EXHIBIT 2b

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID 15
FILED

6/10/2022 6:36 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS CIT ESERVE Angie Avina DEPUTY DC-22-06336 CAUSE NO.

BOBBY WILLIAMS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintlff,

134th

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

SFM LLC d/b/a SF MARKETS LLC, SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET TEXAS LP and SFM BEVERAGES,

INC., Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE 0F SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Bobby Williams, complaining of and against SFM LLC d/b/a

SF Markets LLC, Sprouts Farmers Market Texas LP and SFM Beverages, Inc., Defendants herein,

and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

190.3.

II. RELIEF

2. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of $250,000.00 or less, excluding interest, statutory or

punitive damages and penalties, and attorney fees and costs. The damages sought are within the

jurisdictional

limits of the court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(1).

III. PARTIES AND SERVICE

3. Plaintiff, Bobby Williams, (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Mr. Williams”)is an individual

residing in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The last three (3) digits ofPlaintiff’ social security number

are 908, and the last three (3) digits of Plaintiff’s driver’s license number are 465.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID 16
4. Defendant, SFM LLC d/b/a SF Markets LLC, (hereinafter

“Defendant SFM LLC”)is

foreign limited liability company with business property located at 1343 Campbell Road,

Richardson, Dallas County, Texas 75080. Because Defendant engages

in business in Texas, maintains business property in Dallas County, and this lawsuit is connected with Defendants'

business transacted in Texas, service upon Defendant may be accomplished by service through its

registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service

Company,

located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701 or any other place Where

Defendant may be found. Issuance of citation for Defendant is requested at this time, and

service will be completed by private process server.

5. Defendant, Sprouts Farmers Market Texas LP, (hereinafter“Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market Texas LP”)

is domestic limited partnership with business property located at 1343

Campbell Road, Richardson, Dallas County, Texas 75080. Because Defendant engages

in business

in Texas, maintains business property in Dallas County, and this lawsuit is connected with

Defendants' business transacted in Texas, service upon Defendant may be accomplished by service

through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers

Incorporating Service Company,

located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701 or

any other place where Defendant may be found. Issuance of citation for Defendant is requested

at this time, and service will be completed by private process server.

6. Defendant, SFM Beverages, Inc., (hereinafter“Defendant SFM Beverages, Inc”)is

foreign corporation with business property located at 1343 Campbell Road, Richardson,

Dallas County, Texas 75080. Because Defendant engages

in business in Texas, maintains

business property in Dallas County, and this lawsuit is connected with Defendants' business

transacted in Texas, service upon Defendant may be accomplished by service through its registered

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID 17
agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service Company,

located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701 or any other place where Defendant

may be found. Issuance of citation for Defendant is requested at this time, and service will be

completed by private process server.

IV. MISNOMER/ALTER EGO

7. In the event any parties are misnamed or are not included herein, it is Plaintiffs contention

that such was “misidentification”, “misnomer” and/or such paIties are/were “alter egos” of

parties named herein. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that such “corporate veils” should be

pierced to hold such parties properly included in the interest ofjustice.

8. Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this is suit against Defendant

Sprouts Farmers Market which is partnership, unincorporated association, private corporation,

or individual doing business under an assumed name or d/b/a and, therefore, may sue or be sued

in its common name for the purpose of enforcing for or against

it substantive right and Plaintiff

asks that the court on its own motion or upon motion of any party substitute the true name of this

Defendant.

V. JURISDICTION

9. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the amount in

controversy exceeds this Court’s minimum jurisdictional requirements.

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are residents of

the State of Texas or each regularly conducts business within the State of Texas for the purpose of

accumulating monetary profits, has continuing contacts with Texas and is amenable to service by

Texas Court.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID 18
VI11. Venue is proper

in Dallas County, Texas because all or substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Dallas County, Texas. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code

15.002(a)(1).

VII12. At all times relevant herein, upon information and belief, Defendants SFM LLC, Sprouts

Farmers Market Texas LP and SFM Beverages, Inc., owned, leased, possessed, maintained, managed and/or controlled and/or had duty to possess, maintain, manage or control, both directly

or indirectly through their agents, servants, contractors and/or employees, property located at

1343 Campbell Road, Richardson, Dallas County, Texas 75080 (the “Premises” or the

‘Property”) under the trade or assumed name of Sprouts Farmers Market, Store No. 106 (the

“Store”).

13. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants controlled, led and/or created Sprouts

Farmers Market, Store No. 106 and the uniform operation of the Store.

14. Further, at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants owned, operated, managed and/or

controlled and/or had duty to operate, manage and/or control, both directly or indirectly through

their agents, servants, representatives and/or employees, the Store, including but not limited to the

shopping aisles and common areas Within the Store.

15. In the course ofDefendants' aforementioned operation of the Property, Defendants invited

Plaintiff, as guest, to enter the Property.

16. On or about June 19, 2020, Plaintiffproceeded to the frozen food aisle ofthe Store. While

looking for items in the frozen food aisle, Plaintiff closed one of the frozen food section doors in

order to look through the adjacentfrozen food section. As he proceeded to his right

in an attempt

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID 19
to look through the next frozen food section, through no fault, negligence or carelessness of his

own, suddenly and without warning, Plaintiff right

foot forcefully struck milk crate which one

of Defendants‘ employeesleft unattended directly in front of the frozen food section.

17. Shortly thereafter, one of Defendants' employees, servants, contractors, and/or agents

rushed over from different aisle of the Store and quickly removed the crate that injured Plaintiff.

Despite seeing that Plaintiff was injured and in pain, said employee, servant, contractor, and/or

agent took the crate, quickly exited the area where the subject

incident took place and did not

return.

18. No devices, signs or other methods ofwarning were used to call attention to the unattended

crate in the frozen food aisle despite that Defendants, by and through their employees, servants,

contractors, and/or agents, had actual or constructive knowledge of the unattended crate left in the

aisle.

19. As result of Defendants‘ negligence and sheer disregard of the safety of persons such as

Plaintiff and other consumers on the Property, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and economic

damages. It was Defendants' negligence which was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s personal

injuries and damages.

VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION

A) Negligence as to Defendants SFM LLC d/b/a SF Markets LLC, Sprouts Farmers Market Texas LP and SFMBeverages, Inc.:

20. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphsfor all purposes

the same as if set forth herein verbatim.

21. At all times pertinentto this action, Plaintiff was business invitee who entered the

Property at the implied invitation of Defendants’ knowledge and permission and for the mutual

benefit of both parties.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID 20
22. At the aforesaid date and time and at the aforesaid place, it then and there became and was

the duty of Defendants, priorto and at the time of the occurrence, to exercise reasonable care and

caution in and about the ownership, management and/or maintenance of said premisesso that the

same would be in good, safe and proper condition for consumers and other persons on the Premises

so as not to cause harm and injury to such persons and, in particular, Plaintiff.

23. Moreover, Defendants owed Plaintiff duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the Premises

in reasonably safe condition, inspect

the premises to discover latent defects, and to make safe any

defects or give an adequate warning of any dangers.

24. Defendants‘ conduct, and that of their agents, servants and employees acting within the

scope oftheir employment, constituted breach of the duty of ordinary care owed by Defendants

to Plaintiff. Defendants knew or should have known with reasonable inspection that the condition

on the Premises created an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers and other persons on the

Premises. Still, Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care to reduce or eliminate this risk, or warn

consumers and other persons regarding it, in that Defendants, by and through their employees,

servants, contractors, and/or agents, failed to address an unattended crate left in the aisle of the

Store where Plaintiffwas injured.

25. Notwithstanding the aforesaid duty, Defendants' acts and/or omissions fall below the

standard of care and is the proximate cause of the occurrence at issue and Plaintiff’ resulting

injuries and damages. Defendants, individually and by and through their agents, servants and

employees on each defendant’s behalf, were in violation of their duty and then and there guilty of

one or more of the following careless and negligent acts and/or omissions:

a. Failing to maintain the leased Premises owned and/or operated by Defendants in good

and safe condition for Plaintiff and others;

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID 21
b. Failing to properly supervise the aisles and common areas in question so as to maintain

aisles and common areas free from hazards which were recognized or should have

been recognized by Defendants as causing or likely to cause the serious physical harm

to Plaintiff and others;

c. Failing to make reasonable inspection of the aforesaid premises wherein Plaintiff

was injured;

d. Failing to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk on the Premises;

e. Failing to properly supervise Defendants’ personnel, employees, agents, contractors,

or servants, to ensure that the Premises was maintained in an adequate manner and

free from hazards;

f. Failing to have policies and procedures

in place in regard to obstructions in aisles and

common areas of the Premises and associated unreasonable risks of harm to

foreseeable persons at the Premises;

g. Failing to develop and implement adequate procedures and mechanisms to avoid such

safety omissions which would pose risks to the safety and welfare of foreseeable

persons at the Premises;

h. Failing to develop and implement adequate procedures and mechanisms to minimize

or avoid risks posed by such omissions to the safety and welfare offoreseeable persons

at the Premises;

i. Failing to develop and implement adequate procedures and mechanisms for

monitoring and evaluating aisles and common areas of the Premises in order to minimize or avoid risks posed by obstructions in aisles and common areas of the

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID 22
Premises and to avoid such omissions thereby threatening the safety and welfare of

invitees on said premises; and

j. Was otherwise negligent on the aforesaid premises.

26. Each of the above acts and omissions, singularly or any combination of one or more, was

the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

B) Premises Liability:

27. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphsfor all purposes

the same as if set forth herein verbatim.

28. Defendants had duty to promptly make safe or warn against any unsafe and unreasonably

dangerous conditions ofwhich Defendants knew about or could have discovered with reasonable

inspection.

29. Defendants, as owners, operators and/or lessors of the Property, had duty to keep the

premises under their control in safe condition and to warn Plaintiff of such dangerous and/or

defective conditions.

30. Defendants failed to make safe the dangerous condition and/or failed to warn Plaintiff

about the condition.

31. Plaintiff was injured by defective and/or dangerous condition on the Property of which

Defendants had “actual knowledge” of before the injury occurred, and Defendants breached their

duty to promptly make safe the dangerous condition and/or warn Plaintiff, proximately causing

Plaintiff’s damages.

32. Each and every one of the foregoing acts and omissions, singularly and/or in combination

with each other, constitute negligence and was direct and proximate cause of the injuries and

damages as more fully described hereinbelow.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID 23
C) Gross Negligence:

33. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphsfor all purposes

the same as if set forth herein verbatim.

34. Defendants‘ acts and/or omissions, when Viewed objectively from the standpoint of the

actor at the time oftheir occurrence, involve an extreme degree ofrisk (considering the probability

and magnitude of the potential harm to others) and of which the actor has actual, subjective

awareness of but failed to take appropriate measures to prevent against entitling Plaintiff to

exemplary damages.

35. Plaintiff injuries and damagesresulted from Defendants' gross negligence which entitles

Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 41 .003(a).

IX. DAMAGES

36. As result of the actions and/or omissions enumerated above, Plaintiff has suffered

damages. Specifically, Plaintiff has suffered:

a. Actual damages

in the past and, in all reasonable probability, will incur actual damages

in the future;

b. Medical bills and expenses

in the past and, in all reasonable probability, medical bills

and expenses

in the future;

c. Physical pain and suffering in the past and, in all reasonable probability, physical pain

and suffering in the future;

d. Mental anguish in the past and, in all reasonable probability, mental anguish in the

future;

e. Impairmentin the past and, in all reasonable probability, impairmentin the future;

Plaintiff’s Original Petition

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID 24
f. Loss of earning capacity in the past and, in all reasonable probability, loss of earning

capacity in the future;

g. Exemplary damages

in an amount determined by the Court pursuant

to Tex. CiV. Prac.

Rem. Code 41.003;

h. Costs of court; and

i. Pre- and post-judgmentinterest at the highest rate permitted by law.

37. The negligence of Defendants proximately caused the incident made the basis of this

lawsuit and the injuries and damagesto Plaintiff complained of herein.

X. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

38. All conditions precedentto Plaintiffs claim for relief have been performed or have

occurred.

XI. ALTERNATIVE ALLEGATIONS

39. To the extent any allegation in the FACTS or CAUSES OF ACTION sections herein are

inconsistent with any other allegation, such inconsistent allegations are pled in the alternative

pursuant

to Texas Rule ofCivil Procedure 48. Further, Plaintiffreserves the rightto amend and/or

supplement this petition as the case progresses and further factual information is obtained.

XII. JURY DEMAND

40. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues presented in this action pursuantto

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216.

XIII. NOTICE OF INTENT

41. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, any and all documents produced by

Defendants in response to written discovery are intended to be used by Plaintiff and shall be

deemed properly authenticated for use in any pretrial proceeding or trial in this case.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition 10

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID 25
PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that the

Court issue citation for Defendants to appear and answer herein and that, upon final trial of this

cause, Plaintiff be awarded judgment against Defendants for the following:

a.

b.

Actual damages;

Plaintiff’s past medical expenses, which are reasonable and customary for the medical

care received by Plaintiff;

Plaintiff’s future medical expenses;

Plaintiff physical pain and suffering in the past and future;

Plaintiff mental anguish in the past and future;

Damages resulting from physical impairment

in the past and future;

Plaintiff’s loss of earning capacity

in the past and future;

Exemplary damages, as permitted under 41.003, Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code;

Costs of court;

Pre- and post-judgmentinterest as allowed by law; and

All other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, MATHIAS RAPHAEL PLLC

13101 Preston Road, Suite 501 Dallas, Texas 75240 Office: 214-739-0100

Facsimile: 214-739-0151 Damon@mrlaw.co Ori@mrlaw.co

Rabiah@mr1aw.co BY: /s/Damon Mathias Damon Mathias State Bar No. 24080170

Plaintiff’s Original Petition 11

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID 26
Ori Raphael State Bar No. 24088273 Rabiah eenah

State Bar No. 24125919

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff’s Original Petition 12

Case 3:22-cv-01633-E Document 1-4 Filed 07/27/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID 27