132695664.1

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 22 PageID 5
132691002.2

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GLORIA J. LEWIS

Plaintiff,

v.

WALGREEN CO.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. _____________

INDEX OF STATE COURT DOCUMENTS

Document 

No. Date Filed Description of Document

1 State Court Docket Sheet

2 March 7, 2022 Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

3 March 23, 2022 Affidavit of Service

4 March 30, 2022 Defendant Walgreen Co.’s Original Answer

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 22 PageID 6
132693385.1

DOCUMENT 1

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 22 PageID 7
Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 22 PageID 8
Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 22 PageID 9
Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 22 PageID 10
132693417.1

DOCUMENT 2

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 7 of 22 PageID 11
FILED

3/7/2022 3:10 PM

FELICIA PITRE CIT ESERVE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS

Paula Mountique DEPUTY DC-22-02635 CAUSE N0. GLORIA J. LEWIS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, 134th VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT WALGREENS C0.,

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

AND JURY DEMAND

COMES NOW GLORLA J. LEWIS, hereinafter also referred to as “Plaintiff,” and files

Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Jury Demand complaining ofWALGREENS C0., hereinafter also

referred to as “Defendant,” and in support thereofwould respectfully show the Court the following:

I. DISCOVERY LEVEL

This lawsuit shall be conducted under Plaintiffintends for discovery to be conducted under

Level of Rule 190.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. PARTIES AND SERVICE

Plaintiff is an individual who resides in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, and can be noticed

by and through Plaintiffs attorney

in charge, Kristi Wood, Thompson Law, 3300 Oak Lawn

Avenue, 3rd Floor, Dallas, Texas 75219.

Defendant WALGREENS CO. is entity operating commercial business in Dallas, Dallas

County, Texas and may be served with citation at via their Registered Agent, Prentice Hall

Corporation System, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701, or wherever Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE OF CAUSE N0.

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 8 of 22 PageID 12
may be found. Plaintiff requests service by private process server. Issuance of citation is

reguested.

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The subject matter in controversy in this lawsuit is within the jurisdictionallimits of this

Court.

This Court has jurisdiction over the partiesto this lawsuit because the partiesto this lawsuit

are Texas residents and/or regularly conduct business in Texas; the events upon which this lawsuit

is based occurred in Texas; and the damages sought

in this lawsuit are within the jurisdictional

limits of this Court, consist of monetary relief of In order to comply with this procedural

requirement, Plaintiff pleads pursuant

to Tex. R. Civ. P. 47, that Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in

an amount of $1,000,000.00 or more, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses,

pre-judgment

interest and attorneys’ fees, an amount within the jurisdictional limits ofthis Court.

Venue in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proper under Section 15.002(a)(2) of the Texas

Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all of the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in

Dallas County, Texas.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On or about May 8, 2020, Plaintiffwas an invitee to Walgreens located at 8120 S. Cockrell

Hill in Dallas, Texas 75236, when she slipped and fell while walking away down the hair care

products aisle. At the time of the occurrence in question, Defendant operated the premises as

business and owed Plaintiff duty to exercise ordinary care to ensure that their premises were safe.

Defendant failed to maintain their premises free of any hazards, causing Plaintiff to slip and fall.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE OF CAUSE N0.

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 9 of 22 PageID 13
As direct and proximate result of the wrongful and negligent conduct of Defendant,

Plaintiff suffered injuries, damages and medical expenses within the jurisdictionallimits of this

Court.

V.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Jiegligence Premises Liabilitv

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegationsset forth in the preceding

paragraphs.

The negligence of Defendant, its employees, agents and/or representatives acting within

the scope oftheir employment was proximate cause of the occurrence in question and Plaintiffs

injuries and damages. Defendant owned, managed and/or maintained the Premises in question and

had control of the Premises. At the time of the incident, Defendant was operating business and

the premises was open to the general public for the business’s purposes. The Plaintiff was on the

premises as customer ofDefendant.

Defendant created the dangerous condition on the Premises that caused Plaintiff’s fall and

injuries and damages through the acts of its agents, employees or representatives, and/or allowed

it to be created.

Defendant knew or through the exercise of due care should have known that the Premises,

in the condition it was in at the time of the incident which forms the basis of this suit, posed an

unreasonable risk of harm to persons on the Premises, including without limitation Plaintiff.

Defendant were negligent when they:

a. Failed inspectthe Premises for defendants and/or unreasonably dangerous

conditions;

b. Failed to make the Premises reasonably safe; and/or

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE OF CAUSE N0.

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 10 of 22 PageID 14
c. Failed to make safe the dangerous conditions or provide adequate warning of the

dangerous conditions for persons entering and on the Premises.

As direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff sustained

bodily injuries and damages within the jurisdictional

limits of this Court.

VII. NOTICE OF INTENT

Plaintiff hereby gives notice to Defendant under Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure that Plaintiff will use any document produced by Defendant during pretrial discovery

against Defendant at any pretrial proceeding and at trial, and any such document is therefore selfauthenticated pursuant

to that rule.

VIII.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby requeststrial by jury. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffrequests

that Defendant be cited to

appear and answer herein, and that this case be tried before the Court and Jury, after which

Plaintiffrecover:

a. judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff damages as set forth above in an amount Within the jurisdictional

limits of this Court;

b. pre-judgmentinterest at the maximum amount allowed by law;

c. post-judgmentinterest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

d. case costs and expenses of suit; and

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE OF CAUSE N0.

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 11 of 22 PageID 15
C. such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly

entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THOMPSON LAW LLP

3300 Oak Lawn Avenue, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75219 Tel. 214/755-7777

Fax 214/716-0116

RYAN L. THOMPSON

State Bar No. 24046969

rthompson@triallawyers.com

KRISTI WOOD

State Bar No. 24076784

kwood@triallawyers.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE OF CAUSE N0.

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 12 of 22 PageID 16
132693417.1

DOCUMENT 3

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 13 of 22 PageID 17
State of Texas

Case Number: DC-22-02635

Plaintiff: Gloria J. Lewis

VS. Defendant: Walgreens Co.

For: Thompson Law, LLP

3300 Oak Lawn Avenue

3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75219

FILED

3/23/2022 12:30 PM AFFIQAVIT OF§_ERV|C_E_

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS

SADAF RAJPUT DEPUTY County of Dallas 134th Judicial District Court

Received by Dane Ray Cuppett on the 21st day of March, 2022 at 9:54 am to be served on Walgreens Co. by serving its

registered agent, Prentice Hall Corporation System, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Travis County, TX 78701.

l, Dane Ray Cuppett, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 21st day of March, 2022 at 1:38 pm, I:

executed to the REGISTERED AGENT by delivering true copy of the Citation and Plaintiff's Original Petition and Jury Demand with the date of delivery endorsed thereon by me, to Evie Lichtenwalter, Prentice Hall Corporation System as the designated agent

to accept delivery of process at the address of 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Travis County, TX 78701 on behalf of Walgreens Co. and informed said person of the contents therein.

certify that am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, and am certified process sewer, in good standing,

in the

judicial circuit in which the foregoing occurred. The facts in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and true and correct.

Subscrib and sworn to bef re 3a; __by the arfiant 3/4/m; MRY PUBLIC,

tt me 0n theLlyan uppe

PSC—7114, Exp. 10/31/23 day Date Malone Process Service, LLC

P.O. Box 720040 Dallas, TX 75372

(877) 997-3783

Is pers nall to me.

Our Job Serial Number: ATX-2022003044

Copyright 1992-2022 Database Services, Inc. Process Server‘s Toolbox V8.2?!

NlCOLE M.WADE My Notary

ID 129086987 N6

3pmAugust9, 2°24

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 14 of 22 PageID 18
132693529.1

DOCUMENT 4

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 15 of 22 PageID 19
FILED

3/30/2022 12:31 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Marissa Gomez DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-22-02635 GLORIA J. LEWIS, 1N THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,

vs. 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WALGREENS C0.,

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS WALGREEN CO.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER

Defendant Walgreen Co. (“Defendant”) improperly named Walgreens Co. files this

Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and in support thereof, respectfully shows the Court

as follows:

I. GENERAL DENIAL

1. Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant generally

denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained in the live petition filed in this

lawsuit by Dorothy Bush (“Plaintiff”), along with any other pleading seeking affirmative relief

subsequently filed by Plaintiff in this lawsuit, whether amended, supplemental, and/or otherwise,

and Defendant hereby demands strict proof of all allegations at the time oftrial Via the applicable

standard(s).

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2. Pleading alternatively, without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant asserts the

following affirmative Defenses:

DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Page

132389211.l

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 16 of 22 PageID 20
Contributorv Negligence

3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred as result of Plaintiff’s own negligence, which

contributed in whole or in partto Plaintiff alleged damages. Alternatively, Plaintiff recovery,

if any, should be reduced by the percentage of Plaintiff’ contributory negligence.

Proportionate Responsibility

4. This action is subjectto the proportionate responsibility provisions of Chapter 33

of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE, including (without limitation) the requirement of §33.003

thereof that the trier of fact determine the relative responsibility of each claimant, defendant,

settling person and responsible third-party who may be joined in the suit.

Intervening Superseding Cause

5. Plaintiff’s alleged damagesresulted from new and independent, unforeseeable,

superseding and/or intervening causes unrelated to any conduct of Defendant.

6. The injuries and damages Plaintiff is claiming, if any, are due, in whole or in part,

to an intervening or superseding cause, or cause unrelated to Defendant or Defendant’s alleged

actions or omissions.

Preexisting Conditions

7. The pain, injuries, and damagesthat Plaintiff is claiming in this case preexisted the

incident made the basis of this lawsuit, and are unrelated to any alleged actions or omissions of

Defendant.

Paid or Incurred Civil Practice Remedies Code Section 41.0105

8. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.0105, Defendant

asserts that recovery of the medical healthcare expenses incurred by Plaintiff, if any, is limited to

DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Page

13238921 .l

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 17 of 22 PageID 21
the amount actually paid by or on Plaintiff’ behalf, and that this is the only amount that should be

submitted to the tier offact.

9. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover medical chargesthat provideris not entitled to

be paid, and as such evidence of such charges is irrelevant to the issue of damages. Thus, only

evidence of recoverable medical expensesis admissible at trial. See generally Haygood v. De

Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011).

Failure to Mitigate

10. Defendant says Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and Defendant is not

liable for any condition resulting from the failure, if any, of Plaintiff to act as person or persons

of ordinary prudence would have acted under the same or similar circumstances in caring for and

treating his alleged injuries. To the extent Plaintiff had or has coverage under health insurance

policy, hospitalization insurance policy, accident insurance policy, “health benefit plan” as

defined by Section l46.001(1) Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code, and/or any other insurance and/or

indemnity coverage that would be applicable to, or provide coverage for, any of the healthcare

expenses allegedly incurred by Plaintiffas result ofthe alleged incident (health insurance carrier),

Plaintiff failed to mitigate her alleged damages by failing to submit such healthcare expensesto

her health insurance carrier and/or by failing to timely inform his health care provider of the

existence of such coverage and requesting that the health care provider submit claim for

reimbursement to her health insurance carrier, thus failing to enjoy available contractual insurance

company reductions. Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiffs health care provider(s) failed and/or

refused to timely and directly bill Plaintiff’ health insurance carrier for health care services

provided to Plaintiff, when required or authorized to do so, then claims by such health care service

provider(s) are barred, in whole or in part, and do not constitute medical expenses actually paid or

DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Page

1323 8921

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 18 of 22 PageID 22
incurred by or on behalfofPlaintiff. See Tex. CiV. Prac. Rem. Code 146.003, et seq. (“Certain

Claims by Health Care Service Providers Barred”). IfPlaintiffdoes not have applicable healthcare

insurance, Plaintifffailed to mitigate damages by failing to enroll for required healthcare insurance

under the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or “Obamacare”).

Payment

1. Plaintiff” recovery, if any, should be reduced by the amount of the payments

Plaintiff has received to compensate her for her alleged damages, if any.

Civil Practice Remedies Code Section 18.091

12. To the extent same becomes applicable and necessary

in this case, Defendant

invokes the evidentiary requirements as set forth in Section 18.091 ofthe TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM.

CODE regarding all damages that fall Within the scope of this provision.

13. Specifically, alleged lost wages and loss of earning capacity must be proved in net

form, after accounting for tax and other liabilities.

Interest Limitations

14. The amount of any pre-judgment and post-judgmentinterest awarded in this case

against Defendant, if any,

is limited and/or subjectto the limitations set forth in common law,

statute, state and federal constitutions, the Texas Finance Code, and/or the Texas Civil Practice

and Remedies Code.

15. Additionally and specifically, Defendant affirmatively pleads and asserts that

Plaintiff claims for prejudgment and post-judgmentinterest are limited by the dates and amounts

set for in Section 304 of Texas Finance Code and Chapter 4l of the Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code.

DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Page

1323 8921

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 19 of 22 PageID 23
III. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays

that upon final hearing, the

Court enter judgmentthat Plaintifftakes nothing by way of her claims against Defendant in this

case, that all costs be taxed against Plaintiff, and that Defendant be awarded such other and fiirther

relief, both general and special, at law and in equity, to which Defendant may show itself to be

justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP

Mark A. Goodman

State Bar No. 08156920 mark.goodman@foxrothschildcom

amie-Lee Denton

State Bar No. 24105297

identon@foxrothschild.com

Saint Ann Court 2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1800 Dallas, Texas 75201 972/991-0889 972/404-0516 Fax ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.

By

DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Page

13238921 1.1

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 20 of 22 PageID 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

hereby certify that on the 30th day of March 2022, true and correct copy of the above and

foregoing document was served upon the following counsel ofrecord:

Ryan L. Thompson Via E-service Kristi Wood

Thompson Law LLP

3300 Oak Lawn Avenue, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75219

rthompson@t1iallawers.com

kwood@triallawyers.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Mark A. Goodman

DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Page

132389211.1

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 21 of 22 PageID 25
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.

Felicia Harris on behalf of Mark Goodman Bar No. 8156920

fharris@foxrothschild.com

Envelope ID: 63098405

Status as of 3/30/2022 1:08 PM CST

Associated Case Party: GLORIAJ.LEW|S

Associated Case Party: WALGREENS CO.

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

KRISTI WOOD kwood@triallawyers.com 3/30/2022 12:31:30 PM SENT

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Jamie-Lee Denton JDenton@foxrothschild.com 3/30/2022 12:31 :30 PM SENT Mark A.Goodman mark.goodman@foxrothschild.com 3/30/2022 12:31:30 PM SENT

Felicia Q.Harris fharris@foxrothschild.com 3/30/2022 12:31:30 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-00869-B Document 1-1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 22 of 22 PageID 26