EXHIBIT 1

Exhibit 1

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 21 PageID 7

 	


 ! "#$ %&'! (()*$( +, -.+, /01/'234'546'7 &89:;

%&'96<'!=>?@AABC?A@BB  5% 'D3E'F!=A@B>@B=BB

G	HIJK-+J- LM/LNGJOPGPQ	+RSTUT

%&'VW4 37!-IXGHJGY	
	OPRUGP
+P+

%&'/ % &!UP-Y-O

D3E'Z%[ 5'&43\ 37 W&&'&&'FD'''F3 ]^%3FD''

_`a` USbc+JGOUP 

- d_eT

_`a` U	H
P-GPPfPYg 

H d_T

_`a` U	H
P-U	YJ+	Pg 

H d_hT

_`a` `++XPYJ-NGJOPGPQ	+SU`J





-

+


diT

_`a` U	H
P-GPPfPYg

H diT

_`a` IXGHGPjXP+PY

 dT

`` SGGPjkPP
	SPYlYUPGm

 dT

`` 	bbYJb+PGfPNGJOPGQSU

 dT

`` gGPPQPlNGJOPGPQ	+SUm

J  dT

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 21 PageID 8
 	









 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 21 PageID 9
EXHIBIT 2

Exhibit 2

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 21 PageID 10
	





 







 !



"# $%&%''()*+,-./,&%01,22/%

34%5167%1)6*

898:$,&%;<1%%< ),&-,&&(<,=>?:@A9AB8899

C" 5167%13%D('E*F*

G&<,<HIJKLM2%1A8NA999

C"	
  5167%13%D('EFOP2P(5167%1;<61%Q:R@

 31(-HS64&'6&T'*5167%13%D('=E*F*=JPUPV5167%1;<61%Q:R@

W
X 31(-HS64&'6&T'*5167%13%D('=E*F*=JPUPV5167%1;<61%Q:R@Y8A8ZN@A8[

\
]"^ ),<(<,6&PF%<,<,6&


 F%1'6&(/I&_L1H

#
`" 3(11(&<)6L&<HJ,'<1,-<)6L1<=3a

#
b
 9cZBRRANZRBAA

d

 	
  3%D('

	
 #	# 9:P9:PA9AA


e
^^
 89f99(Mg6&O(H&%D<h6//6i,&7<4%%Dj,1(<,6&6hA9O(H'(h<%1'%1T,-%

k
`"	
 k );)

le	
  F%1'6&(/;%1T,-%

;%&O%1I&h61M(<,6&f S64&'6&m%,'<FEE)

:ZcB@98BA@@c

I&h61M(<,6&-6&<(,&%O6&<4,'<1(&'M,<<(/h61M,'h611%-61O.%%j,&7=&6<,h,-(<,6&(&Oh61i(1O,&7<4%(<<(-4%OO6-LM%&<Y'[*I<O6%'&6<

-6&'<,<L<%(/%7(/6j,&,6&*34%1%-,j,%&<,'1%'j6&',2/%h61,&<%1j1%<,&7<4%O6-LM%&<'(&O<(.,&7(jj16j1,(<%(-<,6&*

 ^ "n^
 
 "


^
#	#

A@8E,<</%o(//'J1,T%=+,/M,&7<6&=J%/(i(1%8cp9pB8ZN:Yppp[Zc9BAppAq'6jr-'-7/62(/*-6M

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 5 of 21 PageID 11
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

DISTRICT COURT, TARRANT COUNTY 

CITATION 

TRACY JOHNSON 

vs. 

KROGER TEXAS, L.P. 

Cause No. 096-332763-22 

DELIVERED 

{ I Oc{ I :>-c <''c.-

BY: ~e~PSC: '?Ill/ 

ATX Process, LLC TO: KROGER TEXAS LP 

D/B/A KROGER STORE ~43S B/S REG AGT/CSC-LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE CO 211 E 7TH ST ST£ 620 AOSTIN 

TX 78701-3218 

You said DEFENDANT arc hereby commanded to appear by filing a written answer to the PLAINTIFFS' ORIOINAL PETITION 

at or before 10 o•clock A.M. of the Monday next after 

the expiration of 20 days after the date of service hereof before the 96th District Court 

,100 N CALHOUN, in and for Tarrant County, Texas, at the Courthouse· in the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas 

aaid PLAINTIFF being 

TRACY JOHNSON 

Filed in said court on March 29th, 2022 Against 

KROGER TEXAS LP, D/B/A KROGER STORE #435 

For suit, said suit being numbered 096-332763 -22 the nature of which demand is as shown on said 

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION a copy of which accompanies this citation. 

WESLEY G JOHNSON 

Attorney for TRACY JOHNSON Phone No. (469)501-2559 

Address 1312 14TH ST STE 202 PLANO, TX 75074 

" Thomas A. Wilder , Clerk of the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. Given under my hand and the seal 

of said Court, at office in the City of Fort Worth, t his the 4th day of April, 2022. 

~OTIC!!: You h:&>e beel1 su•c!. You rosy employ an 811Dmey, If you or YDW' auomcy do not ftlH wrlu•n answer l&'itb lbtclerk w!>o i=«< LhUcita!loo by 10:00 AM. on tbc Monday nut following tbc expinllion of 

<w<nty days aller you were JCMd tbls cila<ion al1d P"titiOA, a dol'ault judgment may bo tahn 118ainst you. In addition to ftling a wrincu IIIISMr with lhe clerk, you 111ay bo req\iir<41D a>a1te luidlll <lbclosu.ru 

w tbc olher panics of lllls 111lc. Tb:sc dixlosures &•nerally tnUJt bo madt 110 later t.han 30 days after you llle YOW' amw.r with tbc clerk. FiDd ovt O'IOrc at TcusLa..,Hclp.ora. 

Thomas A. Wilder, Tarrant County District Clerk, 100 N CALHOUN, FORT WORTH TX 76196-0402 

OFFICER'S RETURN *09633276322000004* 

Received this Citation on the ___ day of------------' __ at ___ o•clock _M1 and executed at 

----------------- within the count::y of , State of at ____ o ' clock _M 

on the ---- day of -------- ' __ by delivering to the within named (De£.): 

defendant(s), a true copy of this Citation together ~ith the accompanying copy of PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION 

, having firsc endorsed on same the date of delivery. 

Authorized Person/Constable/Sheriff: 

County of ------------scats of. ____ _ By -------------------- Deputy Fees S ___ _ 

State of County of --------------- (Must be verified if served outside the ·State of Texas) 

Signed and sworn to by the said ---- --------------- before me this __ day of , __ 

to certify which witness my hand and seal of office 

(Seal) 

County of------------' State of---------

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 6 of 21 PageID 12
CITATION 

Cause No. 096-332763-22 

TRACY JOHNSON 

vs. 

KROGER TEXAS, L.P. 

ISSUED 

This 4th day of April, 2022 

Thomas A. Wilder 

Tarrant County District Clerk 

100 N CALHOUN 

·FORT WORTH TX 76196-0402 

By NATALIE THIGPEN Deputy 

WESLEY G JOHNSON 

Attorney for: TRACY JOHNSON 

Phone No. (469)501-2559 

ADDRESS: 1312 14TH ST STE 202 

PLANO, TX 75074 

CIVIL LAW 

l 1m II II ~11~11 ~I ~ ~m1 ~1 m 11~11 ~ ~ m~ IIIII Il ~ m1 ~~ *09633276322000004* 

SERVICE FEES ,NOT COLLECTED , ; 

BY TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

ORIGINAL 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 7 of 21 PageID 13
096-332,763-22 

CAUSE NO.------

FILED 

TARRANT COUNTY 

3/29/2022 1:51 PM 

THOMAS A. WILDER 

DISTRICT CLERK 

TRACYJOHNSON § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

§ 

§ 

v. § 

§ 

§ 

KROGER TEXAS, L.P. D/B/A KROGER § 

STORE#43S § 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Tracy Johnson ("Johnson" and/or "Plaintiff') and files this 

Original Petition against Kroger Texas, L.P., d/b/a Kroger Store #435 ("Defendant") and would 

respectfully show the Court the following: 

I. 

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 

1.01 Plaintiff intends for discovery to be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190 of the 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff will ask the court to order that discovery be conducted in 

accordance with a discovery control plan tailored to the circumstances of this suit. 

II. 

PARTIES 

2.01 Tracy Johnson is an individual and resident of Tarrant County, Texas. 

2.02 Defendant Kroger is a domestic for-profit limited partnership doing business in the 

State of Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service: 

Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company located at 

211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218. PJaintiff asks that citation be issued at this 

location or wherever it may be found and that process to be served by a private process server. 

Issuance of citation is requested at this time. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 1 of6 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 8 of 21 PageID 14
m. 

VENUE & JURISDICTION 

3.01 Venue is properly in Tarrant County, Texas under the general venue statute, as it is 

a county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred. TEX. Crv. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.002(a)(1). 

3.02 The Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action because there is not complete 

diversity betweep. the parties and because the amount of controversy is within the jurisdictional 

limits of the Court. Plaintiff is seeking damages over $250,000 but not more than $1,000.000. 

3.03 Further, this Court has jurisdiction over Kroger because the Defendant transacts 

business in the State of Texas and purposefully availed themselves of the privileges and benefits 

of conducting business in Texas, including the ownership and operation of a physical retail grocery 

store located at 2475 Ascension Blvd., Arlington, TX 76006, and Plaintiffs causes of action arise 

out of these Defendants' business activities in the State of Texas. Therefore, the Court possesses 

subject matter jurisdiction for the causes of action and claims for relief stated herein. 

IV. 

BACKGROUND FACTS 

4.01 On or about Aprill9, 2020, Ms. Johnson was an invitee of Defendant at the Kroger 

retail store located at 2475 Ascension Blvd., Arlington, TX and was shopping with her boyfriend. 

There was a leaking beverage cooler and employees had just been cleaning it. The employees did 

not do a thorough job, nor did they put any signs up of the slippery floor. Ms. Johnson slipped and 

violently fell. After Ms. Johnson fall, employees acknowledged they had been cleaning up and 

should have put signs up. Kroger's employees admitted that they had actual knowledge that the 

floors in the area were wet and did not take any reasonable or prudent measures to prevent their 

customers from harm. There were no signs, cones or other warnings regarding the dangerous 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2 of6 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 9 of 21 PageID 15
condition that existed on the floor. Ms. Johnson was transported by ambulance to JPS Hospital 

ER. 

4.02 As a result of the fall, Ms. Johnson has sustained severe injuries to her lower back 

and lumbar spine, thoracic spine, neck, S.I. joint, left hip, left shoulder, left ankle, left wrist and 

left knee. She has incurred significant damages directly as a result of the Defendants' negligent 

acts or omissions, and her quality of life has been severely impacted. 

v. 

CAUSES OF ACTION- NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING AND/OR SUPERVISION 

5.01 Defendant had a duty to exercise ordinary care and to act as a reasonable and 

prudent property owner, operator and/or management company. 

5.02 Defendant is negligent and breached their duty of care in the following ways: 

a. Creating a dangerous condition; 

b. Failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition; 

c. Failing to remedy the unsafe and dangerous condition, which Defendant 

knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known about, to 

exist on premises in areas which Defendant knew that persons such as 

Plaintiff are likely to encounter without warning and that constitute a 

hazard and risk of personal injury; 

d. Failing to warn Plaintiff of the condition on the premises which pose an 

unreasonable risk of harm to individuals such as Plaintiff; 

e. Creating a dangerous condition; 

f. In choosing not to make safe a condition on the premises which Defendant 

knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, poses an 

unreasonable risk of harm to individuals such as Plaintiff; and 

g. In choosing not to timely and properly remedy the condition so as to . 

prevent harm or injury to others such as Plaintiff. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3 of6 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 10 of 21 PageID 16
5.03 Defendant is also negligent in hiring, supervising, training and retaining its 

employees who failed to clean the dangerous condition or fail to warn Plaintiff of the dan~erous 

condition. 

5.04 As a proximate result of all of the above, Plaintiff suffered injuries for which he 

now brings suit. 

VI. 

CAUSES OF ACTION- PREMISE LIABILITY 

6.01 At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an invitee on the premises of 2475 

Ascension Boulevard, Arlington, Texas 76006. 

6.02 Defendant owned, operated, maintained, possessed and/or controlled the premises 

in question. 

6.03 A condition on the premises constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition. 

6.04 Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, knew or should have known of the 

unreasonably dangerous condition. 

6.05 Defendant had a duty to use ordinary care to ensure that the premises did not p~esent 

a danger to Plaintiff. This duty includes the duty to inspect and the duty to warn or to cure. 

Defendant breached this duty by failing to timely clean the floor and remedy the unsafe condition 

on the premises or to warn Plaintiff of the hazard that existed on the premises. 

6.06 As a proximate result of all of the above, Plaintiff suffered injuries for which he 

now brings suit. 

VII. 

JURY DEMAND 

7. 01 Plaintiff demands a jury trial and has tendered the appropriate fee with the Original 

Petition. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4 of6 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 11 of 21 PageID 17
vm. 

INTENT TO USE DOCUMENTS 

8.01 In accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, any documents produced 

by Defendant in response to written discovery may be used by Plaintiff at any pre-trial proceeding 

or trial. 

IX. 

DAMAGES 

9.01 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trier of fact determine the amount of his 

damages and losses that he has incurred in the past and will reasonably incur in the future, as well 

as the monetary value of these damages, which include, but are not limited to: 

a. Physical pain and suffering in the past and future; 

b. Disfigurement in the past and future; 

c. Physical impairment in the past and future; 

d. Medical care expenses in the past and future; 

e Out-of-pocket economic losses; 

f. Loss of enjoyment of life; and 

g. Mental anguish in the past and future. 

X. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tracy Johnson respectfully prays that Defendant Kroger be cited 

to appear and answer herein, and that upon final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for the 

Plaintiff and against Defendant for damages over $1 million; together with pre-judgment interest 

(from the date of injury through the date of judgment) at the maximum rate allowed by law; postjudgment interest at the legal rate, costs of court; and such other and further reliefto which Plaintiff 

may be entitled at law or in equity. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page5of6 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 12 of 21 PageID 18
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

Respectfully submitted, 

JOHNSON REIST PLLC 

By: Is/ Wesley Johnson 

WESLEY JOHNSON 

State Bar No. 24041204 

wjohnson@johnsonreist.com 

JANAS. REIST 

State Bar No. 24056890 

jreist@j ohnsonreist.com 

1312 14th Street, Suite 202 

Plano, Texas 75074 

Telephone: 469.501.2559 

Facsimile: 469.501.7471 

THE LAW OFFICE OF MULLEN & MULLEN 

By: Is/ Shane Mullen 

SHANE MULLEN 

State Bar No. 24037152 

shane@mullenandmullen.com 

1825 Market Center Blvd. #200 

Dallas, TX 75207 

(214) 747-5240- Telephone 

(214) 761-9146- Facsimile 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Page 6 of6 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 13 of 21 PageID 19
EXHIBIT 3

Exhibit 3

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 14 of 21 PageID 20
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER                      Page 1 of 6

CAUSE NO. 096‐332763‐22 

TRACY JOHNSON   §  IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

Plaintiff,  §   

  §   

vs.  §  96th JUDICIAL DISTRICT   

  §   

KROGER TEXAS, L.P. d/b/a Kroger Store  §   

#435  §   

Defendant.  §  TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

Defendant, Kroger Texas, L.P.  (incorrectly identified as “Kroger Texas L.P. d/b/a Kroger 

Store #435”) (the “Defendant”) hereby files its Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and, 

in support thereof, would respectfully show the Court as follows:  

I. 

VERIFIED DENIAL 

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

that  Plaintiff  is  entitled  to  recover  from  “Kroger  Texas  L.P.  d/b/a  Kroger  Store  #435”  in  the 

capacity in which they have been sued. Defendant denies that Kroger Texas, L.P. does business 

as “Kroger Store #435,” and therefore denies that “Kroger Texas, L.P. d/b/a Kroger Store #435” 

owned or operated the store at issue on the date of this incident. Consequently, Plaintiff has no 

right or potential right of recovery against “Kroger Texas L.P. d/b/a Kroger Store #435” as it is not 

a proper party to this suit.  See, e.g., Bailey v. Vanscot Concrete Co., 894 S.W.2d 757, 759 (Tex. 

1995). Further by way of verified denial, Defendant Kroger Texas, L.P. denies that it is a “domestic 

for‐profit limited partnership doing business in the State of Texas,” as alleged in paragraph 2.02 

of Plaintiff’s Original Petition. Kroger Texas, L.P., at the time of the initial filing of this action was 

and is a limited partnership formed under the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in 

096-332763-22 FILED

TARRANT COUNTY

4/19/2022 4:15 PM

THOMAS A. WILDER

DISTRICT CLERK

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 15 of 21 PageID 21
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER                      Page 2 of 6

Ohio. Kroger Texas, L.P. has never been a resident of, incorporated in, or had its principal place 

of business in the State of Texas. 

II. 

GENERAL DENIAL  

Defendant denies each and every, all and singular, the material allegations contained in 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition, demands strict proof thereof, and to the extent that such matters are 

questions of fact, say Plaintiff should prove such facts by a preponderance of the evidence to a 

jury if she can so do. 

III. 

DEFENSES AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY 

1. Defendant had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the condition about 

which  Plaintiff  complains,  and  further  asserts  that,  in  any  event,  the  alleged  hazard  was  not 

“unreasonably dangerous.” 

2. In  the alternative,  the accident  complained of was an  unavoidable accident, as 

that term is defined under Texas law. 

3. Plaintiff failed to use that degree of care and caution that would have been used 

by  a  reasonable  person  under  the  same  or  similar  circumstances,  thereby  producing  or 

proximately causing or contributing to cause Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any. Such acts or 

omissions of Plaintiff were the sole and/or a producing and/or a proximate and/or a supervening 

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

4. Plaintiff’s damages or injuries, if any, were caused by the acts of third persons not 

under the control of Defendant. Such acts or omissions of said third persons were the sole and/or 

a producing and/or a proximate and/or an intervening and/or supervening cause of Plaintiff’s 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 16 of 21 PageID 22
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER                      Page 3 of 6

damages or injuries, if any.  

5. To  the  extent  the  alleged  premises  condition  of  which  Plaintiff  complains  was 

already appreciated by Plaintiff, was open and obvious, was not concealed, and/or was a known 

risk, Defendant denies that it owed any duty to warn Plaintiff of the alleged premises condition 

or protect Plaintiff from same. 

6. 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. 

7. In the unlikely event an adverse judgment is rendered against Defendant in this 

matter, 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.  

8. The damages about which Plaintiff complains, if any, were the result of prior or 

pre‐existing  or  subsequent  injuries,  accidents,  or  conditions,  and  said  prior  or  pre‐existing  or 

subsequent  injuries,  accidents  or  conditions  were  the  sole  and/or  a  contributing  cause  of 

Plaintiff’s damages alleged against Defendant.  

9. To the extent applicable, Plaintiff breached her duty to mitigate damages by failing 

to  exercise  reasonable  care  and  diligence  to  avoid  loss  and  minimize  the  consequences  of 

damages. 

10. To the extent applicable, Plaintiff is malingering and/or exaggerating the nature 

and severity of her injuries in order to continue treatment, and accordingly, Defendant contends 

said treatment is not medically necessary or reasonable.  

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 17 of 21 PageID 23
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER                      Page 4 of 6

11. Any claims for medical or health care expenses incurred are limited to the amount 

actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 

Code § 41.0105.        

    

IV. 

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 

Further  answering  herein,  Defendant  objects  and  specially  excepts  to  section  VIII  of 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition, titled “Notice of Intent,” which improperly attempts to invoke Rule 

193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, section VIII of Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

states  that  “Plaintiff  hereby  gives  notice  of  intent  to  utilize  any  and  all  items  produced  in 

discovery in the trial of this matter and the authenticity of such items is self‐proven under the 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.7.” However, Rule 193.7 requires that the party invoking Rule 

193.7  provide  “actual  notice  that  the  document  will  be  used”  to  the  producing  party. 

Furthermore, “the ten‐day period allowed for objection to authenticity . . . does not run from the 

production  of  the  material  or  information  but  from  the  party’s  actual  awareness  that  the 

document  will  be  used.”    Accordingly,  it  is  clear  that  Rule  193.7  requires  more  than  a  mere 

blanket statement that all documents produced in discovery will be authenticated against the 

producing party. Such a blanket statement not only fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 193.7, 

but  it  also  places  an  unreasonable  burden  upon  Defendants  to  review  all  documents  they 

produce and prophylactically  render objections  regarding  the authenticity of  said documents. 

Therefore, Defendants  request  that  the  Court  strike  section  XII  of  Plaintiff’s Original  Petition, 

titled  “Notice  of  Intent”  in  its  entirety.  Therefore,  Defendant  requests  that  the  Court  strike 

section VIII in its entirety. 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 18 of 21 PageID 24
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER                      Page 5 of 6

V. 

COURT REPORTER REQUESTED  

Defendant respectfully demands a court reporter be present at all proceedings before the 

Court. 

VI. 

PRAYER  

WHEREFORE,  PREMISES  CONSIDERED,  Defendant,  Kroger  Texas,  L.P.  (incorrectly 

identified as “Kroger Texas, L.P. d/b/a Kroger Store #435”) respectfully prays that Plaintiff take 

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

on its behalf. Defendant also prays 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/ B. Kyle Briscoe 

B. Kyle Briscoe 

Attorney‐In‐Charge 

State Bar No. 24069421 

kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com

Margaret M. Knott

State Bar No. 15287250

mknott@peavlerbriscoe.com

PEAVLER|BRISCOE

2215 Westgate Plaza 

Grapevine, Texas 76051 

214‐999‐0550 (telephone) 

214‐999‐0551 (fax) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

   

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 19 of 21 PageID 25
STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF TARRANT 

§ 

§ 

§ 

VERIFICATION 

Before me, the undersigned authority, did personally appear Margaret M. Knott, who 

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

she has never been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude, and that she is over the 

age of 18 and competent to make this verification . Accordingly, Margaret M . Knott verifies that 

the facts alleged in paragraph I. Verified Denial of the foregoing pleading are within her personal 

knowledge and true and correct. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this~ day 

\\\lllllt, 

,$'\~~f,uj~ ELIZABETH CONTRERAS :o ~·~"'N ~t~)~~ otary Public, State of Texas 

~;4or~~ Comm. Expires 02·06·2024 

• 11111111

..... ''' Notary 10 129335398 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

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

Procedure on Aprilfq, 2022. 

/ s/ B. Kyle Briscoe 

B. Kyle Bri scoe 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 6 of 6 

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 20 of 21 PageID 26
Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system

on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing

certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Bryan Briscoe on behalf of Bryan Briscoe

Bar No. 24069421

kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com

Envelope ID: 63705746

Status as of 4/19/2022 4:24 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name

Jana Reist

Wes Johnson

Stacy Spell

Shane Mullen

Erika Cortez

Kyle Briscoe

Margaret M. Knott

Erika Pina

Liz Contreras

BarNumber Email

jreist@johnsonreist.com

wjohnson@johnsonreist.com

sspell@johnsonreist.com

shane@mullenandmullen.com

erika@mullenandmullen.com

kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com

mknott@peavlerbriscoe.com

epina@peavlerbriscoe.com

econtreras@peavlerbriscoe.com

TimestampSubmitted

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

4/19/2022 4:15:41 PM

Status

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

Case 4:22-cv-00355-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/26/22 Page 21 of 21 PageID 27