Preview
FILED
8/11/2021 6:46 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Margaret Thomas DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. . DC-21-04901
TONY EVANS, SR., and ARETHA EVANS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
individually and on behalf of their minor son,
T.E., deceased, and MONIQUE PICKENS,
individually and on behalf of her minor son,
D.W.
Plaintiffs, 162nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv.
TASACOM REAL ESTATE, LLC d/b/a
HAWTHORN SUITES DALLAS LOVE FIELD,
HAWTHORN SUITES FRANCHISING, INC.,
WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., and )
MOHAMMAD SADIQ NOSHAHI, )
) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
Plaintiffs Tony Evans, Sr., and Aretha Evans, individually and on behalf of their minor
son, T.E., deceased, and Monique Pickens, individually and on behalf of her minor son, D.W.
(collectively “Plaintiffs”), complain against Tasacom Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites
Dallas Love Field, Hawthorn Suites Franchising, Inc., Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. and
Mohammad Sadiq Noshahi, and for cause of action allege and state, as follows:
DISCOVERY PLAN
1 Pursuant to Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery in this case should
be conducted under Level 3.
RULE 47 STATEMENT
2. Pursuant to Rules 47(c)(5) and 47(d) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs seek
monetary relief over $1,000,000.00 and a demand for judgment for all other relief which the parties
deem themselves entitled, including as described in further detail herein.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 1 of 16
PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Dallas County, Texas.
4. Defendant Tasacom Real Estate LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites Dallas Love Field is a Texas
limited liability company that has been served with process and has answered this lawsuit.
5. Defendant Hawthorn Suites Franchising, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation that is
registered to do and does business in the State of Texas, and which committed tortious acts in the
State of Texas that may be served through its registered agent, Corporate Creations Network, Inc.,
5444 Westheimer, #1000, Houston, Texas 77056.
6. Defendant Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation that
conducts business in Texas, and which committed tortious act in the State of Texas, that may be
served through its registered agent, Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 3411 Silverside Road,
Tatnall Building, Ste. 104, Wilmington, Delaware 19810.
7. Defendant Mohammad Sadiq Noshahi is an individual Texas resident that may be served
at his regular place of business located at 13151 Emily Road, Ste. 200, Dallas, Texas 75240.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. All or a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred in Dallas
County, thus venue properly lies in Dallas County, Texas.
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this litigation because the amount in controversy exceeds
the minimum jurisdictional limits and, therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all
parties and claims. All parties to this action are either residents of the State of Texas or conduct
business in this State and committed torts that are the subject of this suit in whole or in part in
Texas, as hereafter alleged in greater detail.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 2 of 16
FACTS
10. Defendants Tasacom Real Estate LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites Dallas Love Field, Hawthorn
Suites Franchising, Inc., Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and Mohammad Sadiq Noshahi
(collectively “Defendants”) own and/or operate a Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham hotel near Dallas
Love Field Airport, located at 7900 Brookriver Drive, Dallas, Texas 75347 (the “hotel”).
Defendants collectively control and/or supervise the day-to-day operations of the hotel.
Defendants receive monetary benefits from the operation of the hotel.
11. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (“Wyndham”) is a hotel company based in Parsippany,
New Jersey and incorporated in Delaware that describes itself as the largest hotel franchisor in the
world, with 9,280 locations.
12. Hawthorn Suites is a chain of hotels in the United States and is affiliated with Wyndham
to operate extended stay hotels for transient guest lodging services under the name Hawthorn
Suites by Wyndham.
13. Defendant Tasacom Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites Dallas Love Field
(“Tasacom”) is a franchisee of the hotel through a Franchise Agreement with Hawthorn Suites
Franchising, Inc. (“Hawthorn Franchising”) to operate a Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham hotel.
Tasacom has responsibility for managing its hotel employees.
14. Defendant Mohammad Sadiq Noshahi (““Noshani”) is an individual property owner of the
hotel property and lessor of the premises. Noshani is also a member of Tasacom and offices out of
the same location as Tasacom. Noshani has knowledge of the day-to-day business affairs of
Tasacom, as well as knowledge and/or constructive knowledge of the historical criminal activity
that has occurred on the premises and within the vicinity of the hotel.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 3 of 16
15. Plaintiffs Tony Evans, Sr. and Aretha Evans are Decedent T.E.’s biological parents.
Plaintiff Monique Pickens is D.W.’s biological mother.
16. On April 11, 2021, seventeen-year-old Decedent T.E. (““Decedent”) and seventeen-year-
old Plaintiff D.W. (“D.W.”) were shot in room 221 of the hotel at approximately 1:30 a.m.
17. Decedent eventually died from his wounds in a car while being transported to Parkland, a
nearby hospital. D.W. sustained debilitating injuries but survived the attack.
18. The hotel has an age restriction policy for renting and checking into rooms. The posted
policy states that patrons must be 21 years old to check in and they must present valid state-issued
photo identification that must be presented to receive a room key.
19, Against this policy, on April 10, 2021, a twenty-year-old who regularly has parties was
permitted to rent, check-in, and occupy room 221 for the night, including the time period during
which the shooting took place. Upon information and belief, Decedent and D.W. contributed to
renting the room.
20. The hotel regularly permits underage patrons to rent rooms and check in despite its
purported policy forbidding it. Underage entrants to the property had a reasonable understanding
that the hotel had a willingness to receive them on the property.
21. An employee working at the hotel witnessed at least six young men going into room 221
prior to midnight. At around midnight, the same employee witnessed an additional five young
women enter room 221.
22. These eleven people were in addition to the underage patron that initially checked into the
room.
23. The hotel also has a stated policy against parties being held in hotel rooms.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 4 of 16
24. At least twelve young people were having a party in room 221 at the time of the shooting.
Despite witnessing up to eleven people enter room 221 after it was rented, no action was taken
prior to the shooting in contravention of the hotel’s own policies and procedures.
25. At around 1:30 a.m., Decedent and D.W. were shot by an unknown assailant who had
entered room 221.
26. The hotel’s general manager was on site at all relevant times.
27. There was no adequate security detail on site at all relevant times and the hotel is located
in a high crime area and/or crime, including violent crime, has regularly occurred on the premises.
28. Indeed, the hotel property was deemed a Habitual Criminal Property, as defined by Dallas
City Code Section 27-48, due to repeated occurrences of criminal activity, including assaults, rape,
drug crimes, weapons and drug offenses, criminal mischief, and prostitution, that occurred during
the three years prior to the shooting at issue. Eleven previous occurrences of each of these types
of offenses occurred within approximately a year prior to the shooting. All of the criminal activity
cited by the City of Dallas occurred while Defendants owned and/or operated the hotel.
29. Wyndham retains control over the operations at the hotel that are directly at issue in this
litigation, including control over the safety and security of the premises. The hotel can lose its
franchise if it does not follow Wyndham’s policies and procedures. Wyndham reached out to the
hotel to prescribe specific policies and procedures with regard to renting rooms at the hotel.
Wyndham also prescribes specific policies and procedures with regard to safety and security
measures that should be implemented at the hotel to deter and minimize crime on the property.
Wyndham is also responsible for training hotel management, including with regard to requiring
that the hotel has access to enter hotel rooms at will for purposes of safety and security. Wyndham
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 5 of 16
failed to adequately enforce these policies and procedures and failed to adequately train hotel
management and staff, a substantial and contributing cause to the injuries alleged herein.
30. Hawthorne Franchising also retains control over operations of the hotel that are directly at
issue in this litigation, including control over the safety and security of the premises. This includes
issuance and direction through a Standards of Operations manual. Hawthorne Franchising has the
authority to terminate the franchise with the hotel for violations of the standards it imposes on the
hotel.
31. Hawthorne Franchising also conducts quality assurance inspections of the property to
ensure that the hotel is being operated in compliance with all state and local laws and ordinances.
This includes authority to prevent hotel representatives and/or employees from engaging in
conduct that is unlawful or damaging to the hotel.
32. Hawthorne Franchising also retains control to monitor the premises and enforce
compliance measures for operation of the hotel that endangers the health and safety of hotel guests.
In addition, Hawthorne Franchising is responsible for training Tasacom with regard to the proper
management of the hotel, including those policies and procedures related to safety and security.
Hawthorne Franchising directs that its hotels must “reserve the right to enter guestrooms at any
time for safety . . . [or] security.” Hawthorne Franchising further requires the manager or general
managet-on-duty to inspect the premises twice daily to log safety and security issues, as well as
requiring the manager to ensure the facility it operated under “high ethical and moral principles.”
33. Hawthorne Franchising failed to adequately enforce the above policies and procedures,
failed to adequately inspect the premises, and failed to adequately train Tasacom and its
representatives, which were substantial and contributing causes to the injuries alleged herein.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 6 of 16
34. Hawthorne Franchising, Wyndham, and Tasacom jointly own the information recorded in
the Property Management System regarding their hotel guests. Tasacom was required by
Hawthorne Franchising and Wyndham to assure the timely and accurate collection of guest
information, including their dates of birth, for purposes of transmitting the information to them
and the broader hotel chain database. Tasacom employees regularly permitted underage customers
to rent rooms at the hotel despite policies forbidding underage patrons. This information was
recorded, and Defendants knew or should have known of this practice and taken reasonable steps
to prevent it.
35. Not only did Defendants Wyndham, Hawthorne Franchising, and Tasacom fail to properly
train their employees and/or franchisees and/or failed to adequately implement their own policies
and procedures relevant to preventing the shooting at issue and the risks associated with large
gatherings in hotel rooms, but all Defendants further failed to take adequate security measures to
protect the premises and/or enforce any security measures, including but not limited to, adequate
regular security detail and access controls, to prevent or deter violent crime from occurring on the
hotel premises.
36. Defendants knew, should have known, and/or had constructive knowledge that similar
violent criminal conduct was prevalent both in the vicinity of the hotel and on the hotel’s premises
sufficiently near in time to the shooting that took Decedent’s life. Further, based on their own
observations and experience, Defendants could have reasonably anticipated criminal conduct
occurring on the hotel premises and should have taken precautions to protect against it.
37. All Defendants maintained control of the safety and security of the hotel premises.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 7 of 16
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1 — Vicarious and Vice-Principal Liability
38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and
below as if set forth fully herein.
39. Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligence, acts and omissions of their agents,
employees, and representatives.
40. In addition, Tasacom is directly liable for the negligent acts of its vice-principals, including
but not limited to, the general manager who was present at the time of the shooting.
Count 2 — Premises Liability Against Defendant Tasacom and Noshani
41, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and
below as if set forth fully herein.
42. At all relevant times herein, Tasacom and Noshani had a duty to Decedent and D.W. to
make the hotel premises reasonably safe, using a reasonable or ordinary standard of care that a
reasonably prudent person would exercise under all pertinent circumstances.
43. Tasacom and Noshani breached their duty of care by failing to eliminate or mitigate a
dangerous condition on the premises so that it was no longer dangerous and/or failed to provide
an adequate warning of the danger to Decedent and D.W., including the failure to act given their
knowledge and/or constructive knowledge of historical crime on the premises.
44. Tasacom further breached its duty of care by failing to follow its own policies and
procedures concerning underage room rentals and permitting large gatherings in its rooms.
45. Tasacom and Noshani knew or should have known that:
a) dangerous individuals might come upon the property due to inadequate supervision,
monitoring and patrolling of the premises;
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 8 of 16
b) the premises or immediate vicinity of the premises was the scene of numerous
violent crimes and habitual criminal acts against persons in a recent timeframe prior to
Decedent’s injuries and subsequent death and D.W.’s injuries;
c) violent crimes and other crimes against persons occurring at or near the hotel
premises provided them with notice of the need to exercise care in implementing security
procedures and/or personnel deployment to reasonably prevent or reduce the likelihood of
such crimes on its property, including the attack against Decedent and D.W.;
d) Tasacom maintained inadequate staffing, training, and security personnel on the
property at the time of the shooting;
e) the presence of adequately trained, staffed, and positioned security detail on the
premises would have reasonably deterred or prevented Decedent’s injuries and subsequent
death and D.W.’s injuries; and
f) Tasacom failed to implement workplace policies and procedures to reasonably
protect Decedent and D.W. from an unreasonable risk of harm that substantially caused
Decedent’s injuries and subsequent death and D.W.’s injuries.
46. Tasacom, through its employees and agents, breached its duty of care and exposed
Decedent and D.W. to an unreasonable risk of harm in one or more of the following particulars,
individually, or in combination with others:
a) failing to maintain proper access controls;
b) failing to provide any warning or notice about the dangers or the absence of
adequate security precautions;
°) failing to monitor and/or warn of suspicious activities in and around the hotel;
qd) negligent hiring, training and supervision;
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 9 of 16
e) failing to take adequate security measures, including but not limited to, hiring
security detail and/or regular security patrols;
f) failing to implement and enforce adequate security and policies;
_ failing to keep records of crimes on the property of which they knew or should have
known; and
h) failing to prohibit underage room rental and large gatherings and/or parties in its
hotel rooms.
47. Noshani, as a property owner and lessor, breached his duty of care by failing to take
sufficient action to reasonably ensure the safety of premises despite his knowledge and/or
onstructive knowledge of the criminal activity in and around the property, as well as his
knowledge concerning Tasacom’s ongoing inability and/or failure to ensure the safety of the
premises as alleged herein.
48. Each of the foregoing actions and/or omissions proximately caused and/or were a
substantial factor in causing both the injuries to Decedent that eventually led to his death and
D.W.’s injuries, as well as all damages to Plaintiffs in this case. Decedent’s parents, therefore, seek
an award for such damages caused before and as a result of Decedent’s death. Plaintiff Pickens,
individually and on behalf of her son, seeks an award for such damages caused as a result of the
injuries sustained by her minor son D.W.
Count 3 — Negligence Against Wyndham and Hawthorne Franchising
49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and
below asif set forth fully herein.
50. Wyndham and Hawthorne Franchising exercised control and/or undertook responsibilities
and duties concerning the operations of the hotel, including the safety and security of the property,
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 10 of 16
through implementing and enforcing policies for purposes of guest protection and property safety
and, therefore, had a duty to ensure the hotel was reasonably safe, using an ordinary standard of
care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under all pertinent circumstances to avoid
harm to third persons. Additionally, Wyndham and Hawthorne Franchising undertook these duties
to render specific services for the aid and protection of guests on the hotel premises. Wyndham
and Hawthorne Franchising breached their respective duties of care, proximately causing the
damages alleged herein.
51. Wyndham breached its duty of care, proximately resulting in the injuries and damages
alleged herein, by failing to ensure adequate implementation of its policies and procedures by
Tasacom. Wyndham had authority over prescribing safety and security hotel policies but was
negligent in failing to adequately enforce the policies and procedures, a substantial and
contributing cause to the injuries alleged herein. Wyndham also failed to adequately train and
supervise hotel management and staff with regard to its prescribed policies, a substantial and
contributing cause to the injuries alleged herein. Wyndham also knew or should have known that
the premises was a Habitual Criminal Property and/or was the location of a litany criminal acts in
a short period of time and/or was located in the vicinity of substantial violent crime and failing to
take action to mitigate the risk of crime on the property and/or adequately ensure the safety of
hotel guests like Decedent and D.W.
52. Hawthorn Franchises breached its duty of care by failing to adequately inspect the premises
for purposes of ensuring the hotel was not violating local ordinances meant to protect the public,
including hotel guests like Decedent and D.W., and by knowing and/or constructively knowing
that the premises was a Habitual Criminal Property and/or was the location of a litany criminal
acts in a short period of time and/or was located in the vicinity of substantial violent crime and
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 11 of 16
failing to take action to mitigate the risk of crime on the property and/or adequately ensure the
afety of hotel guests like Decedent and D.W. Hawthorne Franchising also breached its duty of
care by failing to adequately train and supervise hotel management and staff with regard to its
prescribed policies, a substantial and contributing cause to the injuries alleged herein.
53. The above negligent acts and/or omissions were a proximate cause of the injuries and
damages alleged herein.
Count 4 — Gross Negligence
54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and
below as if set forth fully herein.
55. Defendants had a duty to refrain from engaging in conduct which when viewed objectively
from Defendants’ standpoint at the time of the event, act or omission involved an extreme degree
of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others and about which
they had actual subjective awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeded with
conscious indifference to the rights, safety or welfare of others, including Decedent and D.W.
56. Defendants’ actions in this regard, by and through its agents, employees, and/or vice-
principals, proximately caused Decedent’s injuries and ultimate death and D.W. injuries.
57. Defendants committed the above-described acts and omissions with malice because they
engaged in conduct that, when viewed objectively, involved an extreme degree of harm to
Decedent and D.W., considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Decedent
and D.W.
58. Moreover, Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved but proceeded
with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of Decedent and D.W., including that
the entity Defendants violated their own policies that led to Decedent’s death and D.W.’s injuries.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 12 of 16
59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Decedent sustained life-
threatening injuries that ultimately resulted in his death and D.W. sustained debilitating injuries.
60. Accordingly, the imposition of exemplary damages and all other damages to which
Plaintiffs are entitled is warranted. Plaintiffs seek an award for exemplary damages in an amount
sufficient to punish Defendants and deter them and others similarly situated from committing such
gross negligence and malicious acts in the future.
Count 5 — Negligent Training and Supervision
61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and
below as if set forth fully herein.
62. Defendant Tasacom had a duty to exercise reasonable care in training and supervising its
employees. Tasacom breached its duty by failing to adequately train its employees and/or
supervise its employees with regard to permitting underage hotel rentals, permitting large
gatherings and/or parties in hotel rooms, and reporting perceived conduct contrary to established
policy, including failing to train employees with regard to reporting and tracking criminal conduct
on the premises. Had sufficient training and/or supervision been exercised, the shooting that killed
Decedent and injured D.W. would have been avoided. Tasacom’s negligence in this regard
proximately caused Decedent’s injuries and ultimate death and D.W.’s injuries.
63. Defendants Hawthorne Franchises and Wyndham had a duty to exercise reasonable care in
training and supervising its employees. Hawthorne Franchises and Wyndham also had a duty to
exercise reasonable care in training Tasacom and its employees. Defendants Hawthorne Franchises
and Wyndham breached their duties by failing to adequately train their employees and/or supervise
their employees with regard to inspecting Tasacom’s business practices, including the historical
crime on the property and those relating to safety and security, and training Tasacom’s
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 13 of 16
representatives with regard to ensuring compliance with state and local law and proper
management of the hotel, including safety and security practices. Hawthorne Franchises and
Wyndham’s negligence in this regard proximately caused Decedent’s injuries and ultimate death
and D.W.’s injuries.
DAMAGES — WRONGFUL DEATH PLAINTIFFS
64. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and
below as if set forth fully herein.
65. Plaintiffs Tony Evans, Sr. and Aretha Evans (“Wrongful Death Plaintiffs”) seek all
damages permitted pursuant to the Texas Wrongful Death Statute, codified at TEX. Civ. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 71.002, et seq. and the Texas Survival Statute codified at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE § 71.021, et seq.
66. Defendants’ acts and omissions were the proximate cause of the following damages for
which Wrongful Death Plaintiffs seek recovery:
a) actual damages;
b) damages for Decedent’s pain and suffering, fear, trauma, intense distress, mental
anguish and/or emotional pain prior to his death;
°) compensatory damages to Wrongful Death Plaintiffs for their physical pain,
suffering, mental or emotional pain or anguish, loss of consortium, companionship, society,
enjoyment of life, loss of household/family services, and all other nonpecuniary losses of
any kind in the past and future;
d) loss of service;
e) all other damages naturally and/or incidentally flowing from Defendants’ conduct
and/or omissions forming the basis of this lawsuit;
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 14 of 16
f) exemplary damages and punitive damages;
8) prejudgment interest; and
h) post-judgment interest.
67. Wrongful Death Plaintiffs seek unliquidated damages.
DAMAGES — PERSONAL INJURY PLAINTIFFS
68. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and
below as if set forth fully herein.
69. Plaintiff Monique Pickens, individually and on behalf of D.W. (“Personal Injury
Plaintiffs”), seeks the following damages as a proximate result of Defendants’ negligence alleged
herein:
a) actual damages;
b) loss of income in the past and future;
°) reasonable medical care and expenses in the past and future;
qd) physical impairment in the past and future;
e) psychological pain and suffering in the past and future;
f) loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, loss of household management and
services;
8) all other damages naturally and/or incidentally flowing from Defendants’ conduct
and/or omissions forming the basis of this lawsuit;
h) exemplary damages and punitive damages;
i) prejudgment interest; and
Dd post-judgment interest.
70. Personal Injury Plaintiffs seek unliquidated damages.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 15 of 16
PUNITIVE DAMAGES EXCEPTION — ALL PLAINTIFFS
71. No exception to the criminal act exemption against punitive damages exists in this case
because the criminal acts occurred at a location where, at the time of the criminal act, Defendants
were maintaining a common nuisance, as defined by Chapter 125 of the Civil Practice and
Remedies Code. Thus, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages to be assessed by the jury.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs demand judgment against
Defendants for all wrongful death and personal injury damages, survival damages, general and
special damages, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate, and for such further and
additional relief, both at law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show themselves entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
THE WITHERSPOON LAW GROUP, PLLC
/s/Nuru Witherspoon
Nuru Witherspoon
State Bar No. 24039244
witherspoon@twlglawyers.com
Emily Taylor
State Bar No. 24046951
taylor@twlglawyers.com
5565 Deer Creek, Unit A
Dallas, Texas 75228
Telephone: (214) 773-1133
Facsimile: (972) 696-9982
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This certifies that the foregoing document was served according to Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 21a upon all counsel of record on this the 11th day of August 2021.
/s/ Nuru Witherspoon
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 16 of 16
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.
Janae Johnson on behalf of Nuru Witherspoon
Bar No. 24039244
johnson@twlglawyers.com
Envelope ID: 56227765
Status as of 8/12/2021 9:20 AM CST
Associated Case Party: TONY EVANS
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Emily Taylor taylor@twlglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT
Nuru Witherspoon witherspoon@twlglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: T. E.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Emily Taylor taylor@twiglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT
Nuru Witherspoon witherspoon@twiglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: ARETHA EVANS
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Nuru Witherspoon witherspoon@twiglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT
Emily Taylor taylor@twiglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name
Janae Johnson
NURU WITHERSPOON
Bradley J. Purcell
Alicia Nixon
Charletta Dawson
Shikendra Rhea
Devan J. DalCol
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.
Janae Johnson on behalf of Nuru Witherspoon
Bar No. 24039244
johnson@twlglawyers.com
Envelope ID: 56227765
Status as of 8/12/2021 9:20 AM CST
Case Contacts
DAWN MAY MAY@TWLGLAWYERS.COM | 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM | SENT
Associated Case Party: TASACOM REAL ESTATE, LLC
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Keith M. Aurzada Kaurzada@reedsmith.com | 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM | SENT
Preview
FILED 8/11/2021 6:46 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Margaret Thomas DEPUTY CAUSE NO. . DC-21-04901 TONY EVANS, SR., and ARETHA EVANS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT individually and on behalf of their minor son, T.E., deceased, and MONIQUE PICKENS, individually and on behalf of her minor son, D.W. Plaintiffs, 162nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. TASACOM REAL ESTATE, LLC d/b/a HAWTHORN SUITES DALLAS LOVE FIELD, HAWTHORN SUITES FRANCHISING, INC., WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., and ) MOHAMMAD SADIQ NOSHAHI, ) ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. ) PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION Plaintiffs Tony Evans, Sr., and Aretha Evans, individually and on behalf of their minor son, T.E., deceased, and Monique Pickens, individually and on behalf of her minor son, D.W. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), complain against Tasacom Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites Dallas Love Field, Hawthorn Suites Franchising, Inc., Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. and Mohammad Sadiq Noshahi, and for cause of action allege and state, as follows: DISCOVERY PLAN 1 Pursuant to Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery in this case should be conducted under Level 3. RULE 47 STATEMENT 2. Pursuant to Rules 47(c)(5) and 47(d) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs seek monetary relief over $1,000,000.00 and a demand for judgment for all other relief which the parties deem themselves entitled, including as described in further detail herein. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 1 of 16 PARTIES 3. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Dallas County, Texas. 4. Defendant Tasacom Real Estate LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites Dallas Love Field is a Texas limited liability company that has been served with process and has answered this lawsuit. 5. Defendant Hawthorn Suites Franchising, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation that is registered to do and does business in the State of Texas, and which committed tortious acts in the State of Texas that may be served through its registered agent, Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 5444 Westheimer, #1000, Houston, Texas 77056. 6. Defendant Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation that conducts business in Texas, and which committed tortious act in the State of Texas, that may be served through its registered agent, Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building, Ste. 104, Wilmington, Delaware 19810. 7. Defendant Mohammad Sadiq Noshahi is an individual Texas resident that may be served at his regular place of business located at 13151 Emily Road, Ste. 200, Dallas, Texas 75240. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. All or a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred in Dallas County, thus venue properly lies in Dallas County, Texas. 9. This Court has jurisdiction over this litigation because the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits and, therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all parties and claims. All parties to this action are either residents of the State of Texas or conduct business in this State and committed torts that are the subject of this suit in whole or in part in Texas, as hereafter alleged in greater detail. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 2 of 16 FACTS 10. Defendants Tasacom Real Estate LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites Dallas Love Field, Hawthorn Suites Franchising, Inc., Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and Mohammad Sadiq Noshahi (collectively “Defendants”) own and/or operate a Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham hotel near Dallas Love Field Airport, located at 7900 Brookriver Drive, Dallas, Texas 75347 (the “hotel”). Defendants collectively control and/or supervise the day-to-day operations of the hotel. Defendants receive monetary benefits from the operation of the hotel. 11. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (“Wyndham”) is a hotel company based in Parsippany, New Jersey and incorporated in Delaware that describes itself as the largest hotel franchisor in the world, with 9,280 locations. 12. Hawthorn Suites is a chain of hotels in the United States and is affiliated with Wyndham to operate extended stay hotels for transient guest lodging services under the name Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham. 13. Defendant Tasacom Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Hawthorn Suites Dallas Love Field (“Tasacom”) is a franchisee of the hotel through a Franchise Agreement with Hawthorn Suites Franchising, Inc. (“Hawthorn Franchising”) to operate a Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham hotel. Tasacom has responsibility for managing its hotel employees. 14. Defendant Mohammad Sadiq Noshahi (““Noshani”) is an individual property owner of the hotel property and lessor of the premises. Noshani is also a member of Tasacom and offices out of the same location as Tasacom. Noshani has knowledge of the day-to-day business affairs of Tasacom, as well as knowledge and/or constructive knowledge of the historical criminal activity that has occurred on the premises and within the vicinity of the hotel. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 3 of 16 15. Plaintiffs Tony Evans, Sr. and Aretha Evans are Decedent T.E.’s biological parents. Plaintiff Monique Pickens is D.W.’s biological mother. 16. On April 11, 2021, seventeen-year-old Decedent T.E. (““Decedent”) and seventeen-year- old Plaintiff D.W. (“D.W.”) were shot in room 221 of the hotel at approximately 1:30 a.m. 17. Decedent eventually died from his wounds in a car while being transported to Parkland, a nearby hospital. D.W. sustained debilitating injuries but survived the attack. 18. The hotel has an age restriction policy for renting and checking into rooms. The posted policy states that patrons must be 21 years old to check in and they must present valid state-issued photo identification that must be presented to receive a room key. 19, Against this policy, on April 10, 2021, a twenty-year-old who regularly has parties was permitted to rent, check-in, and occupy room 221 for the night, including the time period during which the shooting took place. Upon information and belief, Decedent and D.W. contributed to renting the room. 20. The hotel regularly permits underage patrons to rent rooms and check in despite its purported policy forbidding it. Underage entrants to the property had a reasonable understanding that the hotel had a willingness to receive them on the property. 21. An employee working at the hotel witnessed at least six young men going into room 221 prior to midnight. At around midnight, the same employee witnessed an additional five young women enter room 221. 22. These eleven people were in addition to the underage patron that initially checked into the room. 23. The hotel also has a stated policy against parties being held in hotel rooms. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 4 of 16 24. At least twelve young people were having a party in room 221 at the time of the shooting. Despite witnessing up to eleven people enter room 221 after it was rented, no action was taken prior to the shooting in contravention of the hotel’s own policies and procedures. 25. At around 1:30 a.m., Decedent and D.W. were shot by an unknown assailant who had entered room 221. 26. The hotel’s general manager was on site at all relevant times. 27. There was no adequate security detail on site at all relevant times and the hotel is located in a high crime area and/or crime, including violent crime, has regularly occurred on the premises. 28. Indeed, the hotel property was deemed a Habitual Criminal Property, as defined by Dallas City Code Section 27-48, due to repeated occurrences of criminal activity, including assaults, rape, drug crimes, weapons and drug offenses, criminal mischief, and prostitution, that occurred during the three years prior to the shooting at issue. Eleven previous occurrences of each of these types of offenses occurred within approximately a year prior to the shooting. All of the criminal activity cited by the City of Dallas occurred while Defendants owned and/or operated the hotel. 29. Wyndham retains control over the operations at the hotel that are directly at issue in this litigation, including control over the safety and security of the premises. The hotel can lose its franchise if it does not follow Wyndham’s policies and procedures. Wyndham reached out to the hotel to prescribe specific policies and procedures with regard to renting rooms at the hotel. Wyndham also prescribes specific policies and procedures with regard to safety and security measures that should be implemented at the hotel to deter and minimize crime on the property. Wyndham is also responsible for training hotel management, including with regard to requiring that the hotel has access to enter hotel rooms at will for purposes of safety and security. Wyndham PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 5 of 16 failed to adequately enforce these policies and procedures and failed to adequately train hotel management and staff, a substantial and contributing cause to the injuries alleged herein. 30. Hawthorne Franchising also retains control over operations of the hotel that are directly at issue in this litigation, including control over the safety and security of the premises. This includes issuance and direction through a Standards of Operations manual. Hawthorne Franchising has the authority to terminate the franchise with the hotel for violations of the standards it imposes on the hotel. 31. Hawthorne Franchising also conducts quality assurance inspections of the property to ensure that the hotel is being operated in compliance with all state and local laws and ordinances. This includes authority to prevent hotel representatives and/or employees from engaging in conduct that is unlawful or damaging to the hotel. 32. Hawthorne Franchising also retains control to monitor the premises and enforce compliance measures for operation of the hotel that endangers the health and safety of hotel guests. In addition, Hawthorne Franchising is responsible for training Tasacom with regard to the proper management of the hotel, including those policies and procedures related to safety and security. Hawthorne Franchising directs that its hotels must “reserve the right to enter guestrooms at any time for safety . . . [or] security.” Hawthorne Franchising further requires the manager or general managet-on-duty to inspect the premises twice daily to log safety and security issues, as well as requiring the manager to ensure the facility it operated under “high ethical and moral principles.” 33. Hawthorne Franchising failed to adequately enforce the above policies and procedures, failed to adequately inspect the premises, and failed to adequately train Tasacom and its representatives, which were substantial and contributing causes to the injuries alleged herein. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 6 of 16 34. Hawthorne Franchising, Wyndham, and Tasacom jointly own the information recorded in the Property Management System regarding their hotel guests. Tasacom was required by Hawthorne Franchising and Wyndham to assure the timely and accurate collection of guest information, including their dates of birth, for purposes of transmitting the information to them and the broader hotel chain database. Tasacom employees regularly permitted underage customers to rent rooms at the hotel despite policies forbidding underage patrons. This information was recorded, and Defendants knew or should have known of this practice and taken reasonable steps to prevent it. 35. Not only did Defendants Wyndham, Hawthorne Franchising, and Tasacom fail to properly train their employees and/or franchisees and/or failed to adequately implement their own policies and procedures relevant to preventing the shooting at issue and the risks associated with large gatherings in hotel rooms, but all Defendants further failed to take adequate security measures to protect the premises and/or enforce any security measures, including but not limited to, adequate regular security detail and access controls, to prevent or deter violent crime from occurring on the hotel premises. 36. Defendants knew, should have known, and/or had constructive knowledge that similar violent criminal conduct was prevalent both in the vicinity of the hotel and on the hotel’s premises sufficiently near in time to the shooting that took Decedent’s life. Further, based on their own observations and experience, Defendants could have reasonably anticipated criminal conduct occurring on the hotel premises and should have taken precautions to protect against it. 37. All Defendants maintained control of the safety and security of the hotel premises. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 7 of 16 CAUSES OF ACTION Count 1 — Vicarious and Vice-Principal Liability 38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and below as if set forth fully herein. 39. Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligence, acts and omissions of their agents, employees, and representatives. 40. In addition, Tasacom is directly liable for the negligent acts of its vice-principals, including but not limited to, the general manager who was present at the time of the shooting. Count 2 — Premises Liability Against Defendant Tasacom and Noshani 41, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and below as if set forth fully herein. 42. At all relevant times herein, Tasacom and Noshani had a duty to Decedent and D.W. to make the hotel premises reasonably safe, using a reasonable or ordinary standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under all pertinent circumstances. 43. Tasacom and Noshani breached their duty of care by failing to eliminate or mitigate a dangerous condition on the premises so that it was no longer dangerous and/or failed to provide an adequate warning of the danger to Decedent and D.W., including the failure to act given their knowledge and/or constructive knowledge of historical crime on the premises. 44. Tasacom further breached its duty of care by failing to follow its own policies and procedures concerning underage room rentals and permitting large gatherings in its rooms. 45. Tasacom and Noshani knew or should have known that: a) dangerous individuals might come upon the property due to inadequate supervision, monitoring and patrolling of the premises; PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 8 of 16 b) the premises or immediate vicinity of the premises was the scene of numerous violent crimes and habitual criminal acts against persons in a recent timeframe prior to Decedent’s injuries and subsequent death and D.W.’s injuries; c) violent crimes and other crimes against persons occurring at or near the hotel premises provided them with notice of the need to exercise care in implementing security procedures and/or personnel deployment to reasonably prevent or reduce the likelihood of such crimes on its property, including the attack against Decedent and D.W.; d) Tasacom maintained inadequate staffing, training, and security personnel on the property at the time of the shooting; e) the presence of adequately trained, staffed, and positioned security detail on the premises would have reasonably deterred or prevented Decedent’s injuries and subsequent death and D.W.’s injuries; and f) Tasacom failed to implement workplace policies and procedures to reasonably protect Decedent and D.W. from an unreasonable risk of harm that substantially caused Decedent’s injuries and subsequent death and D.W.’s injuries. 46. Tasacom, through its employees and agents, breached its duty of care and exposed Decedent and D.W. to an unreasonable risk of harm in one or more of the following particulars, individually, or in combination with others: a) failing to maintain proper access controls; b) failing to provide any warning or notice about the dangers or the absence of adequate security precautions; °) failing to monitor and/or warn of suspicious activities in and around the hotel; qd) negligent hiring, training and supervision; PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 9 of 16 e) failing to take adequate security measures, including but not limited to, hiring security detail and/or regular security patrols; f) failing to implement and enforce adequate security and policies; _ failing to keep records of crimes on the property of which they knew or should have known; and h) failing to prohibit underage room rental and large gatherings and/or parties in its hotel rooms. 47. Noshani, as a property owner and lessor, breached his duty of care by failing to take sufficient action to reasonably ensure the safety of premises despite his knowledge and/or onstructive knowledge of the criminal activity in and around the property, as well as his knowledge concerning Tasacom’s ongoing inability and/or failure to ensure the safety of the premises as alleged herein. 48. Each of the foregoing actions and/or omissions proximately caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing both the injuries to Decedent that eventually led to his death and D.W.’s injuries, as well as all damages to Plaintiffs in this case. Decedent’s parents, therefore, seek an award for such damages caused before and as a result of Decedent’s death. Plaintiff Pickens, individually and on behalf of her son, seeks an award for such damages caused as a result of the injuries sustained by her minor son D.W. Count 3 — Negligence Against Wyndham and Hawthorne Franchising 49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and below asif set forth fully herein. 50. Wyndham and Hawthorne Franchising exercised control and/or undertook responsibilities and duties concerning the operations of the hotel, including the safety and security of the property, PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 10 of 16 through implementing and enforcing policies for purposes of guest protection and property safety and, therefore, had a duty to ensure the hotel was reasonably safe, using an ordinary standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under all pertinent circumstances to avoid harm to third persons. Additionally, Wyndham and Hawthorne Franchising undertook these duties to render specific services for the aid and protection of guests on the hotel premises. Wyndham and Hawthorne Franchising breached their respective duties of care, proximately causing the damages alleged herein. 51. Wyndham breached its duty of care, proximately resulting in the injuries and damages alleged herein, by failing to ensure adequate implementation of its policies and procedures by Tasacom. Wyndham had authority over prescribing safety and security hotel policies but was negligent in failing to adequately enforce the policies and procedures, a substantial and contributing cause to the injuries alleged herein. Wyndham also failed to adequately train and supervise hotel management and staff with regard to its prescribed policies, a substantial and contributing cause to the injuries alleged herein. Wyndham also knew or should have known that the premises was a Habitual Criminal Property and/or was the location of a litany criminal acts in a short period of time and/or was located in the vicinity of substantial violent crime and failing to take action to mitigate the risk of crime on the property and/or adequately ensure the safety of hotel guests like Decedent and D.W. 52. Hawthorn Franchises breached its duty of care by failing to adequately inspect the premises for purposes of ensuring the hotel was not violating local ordinances meant to protect the public, including hotel guests like Decedent and D.W., and by knowing and/or constructively knowing that the premises was a Habitual Criminal Property and/or was the location of a litany criminal acts in a short period of time and/or was located in the vicinity of substantial violent crime and PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 11 of 16 failing to take action to mitigate the risk of crime on the property and/or adequately ensure the afety of hotel guests like Decedent and D.W. Hawthorne Franchising also breached its duty of care by failing to adequately train and supervise hotel management and staff with regard to its prescribed policies, a substantial and contributing cause to the injuries alleged herein. 53. The above negligent acts and/or omissions were a proximate cause of the injuries and damages alleged herein. Count 4 — Gross Negligence 54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and below as if set forth fully herein. 55. Defendants had a duty to refrain from engaging in conduct which when viewed objectively from Defendants’ standpoint at the time of the event, act or omission involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others and about which they had actual subjective awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety or welfare of others, including Decedent and D.W. 56. Defendants’ actions in this regard, by and through its agents, employees, and/or vice- principals, proximately caused Decedent’s injuries and ultimate death and D.W. injuries. 57. Defendants committed the above-described acts and omissions with malice because they engaged in conduct that, when viewed objectively, involved an extreme degree of harm to Decedent and D.W., considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Decedent and D.W. 58. Moreover, Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved but proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of Decedent and D.W., including that the entity Defendants violated their own policies that led to Decedent’s death and D.W.’s injuries. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 12 of 16 59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Decedent sustained life- threatening injuries that ultimately resulted in his death and D.W. sustained debilitating injuries. 60. Accordingly, the imposition of exemplary damages and all other damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled is warranted. Plaintiffs seek an award for exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter them and others similarly situated from committing such gross negligence and malicious acts in the future. Count 5 — Negligent Training and Supervision 61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and below as if set forth fully herein. 62. Defendant Tasacom had a duty to exercise reasonable care in training and supervising its employees. Tasacom breached its duty by failing to adequately train its employees and/or supervise its employees with regard to permitting underage hotel rentals, permitting large gatherings and/or parties in hotel rooms, and reporting perceived conduct contrary to established policy, including failing to train employees with regard to reporting and tracking criminal conduct on the premises. Had sufficient training and/or supervision been exercised, the shooting that killed Decedent and injured D.W. would have been avoided. Tasacom’s negligence in this regard proximately caused Decedent’s injuries and ultimate death and D.W.’s injuries. 63. Defendants Hawthorne Franchises and Wyndham had a duty to exercise reasonable care in training and supervising its employees. Hawthorne Franchises and Wyndham also had a duty to exercise reasonable care in training Tasacom and its employees. Defendants Hawthorne Franchises and Wyndham breached their duties by failing to adequately train their employees and/or supervise their employees with regard to inspecting Tasacom’s business practices, including the historical crime on the property and those relating to safety and security, and training Tasacom’s PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 13 of 16 representatives with regard to ensuring compliance with state and local law and proper management of the hotel, including safety and security practices. Hawthorne Franchises and Wyndham’s negligence in this regard proximately caused Decedent’s injuries and ultimate death and D.W.’s injuries. DAMAGES — WRONGFUL DEATH PLAINTIFFS 64. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and below as if set forth fully herein. 65. Plaintiffs Tony Evans, Sr. and Aretha Evans (“Wrongful Death Plaintiffs”) seek all damages permitted pursuant to the Texas Wrongful Death Statute, codified at TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.002, et seq. and the Texas Survival Statute codified at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.021, et seq. 66. Defendants’ acts and omissions were the proximate cause of the following damages for which Wrongful Death Plaintiffs seek recovery: a) actual damages; b) damages for Decedent’s pain and suffering, fear, trauma, intense distress, mental anguish and/or emotional pain prior to his death; °) compensatory damages to Wrongful Death Plaintiffs for their physical pain, suffering, mental or emotional pain or anguish, loss of consortium, companionship, society, enjoyment of life, loss of household/family services, and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind in the past and future; d) loss of service; e) all other damages naturally and/or incidentally flowing from Defendants’ conduct and/or omissions forming the basis of this lawsuit; PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 14 of 16 f) exemplary damages and punitive damages; 8) prejudgment interest; and h) post-judgment interest. 67. Wrongful Death Plaintiffs seek unliquidated damages. DAMAGES — PERSONAL INJURY PLAINTIFFS 68. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every allegation and fact contained above and below as if set forth fully herein. 69. Plaintiff Monique Pickens, individually and on behalf of D.W. (“Personal Injury Plaintiffs”), seeks the following damages as a proximate result of Defendants’ negligence alleged herein: a) actual damages; b) loss of income in the past and future; °) reasonable medical care and expenses in the past and future; qd) physical impairment in the past and future; e) psychological pain and suffering in the past and future; f) loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, loss of household management and services; 8) all other damages naturally and/or incidentally flowing from Defendants’ conduct and/or omissions forming the basis of this lawsuit; h) exemplary damages and punitive damages; i) prejudgment interest; and Dd post-judgment interest. 70. Personal Injury Plaintiffs seek unliquidated damages. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 15 of 16 PUNITIVE DAMAGES EXCEPTION — ALL PLAINTIFFS 71. No exception to the criminal act exemption against punitive damages exists in this case because the criminal acts occurred at a location where, at the time of the criminal act, Defendants were maintaining a common nuisance, as defined by Chapter 125 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Thus, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages to be assessed by the jury. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for all wrongful death and personal injury damages, survival damages, general and special damages, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate, and for such further and additional relief, both at law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show themselves entitled. Respectfully submitted, THE WITHERSPOON LAW GROUP, PLLC /s/Nuru Witherspoon Nuru Witherspoon State Bar No. 24039244 witherspoon@twlglawyers.com Emily Taylor State Bar No. 24046951 taylor@twlglawyers.com 5565 Deer Creek, Unit A Dallas, Texas 75228 Telephone: (214) 773-1133 Facsimile: (972) 696-9982 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This certifies that the foregoing document was served according to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a upon all counsel of record on this the 11th day of August 2021. /s/ Nuru Witherspoon Attorney for Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 16 of 16 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. Janae Johnson on behalf of Nuru Witherspoon Bar No. 24039244 johnson@twlglawyers.com Envelope ID: 56227765 Status as of 8/12/2021 9:20 AM CST Associated Case Party: TONY EVANS Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Emily Taylor taylor@twlglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT Nuru Witherspoon witherspoon@twlglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT Associated Case Party: T. E. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Emily Taylor taylor@twiglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT Nuru Witherspoon witherspoon@twiglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT Associated Case Party: ARETHA EVANS Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Nuru Witherspoon witherspoon@twiglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT Emily Taylor taylor@twiglawyers.com 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM SENT Case Contacts Name Janae Johnson NURU WITHERSPOON Bradley J. Purcell Alicia Nixon Charletta Dawson Shikendra Rhea Devan J. DalCol 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. Janae Johnson on behalf of Nuru Witherspoon Bar No. 24039244 johnson@twlglawyers.com Envelope ID: 56227765 Status as of 8/12/2021 9:20 AM CST Case Contacts DAWN MAY MAY@TWLGLAWYERS.COM | 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM | SENT Associated Case Party: TASACOM REAL ESTATE, LLC Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Keith M. Aurzada Kaurzada@reedsmith.com | 8/11/2021 6:46:37 PM | SENT