INDEX OF STATE COURT DOCUMENTS PAGE 1 OF 7 

D/1045671v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

EMNET SIBHAT 

PLAINTIFF, 

v. 

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC 

d/b/a/ WALMART 

DEFENDANT. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________ 

INDEX OF STATE COURT PLEADINGS AND FILING DATES 

TAB DOCUMENT DATE 

1. State Court Docket Sheet of the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas 

County, Texas for Cause No. CC-22-04473-D 

09/14/2022 

2. Plaintiff’s Original Petition 08/16/2022 

3. Issuance of Citation 08/17/2022 

4. Executed Citation 08/18/2022 

5. Letter to Counsel regarding Dismissal 08/25/2022 

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

Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

09/12/2022 

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 30 PageID 12
D/1045671v1

TAB NO. 1 

 

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 30 PageID 13
Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 30 PageID 14
Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 4 of 30 PageID 15
Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 5 of 30 PageID 16
D/1045671v1

TAB NO. 2 

 

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 6 of 30 PageID 17
FILED

8/16/2022 12:02 PM

JOHN F. WARREN

COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

CC-22—04473-D

Cause No.

EMNET SIBHAT IN THE COUNTY COURT

Plainttffi

vs. AT LAW NO. WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC. d/b/a WALMART

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Comes Now, EMNET SIBHAT, Plaintiff herein, and brings this suit for relief against WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART, Defendant herein, and would show

unto the court as follows:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery according to Discovery Level because

Plaintiff seeks damages ofless than $250,000.00.

II. PARTIES AND SERVICE

2. EMNET SIBHAT (“Ms. Sibhat” or “Plaintiff’)is an individual residing in Murphy,

Texas. Plaintiff Date ofBirth is August 13, 1990. The last three digits ofPlaintiff driver’s license

number are 294.

3. WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART (“Walmart” or

Defendant”)

is foreign corporation authorized to do business in Texas. Issuance of citation is

requested at this time. Defendant and may be served with process on its registered agent:

CT Corporation System

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75201 -3 136.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Emnet Sibhat vs. Walmart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Walmart Page of

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 7 of 30 PageID 18
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The subject matter in controversy is Within the jurisdictionallimits of this court.

5. This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because Defendant regularly

conduct business in the State of Texas. Additionally, the court has personal jurisdiction over the

Defendant pursuantto Section l7.042(2) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code because

Defendant committed tort in the State of the Texas.

6. Venue is proper pursuantto Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practices and

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

occurred in Dallas County, Texas.

IV.

7. On or about September 19, 2021, Plaintiff suffered injuries on Defendant’s premises. Ms. Sibhat was patron, thus, an Invitee of Walmart. Walmart is grocery store owned by

Defendant with hundreds and even thousands of stores around the country and the world. The

particular Walmart where the incident in question occurred is located at 2501 Lakeview Parkway,

Rowlett, Texas 75088.

8. On this date, Ms. Sibhat was in the Walmart store. Ms. Sibhat had just finished

checking out the self-checkout lane #8 and was walking towards the main aisle, towards the front

door. Ms. Sibhat suddenly slipped and fell in puddle ofwater on the floor. Ms. Sibhat went down

onto her knee and her body maneuvered almost in splitlike mannerism. She also injured her pelvic

and groin area. Ms. Sibhat was able to get up on her own and went to get her husband from the car

to talk to Walmart store’s team lead, “Lupe.” “Lupe” gotthe General Manager, “Coach Tyler.”

9. Afterwards the police and Fire Department showed up at the scene. Walmart

completed an incident report. There were no wet floor signs on the other end to warn the public and

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Emnet Sibhat vs. Walmart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Walmart Page of

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 8 of 30 PageID 19
people like Ms. Sibhat. The Defendant never inspected and dried the floor, nor put warning signs

or cones in the area to warn persons such as the Defendant, despite employees being aware of the wet

floor, as there were multiple Walmart employees around the area where Ms. Sibhat fell causing Ms.

Sibha, to slip and fall thus sustaining injuries.

10. Ms. Sibhat almost immediately experienced pain. She suffered injuries and sought medical attention for these injuries.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. NEGLIGENCE AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

11. At all relevant times herein, Defendant had such control over the premises

in question

that Defendant owed certain duties to Plaintiff; the breach of which proximately caused the injuries

set forth herein.

12. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was an “invitee,” as classified under Texas law

at the time of the incident in question. Plaintiff entered Defendant’s premises

in question for the mutual benefit of Plaintiff and Defendant and/or for purpose connected with the business of

Defendant. Defendant’s employees had control of the area where Plaintiff was injured.

l3. Defendant, Defendant’s agents, and employeesfailed to maintain safe environment

for its guests by not properly inspecting the floor in the store, by not drying the floor to stop the leak

in the establishment. The floor was still wet and that was causing dangerous condition for anybody

walking in that area, that resulted in Plaintiff injuries and damages. IfDefendant’s employee(s) had

either dried the floor in that area, inspected, or placed warning signs or cones near the wet floor,

Plaintiff’s injuries could have been avoided.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Emnet Sibhat vs. Walmart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Walmart Page of

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 9 of 30 PageID 20
14. At all times pertinent herein, Defendant, Defendant’s agents and employees, who were

acting in the scope oftheir employment, are liable to Plaintiff for their negligent conduct toward the

Plaintiff:

14.

occurred.

15.

In Defendant failing to place warning cones or signsin the area to warn persons, such as Plaintiff, about the wet floor and/or unnatural accumulation of similar materials;

In Defendant failing to maintain safe environment for its guests by not properly monitoring an area of the establishment set up for customers;

In Defendant failing to have appropriate safety proceduresfor their employees and

agents on how to place warning signs and cones in the area to prevent

the sort of

injuries

sustained by Plaintiff;

In Defendant, Defendant’s employee(s) and agents failing to use due and

reasonable care to avoid creating the dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff severe injuries and damages;

In Defendant, Defendant’s employee(s) and agents failing to use due and

reasonable care to remove the dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff severe

injuries and damages after it was created;

In Defendant failing to properly train and supervise its employees and agents

to

identify and make safe dangerous conditions, which pose an unreasonable risk of

injury such as the condition that was created by Defendant’ employee(s) and

agent(s) who proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages;

In Defendant’s employee(s) and/or agent(s) failing to warn Plaintiff which

proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages;

In Defendant, through its employee(s) and/or agent(s), creating an unreasonable

risk of harm by creating dangerous condition; thereby putting Defendant on notice because when an owner or occupier of premise, or those for whose conduct

it is responsible, creates condition that poses an unreasonable risk of harm, an

inference of knowledge may arise that Defendant knew or should have known

about the risk of dangerto Plaintiff. Keetch v. Kroger, 845 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Tex. 1992); Robledo v. Kroger, 597 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1980, writ

ref’ n.r.e.); See Wal—Mart Stores, Inc. v. Diaz, 109 S.W.3d 584, 589 (Tex. 2003);

1.NEGLIGENCE

Defendant exercised control and possession of the location of the Plaintiff’s fall

Defendant had duty to exercise the degree of care that reasonably prudent person would use to avoid harm to others under similar circumstances. Defendant and their employees

failed

to make safe the floor in question on the morning of Plaintiff’ fall by creating the subject condition

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Emnet Sibhat vs. Walmart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Walmart Page of

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 10 of 30 PageID 21
and/or allowing it to persist. Thus, Defendant created an unreasonably dangerous condition and then

failed to warn or make safe the floor; the only means of ingress or egressto the area Where Plaintiff

was walking.

16. Defendant negligently, carelessly, or recklessly disregarded their duty, which

proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries and damages.

2. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

17. At all relevant times, Defendant’ negligent employee(s) was/were acting in the scope

of her/his/their employment with Defendant. Therefore, under the principle ofrespondeat superior,

the masters are liable for their servant’s torts, and Defendant are liable for Plaintiff’s damages.

VI. PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES

18. As direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered serious

physical injuries and resulting damages, detailed below:

A. Reasonable medical care and expenses

in the past; B. Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses, which will in all reasonable

probability be incurred in the future;

Physical pain and suffering in the past;

Physical pain and suffering in the future; Mental anguish in the past; Mental anguish in the future;

Loss of earningsin the past;

Physical impairment

in the past;

Physical impairment

in the future; Disfigurement. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays

that the

Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final hearing of the cause, judgment

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Emnet Sibhat vs. Walmart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Walmart Page of

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 11 of 30 PageID 22
be entered for the Plaintiff against Defendant for damages

in an amount within the jurisdictional

limits

of the Court; together with pre-judgmentinterest (from the date of injury through the date of

judgment) at the maximum rate allowed by law; post-judgment

interest at the legal rate, costs of court;

and such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICES 0F JEREMY W. MCKEY, PLLC

Jeremy W. McKey

State Bar No. 2405335 Craig W. Thomas State Bar No. 24048047

5899 Preston Road, Ste #203

Frisco, Texas 75034 214-855-8788 Telephone 888-638-1552 Facsimile

eserviceimckevlawfirm@ 9mail.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Emnet Sibhat vs. Walmart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Walmart Page of

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 12 of 30 PageID 23
D/1045671v1

TAB NO. 3 

 

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 13 of 30 PageID 24
T0:

THE STATE OF TEXAS CITATION

CAUSE N0. CC-22-04473—D COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. Dallas County, Texas

WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART

SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 DALLAS TX 75201-3136

“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 10:00 A.M. on the Monday next following the expiration oftwenty days after you were served this citation and PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION, default judgment may be taken against you. In

addition to filing written answer with the clerk, you may be required to make initial disclosures to the other parties of

this suit. These disclosures generally must be made no later than 30 days after you file your answer with the clerk. Find

out more at TexasLawHelporg.” Your answer should be addressed to the clerk of County Court at Law No. ofDallas County, Texas at the Court House of said County, 600 Commerce Street, Suite 101, Dallas, Texas 75202.

EMNET SIBHAT

Plainttffls)

VS. WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART Defendant(s)

filed in said Court on the 16th day of August, 2022, copy ofwhich accompaniesthis citation. WITNESS: JOHN F. WARREN, Clerk of the County Courts of Dallas County, Texas. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, at Dallas, Texas, and issued this 17th day of August, 2022 A.D.

JOHN F. WARREN, Dallas County Clerk

By Deputy Chantel Crawford NO OFFIQR'S FEES HAVE BEEN mLLECFED BY DALLAS WNTY CLERK

ATTORNEY CITATION

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

CC-22-04473-D

IN THE COUNTY COURT 0F DALLAS

County Court at Law No. Dallas County, Texas

EMNET SIBHAT, Plainttff(s)

VS. WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC

D/B/A WALMART, Defendant(s)

SERVE: WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC

D/B/A WALMART

SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED

AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 DALLAS TX 75201-3136

ISSUED THIS

17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

JOHN F. WARREN, COUNTY CLERK BY: CHANTEL CRAWFORD, DEPUTY

Attorney for Plaintiff

JEREMY MCKEY

LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY MCKEY PLLC

5899 PRESTON ROAD SUITE 203 FRISCO TX 75034 214-855-8788

V' \5efiYCOfl .4

ER

RLNG

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 14 of 30 PageID 25
CC-22-04473-D County Court at Law No.

EMNET SIBHAT vs .WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 DALLAS TX 75201-3136

Fees: Came to hand on the day of 20 at o’clock .m., and executed in County, Texas by delivering to WALMART

STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART in person, true copy ofthis Citation together with the accompanying copy of the PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION with

the date and service at the following times and places to—wit:

Name Date/Time Place, Course and Distance from Courthouse

And not executed as to the defendant(s),

The diligence used in finding said defendant(s) being:

and the cause or failure to execute this process is:

and the information received as to the whereabouts of said defendant(s) being:

Serving Petition and Copy Officer

Total County, Texas

By: Deputy

Affiant

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 15 of 30 PageID 26
D/1045671v1

TAB NO. 4 

 

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 16 of 30 PageID 27
TO:

THE STATE OF TEXAS CITATION

CAUSE NO. CC-22-04473-D FILED COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8/19/2022 08 PM

Dallas Count Texas

JOHN F- WARREN y’ COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART

SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

I999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 DALLAS TX 75201-3136

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 10:00 A.M. on the Monday next following the expiration of twenty days afier you were

served this citation and PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL 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 ofthis suit. These disclosures generally must be made no later than 30 days after you file your answer with the clerk. Find out more

at TexasLawl-Ielp.org." Your answer should be addressed to the clerk of County Court at Law No. ofDallas County. Texas at the Court House of said County, 600 Commerce Street, Suite 101. Dallas, Texas 75202.

EMNET SIBHAT Plaintijfls)

VS. WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART Defendant(s)

filed in said Court on the 16th day of August, 2022, copy of which accompanies this citation. WITNESS: JOHN F. WARREN. Clerk ofthe County Courts ofDallas County, Texas. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, at Dallas. Texas. and issued this 17th day of August. 2022 A.D.

JOHN F. WARREN, Dallas County Clerk

By Deputy Chantal Crawford

Electronically Served

8/17/2022 12:01 PM

NO OFFIGRS FEES HAVE BEN

COLLECTED BY DALLAS GJUN'IY ClERK

ATTORNEY CITATION

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

CC-22-04473-D

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF DALLAS

County Court at Law No. Dallas County, Texas

EMNET SIBHAT, Plaintiff“)

VS. WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC

D/B/A WALMART, Defendantfs)

SERVE: WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC

D/B/A WALMART

SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED

AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 DALLAS TX 75201-3136

ISSUED THIS

17TH DAY OF AUGUST. 2022

JOHN F. WARREN, COUNTY CLERK BY: CHANTEL CRAWFORD, DEPUTY

Attorney for Plaintiff

JEREMY MCKEY

LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY MCKEY PLLC

5899 PRESTON ROAD SUITE 203 FRISCO TX 75034 214-855-8788

as“ C00

3m“!

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 17 of 30 PageID 28
OFFICER’S RETURN

CC—22-04473-D County Court at Law No.

EMNET SIBHAT vs .WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1999 BRYAN STREET SUITE 900 DALLAS TX 75201—3136

Fees: Came to hand on the8"“ Lday of 20 ‘2; ,at 00clock A" ..,m and executed in County, Texas by delivering to WALMART

STORES TEXAS. LLC D/B/A WALMA in person true copy of this Citation together with the accompanying copy of the PLAINTIFF' ORIGINAL PETITION with

the date and service at the following times and places

to-wit:

Name Date/Time Place, Course and Distance from Courthouse

\oaltwwlr LDI’MPJY’WW‘ILO 73193110. malmodg (or Qaqfi'gvx

rm lg

113113151: 2522

\QM Ymtw 4st 6AM Q00 Dams/Vi 7‘;@\'?2\%LQ V715 QWS- amoeba em

if“ And not executed as to the defendant(s),

The diligence used in finding said defendant(s) being:

and the cause or failure to execute this process

is:

and the information received as to the whereabouts of said defendant(s) being:

Serving Petition and Copy MWBM Office!”

Total >4N9-93 ,County, Texas sfitfi Q; (4351 ‘6\ ’23 ogRnglosuss iiQEVF—ORE ME DAYO

2011’ Affiam Wt»

CARRIE MICHELLE DEAN

Notary Public. State of Texas Comm. Expires 02-01-2026

or 4"“ Notary ID 133563213

”nu“

“In”, “iffy/e” «x»,

+\‘ "5‘ 1,,

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 18 of 30 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.

Envelope ID: 67490936

Status as of 8/22/2022 11:20 AM CST

Associated Case Party: EMNET SIBHAT

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

JEREMY WMCKEY ESERVICEJMCKEYLAWFIRM@GMAIL.COM 8/19/2022 4:08:12 PM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 19 of 30 PageID 30
D/1045671v1

TAB NO. 5 

 

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 20 of 30 PageID 31
COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. GEORGE L. ALLEN, SR. COURTS BUILDING

600 COMMERCE STREET, 5TH FLOOR DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 214-653-7345 Chambers ofJUDGE PAULA M. ROSALES August 25, 2022

JEREMY MCKEY

LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY MCKEY PLLC

5899 PRESTON ROAD SUITE 203 FRISCO TX 75034

Cause No. CC-22-04473-D

Cause Style: EMNET SIBHAT vs.WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART

Dear Attorney:

The above case is set for dismissal, pursuantto Rule 165a, Texas Ruled of Civil Procedure on: 01/09/2023 9:00 AM.

If no answer has been filed, or if the answer filed is insufficient as matter of law to place any facts alleged in your petition in issue, you will be expected to have moved for, and to have heard

summary judgment or to have proved up default order on or prior

to that date.

If an answer has been filed that is sufficient to create fact issue that prevents disposition of the entire

case, or if you have been unable to obtain service of process, you should plan to appear

to obtain

reset of the dismissal date or trial setting as appropriate.

In no event will live witnesses be required unless the default prove-up is for an unliquidated claim. Liquidated claims and attorneys

fees may be proved up by affidavit submitted with form of

judgment.

If you should have any questions, please feel free to call us.

Very Truly Yours,

PAULA M. ROSALES

Judge Presiding

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 21 of 30 PageID 32
D/1045671v1

TAB NO. 6 

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 22 of 30 PageID 33
CAUSE NO. CC-22-04473-D

EMNET SIBHAT, IN THE COUNTY COURT PLAINTIFF, AT LAW N0. V. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC DEFENDANT. 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

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

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

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

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

contained therein, or the prevailing standard ofproofrequired by applicable law.

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

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

CODE, which may bar any recovery by Plaintiff, or may

in the alternative reduce the amount of

recovery by Plaintiffbased on the Plaintiff‘s own percentage of fault.

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

FILED

9/12/2022 9:59 AM

JOHN F. WARREN

COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 23 of 30 PageID 34
3. Pleading further, if necessary, Plaintiff failed to mitigate Plaintiff’s damages which may have resulted from the occurrence made the basis ofthis lawsuit.

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

pleads

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

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

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

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

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

sought by the Plaintiff, if any, is subject

to federal to state income taxes.

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

actually paid on 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 expensesincurred by Plaintiff, if any, are limited to the amount actually

paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff.

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

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

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

to Rule 48 of the

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

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

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

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

pre-judgment

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

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

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

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 24 of 30 PageID 35
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

Plaintiffbased 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 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 allegesthat the injuries and

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

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

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

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

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

alternatively should be reduced in accordance with the applicable law.

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

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

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

Defendant’s own creation.

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

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 25 of 30 PageID 36
13. Pleading further, if necessary, Plaintiff’ 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 allegesthat 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 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

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

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

tangible things produced in discovery by plaintiff.

IV. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

Defendant hereby demands trial by jury.

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

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 26 of 30 PageID 37
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

CLARISSA A. PRICE

Texas Bar No. 24082450 Email: Clarissa.Price@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

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

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 27 of 30 PageID 38
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

hereby certify that on the 12th day of September, 2022, true and correct copy of the

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

follows:

Jeremy W. McKey

State Bar No. 24053353 Craig W. Thomas State Bar No. 24048047 THE LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY W. MCKEY, PLLC

5899 Preston Road, Ste #203

Frisco, Texas 75034

Telephone: (214) 855-8788

Facsimile: (888) 638-1552

eservicejmckeylawfirm@gmail.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/Derek S. Davis DEREK S. DAVIS

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

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 28 of 30 PageID 39
Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Heather Savant on behalf of Derek Davis Bar No. 793591 heather.savant@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 68143366

Status as of 9/12/2022 3:51 PM CST

Associated Case Party: EMNET SIBHAT

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted

JEREMY WMCKEY ESERVICEJMCKEYLAWFIRM@GMAIL.COM 9/12/2022 9:59:20 AM

Status SENT

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 29 of 30 PageID 40
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.

Heather Savant on behalf of Derek Davis Bar No. 793591 heather.savant@cooperscully.com

Envelope ID: 68143366

Status as of 9/12/2022 3:51 PM CST

Associated Case Party: WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A WALMART

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Heather Savant heather.savant@cooperscuIIy.com 9/12/2022 9:59:20 AM SENT

Case 3:22-cv-02039-G Document 1-3 Filed 09/15/22 Page 30 of 30 PageID 41