEREZ is an individual residing in the State of Texas. Mr. Perez may
be served with process at his residence located at 906 San Marcos St., George West, Texas 78022
or Wherever he may be found. Service is hereby requested at this time.
5. Defendant CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC. is a Texas corporation whose principal place
of business is located at 906 San Marcos St., George West, Tx 78002. Defendant may be
served by delivering process to its registered agent: Albert C. Perez, 906 San Marcos Street,
George West, TX 78022. Service is hereby requested at this time.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction, both general and specific, over the parties because all
or a substantial part of the events occurred in Texas.
7. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds the
minimum jurisdiction threshold.
8. Pursuant to Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, venue is
proper in Nueces County because all or a substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving
rise to the claims and/or causes of action set forth herein occurred in Nueces County.
IV. INTRODUCTION AND FACTS
9. On or about January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs were in a motor vehicle traveling along
Greenwood attempting to make a left-hand turn onto Holt. Suddenly and Without warning, the
Defendant PEREZ side-swept Plaintiffs’ vehicle. The collision caused by PEREZ resulted in
serious bodily injuries to Plaintiffs and serious damage to Plaintiffs’ personal property.
Additionally, Defendant CIRCLE P, negligently entrusted its vehicle with a driver it knew or
should have known was an unfit driver. Plaintiffs’ injuries necessitated Plaintiffs to seek medical
attention and treatment. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ vehicle was damaged as a result of the incident.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT ALBERT PEREZ
10. Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations as set forth above.
1 1. Defendant PEREZ’S conducted stated above, constitutes negligence and negligence per se.
PEREZ operated the vehicle in a negligent manner by, among other things, putting everyone on
the highway at risk when he failed to control his speed and struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle.
12. Plaintiffs’ claims and causes of action arise out of the incident that occurred on January 25,
2024. At the time of the incident, PEREZ was operating his vehicle negligently.
13. Defendant PEREZ had a duty to exercise ordinary care and operate his vehicle reasonably
and prudently. Defendant PEREZ breached that duty in one or more of the following ways:
a. Failure to control speed, in violation of §545.40l of the Tex. Transp. Code Ann,
which sets a duty not to drive a vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the
safety of persons and property.
b. Failing to timely apply the brakes.
c. Failing to maintain a proper lookout.
d. Failing to turn the vehicle to avoid the collision.
e. Failing to maintain a safe assured distance from Plaintiff’s vehicle so that the
collision could be avoided in violation to §545.062 of the Tex. Transp. Code.
f. Failing to act as a reasonable person using ordinary care in the same or similar
circumstances.
14. Defendant PEREZ’s negligence was a proximate cause of the following injuries suffered
by Plaintiffs.
15. Plaintiffs seek unliquidated damages in an amount that is within the jurisdictional limits of
the court including:
a. for actual damages;
b. for reasonable and necessary past and future medical costs and expenses;
c. for past and fiiture pain and suffering and mental anguish;
d. for past and future lost wages and lost wage-earning capacity;
e. for past and future physical impairment;
f. for loss of household services and loss of consortium;
g. for disfigurement;
h. for court costs; and
i. for pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
B. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC.
16. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs in this Petition into this Court.
l7. Further and in the alternative, Defendant CIRCLE P is vicariously liable for the acts of
PEREZ because PEREZ was, at all times relevant, operating a CIRCLE P owned vehicle in the
course and scope of his employment with CIRCLE P, including at the time of the collision.
l8. Pursuant to Tex. Transp. Code § 621.001, the term “commercial motor vehicle” is defines
as any motor vehicle other than a motorcycle, designed or used for the transportation of property,
including every vehicle used for delivery purposes. Accordingly, the CIRCLE P vehicle falls
within this definition. Moreover, under § 502.001 (7) of the Tex. Transp. Code. CIRCLE P
operates a fleet of commercial motor vehicle, as such by being a motor carrier, CIRCLE P was
required to follow all of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR);
19. Therefore, CIRCLE P had the duty to train, hire, and supervise the employees that are
required to drive a commercial vehicle for the company. Here, CIRCLE P was negligent in the
following was, inter alia:
Negligent hiring;
a.b.c.d.e.
Negligent entrustment;
Negligent training and supervision;
Negligent retention; and
Negligent maintenance.
C. NEGLIGENCE PER SE 0F DEFENDANT CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC.
20. The foregoing is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
21. Further and in the alternative, CIRCLE P is vicariously liable for all of the acts and
omissions of Defendant PEREZ that constitute negligence per se as described above.
22. In addition, CIRCLE P is negligent per se in the following ways, inter alia:
a. CIRCLE P allowed Defendant PEREZ, an unqualified driver, to operate its vehicle,
in Violation of §547.004 of the Tex. Transp. Code;
b. CIRCLE P knowingly permitted the operation of its vehicle in a manner that
violated the law, in violation of § 542.302 of the Tex. Transp. Code;
c. CIRCLE P failed to train Defendant PEREZ, in violation of § 621.001 of the Tex.
Transp. Code; and
d. CIRCLE P failed to enact effective controls and other measures that would promote
and ensure safety, in violation of § 547.004 of the Tex. Transp. Code.
e. Under § 502.001(7) of the Tex. Transp. Code, CIRCLE P operates a fleet of
commercial motor vehicles, as such by being a motor carrier, CIRCLE P was
required to follow all of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR);
f. CIRCLE P failed to follow rules pertaining to the management of operation or
driving of commercial motor vehicles, or the hiring, supervising, training,
assignment, or dispatching of drivers, per FMCSR §392.1;
g. CIRCLE P aided and abetted Defendant PEREZ in committing violations of the
Texas Transportation Code as defined by §§ 7.01-7.24 of the Tex. Penal Code.
23. Each of such acts and omissions of CIRCLE P and PEREZ, singularly or in combination
with others, constituted negligence and/or negligence per se, and proximately caused the collision
and injuries that Plaintiffs suffered. Defendants’ conduct described herein constitutes an
unexcused breach of a duty imposed by law. Defendants’ unexcused breach of a duty imposed by
law proximately caused the injuries of Plaintiffs. Defendants had a duty to exercise the degree of
care that a reasonably careful person would used to avoid harm to others under the circumstances
similar to those described herein.
D. NEGLIGENT HIRING — DEFENDANT CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC.
24. Plaintiff further plead that CIRCLE P owed Plaintiffs a legal duty to protect them from
PEREZ’s negligent driving. Plaintiffs sustained damages proximately caused by CIRCLE P’s
breach of said duty. In particular, CIRCLE P was negligent in hiring an incompetent, unfit or
reckless driver whom it knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to be
incompetent, unfit or reckless, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
25. Plaintiffs further plead that CIRCLE P negligently retained PEREZ as an employee.
CIRCLE P owed Plaintiffs a legal duty to protect them from PEREZ’S negligent operation of its
vehicle. Plaintiffs sustained damages proximately caused by CIRCLE P’s breach of said duty. In
particular CIRCLE P was negligent in retaining PEREZ, an incompetent, unfit or reckless driver
whom it knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to be incompetent, unfit
or reckless, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
E. NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT — DEFENDANT CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC.
26. Plaintiffs further pleads that CIRCLE P negligently entrusted its motor vehicle to PEREZ.
CIRCLE P was the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the incident and consented to and
permitted PEREZ to operate the motor vehicle at the time of the collision. PEREZ was an
incompetent or reckless driver. PEREZ was negligent on the occasion in question in a manner that
PEREZ violated Texas Transportation Code § 545.401 which imposes a duty not to drive a vehicle
in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property. This statute is designed to
protect a class of persons to which Plaintiffs belongs, against the type of injuries suffered by
Plaintiffs. Additionally, the aforementioned statute is of the type that imposes tort liability.
PEREZ’s violation of this statute was without any legal excuse. PEREZ’s breach of the duties
imposed by this statute proximately caused the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs.
F. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
27. The foregoing is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
28. Further and in the alternative, at all times relevant, PEREZ was the employee of, and under
the control of CIRCLE P. Plaintiffs were injured as the result of both CIRCLE P’s and PEREZ’s
actions and inactions. PEREZ was an employee of CIRCLE P. The actions and inactions PEREZ
committed were while he was acting within the scope of his employment, that is, he was within
CIRCLE P’s general authority, in furtherance of CIRCLE P’s business, and for the
accomplishment of the object for which he was hired.
VI. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
29. A11 conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred under the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure 54.
VII. DAMAGES
30. By reason of the facts alleged herein, the Plaintiffs have been made to suffer and sustain
injuries and damages at the hands of Defendants in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of
this court and in an amount to be determined by the jury in this case and as the evidence may show
proper at the time of the trial. The damages sought by Plaintiffs are within the jurisdictional limits
of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs are required to
set forth a designated level of recovery. For purposes of complying with the rule, Plaintiffs hereby
set forth a claim for monetary relief of MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000.00) BUT NO MORE THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs. However, Plaintiffs believes that such relief should
be determined by a jury of their peers, and reserves the right to amend in compliance with a jury
verdict.
VIII. RULE 193.7 NOTICE
31. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.7, this will serve as actual notice that
Plaintiffs intend to use produced documents against Defendants in pretrial proceedings and at trial.
Accordingly, documents produced in response to written discovery are authenticated unless
Defendants object to the authenticity of any produced document(s) within the time limits as
particularly set out in Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.7.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
32. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court enter judgment against
Defendants as follows:
a. for actual damages;
b. for reasonable and necessary past and future medical costs and expenses;
c. for past and future pain and suffering and mental anguish;
d. for past and future physical impairment and disfigurement;
e. for past and future lost wages and lost wage-earning capacity;
f. for loss of enjoyment, loss of household services and loss of consortium;
g. for property damages & diminished value;
h. for pre— and post-judgment interest, as allowed by law;
i. for costs of suit (including costs of service of process, depositions and expert
witness fees); and
j. for any additional relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
HERRMAN & HERRMAN, P.L.L.C.
The Herrman Building
1201 Third Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78404
Phone: (361) 882-4357
Fax: (361) 883-7957
By:_ Kali/WA.
KEVIN A. JONES
STATE BAR NO. 24097059
Email: kiones@hemnanandherrman.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
Preview
FILED 5/14/2024 2:25 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS Phyllis Vaughn DEPUTY DC-24-O7088 CAUSE NO. MEL ADRIAN YNOSTROZA and IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF §§§§§§§§§ DYLAN ALVAREZ, Plaintlffs, 6th 1gt vs. 1 JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALBERT PEREZ and CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC., Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiffs, MEL ADRMN YNOSTROZA (“YNOSTROZ ”) and DYLAN ALVAREZ (collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby file this Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and complains of Defendants ALBERT PEREZ (“m”) and CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC. (collectively “Defendants”) as follows: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Pursuant to Rule 190.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby express their intent for discovery in this case to be conducted under Rule 190.3 (Level 3). II. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff MEL ADRIAN YNOSTROZA is an individual residing in the State of Texas. 3. Plaintiff DYLAN ALVAREZ is an individual residing in the State of Texas. 4. Defendant ALBERT PEREZ is an individual residing in the State of Texas. Mr. Perez may be served with process at his residence located at 906 San Marcos St., George West, Texas 78022 or Wherever he may be found. Service is hereby requested at this time. 5. Defendant CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC. is a Texas corporation whose principal place of business is located at 906 San Marcos St., George West, Tx 78002. Defendant may be served by delivering process to its registered agent: Albert C. Perez, 906 San Marcos Street, George West, TX 78022. Service is hereby requested at this time. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction, both general and specific, over the parties because all or a substantial part of the events occurred in Texas. 7. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdiction threshold. 8. Pursuant to Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, venue is proper in Nueces County because all or a substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving rise to the claims and/or causes of action set forth herein occurred in Nueces County. IV. INTRODUCTION AND FACTS 9. On or about January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs were in a motor vehicle traveling along Greenwood attempting to make a left-hand turn onto Holt. Suddenly and Without warning, the Defendant PEREZ side-swept Plaintiffs’ vehicle. The collision caused by PEREZ resulted in serious bodily injuries to Plaintiffs and serious damage to Plaintiffs’ personal property. Additionally, Defendant CIRCLE P, negligently entrusted its vehicle with a driver it knew or should have known was an unfit driver. Plaintiffs’ injuries necessitated Plaintiffs to seek medical attention and treatment. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ vehicle was damaged as a result of the incident. V. CAUSES OF ACTION A. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT ALBERT PEREZ 10. Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations as set forth above. 1 1. Defendant PEREZ’S conducted stated above, constitutes negligence and negligence per se. PEREZ operated the vehicle in a negligent manner by, among other things, putting everyone on the highway at risk when he failed to control his speed and struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle. 12. Plaintiffs’ claims and causes of action arise out of the incident that occurred on January 25, 2024. At the time of the incident, PEREZ was operating his vehicle negligently. 13. Defendant PEREZ had a duty to exercise ordinary care and operate his vehicle reasonably and prudently. Defendant PEREZ breached that duty in one or more of the following ways: a. Failure to control speed, in violation of §545.40l of the Tex. Transp. Code Ann, which sets a duty not to drive a vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property. b. Failing to timely apply the brakes. c. Failing to maintain a proper lookout. d. Failing to turn the vehicle to avoid the collision. e. Failing to maintain a safe assured distance from Plaintiff’s vehicle so that the collision could be avoided in violation to §545.062 of the Tex. Transp. Code. f. Failing to act as a reasonable person using ordinary care in the same or similar circumstances. 14. Defendant PEREZ’s negligence was a proximate cause of the following injuries suffered by Plaintiffs. 15. Plaintiffs seek unliquidated damages in an amount that is within the jurisdictional limits of the court including: a. for actual damages; b. for reasonable and necessary past and future medical costs and expenses; c. for past and fiiture pain and suffering and mental anguish; d. for past and future lost wages and lost wage-earning capacity; e. for past and future physical impairment; f. for loss of household services and loss of consortium; g. for disfigurement; h. for court costs; and i. for pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law. B. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC. 16. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs in this Petition into this Court. l7. Further and in the alternative, Defendant CIRCLE P is vicariously liable for the acts of PEREZ because PEREZ was, at all times relevant, operating a CIRCLE P owned vehicle in the course and scope of his employment with CIRCLE P, including at the time of the collision. l8. Pursuant to Tex. Transp. Code § 621.001, the term “commercial motor vehicle” is defines as any motor vehicle other than a motorcycle, designed or used for the transportation of property, including every vehicle used for delivery purposes. Accordingly, the CIRCLE P vehicle falls within this definition. Moreover, under § 502.001 (7) of the Tex. Transp. Code. CIRCLE P operates a fleet of commercial motor vehicle, as such by being a motor carrier, CIRCLE P was required to follow all of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR); 19. Therefore, CIRCLE P had the duty to train, hire, and supervise the employees that are required to drive a commercial vehicle for the company. Here, CIRCLE P was negligent in the following was, inter alia: Negligent hiring; a.b.c.d.e. Negligent entrustment; Negligent training and supervision; Negligent retention; and Negligent maintenance. C. NEGLIGENCE PER SE 0F DEFENDANT CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC. 20. The foregoing is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 21. Further and in the alternative, CIRCLE P is vicariously liable for all of the acts and omissions of Defendant PEREZ that constitute negligence per se as described above. 22. In addition, CIRCLE P is negligent per se in the following ways, inter alia: a. CIRCLE P allowed Defendant PEREZ, an unqualified driver, to operate its vehicle, in Violation of §547.004 of the Tex. Transp. Code; b. CIRCLE P knowingly permitted the operation of its vehicle in a manner that violated the law, in violation of § 542.302 of the Tex. Transp. Code; c. CIRCLE P failed to train Defendant PEREZ, in violation of § 621.001 of the Tex. Transp. Code; and d. CIRCLE P failed to enact effective controls and other measures that would promote and ensure safety, in violation of § 547.004 of the Tex. Transp. Code. e. Under § 502.001(7) of the Tex. Transp. Code, CIRCLE P operates a fleet of commercial motor vehicles, as such by being a motor carrier, CIRCLE P was required to follow all of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR); f. CIRCLE P failed to follow rules pertaining to the management of operation or driving of commercial motor vehicles, or the hiring, supervising, training, assignment, or dispatching of drivers, per FMCSR §392.1; g. CIRCLE P aided and abetted Defendant PEREZ in committing violations of the Texas Transportation Code as defined by §§ 7.01-7.24 of the Tex. Penal Code. 23. Each of such acts and omissions of CIRCLE P and PEREZ, singularly or in combination with others, constituted negligence and/or negligence per se, and proximately caused the collision and injuries that Plaintiffs suffered. Defendants’ conduct described herein constitutes an unexcused breach of a duty imposed by law. Defendants’ unexcused breach of a duty imposed by law proximately caused the injuries of Plaintiffs. Defendants had a duty to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably careful person would used to avoid harm to others under the circumstances similar to those described herein. D. NEGLIGENT HIRING — DEFENDANT CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC. 24. Plaintiff further plead that CIRCLE P owed Plaintiffs a legal duty to protect them from PEREZ’s negligent driving. Plaintiffs sustained damages proximately caused by CIRCLE P’s breach of said duty. In particular, CIRCLE P was negligent in hiring an incompetent, unfit or reckless driver whom it knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to be incompetent, unfit or reckless, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others. 25. Plaintiffs further plead that CIRCLE P negligently retained PEREZ as an employee. CIRCLE P owed Plaintiffs a legal duty to protect them from PEREZ’S negligent operation of its vehicle. Plaintiffs sustained damages proximately caused by CIRCLE P’s breach of said duty. In particular CIRCLE P was negligent in retaining PEREZ, an incompetent, unfit or reckless driver whom it knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to be incompetent, unfit or reckless, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others. E. NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT — DEFENDANT CIRCLE P TRANSPORT, INC. 26. Plaintiffs further pleads that CIRCLE P negligently entrusted its motor vehicle to PEREZ. CIRCLE P was the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the incident and consented to and permitted PEREZ to operate the motor vehicle at the time of the collision. PEREZ was an incompetent or reckless driver. PEREZ was negligent on the occasion in question in a manner that PEREZ violated Texas Transportation Code § 545.401 which imposes a duty not to drive a vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property. This statute is designed to protect a class of persons to which Plaintiffs belongs, against the type of injuries suffered by Plaintiffs. Additionally, the aforementioned statute is of the type that imposes tort liability. PEREZ’s violation of this statute was without any legal excuse. PEREZ’s breach of the duties imposed by this statute proximately caused the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs. F. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 27. The foregoing is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 28. Further and in the alternative, at all times relevant, PEREZ was the employee of, and under the control of CIRCLE P. Plaintiffs were injured as the result of both CIRCLE P’s and PEREZ’s actions and inactions. PEREZ was an employee of CIRCLE P. The actions and inactions PEREZ committed were while he was acting within the scope of his employment, that is, he was within CIRCLE P’s general authority, in furtherance of CIRCLE P’s business, and for the accomplishment of the object for which he was hired. VI. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 29. A11 conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 54. VII. DAMAGES 30. By reason of the facts alleged herein, the Plaintiffs have been made to suffer and sustain injuries and damages at the hands of Defendants in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court and in an amount to be determined by the jury in this case and as the evidence may show proper at the time of the trial. The damages sought by Plaintiffs are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs are required to set forth a designated level of recovery. For purposes of complying with the rule, Plaintiffs hereby set forth a claim for monetary relief of MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000.00) BUT NO MORE THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs. However, Plaintiffs believes that such relief should be determined by a jury of their peers, and reserves the right to amend in compliance with a jury verdict. VIII. RULE 193.7 NOTICE 31. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.7, this will serve as actual notice that Plaintiffs intend to use produced documents against Defendants in pretrial proceedings and at trial. Accordingly, documents produced in response to written discovery are authenticated unless Defendants object to the authenticity of any produced document(s) within the time limits as particularly set out in Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.7. IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 32. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: a. for actual damages; b. for reasonable and necessary past and future medical costs and expenses; c. for past and future pain and suffering and mental anguish; d. for past and future physical impairment and disfigurement; e. for past and future lost wages and lost wage-earning capacity; f. for loss of enjoyment, loss of household services and loss of consortium; g. for property damages & diminished value; h. for pre— and post-judgment interest, as allowed by law; i. for costs of suit (including costs of service of process, depositions and expert witness fees); and j. for any additional relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, HERRMAN & HERRMAN, P.L.L.C. The Herrman Building 1201 Third Street Corpus Christi, Texas 78404 Phone: (361) 882-4357 Fax: (361) 883-7957 By:_ Kali/WA. KEVIN A. JONES STATE BAR NO. 24097059 Email: kiones@hemnanandherrman.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS