EXHIBIT 1

Exhibit 1

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID 7
10/25/22, 10:44 AM Tarrant County - Civil

https://dcsa.tarrantcounty.com/Civil/NameSearch#/CaseAndTransInfo 1/2

Civil Case and Transaction Information 10/25/2022 10:44 AM

Court : 236 Case : 336976 Search New Search Show Service Documents ONLY

Cause Number : 236-336976-22 Date Filed : 09-22-2022

CRISELDA RAMIREZ | VS | KROGER TEXAS, LP.

Cause of Action : INJURY OR DAMAGE, OTHER INJURY OR DAMAGE

Case Status : PENDING

File Mark Description Assessed FeeCredit/Paid Fee

09-22-2022 PLTF'S ORIG PET

N

$350.00

09-22-2022 PAYMENT RECEIVED trans #1

Y

$213.00

09-22-2022 PAYMENT PAID TO STATE trans #1

Y

$137.00

09-22-2022 CIT-ISSUED ON KROGER TEXAS LP-On

09/29/2022 N Svc

$8.00

09-22-2022 PAYMENT RECEIVED trans #4

Y

$8.00

09-22-2022 JURY REQUESTED $0.00

09-28-2022 EMAIL CIT REQ (TO DP-IJ) $0.00

10-06-2022 CIT RETURN-KROGER TEXAS LP $0.00

10-06-2022 CIT Tr# 4 RET EXEC(KROGER TEXAS LP)

On 10/05/2022

$0.00

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 2 of 19 PageID 8
10/25/22, 10:44 AM Tarrant County - Civil

https://dcsa.tarrantcounty.com/Civil/NameSearch#/CaseAndTransInfo 2/2

10-24-2022 DEFN ORIG ANS & SPECIAL EXCEPTION $0.00

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 3 of 19 PageID 9
EXHIBIT 2

Exhibit 2

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 4 of 19 PageID 10
Notice of Service of Process

null / ALL

Transmittal Number: 25679835

Date Processed: 10/06/2022

Primary Contact: Venessa C. Wickline Gribble

The Kroger Co.

1014 Vine St

Ste 1000

Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100

Entity: Kroger Texas L.P.

Entity ID Number 2172000

Entity Served: Kroger Texas LP

Title of Action: Criselda Ramirez vs. Kroger Texas LP

Matter Name/ID: Criselda Ramirez vs. Kroger Texas LP (13039933)

Document(s) Type: Citation/Petition

Nature of Action: Personal Injury

Court/Agency: Tarrant County District Court, TX

Case/Reference No: 236-336976-22

Jurisdiction Served: Texas

Date Served on CSC: 10/05/2022

Answer or Appearance Due: 10:00 am Monday next following the expiration of 20 days after service

Originally Served On: CSC

How Served: Personal Service

Sender Information: Thompson Law LLP

214-755-7777

Information contained on this transmittal form is for record keeping, notification and forwarding the attached document(s). It does not

constitute a legal opinion. The recipient is responsible for interpreting the documents and taking appropriate action.

To avoid potential delay, please do not send your response to CSC

251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-1674 (888) 690-2882 | sop@cscglobal.com

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 5 of 19 PageID 11
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

DISTRICT COURT, TARRANT COUNTY 

~JELIVERED 

_j_[)_;_~ cs-· ;Q, 2_ 

By jA g,l f?:>c--=C?--~' Austin Process, LLC 

CITATION Cause No. 236-336976-22 

CRISELDA RAMIREZ 

vs. 

KROGER TEXAS, LP. 

TO: KROGER TEXAS LP 

B/S REG AGT-CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 1211 E 7TH ST STE 620 AUSTIN, TX 7B7 

You said DEFENDANT are hereby commanded to appear _by fil'in_g a ·written :answer to the PLAINTIFF's ORIGINAL PETITION 

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

the cxpiru.t:ion of 20 days after t:he date of service hcreo.f before 'the 2J'Gth -District. Court-

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

said PLAINTIFF being 

CRISELDA RAMIREZ 

Filed in said Court on September 22nd, 2022 Against 

KROGER TEXAS LP 

For suit, said suit being numbered 236-336976-22 the nature of which demand is as shown on said 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION a copy of which accompanies this citation. 

MA TIHEW SERCELY 

Attorney for CRISELDA RAMIREZ Phone No. (214)755-7777 

Address 3300 OAK LAWN AVE 3RD FL-DALLAS, TX 75219 

Thomas A. Wilder , Clerk· of the District Court of Tarrant Co~ty, Texas. Given under my hand and the seal 

of said Court, at office in the City of Fort Worth, this th.e 29th. day of September, 2_022. 

"qjKOIU NYKOLE ~\OC TAY. OR 

NOTICE: You have been sued. You may employ ao attorney. If you or your auomcy do oot file a wrillen answer wilh the tlerliwho issued !his dtation by IO;OO.'IM._on lhe Monday next following_lheexpiration of 

twency days alter you weno served !his citation and petition, a der.Ult judgment may be talccn against. you. In addition to tiling a written answer wilh'lhe clerk, you may be requinod to make-initial disclosuru 

to the other panies or lhi< suit. These disclosures generally must be !"•de. n<i later f1i;!n 39 days i'fter you file your answer with'the clerk. _Find out mono'"! Teia.<!..aw!Jelp_.org. 

Thomas A. Wilder, Tarrant County DistrictC!erk, 100 N CALHOUN, FORT WORTH TX 76196-0402 

OFFICER'S RETURN *23633697622000004* 

Received this Citation- on the ___ ·day of-------------' __ at ___ o•c'lock _M; and executed at 

-----------------.....,within the county of------,-,--......,-' St!:lt.e of.---- at;---- o'clock _M 

on the day of , __ by delivedng to the w'ithin .named (Oef'.): 

defendant (s), a true copy of this Citation together with the accompanying copy of' PLAINTIFP•·s O)UGINAL PETITION 

, having first endorsed on same the date of delivery. 

Authorized Person/Constable/Sheriff: 

county of ------------- State of ____ _ By ---------------- Deputy Fees$ ___ _ 

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 ----------• S.tate of -----....,----~ 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 6 of 19 PageID 12
CITATION 

Cause No. 236-336976-22 

CRISELDA RAMIREZ 

VS. 

KROGER TEXAS, LP. 

ISSUED 

This. 29th da:r of September, 2022 

Thp~ A., Wilder 

'tl!Uailt Cotii:ity District Clerk 

100 N CALHOUN 

FORT WORTH TX 76196-0402 

By NYKOLE TAYLOR D~puty 

MATlliEW SERCELY 

A,tt_pm~Y. fpr: CRISELDA RAMIREZ 

·Phone. No. (214)755-7'777 

ADDRESS: 33"00 OAK LAWN AVE '3RD FL 

DALLAS, TX 75219 

CIVIL LAW 

111m lllllll~tllllt~lllllllt ~~-~~llmllll~lllllll~lltll~.·llllltllll.llllltl~lllllllll *23('i33697622000004* 

SERVICE ~EEs ~oT coLLECTED 

_BY 'l'ARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

QRIG.INAL 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 7 of 19 PageID 13
236-336976-22 

CAUSE NO. 

FILED 

TARRANT COUNTY 

9/22/2022 3:31 PM 

THOMAS A. WILDER 

DISTRICT CLERK 

CRISELDA RAMIREZ § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

KROGER TEXAS, LP., JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

Defendant. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

COMES NOW Criselda Ramirez, hereinafter also referred to as "Plaintiff," and files 

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Jury Demand complaining Kroger Texas, LP. hereinafter also 

referred to as "Defendant," and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following: 

I. 

DISCOVERY LEVEL 

This lawsuit shall be conducted under Plaintiff intends for discovery to be conducted under 

Level 3 ofRule 190.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. 

PARTIES AND SERVICE 

Plaintiff Criselda Ramirez is an individual residing in Arlington, Tarrant County, TX. 

Defendant Kroger Texas, LP. is a foreign company which may be served through its 

registered agent CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY located at 1211 E. 7th Street 

Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701. Issuance of citation is requested. 

III. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

CAUSE NO. 

PAGE 1 OF 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 8 of 19 PageID 14
The subject matter in controversy in this lawsuit is within the jurisdictional limits of this 

Court. 

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this lawsuit because the parties to this lawsuit 

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

is based occurred in Texas; and the damages sought in this lawsuit are within the jurisdictional 

limits ofthis Court. In order to comply with this procedural requirement, Plaintiff pleads pursuant 

to Tex. R. Civ. P. 47, that Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $250,000 but not more than 

$1,000,000, an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 

Venue in Tarrant County, Texas is proper under Section 15.002(a)(2) ofthe Texas 

Civil Practice and Remedies Code because the incident occurred in Tarrant County. 

IV. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

On or about February 17, 2021, Plaintiff Ramirez was an invitee to Kroger Texas, LP. 

when she slipped and fell in water leaking from some crates. The water was leaking from crates 

that Kroger employees were using to actively restock the shelves. As the dangerous condition was 

created by an employee of the Defendant, it is presumed that the Defendant had notice of the 

dangerous condition. 

At the time of the occurrence in question, Defendant operated the premises as a business 

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

Defendant failed to maintain their premises slipping hazards, causing Plaintiff to slip and fall. 

As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful and negligent conduct of Defendant, 

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

Court. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

CAUSE NO. 

v. 

PAGE2 OF 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 9 of 19 PageID 15
CAUSES OF ACTION 

Negligence- Premises Liability 

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegations set forth m the preceding 

paragraphs. 

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

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

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

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

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

premises as a customer of Defendant. 

Defendant's employeed created the dangerous condition on the Premises that caused 

Plaintiffs fall and injuries and damages through the acts of its agents, employees or 

representatives, and/or allowed it to be created. 

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

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

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

Defendant were negligent when they: 

a. Failed inspect the Premises for defendants and/or unreasonably dangerous 

conditions; 

b. Failed to make the Premises reasonably safe; and 

c. Failed to make safe the dangerous conditions or provide adequate warning of the 

dangerous conditions for persons entering and on the Premises. 

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

bodily injuries and damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

CAUSE NO. 

PAGE3 OF 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 10 of 19 PageID 16
VII. 

NOTICE OF INTENT 

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

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

against Defendant at any pretrial proceeding and at trial, and any such document is therefore selfauthenticated pursuant to that rule. 

VIII. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiffhereby requests a trial by jury. 

PRAYER 

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

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

Plaintiff recover: 

a. judgment against Defendant for Plaintiffs damages as set forth above in an amount 

within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; 

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

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

d. case costs and expenses of suit; and 

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

entitled. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

CAUSE NO. 

PAGE4 OF 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 11 of 19 PageID 17
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

CAUSE NO. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THOMPSON LAW LLP 

3300 Oak Lawn Avenue, 3rd Floor 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

Tel. 214/755-7777 

Fax 214/716-0116 

MATTHEW SERCELY 

State Bar No. 24070595 

msecerly@triallawyers.com 

RYAN L. THOMPSON 

State Bar No. 24046969 

rthompson@triallawyers.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

PAGE 5 OF 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 12 of 19 PageID 18
EXHIBIT 3

Exhibit 3

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 13 of 19 PageID 19
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION Page 1

CAUSE NO. 236-336976-22

CRISELDA RAMIREZ, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, §

§

vs. § 236TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

KROGER TEXAS, L.P., §

Defendant. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT KROGER TEXAS, L.P.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION

COMES NOW Defendant Kroger Texas L.P. and files its Original Answer and Special 

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

I.

ANSWER

A. GENERAL DENIAL

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

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

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

jury if Plaintiff can so do.

B. DEFENSES

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. 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 a supervening cause of Plaintiff’s 

damages or injuries, if any. 

236-336976-22 FILED

TARRANT COUNTY

10/24/2022 3:23 PM

THOMAS A. WILDER

DISTRICT CLERK

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 14 of 19 PageID 20
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION Page 2

3. 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 and, 

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

condition or protect Plaintiff from same. Austin v. Kroger Texas L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193, 203 (Tex. 

2015).

4. 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.

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

that term is defined under Texas law.

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. To the extent that the damages about which Plaintiff complains, if any, were the 

result of prior or pre-existing or subsequent injuries, accidents or conditions, said prior or preexisting or subsequent injuries, accidents or conditions were the sole and/or a contributing cause 

of Plaintiff’s damages alleged against Defendant. 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 15 of 19 PageID 21
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION Page 3

9. To the extent that Plaintiff breached Plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages by failing 

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

damages, such damages are not reasonable or necessary.

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

severity of Plaintiff’s injuries in order to continue treatment, Defendant contends said treatment 

is not medically necessary or reasonable. 

11. Any claims for past and future medical or health care expenses are limited to the 

customary and usual amounts charged for reasonable and necessary medical care and, with 

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

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

12. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.091, to the extent that 

Plaintiff is seeking a recovery for loss of earnings, lost wages, loss of earning capacity and/or loss 

of contributions of pecuniary value, evidence of such alleged losses must be presented by Plaintiff 

in the form of a net loss after reduction for income tax payments, or unpaid tax liability to any 

federal income tax law.

II.

SPECIAL EXCEPTION

Defendant objects and specially excepts to section VII 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 VII of Plaintiff’s Original Petition states, “Plaintiff hereby gives 

notice to Defendant under Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that Plaintiff will use 

any document produced by Defendant during pretrial discovery against Defendant at any pretrial 

proceeding and at trial, and any such document is therefore self-authenticated pursuant to that 

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 16 of 19 PageID 22
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION Page 4

rule”. 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.1 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.”2

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 Defendant to review all documents it produces and prophylactically 

render objections regarding the authenticity of said documents. Therefore, Defendant requests 

that the Court strike section XII of Plaintiff’s Original Petition, titled “Notice of Intent” in its 

entirety.

III.

COURT REPORTER

Defendants respectfully demand a court reporter be present at all proceedings before the 

Court.

IV.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Kroger Texas L.P. prays that its special 

exception be granted. Further, Defendant respectfully prays Plaintiff take nothing by this cause 

and that Defendant be permitted to recover the costs expended on its behalf. Defendant also 

1 TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.7 (2021) (emphasis added).

2

Id., cmt. 7 (emphasis added).

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 17 of 19 PageID 23
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION Page 5

prays for all other and further relief, both general and special, at law and in equity, to which it

may show itself to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s B. Kyle Briscoe

B. Kyle Briscoe

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

forwarded to all counsel of record in this case pursuant to and in accordance with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure on October 24, 2022.

/s/ B. Kyle Briscoe

B. Kyle Briscoe

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 18 of 19 PageID 24
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: 69511147

Status as of 10/24/2022 3:42 PM CST

Associated Case Party: THEKROGER TEXAS LP

Name

Jennifer Renfro

Liz Contreras

Margaret M. Knott

Kyle Briscoe

BarNumber Email

jrenfro@peavlerbriscoe.com

econtreras@peavlerbriscoe.com

mknott@peavlerbriscoe.com

kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com

TimestampSubmitted

10/24/2022 3:23:12 PM

10/24/2022 3:23:12 PM

10/24/2022 3:23:12 PM

10/24/2022 3:23:12 PM

Status

SENT

SENT

SENT

SENT

Case Contacts

Name

Matthew Sercely

Grisell Henderson

BarNumber Email

msercely@triallawyers.com

ghenderson@triallawyers.com

TimestampSubmitted

10/24/2022 3:23:12 PM

10/24/2022 3:23:12 PM

Status

SENT

SENT

Case 4:22-cv-00961-O Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/22 Page 19 of 19 PageID 25