PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1 

CAUSE NO. ________________ 

THOMAS PIZZO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff, §

§ 

v. § ____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§ 

HOME DEPOT USA, INC., § 

Defendant. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Thomas Pizzo, who files this Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

complaining of Defendant, Home Depot USA, Inc., and for cause of action would show as 

follows: 

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1.01 Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules 

of Civil Procedure. 

II. PARTIES

2.01 Plaintiff, Thomas Pizzo, is an individual residing in Tarrant County, Texas. 

2.02 Defendant, Home Depot USA, Inc. (hereafter “Home Depot”), is a corporate entity who 

has, and does, routinely do business in Texas (thus availing itself of the benefits and protections 

of the laws of the State of Texas) and has maintained a retail business location at 9509 White 

Settlement Rd, in White Settlement, Texas 76108. Home Depot may be served with this lawsuit 

by serving its agent: Corporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 

78701. Plaintiff requests a citation at this time.

342-334780-22

FILED

TARRANT COUNTY

7/20/2022 11:21 AM

THOMAS A. WILDER

DISTRICT CLERK

EXHIBIT A-2

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 9
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2

According to its website, Home Depot is the world’s largest home improvement retailer, with 

2,317 stores across North America and employs 500,000 associates. Home Depot’s ecommerce

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.01 Venue is proper in this county because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to the claims herein occurred in Tarrant County, Texas. 

3.02 This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because they are 

residents and/or citizens of Texas and committed the conduct and torts in question in Texas.

Further, Defendant maintains a retail store location at 9509 White Settlement Rd, in White 

Settlement, Texas 76108, where the all transactions, events, and/or occurrence(s) giving rise to 

this case happened and which said retail location is located in Texas, and Home Depot also 

presently does maintain (and over the past several years has maintained) many other similar 

retail locations throughout the state of Texas, and Home Depot also has purposively and 

intentionally engaged over many years in a pattern of doing business for profit with persons and 

businesses in all parts of Texas, and which has specifically included, but is not limited to, doing 

such business at 9509 White Settlement Rd, in White Settlement, Texas 76108, Home Depot, has 

thereby done business in Texas so as to avail itself of the benefits and protections of the law of 

Texas. Home Depot is believed to be a corporation.

3.03 This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause of action because the 

matters in controversy are within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, exclusive of costs and 

interest. 

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 10
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3

IV. ASSUMED NAMES, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES

4.01 Pursuant to Rule 28 of the of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is suing any

partnership, unincorporated association, private corporation, or individual whose name contains 

the words, or who does business under, the same or similar name of the Defendant at 9509 White 

Settlement Rd, in White Settlement, Texas 76108.

4.02 Whenever alleged in this Petition that any non-natural Defendant did or failed to do any

act or thing, it is meant that such Defendant’s directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, 

representatives and/or contractors subject to such Defendant’s control did or failed to do such act 

or thing and that at the time such conduct occurred, it occurred with the authorization and/or 

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

employment or agency of such Defendant’s directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, 

representatives and/or contractors subject to such Defendant’s control, making that Defendant 

responsible and liable for all such conduct. Further, Plaintiff invokes the doctrine of respondeat 

superior. 

V. FACTS

5.01 The incident made the basis of this lawsuit occurred on or about July 31, 2020 at the 

Home Depot store located at 9509 White Settlement Road, White Settlement, Texas 76108.

5.02 At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was employed by Home Depot as a full-time worker. 

5.03 Plaintiff had been employed with Home Depot for approximately 18 years. On the date of 

the incident, Plaintiff was working in the garden department as a garden supervisor. Plaintiff was 

going about his daily duties when a customer required assistance loading bags of mulch into a 

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 11
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4

cart. The department was understaffed and the loaders were not responding so Plaintiff attempted 

to assist the customer. While helping the customer, Plaintiff felt pain and a pop as he twisted his 

right knee. He reported the injury to his supervisors.

5.04 Plaintiff suffered severe injuries to his knee, including but not limited to a torn meniscus. 

Plaintiff’s injuries were so severe that he required surgery. As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff 

must wear a brace, walk with a cane, and requires future treatment. 

5.05 At all times material hereto, Home Depot was a “non-subscriber”, as defined under the 

Texas Workers Compensation laws. Therefore, Home Depot may not assert in the action: (1) 

Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; (2) Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury; or (3) 

Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the negligence of a fellow employee. 

CAUSES OF ACTION

VI. NEGLIGENCE

6.01 At all times mentioned herein, Home Depot had such control over the premises in 

question that Home Depot owed certain duties to the Plaintiff, the breach of which proximately 

caused the injuries set forth herein. Home Depot’s agents, servants, and employees negligently 

failed to protects it employees. Further, Home Depot negligently or willfully disregarded the 

reckless supervision of its employees and negligently or willfully failed to exercise ordinary care 

to avoid injury to Plaintiff. This condition existed despite the fact that Home Depot or Home 

Depot’s agents knew or should have known of the existence of the aforementioned condition and 

that there was a likelihood of a person being injured as Plaintiff was. 

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 12
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5

6.02 The occurrence referred to above and made the basis of this suit, and the resulting 

damages were proximately caused by the negligent conduct of the Home Depot. On the occasion 

in question, Home Depot was guilty of negligent acts and/or omissions, including but not limited 

to:

a. Failing to take measures reasonably necessary to protect it employees, invitees and 

or independent contractors, including Plaintiff, from an unsafe condition and/or 

activity;

b. In acting with reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of their employees, 

invitees and or independent contractors, agents, workers, and others, specifically 

including Plaintiff;

c. In failing to maintain a safe work environment an supervise employees, invitees and 

or independent contractors, agents, or workers, specifically including Plaintiff;

d. In failing to properly and adequately train employees to lift and/or load objects on 

carts;

e. In failing to establish and/or implement a safety program for their employees, 

invitees and or independent contractors, agents, and workers as required by Tex. 

Labor Code Ann. §411.001, et seq.;

f. In failing to use due care to avoid injury to Plaintiff;

g. In failing to provide adequate supervision to employees; including Plaintiff;

h. In failing to provide safety training to employees in order to avoid a serious workrelated injury while lifting and/or loading objects;

i. In failing to provide its employees, including Plaintiff, with reasonable protective 

safety equipment to prevent injury while lifting, carrying, or loading objects; and

j. In failing to act as a reasonably prudent employer would have done under the same 

or similar circumstances.

6.03 The above enumerated acts and omissions, singularly or in combination with others, 

individually and collectively constituted negligence which proximately caused the incident and 

proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff. 

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 13
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6

VII. GROSS NEGLIGENCE

7.01 The above-mentioned acts of negligence on the part of Defendant were of such character 

as to make Defendant guilty of gross negligence. Defendant’s acts of negligence, when viewed 

objectively from the standpoint of Defendant, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering 

the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Defendant had actual, subjective 

awareness of this risk, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, 

safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. The gross negligence/malice of Defendant was a proximate 

cause of the incidents in question and of the damages and injuries alleged herein. As a result of 

Defendant’s gross negligence, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks exemplary damages in an amount 

in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 

VIII. DAMAGES

8.01 As a direct, foreseeable and proximate cause of the Defendant’s conduct herein 

described, Plaintiff suffered damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this 

Court. Reserving the right to plead further, such damages include past and future medical 

expenses, past and future lost wages, past and future loss of wage-earning capacity, past and 

future physical pain and suffering, past and future mental anguish, past and future disfigurement, 

and past and future physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has also incurred 

reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees herein. 

IX. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

9.01 Because the negligence and breaches of Defendant as set forth above constitute gross 

negligence, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in a substantial amount in order to 

punish such conduct and deter similar conduct in the future.

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 14
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7

X. MONETARY RELIEF

10.01 Pursuant to Rule 47(c)(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks monetary 

relief of over $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000. Pursuant to Rule 47(d), Plaintiff also 

seeks all other and further relief to which he may show himself entitled.

XI. JUDGMENT INTEREST

11.01 Plaintiff is entitled to an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as a matter of 

law upon such terms, conditions, and rates as allowed by law, for which Plaintiff sues.

11.02 Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the rate of interest published by the 

Texas Consumer Credit Commission in the Texas Register on the date of judgment in this cause 

for purposes of calculating the rate of pre-judgment interest to be awarded to Plaintiff in this 

case, or, such other periods of time, and such other rate or rates of interest allowed by law for 

determination of pre-judgment interest.

XII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

12.01 Pursuant to the TEX. R. CIV. P. 54, all conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have 

been performed or met.

XIII. CPRC §30.014 STATEMENT

13.01 Plaintiff provides the following information in compliance with TEX. CIV. PRAC. & 

REM. CODE §30.014(a)(1) and (2), respectively 771 and 016.

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 15
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 8

XIV. ADDITIONAL MATTERS

14.01 Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.7, Plaintiff hereby provides notice to Defendants that 

Plaintiff intends to use all documents produced in response to written discovery by any party as 

evidence at any pre-trial proceeding or at trial.

XV. JURY DEMAND

15.01 Plaintiff hereby requests trial by jury and tenders the required fee.

PRAYER

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

appear and answer herein and that upon final hearing hereof Plaintiff have and recover of and 

from Defendants damages as alleged, with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs of 

Court, and such other and further relief, general and special, at law or in equity, as Plaintiff may 

be entitled to receive.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Edward S. Gaytan 

Charles M. Noteboom

State Bar No. 15116875

Edward S. Gaytan

State Bar No. 24087572

Gaytan@noteboom.com

Noteboom - The Law Firm

669 Airport Freeway

Hurst, Texas 76053

817-282-9700

817-282-8073 Fax

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 16
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.

Summer Freeman on behalf of Edward Gaytan

Bar No. 24087572

freeman@noteboom.com

Envelope ID: 66494590

Status as of 7/20/2022 11:35 AM CST

Associated Case Party: THOMAS PIZZO

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Edward S.Gaytan gaytan@noteboom.com 7/20/2022 11:21:02 AM SENT

Kena Totsch witten@noteboom.com 7/20/2022 11:21:02 AM SENT

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-3 Filed 08/25/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 17