Preview
CAUSE NO. 2020-30644
TOTAL SAFETY U.S., INC. AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT
SPRINT SAFETY, INC., §
Plaintiffs,
v. §
HARRISCOUNTY, TEXAS
CODE RED SAFETY & RENTAL, LLC
TURNAROUND LOGISTICS, LLC,
BRANDON WEHMEYER, DONALD
WANORECK, AND LEVI GANSKY,
Defendants. § 125 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTCODE RED SAFETY & RENTAL, LLC ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITI
-and-
REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
Defendant Code Red Safety & Rental, LLC Code Red” or “Defendant”) responds
Plaintiffs Total Safety U.S., Inc. (“Total Safety”) and Sprint Safety, Inc.’s (“Sprint,” together
with Total Safety, the “Plaintiffs”)Original Petition (the “ tition”) as set forth below.
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendant gene ally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’
Original Petition and demands strict proof under Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
and as is required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas. Defendant reserves the
right to amend this pleading as authorized by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiffs’ Petition, in whole or in part, fails to state a cause of action upon which
relief may be granted.
Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action
entitling Plaintiffs to recover damages.
The Petitionis vague, ambiguous, and uncertain.
The contractual provisions P aintiff seek to enf orce are unenforceable
Plaintiff is attempting to enforce restrictive covenants that it knows ar
unenforceable because theyareoverbroad
Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of
laches, unclean hand , estoppel, waiver and/or license because, by way of illustration and not
limitat on, Plaintiffs delayed unreasonably in prosecuting the causes of action set forth in the
Petitionand Code Red has been prejudiced by such delay.
Plaintiffs are equitably and judicially estopped from bringing their claims.
Plaintiffs’ claims have been waied.
Plaintiffs have suffered no damages as a result of any conduct of Code Red and,
therefore, Plaintiffs have no claim against Code Red
Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover for their damages, if any, to the extent they
have failed to mitigate or reasoably attempted to mitigate their damages, if a ny, as required by
Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are barred because the alleged damages, if any, are
speculative and uncertain.
Plaintiffs’ Petition is in whole or in part frivolous, unreasonable and witout
foundationand Code Red is therefore ent led to an award of attorneys’ fees.
Code Red denies that all conditions precedent necessary for the filing of this suit
have been performed.
Regarding Plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim Code Red asserts the defenses of
privilege, preemption, and legal justification.
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims.
Plaintiffs’ claims, in whole or in part, are void because they violate public policy.
Code Red asserts the defense of unconscionability.
Plain iffs’ claims fail for lack of consideration.
Plaintiffs have repudiated their contracts.
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because none of the alleged acts or
missions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.
aintiffs would be unjustly enriched by their requested relief.
Code Red adopts by reference all defenses and affirmative defenses of the other
defendants to the extent they seek to defeat or diminish Plaintiffs’ claims and to the extent that
they are cons stent with Code Red’s positions in this lawsuit.
Code Red reserves the right to assert any and all additional affirmative defenses
that may be ascertained during the c se of discovery.
Code Red further avers and asserts any and all affirmative defenses hat are set
forth in TexasRule of Civil Procedure to the extent applicable to the facts of this case.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CAP
If Defendant is found liable for exemplary damages, those damages must be
capped under the Texas Damages Act, the Due Process C ause of the United States Constitution,
and the Due Course of Law provisions of the Texas Constitution.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Defendant requests that Plaintiff
disclose the information or material describe in Rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.
AYER
fendant requests entry of judgment dismissing the tition with prejudice and
awarding Defendant its costs and attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
espectfully submitted,
FERNELIUS SIMON MACE
ROBERTSON PERDUE PLLC
RANNON OBERTSON
C. Brannon Robertson
rannon. obertson@trialattorneytx.com
Texas Bar No. 24002852
4119 Montrose Blvd, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77006
Phone: 713.654.5156
Facsimile
ATTORNEYSFOR DEFENDANT
CODE RED SAFETY & RENTAL, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
certify that I served a copy of this pleading on the Plaintiffs by electronic means on J
/s/ C. Brannon Roberts
C. Brannon Robertson
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2020-30644 TOTAL SAFETY U.S., INC. AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT SPRINT SAFETY, INC., § Plaintiffs, v. § HARRISCOUNTY, TEXAS CODE RED SAFETY & RENTAL, LLC TURNAROUND LOGISTICS, LLC, BRANDON WEHMEYER, DONALD WANORECK, AND LEVI GANSKY, Defendants. § 125 JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTCODE RED SAFETY & RENTAL, LLC ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITI -and- REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Defendant Code Red Safety & Rental, LLC Code Red” or “Defendant”) responds Plaintiffs Total Safety U.S., Inc. (“Total Safety”) and Sprint Safety, Inc.’s (“Sprint,” together with Total Safety, the “Plaintiffs”)Original Petition (the “ tition”) as set forth below. GENERAL DENIAL Defendant gene ally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and demands strict proof under Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and as is required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas. Defendant reserves the right to amend this pleading as authorized by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Plaintiffs’ Petition, in whole or in part, fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action entitling Plaintiffs to recover damages. The Petitionis vague, ambiguous, and uncertain. The contractual provisions P aintiff seek to enf orce are unenforceable Plaintiff is attempting to enforce restrictive covenants that it knows ar unenforceable because theyareoverbroad Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, unclean hand , estoppel, waiver and/or license because, by way of illustration and not limitat on, Plaintiffs delayed unreasonably in prosecuting the causes of action set forth in the Petitionand Code Red has been prejudiced by such delay. Plaintiffs are equitably and judicially estopped from bringing their claims. Plaintiffs’ claims have been waied. Plaintiffs have suffered no damages as a result of any conduct of Code Red and, therefore, Plaintiffs have no claim against Code Red Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover for their damages, if any, to the extent they have failed to mitigate or reasoably attempted to mitigate their damages, if a ny, as required by Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are barred because the alleged damages, if any, are speculative and uncertain. Plaintiffs’ Petition is in whole or in part frivolous, unreasonable and witout foundationand Code Red is therefore ent led to an award of attorneys’ fees. Code Red denies that all conditions precedent necessary for the filing of this suit have been performed. Regarding Plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim Code Red asserts the defenses of privilege, preemption, and legal justification. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims. Plaintiffs’ claims, in whole or in part, are void because they violate public policy. Code Red asserts the defense of unconscionability. Plain iffs’ claims fail for lack of consideration. Plaintiffs have repudiated their contracts. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because none of the alleged acts or missions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. aintiffs would be unjustly enriched by their requested relief. Code Red adopts by reference all defenses and affirmative defenses of the other defendants to the extent they seek to defeat or diminish Plaintiffs’ claims and to the extent that they are cons stent with Code Red’s positions in this lawsuit. Code Red reserves the right to assert any and all additional affirmative defenses that may be ascertained during the c se of discovery. Code Red further avers and asserts any and all affirmative defenses hat are set forth in TexasRule of Civil Procedure to the extent applicable to the facts of this case. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CAP If Defendant is found liable for exemplary damages, those damages must be capped under the Texas Damages Act, the Due Process C ause of the United States Constitution, and the Due Course of Law provisions of the Texas Constitution. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Defendant requests that Plaintiff disclose the information or material describe in Rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. AYER fendant requests entry of judgment dismissing the tition with prejudice and awarding Defendant its costs and attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. espectfully submitted, FERNELIUS SIMON MACE ROBERTSON PERDUE PLLC RANNON OBERTSON C. Brannon Robertson rannon. obertson@trialattorneytx.com Texas Bar No. 24002852 4119 Montrose Blvd, Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77006 Phone: 713.654.5156 Facsimile ATTORNEYSFOR DEFENDANT CODE RED SAFETY & RENTAL, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE certify that I served a copy of this pleading on the Plaintiffs by electronic means on J /s/ C. Brannon Roberts C. Brannon Robertson