Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

Dean Long, 

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-668

Home Depot, Inc,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Dean Long complaining of Defendant, Home Depot, 

Inc., and files this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, and for cause of action would show 

the Court as follows:

A. Parties & Service Of Citation

1. Plaintiff, Dean Long, is an individual who resided in Williamson County, 

Texas at the time of the events made the basis of this suit. 

2. Defendant, Home depot USA Inc, is a foreign corporation whose registered 

office is 2455 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta Georgia, 30339. Defendant may be served 

with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Corporation 

Service Company d/b/a CSC- Lawyers Incorporating Service Company at 211 E. 7th

Street, Suite 620 Austin, TX 78701 via private process server. 

B. Jurisdiction and Venue

3. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because Plaintiff is entitled to 

damages in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. Specifically, Plaintiff 

seeks monetary relief over one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). This court has 

Case 1:20-cv-00668-LY Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 5
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 2 of 5

jurisdiction because there is complete diversity between the parties and the amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Venue is proper in this district 

court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the matter occurred in this district.

C. Factual Background

4. Plaintiff, Dean Long, brings this suit to recover damages for personal injuries 

he sustained because of an incident which occurred on or about January 20, 2019, at 

Defendants’ premises located at 2551 S. N I-35, Round Rock, Texas, 78664. The 

incident was proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant, its agents, servants 

and employees.

5. On January 20 2019, Plaintiff was an invitee on Defendant’s premises

shopping. He pulled into a parking spot and upon exiting his vehicle he steps into a 

pot hole. He tries to keep himself from falling, jerks back and hits his head against 

his truck. He land hard on his back. He tries walking it off but starts feeling intense 

shooing pain in both hips, lower back, left and right buttocks, and neck. 

6. Shortly following the incident he notified a Home Depot Manager, Carissa. 

Carissa stated that she knew the condition pot hole was there but did not attempt to 

fix it. 

7. The pothole was a condition which posed an unreasonable risk of danger 

because anyone could trip and fall in it. It being in the parking lot it would be in a 

natural blind spot for patrons as they exited their vehicles.

8. Defendants knew and should have known of the dangerous condition 

created by the pothole. Defendant neither corrected nor warned Plaintiff of the 

dangerous condition. 

Case 1:20-cv-00668-LY Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 3 of 5

9. Plaintiff did not have knowledge of the dangerous condition and could not 

have reasonably been expected to discover it prior to this incident. Defendant’s

creation of the dangerous condition, failure to correct the condition, or failure to 

warn Plaintiff of the condition constituted negligence, and was a proximate cause of 

the occurrence in question and Plaintiff’s resulting injuries.

D. Respondeat Superior

10. At all times material hereto, all agents, servants, or employees of Defendants

were acting within the course and scope of employment or official duties. 

Furthermore, at all times material hereto, all agents, servants, or employees of 

Defendants, were acting in furtherance of the duties of their office or employment. 

11. Therefore, Defendants is responsible for all damages resulting from the 

negligent acts or omissions of its agents, servants, or employees pursuant to the 

Doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

E. Negligence

12. Plaintiff alleges that on the occasion in question, Defendants failed to use 

ordinary care by various acts and omissions in at least the following ways:

a. Identifying the pothole but failing to take any action to remedy the 

condition or warn of its existence; 

b. Failure to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the premises in a 

reasonably safe condition;

c. Failure to protect and safeguard invitees such as Plaintiff from 

unreasonably unsafe and dangerous conditions; 

Case 1:20-cv-00668-LY Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 4 of 5

d. Failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk to 

invitees such as Plaintiff of the unreasonably unsafe and dangerous 

conditions;

e. Failure to warn invitees of unreasonably unsafe and dangerous 

conditions;

f. Failure to train employees in locating, preventing, reducing, 

eliminating, and warning about unreasonably dangerous conditions; 

g. Failure to adequately supervise employees to ensure they are locating, 

preventing, reducing, eliminating, and warning about unreasonably 

dangerous conditions; and

h. Failure to terminate employees incapable of locating, preventing, 

reducing, eliminating, and warning about unreasonably dangerous 

conditions.

Each and all of the above stated acts or omissions constitute negligence and the 

same are a proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff. 

F. Damages

13. Plaintiff would show that, as a direct and proximate result of the abovementioned collision, Plaintiff sustained significant personal injuries and damages, 

including but not limited to the following:

a. Past and future physical pain and suffering;

b. Past and future mental anguish;

c. Past and future medical expenses; and

d. Past and future physical impairment.

Case 1:20-cv-00668-LY Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 5
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Page 5 of 5

G. Prayer For Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that Defendants be cited to appear and 

answer and that on final hearing Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant for an 

amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with pre-judgment and 

post-judgment interest as provided by law, costs of court and for such other and 

further relief, at law or in equity to which Plaintiff is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.

1717 N. I-35

Suite 305

Round Rock, TX 78664

(512) 671-7277

(512) 238-0275 (fax)

_/s/ Roberto Flores 

Roberto Flores 

SBN: 24074211 

Rflores@carlsonattorneys.com

Case 1:20-cv-00668-LY Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 5 of 5