INDEX OF STATE COURT DOCUMENTS PAGE 1 OF 13 

D/1043208v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

MAXINE MOSLEY 

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 14th Judicial District, Dallas, County 

Texas for Cause No. DC-22-04453 

07/29/2022 

2. Plaintiff’s Original Petition 04/27/2022 

3. Citation Issued to Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC 04/27/2022 

4. Letter from the Court regarding Dismissal Hearing 05/23/2022 

5. Notice of Order of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution 06/27/2022 

6. Order of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution 06/27/2022 

7. Return of Service 07/01/2022 

8. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate 07/14/2022 

9. Proposed Order on Motion to Reinstate (Unsigned) 07/14/2022 

10. Wal-Mart’s Original Answer 07/22/2022 

11. Demand for Jury 07/22/2022 

12. Wal-Mart’s Special Exception 07/22/2022 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 60 PageID 12
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 1 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 2 of 60 PageID 13
Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 3 of 60 PageID 14
Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 4 of 60 PageID 15
Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 5 of 60 PageID 16
Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 6 of 60 PageID 17
Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 7 of 60 PageID 18
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 2 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 8 of 60 PageID 19
FILED on ESERvE Wegiams

DISTRICT CLEK

DALLAS 00., TEXAS DC 22 04453

Paula Mountique DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. MAXINE MOSLEY IN THE DISTRICT COURT 0F

Plaintiff, 4th

__ JUDICLAL DISTRICT

vs. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S ORIGINAL PETITION WITH

REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES, Maxine Mosley (“Plaintiff”) complaining of Wal-Mart Stores Texas,

LLC (“Defendant”) for cause of action would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

l. The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley,intends that discovery be conducted under Level of Rule

190 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

H. PARTIES

2. The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley,is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas.

3. The Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, is corporation organized under the laws of

Delaware always doing business in the State of Texas relevant and material to this lawsuit. Service

of process upon this Defendant may be accomplished at: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan

Street, Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201 (Citation Requested).

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’s ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 9 of 60 PageID 20
III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Jurisdiction is proper

in this Court because the amount in controversy is Within the

Court’s jurisdictionallimits. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction over the parties because

the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley,is resident of the State of Texas currently and was also resident

of the State of Texas at the time of the incident giving rise to the filing ofthis lawsuit. Finally,

the Court has jurisdiction over the Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC,

in this matter

because it conducts business in Texas.

5. Venue is proper

in Dallas County, Texas under 15.002(a)(1) of the Civil Practice

Remedies Code because all or substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

claims occurred in Dallas County, Texas.

IV. FACTS

6. This cause of action arises out of bodily injuries caused by the Defendant’s negligence

occurring in Balch Springs, Texas, which is located in Dallas County on or about April 3, 2021.

On this date in question, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, received bodily injuries due to falling in

the parking lot at Walmart Store #1118 located at 12300 Lake June Road, Balch Springs, TX

75180 because of large hole in the Defendant’s parking lot. This resulted in the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, suffering extensive bodily injuries including but not limited to: 1) broken

collar bone, 2) broken shoulder, 3) facial and body lacerations, 4) various bruises, and 5)

“black eye”.

The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, priorto this incident giving rise to this lawsuit had

informed management and employees at Walmart Store #1 18 that the parking lot conditions

were not safe for customers due to the various potholes and deterioration of the parking lot that

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 10 of 60 PageID 21
made it unsafe numerous times.

Although, these concerns were expressed nothing was done to address the safety

concerns that the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, mentioned. Walmart Store #118 did not provide any

warnings concerning the condition of the parking lot and did not have any employee or

contractor assisting the public in entering or exiting the store.

Recently, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, approximately two to three months ago went to Walmart Store #1118 and she noted that the parking lot’s condition was vastly improved from

the condition it was in on or about April 3, 2021.

7. At all times material herein, Defendant occupied, controlled and/or managed the premises

or cleaned the area in question. Defendant also owed duty to the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, who

was an invitee of Defendant, to use ordinary care in inspecting the premises and making repairs

in such manner that the risk of harm posed on the premises would be reduced or eliminated.

Thus, Defendant is liable for (1)

its failure to use ordinary care in keeping the premises

in

reasonably safe condition; and (2)

the significant physical harm caused by Defendant’ negligent maintenance of the property.

8. The injuries to the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley’s face, collar bone, and shoulder on or about

April 3, 2021, was proximately caused by the negligence and gross negligence of Defendant, and

by and through its officers, employees, representatives, and agents, for creating condition,

wherein the door posed an unreasonable risk of harm, which Defendant knew or should have

known of the danger. Defendant breached its duty of ordinary care by both failing to adequately

warn the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, of the condition and failing to make the condition reasonably

safe. As result of the dangerous condition ofthe parking lot at Walmart Store #118, located at

12300 Lake June Road, Balch Springs, TX 75180, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, received bodily

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’s ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 11 of 60 PageID 22
injuries only because of Defendant’ negligence.

V. CONDITIONS OF PRECEDENT

9. A11 conditions precedentto recovery have been performed or have occurred.

VI. PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

10. Each of these acts and/or omissions, Whether taken singularly or in any combination

constitutes negligence and gross negligence which proximately caused the collision and injuries and

other losses as specifically set forth herein, all of which the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, suffered and

which the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, will continue to sufferin the future, ifnot forthe remainder ofher

natural life.

11. The parking lot area of 12300 Lake June Road, Balch Springs, TX 75180, was

dangerous condition, which Defendant WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC knew or should

have reasonably known posed dangerto its invitees like the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley.

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC is jointly and severally responsible for each and every

of the following acts of negligence:

(a) failing to warn invitees of the dangerous condition of an improperly shelfed box of pecans

that caused the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley’s injuries;

(b) failing to maintain its parking lot in non-dangerous condition;

(c) failing to properly and routinely inspect

the parking lot area where the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley received bodily injuries;

(d) failing to properly train its employees and/or agents;

(e) failing to make the parking lot area safe for customers;

(f) failing to properly warn the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, ofthe unreasonably dangerous

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 12 of 60 PageID 23
condition;

(g)

in failing to remove or otherwise eliminate known dangerous condition; and

(h)

in failing to remove or eliminate dangerous condition that Defendant should have

known ofthrough reasonable inspection.

12. Each of these acts and/or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any combination

constitutes negligence and gross negligence which the Defendant WAL-MART STORES

TEXAS, LLC,

in the exercise of ordinary care, knew or should have known, and proximately

caused the injuries and other losses as specifically set forth herein, all of which the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, suffered.

VII. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

13. At all times material hereto, all of the agents, servants, and/or employeesfor Defendant,

who were connected with the occurrence made the subject ofthis suit, were acting within the

course and scope oftheir employment or official duties and in furtherance of the duties of their

office or employment. Therefore, Defendant is further liable for the negligent acts and omissions

oftheir employees under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

VIII. GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

14. The conduct of Defendant, individually and by and through its officers, employees,

representatives, and agents, constituted gross negligence; meaning that which when viewed

objectively from the standpoint of Defendant at the time of the alleged acts and/or omissions

herein involved an extreme degree ofrisk, considering the probability and magnitude of the

potential harm to others like the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley; and of which the Defendant had

actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’s ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 13 of 60 PageID 24
indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others, including the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley,

and that the acts or omissions would, in all reasonably probability result in great bodily harm to

invitees and customers such as the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley.

15. The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, brings suit pursuantto Section 41 .003(a)(3), Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code, to recover punitive and exemplary damages against Defendant

based on gross negligence as described herein and above and/or as defined by Texas law.

IX. LIST OF DAMAGES FOR PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY

16. The direct and proximate result of the collision, was due to the actions of the Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, on the evening ofApril 3, 2021, that constituted negligence, gross

negligence, and negligence per se, which resulted in the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, suffering

severe bodily injuries to her spine, neck,lumbar spine, back, legs, arms, hands, shoulders, upper

extremities, lower extremities and other parts of her body generally. The injuries have had

serious effect on the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley’s health and well-being. Some of the effects are

permanent and will abide with the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley for long time into the future, if not

for her entire life. These specific injuries and their ill effects have, in turn, caused the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley’s physical and mental condition to deteriorate generally and the specific injuries

and ill effects alleged have caused and will,

in all reasonable probability, cause the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, to suffer consequences and ill effects ofthis deterioration throughout her body

for long time in the future, if not for the balance of her natural life. As further result of the

nature and consequences of these injuries, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, suffered great physical

and mental pain, suffering and anguish and in all reasonable probability, will continue to suffer

in this manner for long time into the future, if not for the balance of her natural life.

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 14 of 60 PageID 25
17. As further result of all the above, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, has incurred expenses for medical care and attention. These expenses were incurred forthe necessary care and treatment ofthe

injuries resulting from the incident complained of. The charges are reasonable and were the usual

and customary charges made for such services in the County Where they were incurred.

l8. As further result of the injuriessustained by the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, there is

reasonable probability that she will require further medical care and attention and will incur future

reasonable and necessary expenses for her medical care and attention.

l9. Additionally, as direct result ofherinjuries, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, has sustained lost

wages

in the past as well as reduced earning capacityin the future as direct result ofthe injuries

she sustained which were all directly caused by the negligence and gross negligence of the

Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC.

20. By reason of all the above, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, has suffered other losses and

damages within the items listed below in the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley’s prayer. Such amount of

damages

identified in the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley’s Rule 47 Damages Notice are all within the

jurisdictional

limits of this Court for which he now sues.

21. Because ofthe nature and severity ofthe injuries sustained, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley,is

entitled to monetary compensation for the damages

in an amount within the jurisdictional

limits of

this Court, as set out further below, and which the jury deems just and fair, to include, the following

elements of damages which have occurred in the past and, in all reasonable probability, will be

sustained in the future:

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S DAMAGES:

1. Pain and suffering in the past; 2. Pain and suffering in the future; 3. Past medical expenses;

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 15 of 60 PageID 26
Future medical expenses; 5. Physical impairment

in the past; 6. Physical impairment

in the future; Physical disfigurement

in the past; 8. Physical disfigurement

in the future; 9. Pre-judgment interest; 10. Post-judgment interest; 11. Loss of past wages; 12. Loss of future wages; 13. Loss of wage earning capacity; 14. Reduced future earning capacity; 15. Loss of household services in the past;

l6. Loss of household services in the future; 17. Medical monitoring in the past; 18. Medical monitoring in the future; and

19. Loss of the enjoyment of life.

X. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

22. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, the Defendant, Wal-Mart

Stores Texas, LLC, is requested to disclose, within thirty (30) days of service hereof, the

information and material described in each section of Rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules ofCivil

Procedure.

XI. PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S NOTICE OF SELF AUTHENTICATION UNDER RULE 193.7

23. The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, further gives notice under Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure that production of all documents by the Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores Texas,

LLC,

in response to written discovery or any other form ofproduction and that such production

authenticates the documents for their use in trial or any pre-trial proceeding in this matter. The

Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, fully intends to use any and all documents produced by the Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, as evidence at the time of trial, or in any pre-trial proceeding, and

gives the Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, notice of her intent.

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’s ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 16 of 60 PageID 27
XII. RULE 47 DAMAGES NOTICE FOR DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS. LLC

24. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, seeks monetary relief within the jurisdictional

limits of the Court. The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, seeks monetary reliefin the amount of at least TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY

THOUSAND and not more than one million dollars and demand forjudgmentfor all the other

relief to which he deems himselfjustly entitled at the time offiling this suit, which, with the

passage oftime may change and is within the Court's jurisdictional

limits.

XIII. INTEREST

25. The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, furtherrequests both pre-judgment and post-judgmentinterest

on all her damages as allowed by law.

XIV.

26. The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, demands trial by jury. The Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley,

acknowledges payment

this date of the required jury fee.

XV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,

the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, requeststhat

the Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and on final trial hereafter, the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, has judgment against Defendant in an amount within the jurisdictional

limits ofthe Court,

together with all pre-judgment and post-judgment

interest as allowed by law, costs ofCourt, and for

such other and further reliefto which the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley, may be justly entitled by law

and equity, including, but not limited to:

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’s ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 17 of 60 PageID 28
Pain and suffering in the past; Pain and suffering in the future; Mental anguish in the past; Mental anguish in the future; Past medical expenses; Future medical expenses; Physical impairment

in the past; Physical impairment

in the future; Physical disfigurement

in the past; 10. Physical disfigurement

in the future; 11. Lost wages

in the past; 12. Loss of future wage earning capacity; 13. Loss of use;

l4. Pre-judgment interest; and

15. Post-judgmentinterest.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ ERRY D. LEE III

Jerry D. Lee III Texas State Bar No. 24069136

The Law Offices of Glen F. Larson, PLLC

5113 Southwest Pkwy, Suite 190 Austin, Texas 78735 512-387-5436 (Office) 512-727-0999 (Fax) service@glenlarsonlaw.com (Service email)

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’s ORIGINAL PETITION WITH REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

10

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 18 of 60 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. Glen Larson on behalf of Glen Larson Bar No. 24037817

gfl@glenlarsonlaw.com

Envelope ID: 63954822

Status as of 5/1/2022 12:38 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Casey Hand cmh@glenlarsonlaw.com 4/27/2022 12:04:22 PM SENT

Jerry Lee jerry@glenlarsonlaw.com 4/27/2022 12:04:22 PM SENT Glen Larson Law Service E-mail service@glenlarsonlaw.com 4/27/2022 12:04:22 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 19 of 60 PageID 30
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 3 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 20 of 60 PageID 31
FORM N0. 353—3—CITAT10N THE STATE OF TEXAS

To: WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

SERVING REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 DALLAS TX 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 3O 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 14th District Court at 600 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75202.

Said Plaintiff being MAXINE MOSLEY

Filed in said Court 27th day 0fApril, 2022 against WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

For Suit, said suit being numbered DC-22-04453, the nature ofwhich demand is as follows: Suit on PROPERTY etc. as shown on said petition REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE, 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 ofDallas, County Texas. Given under my hand and the Seal of said Court at office 0n this the 4th day of May, 2022

ATTEST: FELICIA PITRE, Clerk of the District Courts of Dallas County, Texas BfiKM‘; Deputy KARI MALONE

ESERVE CITATION

No.: DC-22-04453

MAKINE MOSLEV WAL—MART STORES TEXAS LLC

ISSI‘JED

on this the 4th day of May, 2022

FELICIA PITRE Clerk District Courts, Dallas County, Texas

By: KARI MALONE, Deputy

Attorney for Plaintiff

JERRY LEE, III THE LAW OFFICES OF GLEN LARSON

PLLC

5113 SOUTHWEST PKWY

STE 190 AUSTIN TX 78735 512-387-5436

service@glenlarsonlaw.com

DALLAS COUNTY SERVICE FEES

.('1 NOT PAID

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 21 of 60 PageID 32
OFFICER'S RETURN

Cause No. DC-22-04453

Court No.2 14th District Court

Style: MAXINE MOSLEY

vs. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

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 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 County, For Notary By Deputy

(Must 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-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 22 of 60 PageID 33
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 4 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 23 of 60 PageID 34
14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT GEORGE L. ALLEN COURTS BUILDING

600 COMMERCE STREET DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-4604 May 23, 2022

File Copy

DC—22—04453 MAXINE MOSLEY vs. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD AND PRO SE PARTIES:

The above case is set for dismissal, pursuantto Rule 165A, Texas Rules ofCivil procedure and pursuant

to the inherent power Ofthe Court, on:

June 27, 2022 at 2:00 PM

If no answer has been filed you are expected t0 have moved for default judgment on or prior

to that date. Your failure to have done so will result in the dismissal ofthe case on the above date.

Ifyou have been unable to Obtain service of process and you Wish to retain the case on the docket, you must appear on the above date, unless you have obtained new setting from the court coordinator.

Sincerely,

ERIC V. MOYE, DISTRICT JUDGE

14TH DISTRICT COURT Dallas County, Texas Cc:ERRY LEE III 5113 SOUTHWEST PKWY

STE 190 AUSTIN TX 78735

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 24 of 60 PageID 35
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 5 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 25 of 60 PageID 36
FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

600 COMMERCE, IST FLOOR DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-4606

June 27, 2022

JERRY LEE, III THE LAW OFFICES OF GLEN LARSON PLLC

51 13 SOUTHWEST PKWY

STE 190 AUSTIN TX 78735 NOTICE OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

CAUSE NO. DC-22—04453

MAXINE MOSLEY

PlainUms)’

In the Dlstrlct Court

V. ofDallas County, Texas WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

Defendant(s) 14th District Court

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

In accordance with the provisions of Rule 165 (a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,

you are hereby notified that an Order for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution has been entered and

signed on 6/27/2022 in the above-referenced matter.

Respectfully, Felicia Pitre, District Clerk

Iva/”LQA

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 26 of 60 PageID 37
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 6 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 27 of 60 PageID 38
“T

1‘:

kn? Z' “a ,a

CAUSE NO. DC-22-04453-A

MAXINE MOSLEY IN THE DISTRICT COURT

vs. 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

STATE OF TEXAS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

This case is dismissed for want of prosecution. Costs are taxed against plaintiffts), for

which let execution issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this: June 27 2022

ERIC V. ,MOYE

JUDGE, 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 28 of 60 PageID 39
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 7 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 29 of 60 PageID 40
FILED

7/1/2022 1:36 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS

SADAF RAJPUT DEPUTY

RETURN OF SERVICE

State of Texas County of Dallas 14th District Court

Case Number: DC-22-O4453

Plaintiff: MAXINE MOSLEY BBW2022006293-2

VS. Defendant: WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

Received by Larry Lathan on the 28th day of June, 2022 at 10:56 am to be served on WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC SERVING REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 1999 BRYAN

STREET, STE. 900, DALLAS, TX 75201.

I, Larry Lathan, do hereby affirm that on the 29th day of June, 2022 at 11 :04 am, I:

served REGISTERED AGENT by delivering true copy of the CITATION IPLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S ORIGINAL PETITION WITHREQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me, to: KIRK ATKINS, INTAKE SPECIALIST FOR CT CORPORATION

SYSTEM as Registered Agent at the address of: 1999 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 900, DALLAS, TX

75201 on behalf of WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC, and informed said person of the contents therein,

in compliance with state statutes.

"My name is Larry Lathan my date of birth is 12/27/1976 and my address is Work Address Of 1406 W. Salinas San Antonio, TX 78114. declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Dallas County, State of Texas on June 29, 2022 by Larry Lathan declarant."

PSC-10621 Exp.10/31/2023

Pronto Process 1406 Salinas San Antonio, TX 78207

(210) 226-7192

Our Job Serial Number: BBW-2022006293

Copyright 1992-2022 Database Services, Inc. Process Server's Toolbox V8.2i

Larry‘fathan

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 30 of 60 PageID 41
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. Glen Larson on behalf of Glen Larson Bar No. 24037817

gfl@glenlarsonlaw.com

Envelope ID: 65976189

Status as of 7/6/2022 1:41 PM CST

Case Contacts

Associated Case Party: MAXINE MOSLEY

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Casey Hand cmh@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/1/2022 1:36:06 PM SENT Glen Larson Law Service E-mail service@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/1/2022 1:36:06 PM SENT

Jerry Lee jerry@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/1/2022 1:36:06 PM SENT

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

JERRY DLEE,

||| service@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/1/2022 1:36:06 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 31 of 60 PageID 42
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 8 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 32 of 60 PageID 43
FILED

7/14/2022 4:10 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS

Rosa Delacerda DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-22-04453 MAXINE MOSLEY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff,

VS. 14th JUDICIAL DISTRICT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S MOTION TO REINSTATE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Maxine Mosley filed suit on April 27, 2022, againstthe Defendant, Wal-Mart

Stores Texas, LLC for personal injuries and other damages as categorized in Plaintiff Maxine Mosley’s Original Petition. This matter is based on injuries

the Plaintiff, Maxine Mosley,

sustained on the premises of Walmart Store #1118 located at 12300 Lake June Road, Balch

Springs, TX, which occurred on or about April 3, 2021. The Statute of Limitations for this case

has not expired as of the filing of this motion. Plaintiffs counsel, Jerry D. Lee III, hereby

verifies and contends that the issue with regards to the Dismissal for Want of Prosecution and the

respective notice of hearing was the result of an accident and/or mistake and that this was not

intentional nor the result of any conscious indifference. Plaintiff’ counsel hereby verifies that

he has fully investigated the matter and that the reason for non-appearance was not the result of

intentional action or inaction nor caused by any type of conscious indifference. Furthermore,

should the court require further information, Jerry D. Lee III, Attorney for the Plaintiff, will

testify as needed.

lof5

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 33 of 60 PageID 44
II. FACTS

2. The Court dismissed the case on June 27, 2022 for want of prosecution. Tex. R. Civ. P.

165a; Rojus v. Licona, 942 S. W. 2d 111, 112 (Tex. App. Houston [1“ District] 1997 n.p.h.)

3. Plaintiff’s counsel has conducted an internal investigation and has determined that the

non-appearance was the result of accident or mistake and not the result ofintentional actions or

inactions, or through any conscious indifference. Plaintiff has served the Defendant [see Exhibit

A].

The Statute of Limitations on this matter has yetto expire as of the date of the filing of

this motion.

5. Plaintiff files this motion while the Court has plenary power, within thirty (30) days of

the dismissal. The Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to reinstate this case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a

(3)-

III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE SHOULD BE GRANTED

8. court should reinstate case ifits dismissal was the result of accident, mistake, or other

reasonable explanation, and if Plaintiff files Motion to Reinstate within thirty (30) days ofits

dismissal. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3); WMC Mortgage Corp. V. Starkey, 200 S.W.3d 749, 752

(Tex. App.- Dallas 2006, pet. denied).

9. Plaintiffs counsel conducted an internal investigation of the law firm and has concluded

that the Dismissal for Want of Prosecution was the result of an accident or mistake, and not the

result of conscious indifference. Plaintiff’s suit should be reinstated if Plaintiff’ counsel’s

failure to respond was the result of accident or mistake, and not the result of conscious

20f5

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 34 of 60 PageID 45
indifference and requested withing 3O days of notice of potential dismissal. Tex. R. Civ. P.

165a(3).

B. PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD BE REINSTATED BECAUSE THERE IS

GOOD CAUSE T0 MAINTAIN THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET

10. As indicated above above, the court should not dismiss case if there is good

cause to maintain the case on the court’s docket. As explained above, should this court not be

inclined to grantthis Plaintiffs Motion to Reinstate, Plaintiff’s counsel respectfully requests that

the case not be dismissed with prejudice, as is consistent with Texas case law. See Chacon v.

Jellison, No. 03-02-00072-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 27, 2003); In Interest of G.H.D, Nos. 01-05-

00228-CV, 01-05-00438-CV, 01-05-00439-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 20, 2005). Plaintifffully intends

to refile this case in the event of dismissal, and therefore, dismissal will only mean the refiling of

this case, and the further use of court resources in refiling this case.

C. REQUEST FOR HEARING OR RULING BY SUBMISSION

11. Plaintiff respectfully requeststhat this Court set this matter for an oral hearing or

otherwise grant Plaintiff Motion to Reinstate. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a requiresthe

court to grant Plaintiff an oral hearing on any timely filed motion to reinstate. Tex. R. Civ. P.

165a(3); GulfCoast Inv. Corp. v. NASA Bus. Ctr., 754 S.W.2d I52, I53 (Tex. I988). R. Civ. P.

165a(3); Thordson v. City ofHouston, 815 S.W.2d 550, 550 (Tex. 1991). Should hearing be

necessary Plaintiff’s counsel is available for hearing on this matter on any day that the court may have available in 2022 except

for July 215‘, August 17th September 13th, and September

14th.

3of5

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 35 of 60 PageID 46
C. PRAYER

For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to set this Motion for hearing, and, after the

hearing, grant

the Motion and reinstate Plaintiff case on the docket. Alternatively, Plaintiff

respectfully asks for said Motion to be granted by this court on submission of this Motion. In the

last alternative, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution Without prejudice and

Plaintiff should be allowed to refile, considering the Statute of Limitations has not expired and

does not expire until April 3, of 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/Jerry D. Lee III

Jerry D. Lee III Texas State Bar N0. 24069136

The Law Offices 0fGlen F. Larson, PLLC

5113 Southwest Parkway, Suite 190 Austin, Texas 78735 512-387-5436 (Office) 512-727-0999 (Fax) service(a>2lenlarsonlaw.c0m(service email)

4of5

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 36 of 60 PageID 47
RETURN OF SERVICE

State of Texas County of Dallas 14th District Court

Case Number: DC-22-04453

Plaintiff: MAXINE MOSLEY BBW2022006293-2

VS. Defendant: WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

Received by Larry Lathan on the 28th day of June, 2022 at 10:56 am to be served on WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC SERVING REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 1999 BRYAN

STREET, STE. 900, DALLAS, TX 75201

I, Larry Lathan, do hereby affirm that on the 29th day of June, 2022 at 11 :04 am, I:

served REGISTERED AGENT by delivering true copy of the CITATION IPLAINTIFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S ORIGINAL PETITION WITHREQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me, to: KIRK ATKINS, INTAKE SPECIALIST FOR CT CORPORATION

SYSTEM as Registered Agent at the address of: 1999 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 900, DALLAS, TX

75201 on behalf of WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC, and informed said person of the contents therein,

in compliance with state statutes.

"My name is Larry Lathan my date of birth is 12/27/1976 and my address is Work Address Of 1406 W. Salinas San Antonio, TX 78114. declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Dallas County, State of Texas on June 29, 2022 by Larry Lathan declarant."

PSC-10621 Exp.10/31/2023

Pronto Process 1406 Salinas San Antonio, TX 78207

(210) 226-7192

Our Job Serial Number: BBW-2022006293

Copyright 1992-2022 Database Services, Inc. Process Server's Toolbox V8.2i

Larry’fathan

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 37 of 60 PageID 48
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. Glen Larson on behalf of Glen Larson Bar No. 24037817

gfl@glenlarsonlaw.com

Envelope ID: 66337569

Status as of 7/15/2022 8:31 AM CST

Case Contacts

Associated Case Party: MAXINE MOSLEY

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Casey Hand cmh@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/14/2022 4:10:03 PM SENT Glen Larson Law Service E-mail service@g|en|arson|aw.com 7/14/2022 4:10:03 PM SENT

Jerry Lee jerry@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/14/2022 4:10:03 PM SENT

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

JERRY DLEE,

||| service@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/14/2022 4:10:03 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 38 of 60 PageID 49
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 9 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 39 of 60 PageID 50
CAUSE NO. DC-22-04453 MAXINE MOSLEY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff,

VS. 14th JUDICIAL DISTRICT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTFF MAXINE MOSLEY’S MOTION TO

REINSTATE

BE IT REMEMBERED that on the day of 2022, the Court, afier

considering the Unopposed Motion For Continuance, is of the opinion that such Motion be and is

hereby GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order

dismissing this case is set aside and that the case is reinstated on the docket of this Court, to the

same effect as ifit had never been dismissed on this day of 2022.

JUDGE PRESIDING

50f5

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 40 of 60 PageID 51
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. Glen Larson on behalf of Glen Larson Bar No. 24037817

gfl@glenlarsonlaw.com

Envelope ID: 66337842

Status as of 7/15/2022 8:32 AM CST

Case Contacts

Associated Case Party: MAXINE MOSLEY

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Casey Hand cmh@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/14/2022 4:13:11 PM SENT Glen Larson Law Service E-mail service@g|en|arson|aw.com 7/14/2022 4:13:11 PM SENT

Jerry Lee jerry@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/14/2022 4:13:11 PM SENT

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

JERRY DLEE,

||| service@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/14/2022 4:13:11 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 41 of 60 PageID 52
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 10 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 42 of 60 PageID 53
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1 OF 6 

CAUSE NO. DC-22-04453 

MAXINE MOSLEY

PLAINTIFF,

v.

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

DEFENDANT.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

14th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

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’s 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 a preponderance of the credible evidence each and every such allegation made and 

contained therein, or the prevailing standard of proof required 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 

FILED

7/22/2022 3:23 PM

FELICIA PITRE

DISTRICT CLERK

DALLAS CO., TEXAS

Rosa Delacerda DEPUTY

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 43 of 60 PageID 54
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 OF 6

recovery by Plaintiff based on the Plaintiff’s own percentage of fault.

3. Pleading further, if necessary, Plaintiff failed to mitigate Plaintiff’s damages

which may have resulted from the occurrence made the basis of this 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 Plaintiff’s loss of earning and/or loss of earning capacity in the form which

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

said loss or earning claim pursuant to 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 Plaintiff’s behalf to Plaintiff’s 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 expenses incurred 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 a 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 a proportionate

reduction of any damages found against it 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

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 44 of 60 PageID 55
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 OF 6

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

8. Pleading further, and in the affirmative, Defendant invokes §41.0105 of the

TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE concerning Plaintiff’s 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 of fault.

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 a similar

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

surrounding the matters made the basis of this lawsuit.

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

damages alleged by Plaintiff may be due to Plaintiff’s 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 a 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

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 45 of 60 PageID 56
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 OF 6

Defendant’s own creation.

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 of Defendant.

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, 13 and 19 of Article I of the Texas

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

rights to due process and equal protection of the 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 pursuant to that statute and the

procedural safeguards guaranteed by the referenced provisions. 

16. 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

17. Defendant further places Plaintiff on notice pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 193.7 that it 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

18. In accordance with Rule 216 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,

Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury.

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 46 of 60 PageID 57
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 OF 6

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@CooperScully.com 

JAMES KURITZKES

Texas Bar No. 24120956

Email: James.Kuritzkes@CooperScully.com

900 Jackson Street, Suite 100

Dallas, Texas 75202

Telephone: (214) 712-9500

Facsimile: (214) 712-9540 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 47 of 60 PageID 58
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6 OF 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of July, 2022, a true and correct copy of the 

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

follows:

Jerry D. Lee III

State Bar No. 24069136

The Law Offices of Glen F. Larson, PLLC

5113 Southwest Pkwy, Suite 190

Austin, Texas 78735

(512) 387-5436 Telephone

(512) 727- 0999 Facsimile

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Derek S. Davis

DEREK S. DAVIS

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 48 of 60 PageID 59
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.

Heather Savant on behalf of Derek Davis

Bar No. 793591

heather.savant@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 66594853

Status as of 7/22/2022 3:45 PM CST

Associated Case Party: MAXINE MOSLEY

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

JERRY DLEE, III service@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/22/2022 3:23:27 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 49 of 60 PageID 60
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.

Heather Savant on behalf of Derek Davis

Bar No. 793591

heather.savant@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 66594853

Status as of 7/22/2022 3:45 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Casey Hand cmh@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/22/2022 3:23:27 PM SENT

Glen Larson Law - Service E-mail service@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/22/2022 3:23:27 PM SENT

Jerry Lee jerry@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/22/2022 3:23:27 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 50 of 60 PageID 61
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.

Heather Savant on behalf of Derek Davis

Bar No. 793591

heather.savant@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 66594853

Status as of 7/22/2022 3:45 PM CST

Associated Case Party: WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Derek Davis derek.davis@cooperscully.com 7/22/2022 3:23:27 PM SENT

Heather Savant heather.savant@cooperscully.com 7/22/2022 3:23:27 PM SENT

Kim Denton kim.denton@cooperscully.com 7/22/2022 3:23:27 PM SENT

James Kuritzkes james.kuritzkes@cooperscully.com 7/22/2022 3:23:27 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 51 of 60 PageID 62
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 11 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 52 of 60 PageID 63
FELICIA PITRE DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

NINA MOUNTIQUE CHIEF DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-22-04453

MAXI NE MOSLEY

VS. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

14th District Court

ENTER DEMAND FOR JURY

JURY FEE PAID BY: Defendant

FEE PAID: $10.00

600 COMMERCE STREET DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 (214) 653-7261 FAX (214)653-7781 E-mail: Felicia.Pitre@da11ascounty.org Web site: http://www.dallascounty.org/distclerk/indexhtml

flag:

lovk‘i

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 53 of 60 PageID 64
D/1043208v1

TAB NO. 12 

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 54 of 60 PageID 65
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1 OF 3 

CAUSE NO. DC-22-04453 

MAXINE MOSLEY

PLAINTIFF,

v.

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

DEFENDANT.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

14th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC’S

SPECIAL EXCEPTION 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 Special Exception to Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and 

in support hereof would respectfully show the Court the following. 

I.

SPECIAL EXCEPTION 

1. Texas follows a fair-notice pleading standard, which looks to whether the 

opposing party can ascertain from the pleadings the nature and basic issues of the controversy 

and what testimony will be relevant at trial. See Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 

S.W.3d 887, 896 (Tex. 2000). A pleading's purpose is to give notice of a party's claims and the 

relief sought so that the adverse party may properly prepare its defense. See Roark v. Allen, 633 

S.W.2d 804, 810 (Tex. 1982); Tennell v. Esteve Cotton Co., 546 S.W.2d 346, 356 (Tex. Civ. 

App.—Amarillo 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 

2. A special exception is appropriate if “the pleadings are not clear or sufficiently 

specific or fail to plead a cause of action.” Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 635 

(Tex. 2007). The court may order parties to replead in order to make their pleadings 

FILED

7/22/2022 4:25 PM

FELICIA PITRE

DISTRICT CLERK

DALLAS CO., TEXAS

Rosa Delacerda DEPUTY

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 55 of 60 PageID 66
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 OF 3

substantially conform to the Rules. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 68. In some instances, a pleading is

defective because it does not contain enough information. See, e.g., Mowbray v. Avery, 76

S.W.3d 663, 677 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied). For example, if a plaintiff fails

to plead all of the elements of its cause of action, the defendant may file a special exception to

require the plaintiff to plead more specifically. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91; Mowbray, 76 S.W.3d at

677. Pleadings can also be defective if they are vague, indefinite, or uncertain. Caldwell v.

River Oaks Tr. Co., 01-94-00273-CV, 1996 WL 227520, at *24 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

May 2, 1996, writ denied).

3. Here, the pleadings fail to state the maximum damages sought by Plaintiff in this

action. Accordingly, the Petition is procedurally deficient because it fails to abide by Tex. R.

Civ. P. 47(c) (requiring every non-family law petition to state the maximum relief saught).

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that, upon final

hearing, its special exceptions be sustained, 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.

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 56 of 60 PageID 67
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 OF 3

Respectfully submitted,

COOPER & SCULLY, P.C.

By: /s/ Derek S. Davis

DEREK S. DAVIS

Texas Bar No. 00793591 

Email: Derek.Davis@CooperScully.com 

JAMES KURITZKES

Texas Bar No. 24120956

Email: James.Kuritzkes@CooperScully.com

900 Jackson Street, Suite 100

Dallas, Texas 75202

Telephone: (214) 712-9500

Facsimile: (214) 712-9540 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of July, 2022, a true and correct copy of the 

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

follows:

Jerry D. Lee III

State Bar No. 24069136

The Law Offices of Glen F. Larson, PLLC

5113 Southwest Pkwy, Suite 190

Austin, Texas 78735

(512) 387-5436 Telephone

(512) 727- 0999 Facsimile

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Derek S. Davis

DEREK S. DAVIS

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 57 of 60 PageID 68
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.

Heather Savant on behalf of Derek Davis

Bar No. 793591

heather.savant@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 66600123

Status as of 7/25/2022 8:26 AM CST

Associated Case Party: MAXINE MOSLEY

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

JERRY DLEE, III service@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/22/2022 4:25:52 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 58 of 60 PageID 69
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.

Heather Savant on behalf of Derek Davis

Bar No. 793591

heather.savant@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 66600123

Status as of 7/25/2022 8:26 AM CST

Associated Case Party: WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Kim Denton kim.denton@cooperscully.com 7/22/2022 4:25:52 PM SENT

Derek Davis derek.davis@cooperscully.com 7/22/2022 4:25:52 PM SENT

Heather Savant heather.savant@cooperscully.com 7/22/2022 4:25:52 PM SENT

James Kuritzkes james.kuritzkes@cooperscully.com 7/22/2022 4:25:52 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 59 of 60 PageID 70
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.

Heather Savant on behalf of Derek Davis

Bar No. 793591

heather.savant@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 66600123

Status as of 7/25/2022 8:26 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Casey Hand cmh@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/22/2022 4:25:52 PM SENT

Glen Larson Law - Service E-mail service@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/22/2022 4:25:52 PM SENT

Jerry Lee jerry@glenlarsonlaw.com 7/22/2022 4:25:52 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-01652-S Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/22 Page 60 of 60 PageID 71