Preview
FILED
2/16/2022 12:02 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Cassandra Walker DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-20-04802
MARTA SANTAMARIA VALERIO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintifi §
§
vs. §
§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and §
DAVID BRAUD, §
§
§
Defendant. § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EOUALIZE
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Marta SantaMaria Valerie in the above-styled and numbered
cause of action, and files her Motion to Equalize Peremptory Challenges. In support thereof,
Plaintiff would respectfully show as follows:
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND & ARGUMENT
This personal injury case arises out of a February 28, 2019 motor vehicle collision
between Plaintiff Marta SantaMaria Valerio’s vehicle and another vehicle driven by Defendant
Alexander David Braud. Defendant Braud was logged onto the digital network of Uber
Technologies, Inc. for the transportation of the passenger in his vehicle when he suddenly drove
across multiple lanes of traffic as directed by his Uber GPS application, thereby slamming into
Plaintiff Valerio’s vehicle. Alexander David Braud and Uber Technologies, Inc. have not
asserted any claims against each other in this matter. In fact, Uber Technologies, Inc.’s
insurance policy covers Defendant Braud for liability of $1,000,000 for this incident, as required
by TEXAS INSURANCE CODE §§ 1954.053(1), 1954.056(b).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES PAGE |
1
“In multiple party cases, it shall be the duty of the trial judge to decide whether any of the
litigants aligned on the same side of the docket are antagonistic with respect to any issue to be
submitted to the jury, before the exercise of peremptory challenges.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 233. “The
existence of antagonism is a question of law. If no antagonism exists, each side must receive the
same number of strikes.” Garcia v. Central Power & Light C0., 704 S.W.2d 734, 736 (Tex.
1986). Because Defendants Braud and Uber Technologies, Inc. have not asserted any claims
against each other and are collaborative in their defenses and resources in defending this lawsuit,
they are plainly not antagonistic and should therefore be required to share six peremptory
challenges, while Plaintiff receives six of her own. Patterson Dental Co. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d
914, 918 (Tex. 1979).
“[U]pon motion of any litigant made prior to the exercise of peremptory challenges, it
shall be the duty of the trial judge to equalize the number of peremptory challenges so that no
litigant or side is given unfair advantage as a result of the alignment of the litigants and the
award of peremptory challenges to each litigant or side.” Id. “In determining how the challenges
should be allocated the court shall consider any matter brought to the attention of the trial judge
concerning the ends of justice and the elimination of an unfair advantage.” Id. Here, because no
antagonism exists between Defendants Braud and Uber Technologies, Inc., who are on the same
side of this litigation and working collaboratively and collectively to amount and pay for a
defense, Defendants should be required to share six peremptory challenges to avoid an unfair
advantage over Plaintiff and a “Violation of the basic right to trial by jury.” Patterson, 592
S.W.2d at 918.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION To EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES PAGE 2
|
Plaintiff therefore asks that the Court grant this motion to equalize peremptory
challenges, apportioning a total of six peremptory challenges to be exercised by Defendants
Braud and Uber Technologies, Inc. collectively.
II. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant her
Motion to Equalize Peremptory Challenges in its entirety. Plaintiff further prays that the Court
grant her any and all other relief, whether general or special, at law or in equity, to which she
may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
JIM S. A OCIATEs
Langdo
“ rey” Smith
Texas No.: 00797456
lsmith 'imadler.com
Michael Gomez
Texas Bar No.: 24029578
mgomez@jimadler.com
Nicholas A. Monroe
Texas Bar No.: 24108917
nmonroe@jimadler.com
1900 West Loop South, 20th F1.
Houston, Texas 77027
T: (713) 735-2114
F: (713) 781-2514
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION To EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES PAGE |
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, I have delivered
copies of this document to the following counsel of record on the 16th day of February, 2022.
Via E-File
Margaret J. Meier, Bar No. 24104948 Neely Fortinberry; Bar No. 24003420
margie@rudnickifirm.com nfortinberry@ekvallbyrne.com
THE RUDNICKI FIRM EKVALL & BYRNE, LLP
6305 Waterford Blvd., Suite 325 4450 Sigma Road, Suite 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Dallas, Texas 75244
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT UBER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ALEXANDER DAVID BRAUD
/s/ Langdon
”
“Trev Smith
Langdon “Trey” Smith
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for the movant has conferred with counsel for respondent regarding the items
presented to the Court in this motion and despite best efforts, the counsel have not been able to
resolve those matters presented. On February l6, 2022, counsel for Defendant Uber
Technologies, Inc., Mary Baker, stated her opposition to this motion in an email.
/s/ Langdon
” Smith
“Trev
Langdon “Trey” Smith
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION To EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES PAGE 4
|
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.
Sara Baylis on behalf of Langdon Smith
Bar No. 797456
sbaylis@jimadler.com
Envelope ID: 61802358
Status as of 2/16/2022 12:56 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Langdon Milton Smith 797456 lsmith@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Sara Baylis SBaylis@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Adrian Moreno amoreno@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Maria Herrera mherrera@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Nicholas Monroe nmonroe@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Margaret Meier margie@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Case Manager casemanager@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Meredith W.Wolfe meredith@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Mary W.Baker mary@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Margaret J.Meier margie@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Becky Robinson becky@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Caroline J.Lewis caroline@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: DAVID BRAUD
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Neely Fortinberry nfortinberry@ekvallbyrne.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Catina Lorenzo clorenzo@ekvallbyrne.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
C. Justin Broome jbroome@ekvallbyrne.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Randi Billingsley rbillingsley@ekvallbyrne.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 2/16/2022 12:02 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Cassandra Walker DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-20-04802 MARTA SANTAMARIA VALERIO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintifi § § vs. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and § DAVID BRAUD, § § § Defendant. § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EOUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES COMES NOW, Plaintiff Marta SantaMaria Valerie in the above-styled and numbered cause of action, and files her Motion to Equalize Peremptory Challenges. In support thereof, Plaintiff would respectfully show as follows: I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND & ARGUMENT This personal injury case arises out of a February 28, 2019 motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff Marta SantaMaria Valerio’s vehicle and another vehicle driven by Defendant Alexander David Braud. Defendant Braud was logged onto the digital network of Uber Technologies, Inc. for the transportation of the passenger in his vehicle when he suddenly drove across multiple lanes of traffic as directed by his Uber GPS application, thereby slamming into Plaintiff Valerio’s vehicle. Alexander David Braud and Uber Technologies, Inc. have not asserted any claims against each other in this matter. In fact, Uber Technologies, Inc.’s insurance policy covers Defendant Braud for liability of $1,000,000 for this incident, as required by TEXAS INSURANCE CODE §§ 1954.053(1), 1954.056(b). PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES PAGE | 1 “In multiple party cases, it shall be the duty of the trial judge to decide whether any of the litigants aligned on the same side of the docket are antagonistic with respect to any issue to be submitted to the jury, before the exercise of peremptory challenges.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 233. “The existence of antagonism is a question of law. If no antagonism exists, each side must receive the same number of strikes.” Garcia v. Central Power & Light C0., 704 S.W.2d 734, 736 (Tex. 1986). Because Defendants Braud and Uber Technologies, Inc. have not asserted any claims against each other and are collaborative in their defenses and resources in defending this lawsuit, they are plainly not antagonistic and should therefore be required to share six peremptory challenges, while Plaintiff receives six of her own. Patterson Dental Co. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 918 (Tex. 1979). “[U]pon motion of any litigant made prior to the exercise of peremptory challenges, it shall be the duty of the trial judge to equalize the number of peremptory challenges so that no litigant or side is given unfair advantage as a result of the alignment of the litigants and the award of peremptory challenges to each litigant or side.” Id. “In determining how the challenges should be allocated the court shall consider any matter brought to the attention of the trial judge concerning the ends of justice and the elimination of an unfair advantage.” Id. Here, because no antagonism exists between Defendants Braud and Uber Technologies, Inc., who are on the same side of this litigation and working collaboratively and collectively to amount and pay for a defense, Defendants should be required to share six peremptory challenges to avoid an unfair advantage over Plaintiff and a “Violation of the basic right to trial by jury.” Patterson, 592 S.W.2d at 918. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION To EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES PAGE 2 | Plaintiff therefore asks that the Court grant this motion to equalize peremptory challenges, apportioning a total of six peremptory challenges to be exercised by Defendants Braud and Uber Technologies, Inc. collectively. II. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant her Motion to Equalize Peremptory Challenges in its entirety. Plaintiff further prays that the Court grant her any and all other relief, whether general or special, at law or in equity, to which she may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, JIM S. A OCIATEs Langdo “ rey” Smith Texas No.: 00797456 lsmith 'imadler.com Michael Gomez Texas Bar No.: 24029578 mgomez@jimadler.com Nicholas A. Monroe Texas Bar No.: 24108917 nmonroe@jimadler.com 1900 West Loop South, 20th F1. Houston, Texas 77027 T: (713) 735-2114 F: (713) 781-2514 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION To EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES PAGE | 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, I have delivered copies of this document to the following counsel of record on the 16th day of February, 2022. Via E-File Margaret J. Meier, Bar No. 24104948 Neely Fortinberry; Bar No. 24003420 margie@rudnickifirm.com nfortinberry@ekvallbyrne.com THE RUDNICKI FIRM EKVALL & BYRNE, LLP 6305 Waterford Blvd., Suite 325 4450 Sigma Road, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Dallas, Texas 75244 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT UBER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ALEXANDER DAVID BRAUD /s/ Langdon ” “Trev Smith Langdon “Trey” Smith CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Counsel for the movant has conferred with counsel for respondent regarding the items presented to the Court in this motion and despite best efforts, the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented. On February l6, 2022, counsel for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., Mary Baker, stated her opposition to this motion in an email. /s/ Langdon ” Smith “Trev Langdon “Trey” Smith PLAINTIFF’S MOTION To EQUALIZE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES PAGE 4 | 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. Sara Baylis on behalf of Langdon Smith Bar No. 797456 sbaylis@jimadler.com Envelope ID: 61802358 Status as of 2/16/2022 12:56 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Langdon Milton Smith 797456 lsmith@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Sara Baylis SBaylis@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Adrian Moreno amoreno@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Maria Herrera mherrera@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Nicholas Monroe nmonroe@jimadler.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Margaret Meier margie@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Case Manager casemanager@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Meredith W.Wolfe meredith@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Associated Case Party: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Mary W.Baker mary@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Margaret J.Meier margie@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Becky Robinson becky@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Caroline J.Lewis caroline@rudnickifirm.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Associated Case Party: DAVID BRAUD Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Neely Fortinberry nfortinberry@ekvallbyrne.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Catina Lorenzo clorenzo@ekvallbyrne.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT C. Justin Broome jbroome@ekvallbyrne.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT Randi Billingsley rbillingsley@ekvallbyrne.com 2/16/2022 12:02:14 PM SENT