Preview
FILED
9/27/2021 9:39 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Lafonda Sims DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-09849
TAMARA SUZANNE VARDY, Individually IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and as Representative of the Estate of
CHRISTOPHER RAY VARDY, Deceased,
BRENDAN EARL VARDY, CHRISTOPHER
NEFF VARDY, JAMES ROBERT VARDY,
and MARY LOU VARDY
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
NEW PRIME, INC, D/B/A PRIME, INC.,
STEVEN ANTHONY RIDDER, SONIC
LOGISTICS, LLC, SINGH SUKHWINDER,
SIERRA MOUNTAIN
EXPRESS, ARTURO MONTES, COCA-
COLA SOUTHWEST BEVERAGES, LLC, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
JALEN MCENLEY, A/K/A JAILEN
MCKNEELY, J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT,
INC., ERNST VAL, GG’S PRODUCE
TRANSPORT, LLC, I. GARZA, LLC, JOSE
BRENT DURAN, RICH TRANSPORT, LLC
HECTOR FERNANDO GARCIA
RODRIGUEZ, SUN VALLEY, INC.,
CHARLES GRANT BOWMAN, GO TO
LOGISTICS, INC., CODY SLOAN
WILLIAMS, NTE MOBILITY PARTNER
SEGMENTS 3, LLC, NTE MOBILITY
PARTNERS, LLC, NORTH TARRANT
INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC, CINTRA
HOLDINGS US CORP. D/B/A CINTRA US
CORP., CINTRA US SERVICES, LLC,
FERROVIAL AGROMAN US CORP A/K/A
FERROVIAL CONSTRUCTION US CORP.,
and WEBBER,LLC,
Defendants. 44™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS GG’S PRODUCE TRANSPORT, LLC, I. GARZA,
LLC AND JOSE BRENT DURAN’S ORIGINAL ANSWER
SUBJECT TO MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 1
Defendants GG’s Produce Transport, LLC, I. Garza, LLC and Jose Brent Duran
(“Defendants”) file their Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, subject to and without
waiving their previously filed Motion to Transfer Venue and would show the Court as follows:
I. GENERAL DENIAL
1 Defendants assert a general denial as is authorized by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure. Defendants request that Plaintiffs be required to prove their charges and
allegations against them by a preponderance of the evidence as is required by the Constitution and
laws of the State of Texas.
Il. DENIALS
2. Defendants deny that Dallas County is the proper venue for this matter.
3 Defendants deny that they were negligent, negligent per se, and/or grossly
negligent, or that any such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the collision in question.
4 Defendant Jose Brent Duran (“Defendant Duran”) denies that he was negligent in
the operation of his tractor and trailer.
5 Defendant Duran denies that he violated 49 CFR § 392.14, Section 2.13 of the
Texas Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver’s Handbook, and/or the common law.
6 Defendant Duran denies that he failed to use extreme caution with existing ice
conditions in violation of 49 CFR § 392.14 and/or the common law.
ci Defendant Duran denies that he failed to operate at a reasonable rate of speed in
violation of Section 545.351 of the Texas Transportation Code, Section 2.6 of the Texas
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver’s Handbook, and/or the common law.
Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 2
8 Defendant Duran denies that he failed to safely observe hazards in the roadway in
violation of Section 2.8 of the Texas Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver’s Handbook, and/or the
common law.
9 Defendant Duran denies that he failed to keep a safe and proper following distance.
10. Defendant Duran denies that he failed to timely apply the brakes.
le Defendant Duran denies that he failed to pay attention to the road and driving
conditions.
12. Defendant Duran denies that he failed to operate the tractor and trailer in a
reasonable and prudent manner as a commercial driver and person of ordinary prudence would
have done under the same or similar circumstances.
13. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they are liable under
the doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and/or agency.
14. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they negligently
entrusted their truck driver, or that any such alleged negligent entrustment was the proximate cause
of the collision in question or Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages.
1S. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that knew or should have
known that their driver was allegedly incompetent and unsafe.
16. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they violated any duty
of care on the day of the collision in question.
17. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they failed to
determine the competency of their drivers and employees.
18. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they negligently hired
and/or retained their drivers.
Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 3
19. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they failed to
adequately train and/or supervise drivers and employees.
20. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they failed to
adequately exercise control over their drivers’ and employees’ driving habits and activities.
21. Defendants deny that any of their acts or omissions involved an extreme degree of
risk, or that they had independent actual subjective awareness of any risk involved.
22. Defendants deny that they proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights,
safety, and welfare of Christopher Ray Vardy.
23. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for the conscious
pain and mental suffering allegedly endured by Christopher Ray Vardy prior to his death.
24. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for funeral
expenses.
25. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for losses of care,
maintenance, support, household services, advice, counsel, and contributions of pecuniary value
that they would, in reasonable probability, have received from Christopher Ray Vardy during their
lifetimes.
26. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for losses by virtue
of the destruction of the husband-wife and parent-child relationships.
27. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for losses of the
tight to love, affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, leadership, counsel, emotional
support, and happiness.
28. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for severe mental
and emotional anguish, grief, sorrow, and confusion in the past and/or future.
Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 4
29. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover exemplary and/or punitive
damages.
Ill. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
30. Defendants would show that Christopher Ray Vardy was contributorily negligent.
Defendants allege that the conduct of Christopher Ray Vardy in failing to use ordinary care was
the cause or contributing cause of the incident.
31. Defendants allege that the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused
by the conduct, intentional, or negligent acts or omissions of third-parties or a third-party over
whom Defendants had no control or right of control. Defendants had no control or right of control
of the third party at the time of the incident and the conduct, negligence, and/or intentional acts of
the third party were a proximate cause, or in the alternative, the sole proximate cause of Plaintiffs’
alleged injuries and damages.
32. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were proximately caused in whole
or in part by an Act of God which was outside the control of Defendants.
33. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were proximately caused in whole
or in part by a sudden emergency which was outside the control of Defendants.
34. Defendants invoke the provisions of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
Section 41.0105 and plead that Plaintiffs’ medical damages are limited to medical and health care
expenses actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiffs as a result of the injuries that are
the subject of this suit.
35. Further, Defendants will show that any award of interest that is in excess of the
applicable market rate of interest during the relevant time period would be arbitrary, violate public
Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 5
policy, and violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Texas and United States
Constitutions.
36. Defendants assert that if exemplary damages are awarded, any award should be
subject to the limits imposed by § 41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
37. Defendants further allege that under Texas law, a jury has wholly unfettered
discretion to award exemplary damages in a tort case in which Defendants act with a sufficient
mental state. Any award of exemplary damages violates the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in addition to Article
1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution, in that:
a. Such punitive damages are intended to punish and deter Defendants
and thus this proceeding becomes essentially criminal in nature;
Defendants are being compelled to be a witness against itself in a
proceeding that is essentially and effectively criminal in nature, in
violation of Defendants’ rights to due process, and in violation of
the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas;
Plaintiffs’ burden of proof to establish punitive damages in this
proceeding, which is effectively criminal in nature, is less than the
burden of proof required in all other criminal proceedings, and thus
violates Defendants’ rights to due process as guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the
rights of each Defendant under Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas
Constitution; and
Inasmuch as this proceeding is essentially and effectively criminal
in nature, Defendants are being denied the requirements of adequate
notice of the elements of the offense, and that such statutory and
common law theories purportedly authorizing punitive damages are
sufficiently vague and ambiguous, and Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
which purports to invoke such statutory and/or common law theory
is so vague and ambiguous as to be in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and in violation of Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas
Constitution.
Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 6
38. Defendants would also show that Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary
damages violate Defendants’ right to protection from being subjected to excessive fines, as
provided in Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution.
39. Defendants would further show that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any award of
exemplary damages. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled allegations of intentional or willful
conduct or intentional acts authorized or ratified by Defendants.
IV. NOTICE THAT DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRODUCED
40. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants give
notice that all documents produced by Plaintiffs will be used at any pretrial proceeding or at the
trial of this case.
V. PRAYER
41. Defendants GG’s Produce Transport, LLC, I. Garza, LLC and Jose Brent Duran
request that they be released and discharged of the allegations filed against them, that Plaintiffs
take nothing by reason of this lawsuit, and for such other and further relief, both in law and in
equity to which Defendants GG’s Produce Transport, LLC, I. Garza, LLC and Jose Brent Duran
may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
SHEEHY, WARE & PAPPAS, P.C
/s/ Jana H. Taylor
JANA HICKS TAYLOR
SBN: 24012826
3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 521-7500 Telephone
(214) 520-1708 Facsimile
jtaylor@sheehyware.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 7
GG’S PRODUCE TRANSPORT, LLC,
I. GARZA, LLC AND JOSE BRENT DURAN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been provided
to all known counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures on this 27" day of
September 2021.
/s/ Jana H. Taylor
JANA HICKS TAYLOR
Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE &
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Hannah Johnson on behalf of Jana Taylor
Bar No. 24012826
hjohnson@sheehyware.com
Envelope ID: 57610631
Status as of 9/28/2021 9:57 AM CST
Associated Case Party: TAMARASUZANNEVARDY
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Tim Newsom efiletn@flbranson.com | 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM | SENT
Associated Case Party: COCA-COLA SOUTHWEST BEVERAGES LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
David H.Estes destes@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Amanda Saputo asaputo@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Cindy Parnell cparnell@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Alycia Hall ahall@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Taylor Accountius taccountius@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Jennifer White JWhite@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Jessica Alvarez jalvarez@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Faisal Al Alam FAI-Alam@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Michael CWright mwright@rwtrial.com | 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM | SENT
Associated Case Party: GG'S PRODUCE TRANSPORT LLC.
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Hannah Johnson hjohnson@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Jana H.Taylor jtaylor@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Cassandra Osterhoudt costerhoudt@sheehyware.com | 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Hannah Johnson on behalf of Jana Taylor
Bar No. 24012826
hjohnson@sheehyware.com
Envelope ID: 57610631
Status as of 9/28/2021 9:57 AM CST
Associated Case Party: | GARZA LLC
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Hannah Johnson hjohnson@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Cassandra Osterhoudt costerhoudt@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Jana H.Taylor jtaylor@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: JOSEBRENTDURAN
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Hannah Johnson hjohnson@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Jana H.Taylor jtaylor@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Cassandra Osterhoudt costerhoudt@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: GO TO LOGISTICS INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Connie Cobb ccobb@bairhilty.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Wendi Ervin wervin@bairhilty.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Marc B.Johnson mjohnson@bairhilty.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Becky Johnson bjohnson@bairhilty.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: NTE MOBILITY PARTNERS SEGMENTS 3 LLC
Name
William RJenkins
Marilyn Brown
Keith Andrew Robb
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Hannah Johnson on behalf of Jana Taylor
Bar No. 24012826
hjohnson@sheehyware.com
Envelope ID: 57610631
Status as of 9/28/2021 9:57 AM CST
Associated Case Party: NTE MOBILITY PARTNERS SEGMENTS 3 LLC
Keith Cramer 24051678 kcramer@gordonrees.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Sona Julianna Garcia | 24045917 sjgarcia@grsm.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Christopher Norcross 24081677 cnorcross@gordonrees.com | 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Gracie Garcia ggarcia@jw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Betsy Yocum byocum@belaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Carter LFerguson cferguson@belaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
David JDrez david.drez@wickphillips.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
The BassettFirm efile@thebassettfirm.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Zachary Farrar zachary .farrar@wickphillips.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
TIMOTHY DREWNEWSOM tnewsom@flbranson.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Clint V.Cox ccox@coxpllc.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Noah Nadler noah.nadler@wickphillips.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Jas Braich jbraich@coxpllc.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Henri Dussault hdussault@belaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
John Landreth jlandreth@coxplic.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Christie Bunch cbunch@coxpllc.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Susan Royall sroyall@belaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Steven LRussell srussell@rwtrial.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Donna Hayward dhayward@mttrial.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Robert Meagher bmeagher@mtrial.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Karen Spencer kspencer@rwtrial.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Hannah Johnson on behalf of Jana Taylor
Bar No. 24012826
hjohnson@sheehyware.com
Envelope ID: 57610631
Status as of 9/28/2021 9:57 AM CST
Associated Case Party: New Prime, Inc. D/B/A/ New Prime, Inc.
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Robert Collins Robert.Collins@gkbklaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Karl Koen karl.koen@gkbklaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Karen Morris Karen.Morris@gkbklaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Mark DavidSiemer mark.siemer@gkbklaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 9/27/2021 9:39 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Lafonda Sims DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-09849 TAMARA SUZANNE VARDY, Individually IN THE DISTRICT COURT and as Representative of the Estate of CHRISTOPHER RAY VARDY, Deceased, BRENDAN EARL VARDY, CHRISTOPHER NEFF VARDY, JAMES ROBERT VARDY, and MARY LOU VARDY Plaintiffs, Vv. NEW PRIME, INC, D/B/A PRIME, INC., STEVEN ANTHONY RIDDER, SONIC LOGISTICS, LLC, SINGH SUKHWINDER, SIERRA MOUNTAIN EXPRESS, ARTURO MONTES, COCA- COLA SOUTHWEST BEVERAGES, LLC, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JALEN MCENLEY, A/K/A JAILEN MCKNEELY, J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., ERNST VAL, GG’S PRODUCE TRANSPORT, LLC, I. GARZA, LLC, JOSE BRENT DURAN, RICH TRANSPORT, LLC HECTOR FERNANDO GARCIA RODRIGUEZ, SUN VALLEY, INC., CHARLES GRANT BOWMAN, GO TO LOGISTICS, INC., CODY SLOAN WILLIAMS, NTE MOBILITY PARTNER SEGMENTS 3, LLC, NTE MOBILITY PARTNERS, LLC, NORTH TARRANT INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC, CINTRA HOLDINGS US CORP. D/B/A CINTRA US CORP., CINTRA US SERVICES, LLC, FERROVIAL AGROMAN US CORP A/K/A FERROVIAL CONSTRUCTION US CORP., and WEBBER,LLC, Defendants. 44™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS GG’S PRODUCE TRANSPORT, LLC, I. GARZA, LLC AND JOSE BRENT DURAN’S ORIGINAL ANSWER SUBJECT TO MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 1 Defendants GG’s Produce Transport, LLC, I. Garza, LLC and Jose Brent Duran (“Defendants”) file their Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, subject to and without waiving their previously filed Motion to Transfer Venue and would show the Court as follows: I. GENERAL DENIAL 1 Defendants assert a general denial as is authorized by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants request that Plaintiffs be required to prove their charges and allegations against them by a preponderance of the evidence as is required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas. Il. DENIALS 2. Defendants deny that Dallas County is the proper venue for this matter. 3 Defendants deny that they were negligent, negligent per se, and/or grossly negligent, or that any such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the collision in question. 4 Defendant Jose Brent Duran (“Defendant Duran”) denies that he was negligent in the operation of his tractor and trailer. 5 Defendant Duran denies that he violated 49 CFR § 392.14, Section 2.13 of the Texas Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver’s Handbook, and/or the common law. 6 Defendant Duran denies that he failed to use extreme caution with existing ice conditions in violation of 49 CFR § 392.14 and/or the common law. ci Defendant Duran denies that he failed to operate at a reasonable rate of speed in violation of Section 545.351 of the Texas Transportation Code, Section 2.6 of the Texas Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver’s Handbook, and/or the common law. Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 2 8 Defendant Duran denies that he failed to safely observe hazards in the roadway in violation of Section 2.8 of the Texas Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver’s Handbook, and/or the common law. 9 Defendant Duran denies that he failed to keep a safe and proper following distance. 10. Defendant Duran denies that he failed to timely apply the brakes. le Defendant Duran denies that he failed to pay attention to the road and driving conditions. 12. Defendant Duran denies that he failed to operate the tractor and trailer in a reasonable and prudent manner as a commercial driver and person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances. 13. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they are liable under the doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and/or agency. 14. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they negligently entrusted their truck driver, or that any such alleged negligent entrustment was the proximate cause of the collision in question or Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages. 1S. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that knew or should have known that their driver was allegedly incompetent and unsafe. 16. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they violated any duty of care on the day of the collision in question. 17. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they failed to determine the competency of their drivers and employees. 18. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they negligently hired and/or retained their drivers. Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 3 19. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they failed to adequately train and/or supervise drivers and employees. 20. Defendants GG’s Produce, LLC and I. Garza, LLC deny that they failed to adequately exercise control over their drivers’ and employees’ driving habits and activities. 21. Defendants deny that any of their acts or omissions involved an extreme degree of risk, or that they had independent actual subjective awareness of any risk involved. 22. Defendants deny that they proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of Christopher Ray Vardy. 23. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for the conscious pain and mental suffering allegedly endured by Christopher Ray Vardy prior to his death. 24. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for funeral expenses. 25. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for losses of care, maintenance, support, household services, advice, counsel, and contributions of pecuniary value that they would, in reasonable probability, have received from Christopher Ray Vardy during their lifetimes. 26. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for losses by virtue of the destruction of the husband-wife and parent-child relationships. 27. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for losses of the tight to love, affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, leadership, counsel, emotional support, and happiness. 28. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for severe mental and emotional anguish, grief, sorrow, and confusion in the past and/or future. Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 4 29. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover exemplary and/or punitive damages. Ill. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 30. Defendants would show that Christopher Ray Vardy was contributorily negligent. Defendants allege that the conduct of Christopher Ray Vardy in failing to use ordinary care was the cause or contributing cause of the incident. 31. Defendants allege that the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by the conduct, intentional, or negligent acts or omissions of third-parties or a third-party over whom Defendants had no control or right of control. Defendants had no control or right of control of the third party at the time of the incident and the conduct, negligence, and/or intentional acts of the third party were a proximate cause, or in the alternative, the sole proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages. 32. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were proximately caused in whole or in part by an Act of God which was outside the control of Defendants. 33. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were proximately caused in whole or in part by a sudden emergency which was outside the control of Defendants. 34. Defendants invoke the provisions of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.0105 and plead that Plaintiffs’ medical damages are limited to medical and health care expenses actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiffs as a result of the injuries that are the subject of this suit. 35. Further, Defendants will show that any award of interest that is in excess of the applicable market rate of interest during the relevant time period would be arbitrary, violate public Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 5 policy, and violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Texas and United States Constitutions. 36. Defendants assert that if exemplary damages are awarded, any award should be subject to the limits imposed by § 41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. 37. Defendants further allege that under Texas law, a jury has wholly unfettered discretion to award exemplary damages in a tort case in which Defendants act with a sufficient mental state. Any award of exemplary damages violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in addition to Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution, in that: a. Such punitive damages are intended to punish and deter Defendants and thus this proceeding becomes essentially criminal in nature; Defendants are being compelled to be a witness against itself in a proceeding that is essentially and effectively criminal in nature, in violation of Defendants’ rights to due process, and in violation of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas; Plaintiffs’ burden of proof to establish punitive damages in this proceeding, which is effectively criminal in nature, is less than the burden of proof required in all other criminal proceedings, and thus violates Defendants’ rights to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the rights of each Defendant under Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution; and Inasmuch as this proceeding is essentially and effectively criminal in nature, Defendants are being denied the requirements of adequate notice of the elements of the offense, and that such statutory and common law theories purportedly authorizing punitive damages are sufficiently vague and ambiguous, and Plaintiffs’ Original Petition which purports to invoke such statutory and/or common law theory is so vague and ambiguous as to be in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in violation of Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 6 38. Defendants would also show that Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages violate Defendants’ right to protection from being subjected to excessive fines, as provided in Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution. 39. Defendants would further show that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any award of exemplary damages. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled allegations of intentional or willful conduct or intentional acts authorized or ratified by Defendants. IV. NOTICE THAT DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRODUCED 40. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants give notice that all documents produced by Plaintiffs will be used at any pretrial proceeding or at the trial of this case. V. PRAYER 41. Defendants GG’s Produce Transport, LLC, I. Garza, LLC and Jose Brent Duran request that they be released and discharged of the allegations filed against them, that Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of this lawsuit, and for such other and further relief, both in law and in equity to which Defendants GG’s Produce Transport, LLC, I. Garza, LLC and Jose Brent Duran may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, SHEEHY, WARE & PAPPAS, P.C /s/ Jana H. Taylor JANA HICKS TAYLOR SBN: 24012826 3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 521-7500 Telephone (214) 520-1708 Facsimile jtaylor@sheehyware.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE 7 GG’S PRODUCE TRANSPORT, LLC, I. GARZA, LLC AND JOSE BRENT DURAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been provided to all known counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures on this 27" day of September 2021. /s/ Jana H. Taylor JANA HICKS TAYLOR Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition PAGE & Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Hannah Johnson on behalf of Jana Taylor Bar No. 24012826 hjohnson@sheehyware.com Envelope ID: 57610631 Status as of 9/28/2021 9:57 AM CST Associated Case Party: TAMARASUZANNEVARDY Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Tim Newsom efiletn@flbranson.com | 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM | SENT Associated Case Party: COCA-COLA SOUTHWEST BEVERAGES LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status David H.Estes destes@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Amanda Saputo asaputo@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Cindy Parnell cparnell@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Alycia Hall ahall@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Taylor Accountius taccountius@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Jennifer White JWhite@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Jessica Alvarez jalvarez@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Faisal Al Alam FAI-Alam@hartlinebarger.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Associated Case Party: J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Michael CWright mwright@rwtrial.com | 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM | SENT Associated Case Party: GG'S PRODUCE TRANSPORT LLC. Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Hannah Johnson hjohnson@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Jana H.Taylor jtaylor@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Cassandra Osterhoudt costerhoudt@sheehyware.com | 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Hannah Johnson on behalf of Jana Taylor Bar No. 24012826 hjohnson@sheehyware.com Envelope ID: 57610631 Status as of 9/28/2021 9:57 AM CST Associated Case Party: | GARZA LLC Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Hannah Johnson hjohnson@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Cassandra Osterhoudt costerhoudt@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Jana H.Taylor jtaylor@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Associated Case Party: JOSEBRENTDURAN Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Hannah Johnson hjohnson@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Jana H.Taylor jtaylor@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Cassandra Osterhoudt costerhoudt@sheehyware.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Associated Case Party: GO TO LOGISTICS INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Connie Cobb ccobb@bairhilty.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Wendi Ervin wervin@bairhilty.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Marc B.Johnson mjohnson@bairhilty.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Becky Johnson bjohnson@bairhilty.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Associated Case Party: NTE MOBILITY PARTNERS SEGMENTS 3 LLC Name William RJenkins Marilyn Brown Keith Andrew Robb Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Hannah Johnson on behalf of Jana Taylor Bar No. 24012826 hjohnson@sheehyware.com Envelope ID: 57610631 Status as of 9/28/2021 9:57 AM CST Associated Case Party: NTE MOBILITY PARTNERS SEGMENTS 3 LLC Keith Cramer 24051678 kcramer@gordonrees.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Sona Julianna Garcia | 24045917 sjgarcia@grsm.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Christopher Norcross 24081677 cnorcross@gordonrees.com | 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Gracie Garcia ggarcia@jw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Betsy Yocum byocum@belaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Carter LFerguson cferguson@belaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT David JDrez david.drez@wickphillips.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT The BassettFirm efile@thebassettfirm.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Zachary Farrar zachary .farrar@wickphillips.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT TIMOTHY DREWNEWSOM tnewsom@flbranson.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Clint V.Cox ccox@coxpllc.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Noah Nadler noah.nadler@wickphillips.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Jas Braich jbraich@coxpllc.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Henri Dussault hdussault@belaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT John Landreth jlandreth@coxplic.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Christie Bunch cbunch@coxpllc.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Susan Royall sroyall@belaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Steven LRussell srussell@rwtrial.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Donna Hayward dhayward@mttrial.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Robert Meagher bmeagher@mtrial.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Karen Spencer kspencer@rwtrial.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Hannah Johnson on behalf of Jana Taylor Bar No. 24012826 hjohnson@sheehyware.com Envelope ID: 57610631 Status as of 9/28/2021 9:57 AM CST Associated Case Party: New Prime, Inc. D/B/A/ New Prime, Inc. Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Robert Collins Robert.Collins@gkbklaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Karl Koen karl.koen@gkbklaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Karen Morris Karen.Morris@gkbklaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT Mark DavidSiemer mark.siemer@gkbklaw.com 9/27/2021 9:39:11 AM SENT