EXHIBIT 1

Exhibit 1

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 26 PageID 8
Service of Process

Transmittal

03/10/2022

CT Log Number 541203945

TO: Legal Sop

Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc.

7601 PENN AVE S

RICHFIELD, MN 55423-3683

RE: Process Served in Texas

FOR: Best Buy Co., Inc.  (Domestic State: MN)

Page 1 of  1 / SL

ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:

 

TITLE OF ACTION: Re: MIGUEL GARCIA // To: Best Buy Co., Inc.

DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: Citation, Attachment(s), Petition and Demand

COURT/AGENCY: 68th District Court of Dallas County, TX

Case # DC2201840

NATURE OF ACTION: Personal Injury - Failure to Maintain Premises in a Safe Condition - 05/24/2020

ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED: C T Corporation System, Dallas, TX

DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 03/10/2022 at 12:12

JURISDICTION SERVED : Texas

APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: By 10 a.m. of the Monday next following the expiration of 20 days after service

(Document(s) may contain additional answer dates)

ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S): LOREN G. KLITSAS

KLITSAS & VERCHER, P.C.

550 WESTCOTT, SUITE 570

HOUSTON, TX 77007

713-862-1365

ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 03/11/2022, Expected Purge Date:

03/16/2022

Image SOP

Email Notification,  Legal Sop  ctlegalsop@bestbuy.com

REGISTERED AGENT ADDRESS: C T Corporation System

1999 Bryan Street

Suite 900

Dallas, TX 75201

877-564-7529

MajorAccountTeam2@wolterskluwer.com

The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, and should not otherwise be

relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s)

of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other

advisors as necessary. CT disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be contained

therein.

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 26 PageID 9
~®Wolters Kluwer 

PROCESS SERVER DELIVERY DETAILS 

Date: Thu, Mar 10, 2022 

Server Name: Steve Friedenthal 

Entity Served BEST BUY CO., INC. 

Case Number DC-22-01840 

Jurisdiction TX 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 3 of 26 PageID 10
FORM NO. 353-3- CITATION 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

To: BEST BUY CO., INC. 

SERVING REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 

1999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 

DALLAS TX 75201-3136 

GREETINGS: 

You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a 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, a default judgment may be taken 

against you. In addition to filing a 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 ofthe 68th District Court at 600 Commerce Street, Ste. 101, Dallas, Texas 75202. 

Said Plaintiff being MIGUEL GARCIA 

Filed in said Court 15th day of February, 2022 against 

BEST BUY CO., INC. 

For Suit, said suit being numbered DC-22-01840, the nature of which demand is as follows: 

Suit on OTHER PERSONAL INJURY etc. as shown on said petition REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, 

a copy of which accompanies this citation. If this citation is not served, it shall be returned unexecuted. 

WITNESS: FELICIA PITRE, Clerk of the District Courts of Dallas, County Texas. 

Given under my hand and the Seal of said Court at office this 22nd day of February, 2022. 

ATTEST: FELICIA PITRE, Clerk of the District Courts of Dallas, County, Texas 

By ______ 12.-- ~~~-=~--------------'Depucy l----

DAN~t MACIAS 

ESERVE 

CITATION 

DC-22-01840 

MIGUEL GARCIA 

vs. 

BEST BUY CO., INC. 

ISSUED THIS 

22nd day of February, 2022 

FELICIA PITRE 

Clerk District Courts, 

Dallas County, Texas 

By: DANIEL MACIAS, Deputy 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

LOREN G. KLITSAS 

KLITSAS & VERCHER, P.C. 

550 WESTCOTT SUITE 570 

HOUSTON TX 77007 

713-862-1365 

klitsas@kv-law .com 

DALLAS COUNTY 

SERVICE FEES 

NOT PAID 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 4 of 26 PageID 11
Case No.: DC-22-01840 

Court No.68th District Court 

Style: MIGUEL GARCIA 

vs. 

BEST BUY CO., INC. 

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. _________________ _ 

each in person, a true copy of this Citation together with the acco::1panying copy of this pleading, having first endorsed on same date of delivery. The distance actually traveled by 

me in serving such process was miles and my fees are as follows: To certify which witness my hand. 

For s~rving Citation $ ___ _ 

For mileage $ of County, 

For Notary $ By ________________ Deputy 

(Mt:.st be verified if served outside the State of Texas.) 

Signed and sworn to by the said ___________ before me this ___ day of _________ , 20 ___ . 

to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. 

Notary Public County 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 5 of 26 PageID 12
1 CIT ESERVE JURY DEMAND 

MIGUEL GARCIA 

V. 

BEST BUY CO., INC. 

DC-22-01840 

CAUSE NO. ___ _ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

FILED 

2/15/2022 10:42 AM 

FELICIA PITRE 

DISTRICT CLERK 

DALLAS CO., TEXAS 

Paula Mountique DEPUTY 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 

DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS 

68th 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:· 

COMES NOW, MIGUEL GARCIA, hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Plaintiff," 

complaining of BEST BUY CO., INC., hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Defendant", and for 

cause of action would show unto the Court as follows: 

I. LEVEL 

Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 

190. Plaintiff affirmatively pleads that he seeks only monetary relief in excess of $250,000, but 

not more than $1,000,000, excluding costs, penalties, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and 

attorney's fees. 

II. PARTIES 

Plaintiff is a resident of Dallas County, Texas. 

Defendant, Best Buy Co., Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation licensed to do business in 

Texas, and may be served by serving its registered agent for service, CT Corporation System, 1999 

Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136 or wherever it may be found. 

III. ASSUMED NAMES, MISNOMER, AND ALTER EGO 

As authorized by Rule 28 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this suit is brought against 

all those partnerships, unincorporated associations, private corporations, and individuals, either · 

known or unknown, who are or were, during the period in which the incident made the basis of 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 6 of 26 PageID 13
this lawsuit occurred, including Ma7 24, 2020, doing business as Best Buy Co., Inc. Further, in 

the event that any parties are misnamed or not included herein, it is Plaintiffs contention that such 

was a misnomer and/or such parties are/were alter egos of parties named herein. 

Whenever in this petition it is alleged that the Defendant did any act or thing, it is meant 

that the Defendant's agents, officers, servants, borrowed servants, employees, or representatives 

did such act or thing and that the time such act or thing was done, it was done with the full 

authorization or ratification of Defendant or was done in the normal and routine course and scope 

of employment of Defendant's officers, agents, servants, borrowed servants, employees or 

representatives. The principal is vicariously liable for the acts of the agent because of an employer 

employee status, agency by estoppel, ostensible agency or borrowed servant doctrine. 

IV. JURISDICTION & VENUE 

This Court has jurisdiction in this cause since the damages to Plaintiff are within the 

jurisdictional limits of this Court. 

All or a substantial part of the event or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Dallas 

County. Therefore, venue is proper pursuant to §15.001 and §15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil 

Practice & Remedies Code. 

V. NON-SUBSCRIBER 

At all times material, Defendant, Best Buy Co., Inc. was a non-subscriber pursuant to Tex. 

Lab. Code§ 401.001, et seq. 

VI. FACTS 

Negligence 

On or about May 24, 2020, Plaintiff was lifting items in the warehouse at the Best Buy 

located at 731 N. Highway 67, in Cedar Hill, Texas when he injured his back, seriously injuring 

2 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 7 of 26 PageID 14
himself. Defendant was negligent for the following acts and/or omissions including, but not 

limited to: 

1. Failure to provide a safe workplace; 

2. Failure to provide adequate safety policies and practices; 

3. Failure to follow adequate safety policies and practices; 

3. Failure to provide proper assistance and training; 

4. Failure to provide properly trained supervisors and/or directors; 

5. Requiring Plaintiff to perform tasks under conditions as stated above; 

6. Failure to maintain equipment; and 

7. Negligence in general. 

The above-mentioned acts and/or omissions of Defendant constitutes negligence which 

proximately caused the damages sustained by Plaintiff. 

VII. DAMAGES 

As a result of the occurrence in question, Plaintiff, Miguel Garcia, sustained serious 

personal injuries, mental anguish, physical pain and suffering, medical expenses in the past, and 

impairment and disability in the past. It is believed the Plaintiff will also suffer legally recoverable 

damages in the future. The Plaintiff will respectfully request the Court and Jury to determine the 

amount of loss that Miguel Garcia has incurred and will incur in the future, not only from a 

financial standpoint, but also in terms of good health and freedom from pain and worry. There are 

certain elements of damages provided by law that the Plaintiff is entitled to have the jury in this 

case consider separately to determine the sum of money for each element that will fairly and 

reasonably compensate the Plaintiff for the injuries, damages, and losses incurred from the date of 

the accident in question until the time of trial of this case. Those elements of damages are as 

3 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 8 of 26 PageID 15
follows: 

a. The physical pain that the Plaintiff has suffered from the date of the occurrence in 

question up to the time of trial; 

b. The mental anguish that the Plaintiff has suffered from the date of the occurrence 

in question up to the time of trial; 

c. The amount of reasonable medical expenses necessarily incurred in the treatment 

of the Plaintiffs injuries from the date of the accident in question up to the time of 

trial; 

d. The loss and/or reduction of earnings and/or earning capacity sustained by the 

Plaintiff from the date of the occurrence in question up to the time of trial; 

e. The disfigurement which the Plaintiff has suffered from the date of the occurrence 

in question up to the time of trial; and 

f. The physical impairn1ent in which the Plaintiff has suffered from the date of the 

occurrence in question up to the time of trial. 

Further, the following are elements of damages to be considered separately which the 

Plaintiff will sustain in the future beyond the trial that are determined by a preponderance of the 

evidence upon trial of this cause. 

a. The physical pain that the Plaintiff will suffer in the future beyond the time of trial; 

b. The mental anguish that the Plaintiff will suffer in the future beyond the time of 

trial; 

c. The reasonable value of medical expenses that will necessarily be incurred in the 

treatment of the Plaintiffs injuries in the future beyond the time of trial; 

d. The loss and/or reduction in Plaintiffs earnings or earning capacity in the future 

caused by the injuries sustained in the occurrence in question; 

e. The disfigurement that the Plaintiff will suffer in the future beyond the time of trial; 

and 

f. the physical impainnent which the Plaintiff will suffer in the future beyond the time 

of trial. 

Plaintiff, Miguel Garcia, seeks monetary relief of over $250,000, but not more than 

4 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 9 of 26 PageID 16
$1,000,000, and demand for judgment for all other relief to which the party deems himself entitled. 

VIII. REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendant disclose 

the information or material described in Rule 194.2. 

IX. JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury and herewith tenders the appropriate fee. 

X. PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to 

appear and answer and that upon final hearing, Plaintiff, recover judgment against the Defendant 

for his damages as they may appear at trial hereof, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs 

of court, and such other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled. 

5 

Respectfully Submitted, 

KLITSAS & VERCHER, P.C. 

By: /s/ Loren G. Klitsas 

Loren G. Klitsas 

State Bar No. 00786025 

550 Westcott, Suite 570 

Houston, Texas 77007 

(713) 862-1365- telephone 

(713) 862-1465 - facsimile 

klitsas@kv-law .com 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 10 of 26 PageID 17
EXHIBIT 2

Exhibit 2

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 11 of 26 PageID 18
FORM NO. 353-3- CITATION 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

To: BEST BUY CO., INC. 

SERVING REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 

1999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 

DALLAS TX 75201-3136 

GREETINGS: 

You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a 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, a default judgment may be taken 

against you. In addition to filing a written answer with the clerk, you may be required to make initial 

disclosures to the other parties of this suit. These disclosures genera1Iy 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 68th District Court at 600 Commerce Street, Ste. 101, Dallas, Texas 75202. 

Said Plaintiff being MIGUEL GARCIA 

Filed in said Court 15th day of February, 2022 against 

BEST BUY CO., INC. 

For Suit, said suit being numbered DC-22-01840, the nature of which demand is as follows: 

Suit on OTHER PERSONAL INJURY etc. as shown on said petition REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, 

a copy of which accompanies this citation. If this citation is not served, it shall be returned unexecuted. 

WITNESS: FELICIA PITRE, Clerk of the District Courts of Dallas, County Texas. 

Given under my hand and the Seal of said Court at office this 22nd day of February, 2022. 

ATTEST: FELICIA PITRE, Clerk ofthe District Courts of Dallas, County, Texas 

By ________ 12 ~ ___________________ L---- ,Depucy 

DANffiLMACIAS 

ESERVE 

CITATION 

DC-22-01840 

FELICIA PITRE 

DISTRICT CLERK 

DALLAS CO., TEXAS 

SADAF RAJPUT DEPUTY 

MIGUEL GARCIA 

vs. 

BEST BUY CO., INC. 

ISSUED THIS 

22nd day of February, 2022 

FELICIA PITRE 

Clerk District Courts, 

Dallas County, Texas 

By: DANIEL MACIAS, Deputy 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

LOREN G. KLITSAS 

KLITSAS & VERCHER, P.C. 

550 WESTCOTT SUITE 570 

HOUSTON TX 77007 

713-862-1365 

klitsas@kv-law .com 

DALLAS COUNTY 

SERV'ICE FEES 

NOT PAID 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 12 of 26 PageID 19
OFFICER'S RETURN 

Case No. : DC-22-01840 

Court No.68th District Court 

Style: MIGUEL GARCIA 

vs. 

BEST BUY co., INC. l (/ L" /) " 

Came to hand on the 0f"V t day of (YUVdJ ' 20 fl,?,. >at v·'OO 0 1Clock r .M. Executed at 11?1 ./ip:tlviSj';.~R~ /.F ,. ~ within the County of ___ _... !J,...s.;:A.:~:...~U...,._1'-'-"-tr ____ at J >s' y.r 0

1

clock __tf:_ .M. on the /0 )p/ day of'--£..:./11'-'llu:.iZ ..... Cl-£.=-----------

20 n. 'by delivering to the within named [tlfr JJU" co !tly s/s Jl:T P/11 . 0 t~rc&/liJ.'r-;ou ...CtJ'i:tt'?U r I )1'1/ktf)Uti ----~----- I I 

nm1ttt 

each in person, a true copy of this Citation together with the accompanying copy of this pleading, having first endorsed on same date of delivery. The distance actually traveled by 

me in serving such process was ----'miles and my fees are as follows: To certify which witness my hand. 

For serving Citation $ ___ _ 

For mileage $ ___ _ of 

$ By ~:·~+~= -~.,. 

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

For Notary 

Signed and sworn to by the said S.l:1ill{iJJ .J~_ Jl;1V5fJ~f11111_. before me this \ \4flday of (!X)Y(.b ,20 

to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. 

,,,~~~z,,.,.,. CARRIE MICHELLE DEAN 

if:·-::J;~<-6~ Notary Public. Stat& of Texas 

;;.~. 'J'((!J'E Comm. Expires 02-01-2026 

~~Z;m;:,, .. ,$' Notarv 10 133563213 . 

0a.»u.a~ 1h. ~Vl 

Notary Public 0~ Coun~ 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 13 of 26 PageID 20
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. 

Envelope ID: 62571073 

Status as of 3/16/2022 11 :48 AM CST 

Case Contacts 

Name BarN umber Email TimestampS ubm itted Status 

LOREN G.KLITSAS klitsas@kv-law.com 3/14/2022 11:07:48 AM SENT 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 14 of 26 PageID 21
EXHIBIT 3

Exhibit 3

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 15 of 26 PageID 22
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 1

CAUSE NO. DC-22-01840

MIGUEL GARCIA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs, §

§

vs. § 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

BEST BUY CO., INC., §

Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER

COMES NOW, Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc., (“Defendant”), in the above-entitled and 

numbered cause and files its Original Answer and, in support thereof, respectfully show as 

follows:

 I.

VERIFIED DENIAL

1. By way of verified denial pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 93, Defendant

denies that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from named Defendant “BEST BUY CO., INC.” in the 

capacity in which it has been sued. Specifically, Defendant deniesthat “BEST BUY CO., INC.” was, 

in any way, involved in the events giving rise to this action or employed the persons involved in 

the alleged incident. Consequently, Plaintiff has no right or potential right of recovery against 

Defendant “BEST BUY CO., INC.” because it is not a proper party. See, e.g., Ray Malooly Trust v. 

Juhl, 186 S.W.3d 568, 571 (Tex. 2006). Though both liability and damages are disputed, the 

correct Best Buy entity, if any, is Best Buy Stores, L.P.

II.

GENERAL DENIAL

2. Defendant denies each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s 

Original Petition and an amendment or supplement thereto, demands strict proof thereof, and, 

FILED

4/1/2022 2:25 PM

FELICIA PITRE

DISTRICT CLERK

DALLAS CO., TEXAS

Brandon Keys DEPUTY

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 16 of 26 PageID 23
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 2

to the extent that such matters are questions of fact, says Plaintiff must prove such facts by a 

preponderance of the evidence if he can so do.

III.

DEFENSES AND LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES AND LIABILITY

3. Defendant specifically denies Plaintiff’s claims that it was negligent, and 

Defendant denies that its alleged acts or omissions proximately caused Plaintiff’s alleged 

damages, if any.

4. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to use the degree of care and caution as 

would have been used by a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances, which 

solely produced and proximately caused Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any.

5. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, may have been caused 

by the acts of third persons not under the control of Defendant. Such acts or omissions of said 

third persons may have been the sole and/or a producing and/or a proximate and/or an 

intervening and/or a supervening cause of Plaintiff’s damages or injuries, if any. 

6. Defendant asserts that the inherent dangers and risks associated with lifting were 

commonly known, obvious, and actually known to Plaintiff and, therefore, Defendant had no 

duty to protect Plaintiff against such risks.

7. Defendant contends that it is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff was 

performing the same character of work that he and employees in his position have always done, 

and there is no evidence the work was unusually precarious.

8. Defendant asserts that it owed Plaintiff no duty to warn, train, or provide 

additional equipment or employees because the task he was performing did not require special 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 17 of 26 PageID 24
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 3

training or tools and the risks associated with it are commonly known and/or appreciated by 

Plaintiff.

9. Defendant asserts that the accident complained of was an unavoidable accident, 

as that term is known under Texas law.

10. To the extent necessary, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, may 

have been the result of prior, pre-existing, or subsequent injuries, accidents, or conditions, and 

said prior, pre-existing, or subsequent injuries, accidents, or conditions were the sole or 

contributing cause of Plaintiff’s damages, if any. 

11. Defendant may further show that Plaintiff may have breached his duty to mitigate 

damages by failing to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss and minimize the 

consequences of damages. This may include failing to present available health insurance 

information to medical providers to take advantage of contractual write-offs and adjustments 

available under such health-insurance plans.

12. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff may be malingering and/or exaggerating the 

nature and severity of his alleged injuries to inflate the amount of his alleged damages. Further, 

to the extent Plaintiff has been or is malingering and/or exaggerating the nature and severity of 

his alleged injuries in order to continue treatment and thereby increase the amount of his 

medical damages, Defendant contends that said extended treatment is not medically necessary 

or reasonable. 

13. Defendant contends that any claims for past and future medical or health care 

expenses are limited to the customary and usual amounts charged for reasonable and necessary 

medical care, must be reasonable charges for the service for the location provided, and, as 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 18 of 26 PageID 25
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 4

regards to past medical expenses, are further limited to the amounts actually paid or incurred by 

or on behalf of Plaintiff, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 41.0105. 

14. Defendant contends that, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 

§ 18.091, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking a recovery for loss of earnings, lost wages, loss of 

earning capacity, and loss of contributions of pecuniary value, evidence of these alleged losses

must be presented by Plaintiff in the form of a net loss after reduction for income tax payments, 

or unpaid tax liability to any federal income tax law.

15. Defendant respectfully requests that the factfinder allocate responsibility, if any, 

among all parties, settling parties, and responsible third parties, in accordance with Chapters 32 

and 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

16. In the unlikely event an adverse judgment is rendered against it, Defendant

respectfully prays for contribution, indemnity and/or all available credits as provided for in the 

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and under Texas law.

17. Defendant asserts that it is further entitled to a credit or offset against any 

judgment that may be rendered against it for any and all amounts paid to or on behalf of Plaintiff

under any of Defendant’s benefit or insurance programs, including, but not limited to, the 

Occupational Benefits Plan for the Texas Employees of Best Buy Co., Inc. and/or any other later 

named Best Buy entity, as applicable.

IV.

COURT REPORTER REQUESTED

Defendant respectfully requests that a court reporter be present at all proceedings before 

the Court.

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 19 of 26 PageID 26
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 5

V.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully prays that Plaintiff take 

nothing by this cause of action; that Defendant be permitted to recover the costs and fees 

expended on its behalf; and for all other and further relief, both general and special, at law and 

in equity, to which it shows itself to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Donna C. Peavler

Donna C. Peavler

State Bar No. 00783887

dpeavler@peavlerbriscoe.com

Sara K. Scudday

State Bar No. 24073675

scudday@peavlerbriscoe.com

PEAVLER|BRISCOE

2215 Westgate Plaza

Grapevine, Texas 76051

(214) 999-0550 (telephone)

(214) 999-0551 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been 

forwarded to all counsel of record pursuant to and in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure on April 1, 2022.

/s/ Donna C. Peavler

Donna C. Peavler

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 20 of 26 PageID 27
VERIFICATION 

STATE OF TEXAS § 

§ 

COUNTY OF TARRANT § 

Before me, the undersigned authority, did personally appear Donna C. Peavler, who upon 

her oath deposes and says that she is one of the attorneys of record for Defendant; that she is 

over the age of 18 and otherwise competent to make this verification. Accordingly, Donna C. 

Peavler verifies that the facts alleged in Section I of the foregoing pleading are true and correct. 

Donna c. ler 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the \ $Y' day of~ 2022. 

NOTARY 

Lnm~~ PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 6 

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 21 of 26 PageID 28
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.

Donna Peavler on behalf of Donna Peavler

Bar No. 783887

dpeavler@peavlerbriscoe.com

Envelope ID: 63191249

Status as of 4/1/2022 3:09 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name

LOREN G.KLITSAS

Donna Peavler

Janie Karrington

Sandy Dixon

Sara KimbroughScudday

BarNumber Email

klitsas@kv-law.com

dpeavler@peavlerbriscoe.com

jkarrington@peavlerbriscoe.com

sdixon@peavlerbriscoe.com

SScudday@peavlerbriscoe.com

TimestampSubmitted

4/1/2022 2:25:23 PM

4/1/2022 2:25:23 PM

4/1/2022 2:25:23 PM

4/1/2022 2:25:23 PM

4/1/2022 2:25:23 PM

Status

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 22 of 26 PageID 29
EXHIBIT 4

Exhibit 4

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 23 of 26 PageID 30
Case Information

DC-22-01840 | MIGUEL GARCIA vs. BEST BUY CO., INC.

Case Number

DC-22-01840

Court

68th District Court

Judicial Officer

HOFFMAN, MARTIN

File Date

02/15/2022

Case Type

OTHER PERSONAL INJURY

Case Status

OPEN

Party

PLAINTIFF

GARCIA, MIGUEL

Active Attorneys 

Lead Attorney

KLITSAS, LOREN GEORGE

Retained

DEFENDANT

BEST BUY CO., INC.

Address

REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 900

DALLAS TX 75201-3136

Active Attorneys 

Lead Attorney

PEAVLER, DONNA C

Retained

Events and Hearings

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 24 of 26 PageID 31
02/15/2022 NEW CASE FILED (OCA) - CIVIL

02/15/2022 ORIGINAL PETITION 

ORIGINAL PETITION

02/15/2022 ISSUE CITATION 

ISSUE CITATION - BEST BUY CO., INC.

02/15/2022 JURY DEMAND 

JURY DEMAND

02/15/2022 REQUEST FOR SERVICE 

REQUEST FOR SERVVICE

02/22/2022 CITATION 

Served

03/10/2022

Anticipated Server

ESERVE

Anticipated Method

Actual Server

PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER

Returned

03/14/2022

Comment

BEST BUY CO., INC.

03/14/2022 RETURN OF SERVICE 

EXECUTED CITATION - BEST BUY CO INC

Comment

EXECUTED CITATION - BEST BUY CO INC

04/01/2022 ORIGINAL ANSWER - GENERAL DENIAL 

BEST BUY'S ORIGINAL ANSWER

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 25 of 26 PageID 32
Documents

REQUEST FOR SERVVICE

ORIGINAL PETITION

JURY DEMAND

ISSUE CITATION - BEST BUY CO., INC.

EXECUTED CITATION - BEST BUY CO INC

BEST BUY'S ORIGINAL ANSWER

Case 3:22-cv-00795-M Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/22 Page 26 of 26 PageID 33