On May 31, 2018 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Peterson, Robert,
and
Dcs Consulting Inc,
Dsc All American Llc,
General Pump Company Llc,
Interpump Group Spa,
Nexoil Llc,
Oilnex Supply Llc,
for PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO)
in the District Court of Harris County.
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2018-36443
ROBERT PETERSON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
INTERPUMP GROUP, SPA; GENERAL §
PUMP COMPANY, LLC; OILNEX, §
LLC; NEXOIL, LLC; DCS CONSULTING, §
INC.,
§
Defendants. § 157 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff’s Motion to Equalize Peremptory Strikes
Plaintiff requests the Court to equalize peremptory strikes between Plaintiff and
Defendants, both of whom are antagonistic to Plaintiff on the main issues in this case.
The Court Should Grant Plaintiff’s Motion
Plaintiff files this motion to equalize peremptory strikes. See EX R. 233. This
is a multi party case involving one Plaintiff and two Defendant groups. Plaintiff sustained
serious injuries due to Defendants’ collective actions. Defendants are aligned in their primary
defensive position that none of them are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries and in terms of their
damages arguments as well.
If each party were given the same number of peremptory strikes, Defendants would be
able to stack the jury. The purpose of equalizing strikes is to ensure that no “side” has an
unfair advantage because of its peremptory strikes. TEX R. 233; Patterson Dental Co.
v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 919 (Tex. 1979). This is to guarantee that neither side has an
advantage over the other, so the Court must allocate peremptory strikes in a manner that does
not allow the Defendants to “gang up” on the Plaintiff and stack the jury. If each Defendant
is allowed independent strikes, the disparity will be unjust. As the Supreme Court held in
Patterson a “trial court had a duty to equalize the strikes . . .so that no party retained an
unequal advantage.” 592 S.W.2d at 920.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that Plaintiff receive si peremptory strikes and
Defendants collectively receive six peremptory strikes and be allowed to confer with each
other and coordinate their strikes. In this manner, strikes will be equalized between the sides
and Defendants will not risk duplicating their strikes. This solution accomplishes the goals of
Rule 233 and will be fair to all parties.
Conclusion
The Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion.
Respectfully submitted,
ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP
/s/ JasonItkin
Jason A. Itkin
State Bar No. 24032461
Cory D. Itkin
State Bar No. 24050808
Ryan S. Macleod
State Bar No. 24068346
6009 Memorial Drive
Houston, Texas 77007
Telephone: (713) 222 3800
Facsimile: (713) 222 3850
service@arnolditkin.com
jaiteam@arnolditkin.com
jitkin@arnolditkin.com
citkin@arnolditkin.com
rmacleod@arnolditkin.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March , a copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of
record in compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
/s/ JasonItkin
Jason Itkin
Document Filed Date
March 08, 2021
Case Filing Date
May 31, 2018
Category
PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2018-36443 ROBERT PETERSON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS INTERPUMP GROUP, SPA; GENERAL § PUMP COMPANY, LLC; OILNEX, § LLC; NEXOIL, LLC; DCS CONSULTING, § INC., § Defendants. § 157 JUDICIAL DISTRICT Plaintiff’s Motion to Equalize Peremptory Strikes Plaintiff requests the Court to equalize peremptory strikes between Plaintiff and Defendants, both of whom are antagonistic to Plaintiff on the main issues in this case. The Court Should Grant Plaintiff’s Motion Plaintiff files this motion to equalize peremptory strikes. See EX R. 233. This is a multi party case involving one Plaintiff and two Defendant groups. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries due to Defendants’ collective actions. Defendants are aligned in their primary defensive position that none of them are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries and in terms of their damages arguments as well. If each party were given the same number of peremptory strikes, Defendants would be able to stack the jury. The purpose of equalizing strikes is to ensure that no “side” has an unfair advantage because of its peremptory strikes. TEX R. 233; Patterson Dental Co. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 919 (Tex. 1979). This is to guarantee that neither side has an advantage over the other, so the Court must allocate peremptory strikes in a manner that does not allow the Defendants to “gang up” on the Plaintiff and stack the jury. If each Defendant is allowed independent strikes, the disparity will be unjust. As the Supreme Court held in Patterson a “trial court had a duty to equalize the strikes . . .so that no party retained an unequal advantage.” 592 S.W.2d at 920. Plaintiff respectfully requests that Plaintiff receive si peremptory strikes and Defendants collectively receive six peremptory strikes and be allowed to confer with each other and coordinate their strikes. In this manner, strikes will be equalized between the sides and Defendants will not risk duplicating their strikes. This solution accomplishes the goals of Rule 233 and will be fair to all parties. Conclusion The Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion. Respectfully submitted, ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP /s/ JasonItkin Jason A. Itkin State Bar No. 24032461 Cory D. Itkin State Bar No. 24050808 Ryan S. Macleod State Bar No. 24068346 6009 Memorial Drive Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone: (713) 222 3800 Facsimile: (713) 222 3850 service@arnolditkin.com jaiteam@arnolditkin.com jitkin@arnolditkin.com citkin@arnolditkin.com rmacleod@arnolditkin.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March , a copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record in compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/ JasonItkin Jason Itkin