Plaintiff’s Original Petition -- Page 1

CAUSE NO. ________________

NATHAN HANSEN,

 Plaintiff,

V.

WINDSONG RANCH 

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 

INC., TELLUS GROUP, LLC, AND 

CAPITAL CONSULTANTS 

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§ 

§

§ 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff Nathan Hansen (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Hansen”) files his Original 

Petition, complaining of Defendants Windsong Ranch Community Association, 

Inc. (“Windsong”), Tellus Group, LLC (“Tellus”), and Capital Consultants 

Management Corporation (“CCMC”)(collectively, “Defendants”), and alleges as 

follows:

I. 

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level III of Texas Rules of 

Civil Procedure 190.4.

FILED: 5/1/2023 8:59 AM

David Trantham

Denton County District Clerk

By: Rebecca Moss, Deputy

23-2967-393

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 37
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition -- Page 2

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Venue is proper in Denton County under §15.002(1) of the TEXAS CIVIL 

PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE, because Denton County, Texas is where all or a 

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

3. Subject matter jurisdiction exists because the amount in controversy 

exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

4. Personal jurisdiction over Defendants exists because Defendants transact

business in the State of Texas, owned or controlled the premises where the occurrence 

in question took place, and/or committed torts in Texas.

5. Plaintiff seeks relief in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 47(c)(3).

III.

PARTIES AND SERVICE

6. Plaintiff Nathan Hansen is an individual residing in Denton County,

Texas. The last three digits of Plaintiff’s driver’s license are 655.

7. Defendant Windsong Ranch Community Association, Inc. is a 

domestic nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, 

Arizona. Service has been perfected to Defendant’s registered agent.

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 38
Plaintiff’s Original Petition -- Page 3

8. Defendant Tellus Group, LLC is a foreign limited liability company 

organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. Service has been perfected to Defendant’s registered agent.

9. Defendant Capital Consultants Management Corporation is a domestic 

for-profit corporation with its principal place of business located at 8360 E. Via De 

Ventura, Suite L-100, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258. The registered agent’s address on 

the Secretary of State website is no longer correct. As a result, service may be had 

upon Defendant by serving the Secretary of State of Texas, 1019 Brazos Street, 

Austin, Texas 78701.

IV.

ASSUMED NAMES AND ALTER EGOS

10. Under TEX. R. CIV. PRO. R. 28 Plaintiff brings suit against all joint 

ventures, partnerships, unincorporated associations, individuals, entities, successors 

in interest and private companies doing business under assumed names, shell 

companies, or alter egos of the listed Defendant.

V.

FACTS

11. This is a simple case arising from a homeowner association, developer,

and management company failing to warn others of a dangerous condition 

Defendants had knowledge of. 

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 39
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition -- Page 4

12. On June 12, 2021, Defendants were in possession and/or control of the 

premises when Mr. Hansen was invited to recreationally use the biking trails that 

were part of his homeowner community. Unknown to Mr. Hansen, Defendants had 

failed to properly care for the recreational area. This included but was not limited to

failing to monitor or address a drainage problem caused by a water leak and/or 

sewage leak. Upon information and belief, neither leak was cleaned or addressed 

and the sidewalk on the trail remained wet and slick as a result. The sidewalk 

remained covered with water or another substance to the point that it became stained. 

13. Mr. Hansen was riding his bike and crossed the area that was wet and 

slippery. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff’s bike slipped out from under him and Plaintiff 

hit the ground and immediately knew his arm was broken.

14. Mr. Hansen soon learned that he wasn’t the first person to fall at that 

location and that complaints of the condition of the same location had been made to 

Defendants.

VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

NEGLIGENCE

15. Plaintiff restates and incorporates the allegations contained in the 

preceding paragraphs.

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 40
Plaintiff’s Original Petition -- Page 5

16. Defendants owed duties to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of 

their premises. Defendants owed duties to not create or leave unreasonably 

dangerous conditions on the premises, and to not cause foreseeable injuries to future 

residents and users of the premises.

17. Defendants breached their duties in all or some of the following ways:

a. By failing to mitigate a drainage problem causing a dangerous 

condition;

b. By failing to adequately clean the area at or near the leak causing 

a dangerous condition;

c. By failing to warn others of the dangerous condition it had 

created; 

d. Defendants failed to act as reasonably prudent owner and 

management company would under the same or similar 

circumstances.

18. Each of these acts and omissions proximately caused the occurrence in 

question and Plaintiff’s damages.

PREMISES NEGLIGENCE

19. Plaintiff restates and incorporates the allegations contained in the 

preceding paragraphs. In addition to the above or in the alternative, Plaintiff will 

show as follows.

20. Defendants were in control of the premises at the time that a latent, 

unreasonably dangerous condition was created.

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 41
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition -- Page 6

21. Mr. Hansen was an invitee on the premises at the time of the occurrence 

in question

22. Defendants created an unreasonably dangerous condition. Additionally, 

or in the alternative, Defendants knew or should have known about the latent, 

unreasonably dangerous condition.

23. Defendants breached their duties by failing to make the premises safe 

from unreasonably dangerous conditions and by failing to adequately warn 

foreseeable users/invitees of the unreasonably dangerous conditions on the property 

prior to the occurrence in question.

24. Defendants’ breach of their duties proximately caused the occurrence 

in question and Plaintiff’s damages.

NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING

25. To the extent that duties under ordinary negligence or premises 

negligence do not otherwise exist, Defendants undertook to perform services and 

knew or should have known that the application of ordinary care during the 

performance of those services was necessary for the protection of foreseeable users 

of the premises such as Mr. Hansen.

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 42
Plaintiff’s Original Petition -- Page 7

26. Defendants failed to use ordinary care in the performance of their

services they undertook in all or some of the following ways:

a. Defendants failed to adequately inspect their property and failed 

to remedy the defects located on the property;

b. Defendants failed to warn others of the dangerous condition on 

the property; 

c. Defendants allowed the wet portion of the sidewalk become a 

latent defect by allowing it to become covered in a film; and 

d. Defendants failed to act as a reasonably prudent management 

company, developer, and/or homeowner association would 

under the same or similar circumstances.

27. Defendants’ negligent performance of the services it undertook 

increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff relied upon Defendants’

performance of its services to his detriment.

28. Defendants’ negligent performance of the services it undertook was a 

proximate cause of the occurrence in question and Plaintiff’s damages.

VII.

DAMAGES

29. As a result of the incident described herein, Plaintiff hasincurred medical 

expenses in the past and in all reasonable probability such medical expenses will 

continue in the future.

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 43
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition -- Page 8

30. Plaintiff has experienced mental anguish and emotional distress in the 

past and in all reasonable probability such mental anguish and emotional distress will 

continue in the future.

31. Plaintiff has experienced physical pain and suffering in the past and in all 

reasonable probability such physical pain and suffering will continue in the future.

32. Plaintiff has experienced physical impairment in the past and in all 

reasonable probability will suffer physical impairment in the future.

33. Plaintiff has experienced physical disfigurement in the past and in all 

reasonable probability will suffer physical disfigurement in the future.

34. Plaintiff has experienced lost wages in the past and in all reasonable 

probability will suffer lost wages or lost earning capacity in the future.

VIII.

CLAIM FOR PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

35. Plaintiff claims interest in accordance with TEXAS FINANCE CODE 

§304.001 et seq. and any other applicable law.

IX.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants

be cited to appear and answer herein and upon final hearing of this cause, Plaintiff 

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 44
Plaintiff’s Original Petition -- Page 9

has judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages described 

herein, for costs of suit, pre-judgment and post judgment interest permitted by law, 

and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT H. PALMER, P.C.

______________________

PAUL E. GREEN

State Bar No. 24081405

GRANT K. GERLEMAN

State Bar No. 24083065

SCOTT H. PALMER

State Bar No. 00797196

15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 540

Addison, Texas 75001

Telephone: 214.987.4100

Facsimile: 214.922.9900

grant@scottpalmerlaw.com

paul@scottpalmerlaw.com

scott@scottpalmerlaw.com

e-service: 

heather@scottpalmerlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 4:23-cv-00406-ALM Document 2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 45