ORIG PET & REQ FOR DISCL October 15, 2020

On October 15, 2020 a ORIG PET & REQ FOR DISCL was filed involving a dispute between and for CONTRACT, FRAUD/MISREPRESENTATION in the District Court of Tarrant County.

Preview
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
10/15/2020 1:12 PM
153-320959-20
CAUSE NO. _____________________ THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK

JARED TOLLEFSON § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
v. §
§ OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
STEVE MARTIN, individually; §
B&M AUTO SPECIALISTS, §
INC.; and BRUCE MOORE, §
individually § _____JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Jared Tollefson, complaining of Defendants Steve

Martin, B&M Auto Specialists, Inc., and Bruce Moore, and files this, his Original

Petition and Request for Disclosure, and would respectfully show as follows:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN and REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

1. Because this case involves claims for damages less than $100,000 (not

counting court costs, additional statutory damages, prejudgment interest, punitive

damages, or attorneys’ fees), this is an “Expedited Case” under the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure and Plaintiff will conduct discovery in accordance with Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure 190.2 (Level 1).

2. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

hereby requests Defendants each disclose the information and materials described in

Rule 194.2 and Rule 190.2(b)(6), as set forth on Exhibit A.

II. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Jared Tollefson is a resident of Tarrant County, where the

events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred.

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 1
4. Defendant Steve Martin is an individual who is believed to reside in

Tarrant County but can be found at his place of work, B&M Auto Specialists, located

at 7501 Boulevard 26, North Richland Hills, TX 76180.

5. Defendant B&M Auto Specialists, Inc. is an auto repair business that

operates at 7501 Boulevard 26, North Richland Hills, TX 76180. It can be served

with process by serving any President or Vice President of this Defendant wherever

they may be found, or by serving this Defendant’s registered agent, Bruce Moore at

7501 Boulevard 26, North Richland Hills, TX 76180 or anywhere he can be found.

6. Defendant Bruce Moore is the president of B&M Auto Specialists, Inc.,

but its corporate charter is forfeited and so he is individually liable for its actions. He

may be served at his place of business or at 7815 Pirate Point Circle, Arlington, TX

76016, or anywhere he may be found.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Venue is proper in this Court because Tarrant County is where all or a

part of the cause of action accrued.

8. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because the damages sought are

within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

IV. SUMMARY

9. This case arises out of a years-long battle by which Plaintiff attempted

to have Defendants repair his classic 1970 Chevy Nova, VIN 114270W397810, and

then Defendants’ gross over-charging for the work it claimed to have performed

while secreting and then attempting to obtain title to the vehicle.

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 2
V. FACTS

10. In the summer of 2017 Plaintiff delivered his classic 1970 Chevy Nova to

Defendants, requesting that Defendants repair the car sufficiently for it to run and pass

a state safety inspection.

11. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that they would take good care of his

car, and would get it running. Defendants further represented that the price would be

approximately $500.

12. Some months after Plaintiff dropped off his Nova, Plaintiff stopped by

Defendants’ shop, only to be informed by Defendants that “someone” had stolen the hood

of the Nova and they were attempting to secure a replacement hood.

13. Repeatedly, Plaintiff would stop by the shop at B&M Auto to inquire about

the status of his car, but was always rebuffed. B&M never informed Plaintiff that the

repairs had been completed or that the hood had been replaced, and B&M never

presented Plaintiff with a final bill.

14. The last time Plaintiff stopped by B&M to inquire about the status of his

car, Defendants informed Plaintiff that “the city” had towed the car.

15. Plaintiff’s investigations with all the municipal authorities in the vicinity

of the B&M shop revealed they had not towed the car, and it was in fact still at B&M.

16. Nearly simultaneously with these disturbing events, the state of Texas

informed Plaintiff that someone was attempting to get a title issued for the Nova, despite

the fact that title is in Plaintiff’s name.

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 3
17. That discovery was immediately followed by Plaintiff’s receipt of a letter

from Defendant Martin and B&M demanding thousands and thousands of dollars for

mythical repairs and storage or threatening to file a lien against the car.

18. Both individual Defendants are personally liable for the actions of B&M

Auto because its corporate charter has been forfeited.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

19. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing

paragraphs of this Petition into each of the causes of action set out below.

A. BREACH OF CONTRACT

20. Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff in multiple respects,

causing damages, including but not limited to failing to perform repairs in a good and

workmanlike manner and failing to protect the car from damage, and failing to return

the car to Plaintiff.

21. Defendants have further breached their contract with Plaintiff by

attempting to secure for themselves, title to the car.

22. Defendants are therefore liable for all economic and consequential

damages, including loss of use of the vehicle measured by the daily rental value of the

car during the time that Defendants failed to return it. Defendants are also liable all

costs of court and attorney’s fees pursuant to Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code,

Section 38.

23. In addition, Plaintiff sues for specific performance of the contract, and

demands return of his car.

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 4
B. BREACH OF BAILMENT CONTRACT

24. Plaintiff delivered personal property to Defendants in trust. There existed

an understanding between the parties that the Defendants would return the personal

property to Plaintiff following the time it performed repairs to the vehicle.

25. Defendants accepted the delivery of the personal property, creating a

bailment contract with Plaintiff.

26. Defendants breached the bailment contract when they failed to protect it

from thieves and failed to return it to Plaintiff.

27. Defendants are therefore liable for all economic and consequential

damages, as well as all costs of court and attorney’s fees pursuant to Texas Civil Practices

and Remedies Code, Section 38.

C. VIOLATION OF DTPA

28. As discussed above, Defendants committed one or more of the following

acts:

(a) false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices which were
relied upon by Plaintiff in delivering his car to Defendants;

(b) false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices which were
relied upon by Plaintiff in entering into a bailment contract with Defendants;

29. Defendants’ actions were committed knowingly and were a producing

cause of Plaintiff’s damages for which, Defendants are liable.

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 5
30. In addition, pursuant to the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,

Defendants are liable for and must pay three times all actual economic damages incurred

by Plaintiff, plus all of court costs and attorney’s fees.

D. CONVERSION

31. Defendants have exercised wrongful dominion and control over personal

property belonging to Plaintiff (as evidenced by title to the vehicle in his name).

32. Defendants’ conversion damaged Plaintiff.

33. Defendants are therefore liable for actual damages, including loss of use of

the car during the time of Defendants’ conversion.

34. In addition, Plaintiff demands Defendants cease all attempts to obtain title

to the car, and return it to him.

VI. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

35. Defendants’ actions have forced Plaintiff to incur attorney’s fees, for which

Plaintiff now also sues pursuant to CPRC § 38.001, et. seq, and the contract with

Defendants.

VII. PRAYER

36. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that

Defendants be cited to appear and answer and that upon trial of this matter, the Court

issue:

(1) Judgment for all actual economic and consequential damages;

(2) Judgment that Defendants must return the car to Plaintiff;

(3) Post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate allowed by law;

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 6
(4) Punitive and/or statutory damages in an amount to be

determined by the jury, but large enough to serve as a deterrent

and punishment for their bad acts;

(5) Reasonable attorney's fees, with additional contingent amounts

in the event of appellate proceedings and collection efforts;

(6) All costs of court; and

(7) And all further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lisa Lumley
State Bar No.: 13962800
LISA LUMLEY LAW
5104 Arbor Mill Dr.
Fort Worth, TX 76135
(817) 238-8985 – Telephone
(817) 887-2656 – Fax
Lisa@LisaLumleyLaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 7
EXHIBIT A – DISCLOSURES REQUESTED

R. 194.2(a) The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit:

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(b) The name, address, and telephone number of any potential
parties:

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(c) The legal theories and, in general, the factual basis of the
responding party’s claims or defenses (the responding party need not
marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial):

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(d) The amount and any method of calculating economic damages:

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(e) The name, address, and telephone number of persons having
knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified
person’s connection with the case:

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(f) For any testifying expert:
(1) the expert’s name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the subject matter on which the expert will testify;
(3) the general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and
opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the
expert is not retained or employed by, or otherwise subject to the
control of the responding party, documents reflecting such
information;
(4) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to
the control of the responding party:
(A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data
compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 8
prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert’s
testimony; and
(B) the expert’s current resume or bibliography.

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(g) Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements:

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(h) Any discoverable settlement agreements:

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(i) Any discoverable witness statements:

RESPONSE:

R. 194.2(l) The name, address, and telephone number of any person who may
be designated as a responsible third party.

RESPONSE:

R. 190.2(b)(6) All documents, electronic information, and tangible items
the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to
support its claims or defenses.

RESPONSE:

ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE PAGE 9

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for JARED TOLLEFSON | VS | STEVE MARTIN, ET AL

Preview

Case Info

Parties

Document for JARED TOLLEFSON | VS | STEVE MARTIN, ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties