INDEX OF STATE COURT DOCUMENTS PAGE 1 OF 7 

D/1045671v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

MOSES SIMPKINS 

PLAINTIFF, 

v. 

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC 

DEFENDANT. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________ 

INDEX OF STATE COURT PLEADINGS AND FILING DATES 

TAB DOCUMENT DATE 

1. State Court Docket Sheet of the 95th Judicial District, Dallas, County 

for Cause No. DC-22-00481 

03/10/2022 

2. Plaintiff’s Original Petition 01/13/2022 

3. Plaintiff’s Request for Issuance of Citation 01/13/2022 

4. Citation Issued to Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC 01/26/2022 

5. Affidavit of Service on Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC 02/09/2022 

6. Defendant’s Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC’s Original Answer to 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

03/04/2022 

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 1 of 37 PageID 11
TAB NO. 1 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 2 of 37 PageID 12
3/10/22, 11:49 AM Details

https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 1/3

Case Information

DC-22-00481 | MOSES SIMPKINS vs. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

Case Number

DC-22-00481

Court

95th District Court

Judicial Officer

PURDY, MONICA

File Date

01/13/2022

Case Type

PROPERTY

Case Status

OPEN

Party

PLAINTIFF

SIMPKINS, MOSES

Address

12929 Gulf Freeway, Suite 301

N/A

Houston TX 77034

Active Attorneys 

Lead Attorney

TODD, JEFFEY N

Retained

PLAINTIFF

Simpkins, Moses

Address

12929 Gulf Freeway, Suite 301

N/A

Houston TX 77034

Active Attorneys 

Lead Attorney

TODD, JEFFEY N

Retained

DEFENDANT

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

Address

BY SERVING ITS REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN ST #900

DALLAS TX 75201

Active Attorneys 

Lead Attorney

DAVIS, DEREK S.

Retained

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 3 of 37 PageID 13
3/10/22, 11:49 AM Details

https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 2/3

Events and Hearings

01/13/2022 NEW CASE FILED (OCA) - CIVIL

01/13/2022 ORIGINAL PETITION 

ORIGINAL PETITION

01/13/2022 REQUEST FOR SERVICE 

LETTER

01/13/2022 ISSUE CITATION 

ISSUE CITATION - WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

01/26/2022 CITATION 

Served

02/08/2022

Anticipated Server

ESERVE

Anticipated Method

Actual Server

PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER

Returned

02/09/2022

Comment

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC.

02/09/2022 RETURN OF SERVICE 

EXECUTED CITATION - WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

Comment

EXECUTED CITATION - WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

03/04/2022 ORIGINAL ANSWER - GENERAL DENIAL 

ORIGINAL ANSWER

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 4 of 37 PageID 14
3/10/22, 11:49 AM Details

https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 3/3

Financial

Documents

ORIGINAL PETITION

LETTER

ISSUE CITATION - WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

EXECUTED CITATION - WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

ORIGINAL ANSWER

SIMPKINS, MOSES

Total Financial Assessment $358.00

Total Payments and Credits $358.00

1/18/2022 Transaction Assessment $358.00

1/18/2022 CREDIT CARD - TEXFILE

(DC)

Receipt # 2693-2022-

DCLK

SIMPKINS,

MOSES

($221.00)

1/18/2022 STATE CREDIT ($137.00)

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 5 of 37 PageID 15
TAB NO. 2 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 6 of 37 PageID 16
FILED

1/13/2022 11:21 AM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS

Christi Undewvood DEPUTY DC-22-00481 CAUSE NO. MOSES SIMPKINS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff,

VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

95th WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC., Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, MOSES SIMPKINS (“SIMPKINS”), Plaintiff, and complains of WAL- MART STORES TEXAS, LLC. (“Walmart”), Defendant, and for cause would respectfully

show unto this Court as follows:

I. Discovery Control Plan

1. Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level of Rule 190 of the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure.

ll. The Parties

2. Plaintiff, MOSES SIMPKINS, is natural person residing in Dallas County,

Texas.

3. Defendant, WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC. (“Walmart”),is foreign

corporation organized and existing underthe laws ofthe State of Delaware, whose principal

office is located at 702 SW 8t“ Street #0555- Tax Dept., Bentonville, State of Arkansas, is

authorized to do business in Texas and may be served with process by serving its

registered agent

for service of process through CT Corporation System at 1999 Bryan

Street, #900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 7 of 37 PageID 17
Ill. Request Pursuant to Rule 28 for Substitution of True Name

4. To the extent that WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC. is conducting business

pursuant

to trade name or assumed name, then suit is brought against WAL-MART

STORES TEXAS, LLC. pursuantto the terms of Rule 28 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure, and MOSES SIMPKINS hereby demands upon answer to this suit, that WAL- MART STORES TEXAS, LLC. answer in its correct legal and assumed names.

IV.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause,

and has jurisdiction to grant all relief requested by Plaintiff.

6. The amount in controversy is within the jurisdictionallimits of this Court.

7. Venue of this action is proper in Dallas County, Texas under, inter alia,

Sections 15.002(a)(1) and (4) of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE.

V. Nature of the Case

8. On November 27, 2020, Plaintiff was shopping at Walmart Supercenter store

#3225 located in Rowlett, Texas. Plaintiff was attempting to purchase television and

asked Walmart Associate to provide him with cart to load the television and assist with

transfer to checkout. However, the Associate refused his request, Plaintiff attempted to

carry the television and ultimately fell to the floor, landed forcefully on the ground and

sustained severe and extensive injuries to his body (the “Fall”).

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 8 of 37 PageID 18
VI. Causes of Action

A. Walmart’s Premises Liability

9. SIMPKINS incorporates by reference the statements made in the above

paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

10. There can be no question that SIMPKINS is an innocent victim in this case.

At the time of the Fall, SIMPKINS was an invitee of Walmart because he was customer

at Walmart store #3225. Because store #3225 was open to the public, Walmart extended

an invitation to SIMPKINS to shop at Walmart for the mutual benefit of both parties.

Consequently, Walmart, by and through its employee/agents owed SIMPKINS the duty to

inspect

the premises and maintain them in reasonably safe manner.

1. Walmart was the owner and/or operator of store #3225 at the time of the Fall

and, therefore, either owned, occupied, or controlled the premises where the Fall and

subsequent injury occurred. Such negligence was the proximate cause of SlMPKlNS’s

damages.

12. The dangerous condition left on the premises of Walmart store #3225 posed

an unreasonable risk of harm because individuals walking through the store may slip/trip

and fall through no fault of their own and severely injure themselves.

13. Walmart, by and through its employee/agents knew or should have known

of the dangerous condition of the premises of Walmart store #3225 for numerous reasons

including, but not limited to:

a. Customers notified Walmart of the dangerous condition

at store #3225 or other Walmart stores of similar design

and construction around the country;

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 9 of 37 PageID 19
b. Walmart agents, servants, or employees actually witnessed accidents caused by the dangerous condition

at store #3225 or other Walmart stores of similar design

and construction around the country;

c. Walmart agents, servants, or employees actually

caused the dangerous condition at store #3225 or other Walmart stores of similar design and construction

around the country;

d. Walmart agents, servants, or employees were involved

in the design and construction of the dangerous

condition at store #3225 or other Walmart stores of similar design and construction around the country;

e. Walmart agents, servants, or employees actually took precautionary measures regarding the dangerous

condition at store #3225 or other Walmart stores of similar design and construction around the country;

f. Walmart agents, servants, or employees actually took precautionary measures regarding the dangerous

condition at store #3225 or other Walmart stores of similar design and construction around the country and negligently failed to remove, repair, or otherwise warn

of the dangerous condition; and

g. The dangerous condition existed long enough at store #3225 or other Walmart stores of similar design and

construction around the country that Walmart did or should have discovered it upon reasonable inspection.

14. Walmart breached its duty of care by both failing to make the dangerous

condition reasonably safe and/or failing to adequately warn SIMPKINS of the dangerous

condition at store #3225. Each of these acts or omissions, taken alone or collectively,

amount to premises liability by Walmart and SIMPKINS sustained damages as proximate

result of Walmart's conduct. Accordingly, Walmart is liable to SIMPKINS as result of its

premises liability.

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 10 of 37 PageID 20
B. Walmart’s Negligence

15. SIMPKINS incorporates by reference the statements made in the above

paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

16. At the time of the Fall, SIMPKINS was an invitee at Walmart and, as such, Walmart had duty to use ordinary care in maintaining the premises in safe condition by

inspecting, or ensuring the inspection of, the property for any dangerous conditions and by making safe any latent defect or providing an adequate warning of any such defect.

17. Walmart, by and through its employee/agents breached its duty of care by

failing to reasonably assist Plaintiff or othen/vise provide him with appropriate equipment. Walmart further failed to adequately train, supervise and/or manage their

agents/employees to properly assist customers with their merchandise. Each ofthese acts

or omissions, taken alone or collectively, amount to negligence by Walmart and SIMPKINS

sustained damages as proximate result of Walmart’s conduct. Accordingly, Walmart is

liable to SIMPKINS as result of its negligence.

C. Walmart’s Grossly Negligent Conduct

18. SIMPKINS incorporates by reference the statements made in the above

paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

19. Walmart acted with malice, as that term is defined by Civil Practice

Remedies Code §41.001(7). Specifically, Walmart, by and through its employee/agents

failed to reasonably inspect, or ensure that others reasonably inspected, the premises of

Store #3225 to determine if the premises were safe and acted with total disregard for the

circumstances existing at the time. In the alternative, Walmart, by and through its

employee/agents failed to make the dangerous condition on its premises reasonably safe

-5-

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 11 of 37 PageID 21
and/or failed to adequately warn its invitees of same and acted with total disregard for the

circumstances existing at the time.

20. When viewed from the perspective of Walmart at the time of the acts or

omissions, the acts or omissions of Walmart involved an extreme degree of risk,

considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Moreover, Walmart had actual subjective awareness ofthe risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded

with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Consequently, Walmart is liable to MORRIS for exemplary damages.

VII. Damages

A. General Damages of MOSES SIMPKINS

21. At the time of the accident made the basis of this suit, Plaintiff, MOSES

SIMPKINS, was 34 years of age.

22. As direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff, MOSES

SIMPKINS, has sustained mental and physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical

impairment, lost wages in the past, and loss of earning capacity in the future, all of which

are in reasonable probability permanent.

23. From the date of the accident in question until the time of trial of this case, the

elements of damages to be considered separately and individually for the purpose of

determining the sum of money that will fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiff, MOSES

SIMPKINS, for each element are as follows:

a. The physical pain that MOSES SIMPKINS has

suffered from the date ofthe accident in question

up to the time of trial.

b. The mental anguish that MOSES SIMPKINS has

suffered from the date ofthe accident in question

up to the time of trial.

-6-

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 12 of 37 PageID 22
c. The damages resulting from the physical

impairment suffered by MOSES SIMPKINS and

the resulting inability to do those tasks and

services that he ordinarily would have been able

to perform.

d. The loss of any earnings sustained by MOSES

SIMPKINS from the date of the incident in question up to the time of trial.

e. The disfigurement which Plaintiff has suffered

from the date of the incident in question up to the

time of trial.

24. From the time of trial of this case, the elements of damages to be considered

which Plaintiff, MOSES SIMPKINS, will sustain in the future beyond the trial, are such of

the following elements that are shown by preponderance of the evidence upon trial ofthis

case: a. The physical pain that MOSES SIMPKINS will suffer in the future beyond the time of trial.

b. The mental anguish that MOSES SIMPKINS will suffer in the future beyond the time of trial.

c. The damages resulting from the physical

impairmentthat MOSES SIMPKINS will continue

to suffer in the future and the resulting inability to do those tasks and services that he ordinarily would have been able to perform in the future beyond the time of trial.

d. The loss or reduction in Plaintiff’s earnings or earning capacity in the future caused by the

injuries sustained in the incident in question.

e. The disfigurement which Plaintiff will suffer in the

future beyond the time of trial.

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 13 of 37 PageID 23
25. Because of all of the above and foregoing, Plaintiff, MOSES SIMPKINS, has

been damaged and will be damaged in an amount within the jurisdictionallimits of the

Court.

B. Medical Damages of MOSES SIMPKINS

26. Further, as direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence,it was

necessary for your Plaintiff, MOSES SIMPKINS, to secure medical and hospital services,

including drugs and other medication, and it is reasonably probable that he will require

additional medical, hospital and drug services in the future beyond this date. Plaintiff, MOSES SIMPKINS, here now sues for an additional sum within the jurisdictional

limits of

the Court for past and future medical, hospital and drug services.

C. Gross Negligence/Malice

27. The actions of the Defendant was so heedless and showed such reckless

disregard for the right of others affected by them, and particularly in this instance, as to

constitute gross negligence and malice as defined by law. Such heedless and reckless

disregard is more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence or error in judgment.

The acts and/or omissions of said Defendant as specifically complained of herein were the

result of conscious indifference to the rights, welfare, and/or safety to your Plaintiff.

Accordingly, because of such gross negligence and malice, Plaintiff further sues for

exemplary and punitive damages in an amount within the jurisdictional

limits of the Court.

D. Prejudgment

Interest

28. In addition to the above and foregoing allegations, Plaintifffurther pleads that

he is entitled to prejudgmentinterest at the highest rate allowed by law.

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 14 of 37 PageID 24
VIII. Conditions Precedent

29. A|| conditions precedent have occurred, have been performed, have been

waived or have otherwise been excused.

IX. Miscellaneous

30. SIMPKINS respectfully reserves the rightto amend and plead further as

necessary and as additional facts are uncovered.

X. T.R.C.P. 47(c)

31. Pursuant to T.R.C.P. 47(0), Plaintiff herenow seeks monetary relief over

$250,000.00 but not more than $1,000,000.00.

XI. RULE 193.7 NOTICE

32. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, Plaintiff hereby gives

actual notice to Defendant that any and all documents produced may be used against Defendant at any pretrial proceeding and/or at the trial of this matter without the

necessity of authenticating the documents.

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 15 of 37 PageID 25
XII. Prayer WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, MOSES SIMPKINS asks that

Defendants be cited to appear and answer, and on final trial, that Defendant be held liable

and judgment be rendered for Plaintiff, MOSES SIMPKINS as follows:

(a)

(b)

(d)

(e)

(f)

All actual, consequential, and special damages;

Pre-judgment

interest as provided by law;

Punitive damages as provided by law;

Post-judgment interest;

Costs of Court; and,

Such other and further relief, both general and special, legal and

equitable, to which MOSES SIMPKINS may show himself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THE TODD LAW GROUP, PLLC

By: /s/ JV. add

Jeffrey N. Todd

State Bar No. 24028048

12929 Gulf Freeway, Suite 301 Houston, Texas 77034

Telephone: (832) 243-4953

Telecopier: (713) 583-7818

jeff@jefftoddlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

-10-

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 16 of 37 PageID 26
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

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Dena Kana on behalf of Jeffrey Todd Bar No. 24028048 dena@jefftoddlaw.com

Envelope ID: 60788340

Status as of 1/18/2022 9:42 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Dena Kana dena@jefftoddlaw.com 1/13/2022 11:21 :27 AM SENT

Jeffrey N. Todd jeff@jefftoddlaw.com 1/13/2022 11:21:27 AM SENT

Julie Rogers julie102870@gmail.com 1/13/2022 11:21:27 AM SENT

Jeffrey Nash Todd 24028048 jeff@jefftoddlaw.com 1/13/2022 11:21:27 AM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 17 of 37 PageID 27
TAB NO. 3 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 18 of 37 PageID 28
FILED

1/13/2022 11:21 AM

FELICIA PITRE CIT-ESE DISTRICT CLERK

ASrE‘da., TEXAS

12929 GLflIIfiIiSfl/MVLW DEPUTY To Houston, Texas 77034

832 243-4953 PERSONALINJURYATTORNEY Fax713533_7818 Writer's direct e-mail address:

Jeff 'effloddlaw.com

January 13, 2022

Felicia Pitre Via Efile DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

1201 Elm Street, Suite 2100

213‘ Floor DC-22-oo481 Dallas, Texas 75270

Re: Cause No. Moses Simpkins vs. WaI-Mart Stores Texas, LLC; In the th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Dear Ms. Pitre:

Please issue the citation as follows and email it to my paralegal at dena@jefftoddlaw.com or return by regular mail if the email option is not available:

WaI-Mart Stores Texas, LLC

through their Registered Agent, CT Corporation System

1999 Bryan Street, #900 Dallas, Texas 75201 or wherever it may be found

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Kindest regards, MflW 717%

Jeffrey N. Todd

SBN: 24028048

JNT/ddk

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 19 of 37 PageID 29
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

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Dena Kana on behalf of Jeffrey Todd Bar No. 24028048 dena@jefftoddlaw.com

Envelope ID: 60788340

Status as of 1/18/2022 9:42 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Dena Kana dena@jefftoddlaw.com 1/13/2022 11:21 :27 AM SENT

Jeffrey N. Todd jeff@jefftoddlaw.com 1/13/2022 11:21:27 AM SENT

Julie Rogers julie102870@gmail.com 1/13/2022 11:21:27 AM SENT

Jeffrey Nash Todd 24028048 jeff@jefftoddlaw.com 1/13/2022 11:21:27 AM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 20 of 37 PageID 30
TAB NO. 4 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 21 of 37 PageID 31
FORM NO. 353-3 CITATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To: WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC BY SERVING ITS REGISTERED AGENT, CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN ST., STE. 900 DALLAS, TEXAS 75201

GREETINGS: You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file written answer with the

clerk who issued this citation by 10 o'clock a.m. of the Monday next following the expiration of twenty days after you were served this citation and petition, default judgment may be taken against you. In addition to filing written answer with the clerk, you may be required to make initial disclosures to the other parties of this suit. These disclosures generally must be made no later than 30 days after you file your answer with the clerk. Find out more at TexasLawHelp.org. Your answer should be addressed to the clerk of the 95th District Court at 600 Commerce

Street, Ste. 101, Dallas, Texas 75202.

Said Plaintiff being MOSES SIMPKINS

Filed in said Court 13th day of January, 2022 against WAL-MART STORES TEXAS. LLC

For Suit, said suit being numbered DC—22—00481, the nature ofwhich demand is as follows: Suit on PROPERTY etc. as shown on said petition, copy ofwhich accompanies this citation. If this citation is not served, it shall be returned unexecuted. WITNESS: FELICLA PITRE, Clerk of the District Courts of Dallas, County Texas. Given under my hand and the Seal of said Court at office this 26th day ofJanuary, 2022.

ATTEST: FELICM PITRE, Clerk ofthe District Courts ofDallas, County, Texas Mfi'fi'fl: at" "l alkC

sé". By .Deputy if!" “ESE ANGELA CON E56,?

---------

‘l 33$

awninfimw”

ESERVE

CITATION

DC-22—00481

MOSES SIMPKINS

vs. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

ISSUED THIS

26th day of January, 2022

FELICIA PITRE Clerk District Courts, Dallas County, Texas

By; ANGELA CONEJo, Deputy

Attorney for Plaintiff

JEFFEY N. TODD

THE TODD LAW GROUP, PLLC

12929 GULF FREEWAY, SUITE 301 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77034 832-243-4953

ieff@iefftoddlaw.com DALLAS COUNTY SERVICE FEES HOT PAID

IF

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 22 of 37 PageID 32
Case No. DC-22-00481

Court No.95th District Court

Style: MOSES SIMPKINS

vs. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

OFFICER'S RETURN

Came to hand on the day of 20 at o'clock .M. Executed at within the County of at o'clock .M. on the day of

20 by delivering to the within named

each in person, true copy ofthis Citation together with the accompanying copy ofthis pleading, having first endorsed on same date of delivery. The distance actually traveled by me in serving such process was

For serving Citation

For mileage

For Notary

Signed and sworn to by the said

to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

miles and my fees are as follows: To certify which witness my hand.

of County, By Deputy

(Must be verified if served outside the State of Texas.)

before me this day of 20

Notary Public County

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 23 of 37 PageID 33
TAB NO. 5 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 24 of 37 PageID 34
FORM NO. 353-3 CITATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To: WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC BY SERVING ITS REGISTERED AGENT, CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN ST., STE. 900 DALLAS, TEXAS 75201

GREETINGS: You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file written answer with the

clerk who issued this citation by 10 o'clock a.m. of the Monday next following the expiration of twenty days after you were served this citation and petition, default judgment may be taken against you. In addition to filing written answer with the clerk, you may be required to make initial disclosures to the other parties of this suit. These disclosures generally must be made no later than 30 days afier you file your answer with the clerk. Find out more at TexasLawHelp.org. Your answer should be addressed to the clerk of the 95th District Court at 600 Commerce

Street, Ste. 101, Dallas, Texas 75202.

Said Plaintiff being MOSES SIMPKINS

Filed in said Court 13th day of January, 2022 against WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

For Suit, said suit being numbered DC—22—00481, the nature ofwhich demand is as follows: Suit on PROPERTY etc. as shown on said petition, copy ofwhich accompanies this citation. If this citation is not served, it shall be returned unexecuted. WITNESS: FELICIA PITRE, Clerk of the District Courts ofDallas, County Texas. Given under my hand and the Seal of said Court at office this 26th day ofJanuary, 2022.

ATTEST: FELICLA PITRE, Clerk ofthe District Courts ofDallas, County, Texas “umm‘%

es? :25

By ,Deputy £92." 353.5 ANGELA CON ’1,

FILED

2/9/2022 12:49 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS

SADAF RAJPUT DEPUTY

ESERVE

CITATION

DC-22—00481

MOSES SIMPKINS

vs. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

ISSUED THIS

26th day of January, 2022

FELICIA PITRE Clerk District Courts, Dallas County, Texas

By; ANGELA CONEJO, Deputy

Attorney for Plaintiff

JEFFEY N. TODD

THE TODD LAW GROUP, PLLC

12929 GULF FREEWAY, SUITE 301 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77034 832-243-4953 eff@iefftoddlaw.com DALLAS COUNTY SERVICE FEES NOT PAID

“€4.33

Mlmm

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 25 of 37 PageID 35
CAUSE NO. DC-22-00481

MOSES SIM?mS IN THE 95TH DISTRICT COURT

Plamtlflfls),

V. OF WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendant(s).

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Godson Egeonu, being duly sworn, state:

am not partyto or interested in the outcome of this suit.

received the following documents on February 8, 2022 at 9:58 am. delivered these documents on Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC in Dallas County, TX on February 8, 2022 at 2:53 pm at 1999 Bryan

Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201 by leaving the following documents With George Martinez who as Clerk at CT Corporation System is authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process for Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC.

Citation and Plaintiffs Original Petition

Additional Description: delivered the documents to George Martinez, clerk for Registered Agent CT Corporation System.

Hispanic or Latino Male, est. age 35, glasses: Y, Black hair, 160 lbs to 180 lbs, 5' 3" to 5' 6". Geolocation of Serve: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=32.7854802695,-96.7968200264 Photograph: See Exhibit My full name is Godson Egeonu. My date of birth is 2/2/ 1962. My address is 2112 Lake Bend Drive,

Irving, TX 75060.

declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Godson Egeonu (214) 566—077 TX 0n Cenification Number: PSC—18686 Expiration Date: 9/30/2022

Executed in Dallas County /S/ 6W

Job #104828 Simpkins Page

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 26 of 37 PageID 36
Exhibit

Exhibit 1a)

Job #104828 Simpkins Page

3#

1252—."

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 27 of 37 PageID 37
Exhibit 1b)

Job #104828 Simpkins Page

9-89

-l_l

(1 {3

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 28 of 37 PageID 38
Exhibit 1c)

Job #104828 Simpkins Page

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 29 of 37 PageID 39
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

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Dena Kana on behalf of Jeffrey Todd Bar No. 24028048 dena@jefftoddlaw.com

Envelope ID: 61586509

Status as of 2/1 1/2022 11:20 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Jeffrey Nash Todd 24028048 jeff@jefftoddlaw.com 2/9/2022 12:49:30 PM SENT

Jeffrey N. Todd jeff@jefftoddlaw.com 2/9/2022 12:49:30 PM SENT Dena Kana dena@jefftoddlaw.com 2/9/2022 12:49:30 PM SENT

Julie Rogers julie102870@gmail.com 2/9/2022 12:49:30 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 30 of 37 PageID 40
TAB NO. 6 

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 31 of 37 PageID 41
FILED

3/4/2022 4:42 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Miranda Lynch DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-22-00481 MOSES SIMPKINS IN THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF,

95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC, DEFENDANTS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC (“Defendant”)

in the abovestyled and numbered cause, and files this Original Answer to Plaintiff Original Petition, and in

support hereof would respectfully Show the Court the following.

I. GENERAL DENIAL

1. Defendant denies each and every, all and singular, the material allegations made

and contained in the Original Petition and any petition which Plaintiff may hereinafter file by

way of amendment or supplement, and, in accordance with Texas law, demands that Plaintiff

prove by preponderance Of the credible evidence each and every such allegation made and

contained therein, or the prevailing standard Of proofrequired by applicable law.

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2. Pleading further, and in the affirmative, Defendant asserts the doctrine of

comparative causation as set forth in Chapter 33 Of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE REMEDIES

CODE, which may bar any recovery by Plaintiff, or may in the alternative reduce the amount of

recovery by Plaintiff based on the Plaintiffs own percentage offault.

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE OF

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 32 of 37 PageID 42
3. Pleading further, if necessary, Plaintiff failed to mitigate Plaintiff’s damages which may have resulted from the occurrence made the basis ofthis lawsuit.

4. In the alternative, and Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant affirmatively

pleads

the defense set forth in TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE REMEDIES CODE 18.091, requiring

Plaintiff to prove Plaintiffs loss of earning and/or loss of earning capacity in the form which

represents Plaintiff net loss after reduction for income tax payments or unpaid tax liability on

said loss or earning claim pursuantto any federal income tax law. Id. Additionally, Defendant

requests

the Court to instruct the jury as to whether any recovery for compensatory damages

sought by the Plaintiff, if any, is subject

to federal to state income taxes.

5. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff’s medical expenses exceed the amount

actually paid on Plaintiffs behalf to Plaintiffs medical providers, Defendant asserts the statutory

defense set forth in 41.0105 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE REMEDIES CODE. Thus, recovery

of medical or health care expensesincurred by Plaintiff, if any, are limited to the amount actually

paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff.

6. Pleading further, Defendant would show that it is entitled to credit or offset

equal to the amount of any and all sums that the Plaintiff has received, or may hereinafter

receive, by way of settlement with any person or party. Alternatively, pursuant

to Rule 48 of the

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendant contends that it is entitled to proportionate

reduction of any damagesfound againstit based upon the percentage of negligence attributable

to the settling tortfeasor, cross claimant, designated third party, or other party to this case.

7. Pleading further, and in the affirmative, Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s claims for

pre-judgment

interest are limited by the dates and amounts set forth in 304.101 of the TEXAS

FINANCE CODE and 41.007 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE REMEDIES CODE.

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE OF

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 33 of 37 PageID 43
8. Pleading further, and in the affirmative, Defendant invokes §41.0105 of the

TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE REMEDIES CODE concerning Plaintiff claim for the recovery of health

care expenses and other related damages, past and future.

9. Pleading further, and in the affirmative, Defendant asserts the doctrine of

proportionate responsibility of TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE REMEDIES CODE Chapter 33, which may bar any recovery by Plaintiff, or may in the alternative, reduce the amount of recovery by

Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s own percentage offault.

10. Pleading further, and in the affirmative, Defendant would show that the alleged

occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit was the result of circumstances and/or events that were

not of Defendant’s own creation. Defendant would further show that it acted just as similar

situated reasonable premises owner would have acted under the same or similar circumstances

surrounding the matters made the basis ofthis lawsuit.

11. Pleading further, and in the affirmative, Defendant alleges that the injuries and

damages alleged by Plaintiff may be due to Plaintiff own negligence and recklessness in that

Plaintiff’s failure to exercise ordinary care proximately caused, in whole or in part, the alleged

injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s acts and omissions, whether taken

together or separately, may be the sole proximate cause, or proximate cause of the injuries and

damages Plaintiff has alleged in this lawsuit. Any recovery by Plaintiff is therefore barred, or

alternatively should be reduced in accordance with the applicable law.

12. Pleading further, and in the affirmative, the injuries pled by Plaintiff may have

been caused, in whole or in part, by superseding and/or intervening causes, including preexisting

conditions and/or injuries and subsequently occurring injuries and/or conditions that were not

Defendant’s own creation.

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE OF

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 34 of 37 PageID 44
13. Pleading further, if necessary, Plaintiff’s claims may have been caused by an

unavoidable accident, Act of God, or an occurrence Without any fault on the part ofDefendant.

14. Pleading further and in the alternative, Defendant alleges that any claims for or

recovery of exemplary damages against

it violates the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution, and Sections 3, l3 and l9 of Article of the Texas

Constitution, because such claims as made are arbitrary, unreasonable, and violate Defendant’s

rights

to due process and equal protection ofthe laws.

15. Pleading further and in the alternative, to the extent any recovery of exemplary

damages

is found to be constitutional, Defendant invokes all the limitations upon damages and

exemplary damages contained in Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code, both

in terms of the maximum amount of damages

that can be awarded pursuantto that statute and the

procedural safeguards guaranteed by the referenced provisions.

l6. Pleading further and in the alternative, Defendant also invokes all other applicable

state law, federal law, statutory and/or common-law caps or limitations on exemplary damages.

III. NOTICE OF INTENT

l7. Defendant further places Plaintiff on notice pursuantto TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 193.7 that may use in pretrial proceedings or at trial any and all documents and

tangible things produced in discovery by plaintiff.

IV. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

l8. In accordance with Rule 216 of the TEXAS RULES 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE,

Defendant hereby demands trial by jury.

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE OF

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 35 of 37 PageID 45
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays

that Plaintiff take

nothing by this suit against Defendant, that Defendant be discharged, and that the Court grant

such other and further relief, both general and special, at law and in equity to which Defendant may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

COOPER SCULLY, P.C.

By: /s/Derek S. Davis DEREK S. DAVIS

Texas Bar No. 00793591 Email: Derek.DaVis@CooperScullvcom

ZACH W. TOUPS

Texas Bar No. 24123536

Email: Zach.Toup_s@CooperScullv.com

900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202

Telephone: (214) 2-9500

Facsimile: (214) 712-9540

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

hereby certify that on the 4th day of March, 2022, true and correct copy of the

foregoing document was served on counsel of record via the Court’s ECF filing service as

follows:

Jeffrey N. Todd

Email:

jeff@jeffloddlaw.com

The Todd Law Group

12929 Gulf Freeway, Suite 301 Houston, Texas 77034

Telephone: (832) 243-4953

Facsimile: (713) 583-7818 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/Derek S. Davis DEREK S. DAVIS

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE OF

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 36 of 37 PageID 46
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

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Karri Minster on behalf of Derek Davis Bar No. 793591

karri.minster@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 62327315

Status as of 3/7/2022 9:04 AM CST

Case Contacts

Associated Case Party: WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Jeffrey Nash Todd 24028048 jeff@jefftoddlaw.com 3/4/2022 4:42:27 PM SENT

Jeffrey N. Todd jeff@jefftoddlaw.com 3/4/2022 4:42:27 PM SENT Dena Kana dena@jefftoddlaw.com 3/4/2022 4:42:27 PM SENT

Julie Rogers julie102870@gmail.com 3/4/2022 4:42:27 PM SENT

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Derek Davis derek.davis@cooperscully.com 3/4/2022 4:42:27 PM SENT

Zachry Toups zach.toups@cooperscully.com 3/4/2022 4:42:27 PM SENT

Karri Minster Karri.Minster@cooperscully.com 3/4/2022 4:42:27 PM SENT

Kim Denton kim.denton@cooperscully.com 3/4/2022 4:42:27 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-00571-G Document 1-3 Filed 03/10/22 Page 37 of 37 PageID 47