Doc# 6HI9769.DOC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

BANG TRINH AND MAI TRINH §

§

§

VS. § CIVIL NO. 5:20-cv-00725

§

WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. §

RAYMOND MARSHALL HUNTER §

DEFENDANT, WERNER ENTERRISES, INC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:

NOW COMES, WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. and files his Original Answer to 

Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and would show the Court the following:

I.

1. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc. denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition are relevant given that they refer to state 

procedural discovery matters.

2. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc admits the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

3. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition. Raymond Marshall Hunter is not a citizen of 

Texas, having moved to Nevada prior to the filing of this suit as set forth in the removal 

motion. 

4. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc admits the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

5. Defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc denies that Defendant, Raymond Marshall 

Hunter resides in Texas or was a resident of Texas at the time suit was filed. But admits 

Case 5:20-cv-00725-JKP-HJB Document 12 Filed 06/25/20 Page 1 of 5
Doc# 6HI9769.DOC

2

that it “does business in Texas.” and admits that the accident made the basis of the suit 

occurred in Texas. Werner denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

6. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc admits that the accident occurred in Bexar 

County, but otherwise denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s 

Original Petition.

7. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc admits that there was an accident on the 

day in question, the tractor trailer Raymond Marshall Hunter was driving was owned by 

Werner, and that Raymond Marshall Hunter was in the course and scope of employment 

on the day in question. Otherwise, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

8. Werner admits that, Defendant, Raymond Marshall Hunter was operating a 

motor vehicle in the course and scope of employment for Werner at the time of the 

accident, but otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 8. 

9. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition

10. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition

11. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition. 

12. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

13. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition. 

Case 5:20-cv-00725-JKP-HJB Document 12 Filed 06/25/20 Page 2 of 5
Doc# 6HI9769.DOC

3

14. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition

15. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

16. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

17. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

18. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

19. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

20. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

21. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

22. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

23. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

24. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

25. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc cannot either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition as it is a question of 

law as to whether interest is available or not. 

Case 5:20-cv-00725-JKP-HJB Document 12 Filed 06/25/20 Page 3 of 5
Doc# 6HI9769.DOC

4

26. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc admits that Plaintiff made a jury demand 

in state court. 

27. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition are relevant given that they refer to state 

procedural discovery matters.

28. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition are relevant given that they refer to state 

procedural trial and/or discovery matters.

29. Defendant, Werner Enterprises, Inc denies the allegations contained in the 

prayer of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

30. Additionally, and/or in the alternative, Defendant, WERNER 

ENTERPRISES, INC. would respectfully show that Plaintiffs alleged injuries and 

damages were caused or contributed to by the acts, omissions of Plaintiff, Bang Trinh

which were negligent and were the sole proximate cause, producing cause, a proximate 

cause and/or a new and independent intervening cause of the incident and the alleged 

damages to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, WERNER 

ENTERPRISES, INC. respectfully prays that upon final trial Plaintiff takes nothing, and for 

such other and further relief, to which he may show himself entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Larry D. Warren

LARRY D. WARREN

State Bar No. 20888450

FBN: 13339

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 5:20-cv-00725-JKP-HJB Document 12 Filed 06/25/20 Page 4 of 5
Doc# 6HI9769.DOC

5

OF COUNSEL:

NAMAN HOWELL SMITH & LEE, PLLC

10001 Reunion Place, Suite 600

San Antonio, Texas 78216

Telephone: (210) 731-6350 

Facsimile: (210) 785-2950 

lwarren@namanhowell.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 25th day of June 2020, the foregoing was filed with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and was served on counsel via e-mail:

Russell W. Endsley

State Bar NO. 24026824

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY

521 Starr Street

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Telephone: (361) 985-0600

Facsimile: (361) 985-0601

rendsley-svc@thomasjhenrylaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

/S/ Larry D. Warren

LARRY D. WARREN

Case 5:20-cv-00725-JKP-HJB Document 12 Filed 06/25/20 Page 5 of 5