arrow left
arrow right
  • PETERSON, ROBERT vs. INTERPUMP GROUP SPA PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) document preview
  • PETERSON, ROBERT vs. INTERPUMP GROUP SPA PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) document preview
  • PETERSON, ROBERT vs. INTERPUMP GROUP SPA PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) document preview
  • PETERSON, ROBERT vs. INTERPUMP GROUP SPA PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) document preview
  • PETERSON, ROBERT vs. INTERPUMP GROUP SPA PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) document preview
  • PETERSON, ROBERT vs. INTERPUMP GROUP SPA PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) document preview
						
                                

Preview

CAUSE NO. 2018-36443 ROBERT PETERSON IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS INTERPUMP GROUP SPA, GENERAL PUMP COMPANY, LLC, OILNEX, LLC, NEXOIL, LLC, AND DCS CONSULTING, INC. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT, DCS ALL AMERICAN, LLC’SRESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY STRIKES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Defendant, DCS All American, LLC, (“DCS”) files this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Equalize Peremptory Strikes and in support would show the court as follows: I. ARGUMENT This is a case in which all parties are adamantly opposed, with conflicting claims against one other. Plaintiff and DCS are opposed as to whether the two consultant workers on site were independent contractors or employees, or whether they can legally be agents of DCS. Contrarily, Plaintiff s claims against General Pump Company, (“General Pump”) are based on product liability. In turn, while Plaintiff s expert testified Teflon tape was found on some of the bolts, but not the bolt at issue as it was discarded, did not contribute to the accident, Plaintiff has since joined with the arguments of General Pump’s experts which contend the Teflon tape was the primary cause of the accident in an effort to hold DCS primarily responsible for the actions of the consultants. In turn, DCS is adverse to General Pump by contending the power washer manufactured by General Pump did not contain an warnings that Teflon tape should not be utilized on the bolts at issue. In other words, as to causation, both Plaintiff and General Pump have teamed up against DCS, so there is a strong argument that DCS should have an equal number of strikes as Plaintiff. Consequently, all parties should be given an equal number of strikes, as all parties are opposed to one other. Plaintiff’s Motion to Equalize Peremptory Strikes should be denied because Defendants General Pump and DCS are antagonistic with respect to liability and damages in this case. Accordingly, General Pump and DCS should each be permitted six peremptory strikes and Plaintiff’s Motion to Equalize Peremptory Strikes should be DENIED . PRAYER Because General Pump and DCS are antagonistic with respect to one another, they should each be allowed six peremptory strikes, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Equalize Peremptory Strikes should be DENIED Respectfully submitted, BUSH & RAMIREZ, PLLC //s// John K. (Ken) Woodard John K. (Ken) Woodard; TBN: 00791955 5615 Kirby Drive, Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77005 Telephone: (713) 626 1555 Facsimile: (713) 622 8077 Email: kwoodard.atty@bushramirez.com TTORNEY FOR EFENDANT EXAS NDUSTRIAL OX AINTENANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of record in accordance with the applicable provisions of the EXAS ULES OF IVIL ROCEDURE on this the day of March Jason A. Itkin / Cory D. Itkin Ryan Macleod / Jacob Karam Arnold & Itkin, LLP 6009 Memorial Drive Houston, Texas 77007 Clyde O. “Chip” Adams, IV James A. “Jim” Lowery, III Dixon J. Cheung Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4100 West Dallas, Texas 75201 //s// John K. (Ken) Woodard John K. (Ken) Woodard