EXHIBIT 1

Exhibit 1 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 34 PageID 7
Court : 236 v Case : 335436 New Search 0 Show Sor'vico Documents ONLY 

Cause Number : 236-335436-22 Date Filed: 08-12-2022 

SANDRA LEDESIAA 1 VS 1 QUICKTRIP CORPORATION 

Causo of Action : INJURY OR DAIAAGE, PREMISES 

Caso Stat us : PENDING 

File Mark Description Assessed Fee Credit/Paid Fee 

08·12·2022 PLTF'S ORIG PET S350.00 

"' !§ N 

08·12·2022 PAYMENT RECEIVED trans #1 S213.00 

y 

08·12·2022 PAYMENT PAID TO STATE trans #1 S137.00 

y 

08·12·2022 CIT-ISSUED ON QUICKTRIP CORPORATION-On S8.00 

08/ 18/2022 ~ N Svc 

08·12·2022 PAYMENT RECEIVED trans #4 S8.00 

y 

08·17·2022 EJ.\Afl CIT REQ ·TO DP/ IJ so.oo 

08·23·2022 CIT RETURN • Q!JICKTRIP CORP so.oo 

11!3 

08·23·2022 Cl- Tr= 4 RE"" EXEC(QUICK'"RIP COR!'ORAIO'I\.Qn so.oo 

08/19/2022 ~ 

09·09·2022 DEFN ORIG AHS a VERIAED DENIAL so.oo 

' !l!!! 

09·09·2022 JURY REOUESTED ~ 

09·13·2022 PLTF'SAMO ORIG PET !•/·0) 

09·16· 2022 DEFN'S ORIG ANS TO PLPS 1ST AMD PET 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 34 PageID 8
EXHIBIT 2

Exhibit 2 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 34 PageID 9
CT Corporation

Service of Process Notification

08/19/2022

CT Log Number 542168620

Service of Process Transmittal Summary

TO: Marshall Wells

QuikTrip Corporation

4705 S 129th East Ave

Tulsa, OK 74134-7008

RE: Process Served in Texas

FOR: QuikTrip Corporation  (Domestic State: OK)

Page 1 of  1

ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:

 

TITLE OF ACTION: Re: SANDRA LEDESMA // To: QuikTrip Corporation

Name discrepancy noted.

CASE #: 23633543622

NATURE OF ACTION: Personal Injury - Failure to Maintain Premises in a Safe Condition

PROCESS SERVED ON: C T Corporation System, Dallas, TX

DATE/METHOD OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 08/19/2022 at 03:29

JURISDICTION SERVED: Texas

ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 08/31/2022, Expected Purge Date:

09/05/2022

Image SOP

Email Notification,  Marshall Wells  mwells@quiktrip.com

Email Notification,  Kristen Snow  ksnow@quiktrip.com

Email Notification,  Ronald Collins  rcollins@quiktrip.com

REGISTERED AGENT CONTACT: C T Corporation System

1999 Bryan Street

Suite 900

Dallas, TX 75201

866-539-8692

CorporationTeam@wolterskluwer.com

REMARKS: .

The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion,

and should not otherwise be relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other

information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s) of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the

included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other advisors as necessary. CT

disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be

contained therein.

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 4 of 34 PageID 10
Date: 

Server Name: 

Entity Served 

Case Number 

Jurisdiction 

~'~' ~--Wolters Kluwer 

PROCESS SERVER DELIVERY DETAILS 

Fri, Aug 19, 2022 

Krystal Taylor 

QUICKTRIP CORPORATION DBA QUICKTRIP 

236-335436-22 

TX 

Inserts 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 5 of 34 PageID 11
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

DISTRICT COURT, TARRANT COUNTY 

' 

CITATION Cause No. 236-335436-22 

SANDRA LEDESMA 

vs. 

QUICKTRIP CORPORATION 

TO: QUICKTRIP CORPORATION 

D/B/A QUICKTRIP B/S REG AGENT-CI' CORPORATION SYSTEM 1999 BRYAN ST STE 900 DALIJ\.5, TX 75201· 

You said DEFENDANT are hereby commanded to appear by filing a written answer to the PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL 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 236th 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 

SANDRA LEDESMA 

Filed in said Court on August 12th, 2022 Against 

QUICKTRIP CORPORATION, D/B/A QUICKTRIP 

For suit, said suit being numbered 236-335436·22 the nature of which demand is as shown on said 

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

JULIE WOLF 

Attorney for SANDRA LEDESMA Phone No. (972)338-4477 

Address 12222 MERIT DR STE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75251 

Thomas A. Wilder , Clerk of the District Court of Tarrant 

of said Court, at office in the City of Fort Worth, this the 18th day of 

County, Texas. Given 

August, 2022. 

-.-

NYKOLE( 9~f2 r 

under my hand and the seal 

NOTICE: You haw: been sued. You may employ an atiDmoy. If you or your anomoy do noc file a wrinoa ;wwor whb lho elert who Issued chis dlation by 10:00 AM. on lho Monday DOll following !he upiratioo of 

!WOoly days allor you wore served Ibis elation and potilioo. a default jwlgmoat may be !aUn agaiDSl you. In addition lO filing a writlOo answer wilh lho clerk. you may be reCfllrcd ID make Initial disclosures 

10 lho other panics oflhls sui!. These disclosures generally mull be mode no later than 30 days after you file your answer with the clcrt. F-.nd out more at TeusLawHelp.org. 

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

OfFICER'S RETURN *23633543622000004* 

Received this Citation on the ___ day of , __ at ___ o'clock _M; and executed at 

-----------------within the county of --------• State of at o'clock _M 

on the ---- day of --------• __ by delivering to the within named (Def.) : 

defendant(s), a true copy of this Citation together with the accompanying copy of PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL 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 ----------• State of---------

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 6 of 34 PageID 12
CITATION 

Cause No. 236-335436-22 

SANDRA LEDESMA 

vs. 

QUICKTRIP CORPORATION 

ISSUED 

This 18th day of August, 2022 

Thomas A. Wilder 

Tarrant County District Clerk 

100 N CALHOUN 

FORT WORTH TX 76196-0402 

By NYKOLE TAYLOR Deputy 

JULIE WOLF 

Attorney for: SANDRA LEDESMA 

Phone No. (972)338-4477 

ADDRESS: 12222 MERIT DR STE 1200 

DALLAS, TX 75251 

CIVIL LAW 

*23633543622000004* 

SERVICE FEES NOT COLLECTED 

BY TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

ORIGINAL 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 7 of 34 PageID 13
236-335436-22 

CAUSE NO. _____ _ 

FILED 

TARRANT COUNTY 

8/12/2022 10:20 AM 

THOMAS A. WILDER 

DISTRICT CLERK 

SANDRA LEDESMA, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

v. ___ JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

QUICKTRIP CORPORATION d/b/a 

QUICKTRIP 

Defendant. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: ... 

COMES NOW, Sandra Ledesma, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff'), who files this 

Plaintiffs Original Petition against QUICKTRIP CORPORATION D/B/A QUICKTRIP 

(hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"), and respectfully shows this Court as follows: 

I. TEXAS RULE 47 DAMAGES STATEMENT 

Plaintiff prefers to have a judge or a jury determine the fair amount of compensation for 

Plaintiffs damages, and Plaintiff places the decision regarding the amount of compensation to be 

awarded in the jury or judge's hands. However, pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff is required to provide a statement regarding the amount of monetary relief 

sought. Accordingly, Plaintiff states that the monetary relief sought is more than $250,000 but 

not more than $1 ,000,000.00. 

Plaintiff submits this action under Discovery Control Plan II, per Rule 190.3 of the Texas 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. PARTIES AND SERVICE 

Plaintiff is a resident of Fort Worth, Texas. 

Defendant QUIKTRIP CORPORATION., (hereinafter referred to as "QUIKTRIP") is a 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 1 ofS 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 8 of 34 PageID 14
foreign for-profit corporation, doing business in the State of Texas. Defendant may be served by 

serving its registered agent, CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 1999 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 

900, DALLAS, TEXAS 7520 I. 

III. JURISDICTION 

This Court has jurisdiction as Plaintiffs damages exceed the minimum jurisdictional 

limits of this Court. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant as Defendant 

performed work, and/or hired personnel to perform work in the State of Texas. 

IV. VENUE 

Venue is proper in Tarrant County, Texas, pursuant to 15.002 (3) of the Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code, because the events giving rise the cause of action occurred in 

Tarrant, County. 

V. FACTS 

At all times relevant, Defendant was the possessor in control of the QuickTrip located at 

1101 Hemphill Street, Ft. Worth, Texas 76104. (hereinafter referred to as the "premises"). 

On or about October 13, 2020, Plaintiff was inside of the premises when she slipped and 

fell on a very slippery substance on the floor. This fall caused Plaintiff significant personal 

mJunes. 

VI. NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT 

Defendant was the owner, operator, or in control of the premises. Plaintiff was in invitee 

at the time of the injury because she was a customer at QuickTrip. Defendant thus owed Plaintiff 

the duty to inspect the premises and maintain them in a reasonably safe condition. The condition 

of the premises posed an unreasonable risk of hann in that the condition of the floor was 

extremely dangerous. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the condition of the 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2 ofS 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 9 of 34 PageID 15
premises because the slippery area on the floor was large. It appeared that the condition was 

there for a long period of time within close proximity to Defendant's employees that a 

reasonable inspection would have revealed the condition. The area where Plaintiff fell is a high 

traffic area that commonly has conditions that need attending to, and therefore Defendant was 

responsible for ensuring the safety of its patrons, and a reasonable inspection of the premises 

would have revealed the dangerous condition. 

At all relevant times Defendant was guilty of negligence towards Plaintiff in the 

following respects: 

a. Failing to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for Plaintiff; 

b. Failing to inspect the premises to discover the wet, slippery, slick substance on 

the floor, a latent defect; 

c. Failure to remove substance on the floor; 

d. Failure to provide warning and/or adequate warning of the substance on the floor 

or dangerous condition by posting signage, a barrier, or other marker indicating 

the presence of danger; and 

e. Failure to take any action to eliminate or reduce the unreasonable risk of danger 

presented by the substance on the floor. 

Defendant's failure to use reasonable care was a proximate cause of Plaintiff sustaining 

injuries and damages that are described below. 

VII. DAMAGES 

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered severe 

injuries, mental and physical functioning, and disfigurement, for which Plaintiff required 

extensive medical treatment and has incurred medical bills. Plaintiff also suffered severe 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3 of 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 10 of 34 PageID 16
physical and mental pain, suffering, physical and mental impairment, depression, physical and 

mental disability, anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. 

In all reasonable probability, Plaintiff will continue to suffer in this manner for a long 

time into the future, if not for the balance of her life. Solely as a result of the injuries she 

sustained due to Defendant's conduct and/or omissions, Plaintiff has incurred doctors', and 

medical expenses. There is a more than reasonable probability that Plaintiff will incur additional 

expenses for necessary medical care and attention in the future for the injuries she incurred in the 

incident in sums unknown at this time. 

VIII. NOTICE OF INTENT 

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 per the Texas Rules of 

Civil Procedure 193.7. 

PRAYER 

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

appear and answer in this cause and that, upon final trial, Plaintiff be awarded a final judgment 

against Defendant for the following: 

a. All reasonable and necessary past medical expenses; 

b. A sum for future medical expenses and treatment; 

c. Monetary damages for past physical pain and suffering and mental anguish in an 

amount to be established at trial; 

d. Monetary damages for future physical pain and suffering and mental anguish; 

e. Past and future physical impairment as detem1ined by a jury; 

f. Past and future disfigurement; 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4 ofS 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 11 of 34 PageID 17
g. Lost wages; 

h. Costs of Court; 

1. Pre-judgment interest on all damages awarded at the highest legal rate; 

J. Post-judgment interest on all sums awarded herein at the highest legal rate until 

paid; and 

k. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled at law or in 

equity, specific or general. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

Respectfully submitted, 

Wolf Law, PLLC 

~:;i~WaM: Texas Bar No. 24051542 

julie@wolflawpllc.com 

12222 Merit Dr., Suite 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75251 

Tel. (972) 338-4477 

Fax. (972) 338-5044 

Attorney for Plaint([{ 

Page 5 ofS 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 12 of 34 PageID 18
EXHIBIT 3

Exhibit 3 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 13 of 34 PageID 19
QUICKTRIP CORPORATION d/b/a 

QUICKTRIP, 

Defendant. 

§ § § § 

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIAL 

Defendant QuickTrip Corporation d/b/a QuickTrip ("QuikTrip" or "Defendant") files this 

Original Answer and Verified Denial to Plaintiff's Original Petition and, in support thereof, would 

respectfully show as follows: 

I. 

VERIFIED DENIAL 

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

denies that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant in the capacity in which it has been 

sued. Specifically, Defendant denies that "QuickTrip Corporation, d/b/a QuickTrip" owned or 

operated the store or premises at issue on the date of this incident. Consequently, Plaintiff has 

no right or potential right of recovery against Defendant because the proper party has not been 

sued. See, e.g., Ray Malooly Trust v. Juhl, 186 S.W.3d 568, 571 (Tex. 2006). 

II. 

GENERAL DENIAL 

2. Defendant denies each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff's 

Original Petition, and all amendments and supplements thereto, demands strict proof thereof, 

and to the extent that such matters are questions of fact, says Plaintiff should prove such facts 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIAL Page 1 
by a preponderance of the evidence and/or clear and convincing evidence to a jury} if she can so 

do. 

Ill. 

DEFENSES AND LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES AND LIABILITY 

3. Defendant specifically denies Plaintiffs claims that it was negligent. 

4. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's contributory negligence} actions} or omissions 

were the sole} producing} or proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages br injuries} if any} as Plaintiff 

failed to keep a proper lookout for the alleged unreasonably dangerous condition. 

5. To the extent applicable} Defendant may show that the acts or omissions of third 

persons not under the control of Defendant were the sole} producing} or proximate cause of 

Plaintiffs damages or injuries} if any. 

6. Defendant asserts that it had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the 

condition about which Plaintiff complains and that} in any event} the alleged hazard was not 

uunreasonably dangerous.}} 

7. Defendant may further show that the damages of which Plaintiff complains} if any} 

were the result of prior} pre-existing} or subsequent injuries} accidents} or conditions} and said 

prior} pre-existing} or subsequent injuries} accidents} or conditions were the sole or a contributing 

cause of Plaintiffs damages} if any. 

8. Defendant may further show that Plaintiff breached her duty to mitigate damages 

by failing to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss and minimize the consequences 

of damages. 

9. Defendant may further show that Plaintiff is malingering as that term is known in 

the law. 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIAL Page 2 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 15 of 34 PageID 21
10. Defendant may further show that the accident complained of was an unavoidable 

accident as that term is known in law. 

11. Defendant further asserts that 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. 

12. Defendant asserts that it is entitled to contribution, indemnity, and all available 

credits as provided for in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and under Texas law, in the 

unlikely event that an adverse judgment is rendered against it in this matter. 

13. Defendant contends that, pursuant to § 18.091 of the Texas Civil Practice & 

Remedies Code, to the extent 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 this alleged loss 

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. 

Ill. 

SPECIAL EXCEPTION 

14. Answering further herein, Defendant also 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 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 per the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure 193.7." However, Rule 193.7 requires that the party invoking Rule 193.7 provide 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIAL Page 3 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 16 of 34 PageID 22
"actual notice that the document will be used" to the producing party.

1 Furthermore, "the tenday 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 VIII of Plaintiff's Original Petition, titled "NOTICE OF INTENT" in its 

entirety. 

IV. 

COURT REPORTER REQUESTED 

15. Defendant respectfully demand a court reporter be present at all proceedings 

before the Court. 

v. 

JURY DEMAND 

16. Defendant asserts its right to a trial by jury under the Texas Constitution Article 1, 

section 15, and makes this demand for a trial by jury on all triable issues that are presented in 

this case in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 216. 

2 

TEX. R. Civ. P. 193.7 (2021) (emphasis added). 

/d., cmt. 7 (emphasis added). 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIAL Page 4 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 17 of 34 PageID 23
VI. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully prays that Plaintiff take 

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

its behalf, and for such other and further reliefto which Defendant may show itself justly entitled, 

in law or in equity. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ B. Kyle Briscoe 

B. Kyle Briscoe 

State Bar No. 24069421 

kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com 

Nicolas M. Lund 

State Bar No. 24084391 

nlund@peavlerbriscoe.com 

PEAVLER I BRISCOE 

2215 Westgate Plaza 

Grapevine, Texas 76051 

(214) 999-0550 (telephone) 

(214) 999-0551 (facsimile) 

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 pursuant to and in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure on September 9, 2022. 

Is/ B. Kvle Briscoe 

B. Kyle Briscoe 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIAL Page 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 18 of 34 PageID 24
STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF TARRANT 

§ 

§ 

§ 

VERIFICATION 

Before me, the undersigned authority, did personally appear Nicolas M. Lund, who upon 

his oath deposes and says that he is one of the attorneys for Defendant, that he has never been 

convicted of a disqualifying crime, and that he is over the age of 21 and competent to make this 

verification. Accordingly, he verifies that the facts alleged in Paragraph 1 of the foregoing 

pleading are true and correct. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this fA.~ day of Se..'X~~'oo...< '2022. 

REMIGIO G DIMARCO 

Notary 10/1132891414 

My Commission Expires 

January 2 7, 20 25 

NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Texas 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIAL Page 6 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 19 of 34 PageID 25
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: 68112687

Status as of 9/9/2022 2:19 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Wolf Law PLLC service@wolflawpllc.com 9/9/2022 2:04:16 PM SENT

Nicolas MLund nlund@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/9/2022 2:04:16 PM SENT

Kyle Briscoe kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/9/2022 2:04:16 PM SENT

Brandi Spillers bspillers@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/9/2022 2:04:16 PM SENT

Jennifer Renfro jrenfro@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/9/2022 2:04:16 PM SENT

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 20 of 34 PageID 26
EXHIBIT 4

Exhibit 4 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 21 of 34 PageID 27
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 1 of 5

CAUSE NO. 236-335436-22

SANDRA LEDESMA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

QUIKTRIP CORPORATION d/b/a 

QUIKTRIP

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

236th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 

 TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

 COMES NOW, Sandra Ledesma, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), who files this 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition against QUIKTRIP CORPORATION D/B/A QUIKTRIP

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), and respectfully shows this Court as follows:

I. TEXAS RULE 47 DAMAGES STATEMENT

Plaintiff prefers to have a judge or a jury determine the fair amount of compensation for 

Plaintiff’s damages, and Plaintiff places the decision regarding the amount of compensation to be 

awarded in the jury or judge’s hands. However, pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff is required to provide a statement regarding the amount of monetary relief 

sought. Accordingly, Plaintiff states that the monetary relief sought is more than $250,000 but 

not more than $1,000,000.00.

Plaintiff submits this action under Discovery Control Plan II, per Rule 190.3 of the Texas 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. PARTIES AND SERVICE

Plaintiff is a resident of Fort Worth, Texas.

Defendant QUIKTRIP CORPORATION., (hereinafter referred to as “QUIKTRIP”) is a 

236-335436-22 FILED

TARRANT COUNTY

9/13/2022 12:24 PM

THOMAS A. WILDER

DISTRICT CLERK

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 22 of 34 PageID 28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 2 of 5

foreign for-profit corporation, doing business in the State of Texas. Defendant may be served by 

serving its registered agent, CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 1999 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 

900, DALLAS, TEXAS 75201. Issuance of Citation is NOT requested at this time. 

III. JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction as Plaintiff’s damages exceed the minimum jurisdictional 

limits of this Court. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant as Defendant

performed work, and/or hired personnel to perform work in the State of Texas. 

IV. VENUE

Venue is proper in Tarrant County, Texas, pursuant to 15.002 (3) of the Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code, because the events giving rise the cause of action occurred in 

Tarrant, County. 

V. FACTS

At all times relevant, Defendant was the possessor in control of the QuikTrip located at 

1101 Hemphill Street, Ft. Worth, Texas 76104. (hereinafter referred to as the “premises”).

On or about October 13, 2020, Plaintiff was inside of the premises when she slipped and 

fell on a very slippery substance on the floor. This fall caused Plaintiff significant personal 

injuries. 

VI. NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT 

Defendant was the owner, operator, or in control of the premises. Plaintiff was in invitee 

at the time of the injury because she was a customer at QuikTrip. Defendant thus owed Plaintiff 

the duty to inspect the premises and maintain them in a reasonably safe condition. The condition 

of the premises posed an unreasonable risk of harm in that the condition of the floor was

extremely dangerous. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the condition of the 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 23 of 34 PageID 29
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 3 of 5

premises because the slippery area on the floor was large. It appeared that the condition was 

there for a long period of time within close proximity to Defendant’s employees that a 

reasonable inspection would have revealed the condition. The area where Plaintiff fell is a high 

traffic area that commonly has conditions that need attending to, and therefore Defendant was 

responsible for ensuring the safety of its patrons, and a reasonable inspection of the premises 

would have revealed the dangerous condition. 

At all relevant times Defendant was guilty of negligence towards Plaintiff in the 

following respects:

a. Failing to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for Plaintiff;

b. Failing to inspect the premises to discover the wet, slippery, slick substance on 

the floor, a latent defect;

c. Failure to remove substance on the floor;

d. Failure to provide warning and/or adequate warning of the substance on the floor 

or dangerous condition by posting signage, a barrier, or other marker indicating 

the presence of danger; and

e. Failure to take any action to eliminate or reduce the unreasonable risk of danger 

presented by the substance on the floor.

Defendant’s failure to use reasonable care was a proximate cause of Plaintiff sustaining 

injuries and damages that are described below. 

VII. DAMAGES

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered severe 

injuries, mental and physical functioning, and disfigurement, for which Plaintiff required 

extensive medical treatment and has incurred medical bills. Plaintiff also suffered severe 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 24 of 34 PageID 30
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 4 of 5

physical and mental pain, suffering, physical and mental impairment, depression, physical and 

mental disability, anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.

In all reasonable probability, Plaintiff will continue to suffer in this manner for a long 

time into the future, if not for the balance of her life. Solely as a result of the injuries she 

sustained due to Defendant’s conduct and/or omissions, Plaintiff has incurred doctors’, and 

medical expenses. There is a more than reasonable probability that Plaintiff will incur additional 

expenses for necessary medical care and attention in the future for the injuries she incurred in the 

incident in sums unknown at this time. 

VIII. NOTICE OF INTENT

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 per the Texas Rules of 

Civil Procedure 193.7.

PRAYER

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

appear and answer in this cause and that, upon final trial, Plaintiff be awarded a final judgment 

against Defendant for the following:

a. All reasonable and necessary past medical expenses;

b. A sum for future medical expenses and treatment;

c. Monetary damages for past physical pain and suffering and mental anguish in an 

amount to be established at trial; 

d. Monetary damages for future physical pain and suffering and mental anguish;

e. Past and future physical impairment as determined by a jury;

f. Past and future disfigurement;

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 25 of 34 PageID 31
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 5 of 5

g. Lost wages;

h. Costs of Court;

i. Pre-judgment interest on all damages awarded at the highest legal rate;

j. Post-judgment interest on all sums awarded herein at the highest legal rate until 

paid; and

k. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled at law or in 

equity, specific or general.

Respectfully submitted,

Wolf Law, PLLC

By: 

Julie Wolf

Texas Bar No. 24051542

julie@wolflawpllc.com

12222 Merit Dr., Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75251

Tel. (972) 338-4477

Fax. (972) 338-5044

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 26 of 34 PageID 32
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.

Julie Wolf on behalf of Julie Wolf

Bar No. 24051542

julie@wolflawpllc.com

Envelope ID: 68201946

Status as of 9/13/2022 12:40 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Nicolas MLund nlund@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/13/2022 12:24:50 PM SENT

Kyle Briscoe kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/13/2022 12:24:50 PM SENT

Brandi Spillers bspillers@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/13/2022 12:24:50 PM SENT

Wolf Law PLLC service@wolflawpllc.com 9/13/2022 12:24:50 PM SENT

Jennifer Renfro jrenfro@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/13/2022 12:24:50 PM SENT

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 27 of 34 PageID 33
EXHIBIT 5

Exhibit 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 28 of 34 PageID 34
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 1

CAUSE NO. 236-335436-22

SANDRA LEDESMA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 236

th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

QUICKTRIP CORPORATION d/b/a

QUICKTRIP,

§

§

Defendant. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION

COMES NOW, Defendant QuikTrip Corporation, filing this, its Original Answer to Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Petition, respectfully showing as follows:

I.

GENERAL DENIAL

Defendant QuikTrip Corporation denies each and every material allegation contained in 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition, and all amendments and supplements thereto, 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 and/or clear and convincing evidence to a 

jury, if she can so do.

II.

DEFENSES AND LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES AND LIABILITY

1. Defendant specifically denies Plaintiff’s claims that it was negligent.

2. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's contributory negligence, actions, or omissions 

were the sole, producing, or proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages or injuries, if any, as Plaintiff 

failed to keep a proper lookout for the alleged unreasonably dangerous condition.

236-335436-22

FILED

TARRANT COUNTY

9/16/2022 11:27 AM

THOMAS A. WILDER

DISTRICT CLERK

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 29 of 34 PageID 35
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 2

3. To the extent applicable, Defendant may show that the acts or omissions of third 

persons not under the control of Defendant were the sole, producing, or proximate cause of 

Plaintiff’s damages or injuries, if any.

4. Defendant asserts that it had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the 

condition about which Plaintiff complains and that, in any event, the alleged hazard was not 

“unreasonably dangerous.”

5. Defendant may further show that the damages of which Plaintiff complains, if any, 

were the result of prior, pre-existing, or subsequent injuries, accidents, or conditions, and said 

prior, pre-existing, or subsequent injuries, accidents, or conditions were the sole or a contributing 

cause of Plaintiff’s damages, if any.

6. Defendant may further show that Plaintiff breached her duty to mitigate damages 

by failing to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss and minimize the consequences 

of damages.

7. Defendant may further show that Plaintiff is malingering as that term is known in 

the law.

8. Defendant may further show that the accident complained of was an unavoidable 

accident as that term is known in law.

9. Defendant further asserts that 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.

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 30 of 34 PageID 36
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 3

10. Defendant asserts that it is entitled to contribution, indemnity, and all available 

credits as provided for in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and under Texas law, in the 

unlikely event that an adverse judgment is rendered against it in this matter.

11. Defendant contends that, pursuant to § 18.091 of the Texas Civil Practice & 

Remedies Code, to the extent 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 this alleged loss 

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.

III

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS

Answering further herein, Defendant also 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 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 per 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.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 

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

2

Id., cmt. 7 (emphasis added).

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 31 of 34 PageID 37
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 4

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 

VIII of Plaintiff’s Original Petition, titled “NOTICE OF INTENT” in its entirety.

IV

COURT REPORTER REQUESTED

Defendant respectfully demand a court reporter be present at all proceedings before this 

Honorable Court.

V

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully prays that: (a) Plaintiff 

take nothing by this cause of action; (b) this Honorable Court strike the identified portions of 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition for the reasons set forth herein; (c) Defendant be permitted to 

recover from Plaintiff the costs and fees expended on Defendant’s behalf in defense of this 

matter; and (d) this Honorable Court award Defendant all such other and further relief to which 

Defendant may show itself justly entitled, both at law and in equity.

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 32 of 34 PageID 38
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION Page 5

Respectfully submitted,

PEAVLER | BRISCOE

/s/ B. Kyle Briscoe

B. Kyle Briscoe

State Bar No. 24069421

kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com

Nicolas M. Lund

State Bar No. 24084391

nlund@peavlerbriscoe.com

PEAVLER | BRISCOE

2215 Westgate Plaza

Grapevine, Texas 76051

(214) 999-0550 (telephone)

(214) 999-0551 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned Counsel for Defendant hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record pursuant to and in 

accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on September 16, 2022.

/s/ B. Kyle Briscoe

B. Kyle Briscoe 

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 33 of 34 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 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: 68330723

Status as of 9/16/2022 11:36 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Nicolas MLund nlund@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/16/2022 11:27:20 AM SENT

Kyle Briscoe kbriscoe@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/16/2022 11:27:20 AM SENT

Brandi Spillers bspillers@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/16/2022 11:27:20 AM SENT

Wolf Law PLLC service@wolflawpllc.com 9/16/2022 11:27:20 AM SENT

Jennifer Renfro jrenfro@peavlerbriscoe.com 9/16/2022 11:27:20 AM SENT

Case 4:22-cv-00824-O Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/22 Page 34 of 34 PageID 40