EXHIBIT 

B 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 62
~ .

In the Superior Court of th~ State of-ArFzona

Il 8 r1[I Fnr tF~a ('n~ ~nfii of ~.n ~i ~ i n~ l_

ca CV2017-014382

C1VtL I:UVtR SHEET- NEW FILING ONLY

(PJease Type or Print)

Plaintiff's Attorney ~~/1~ l . ~(J.v~"L.(~.v~~,~~G~.

Attorney Bar Number (7 ~ ~ ~_ _~

MpIC~HAEL K. d.~AP;F~E. v~ERK..,.

Is Interpreter Needed'! ~ ~~~~~

If yes, what language: ~„~~?"'~'

A. h~cL~~~~. F~IIE~j

•~~

Plaintiff's Name(s): (List all) Plaintiff's Address: Phone #: Email Address:

~ (E. C.~e~a=GLi3i~1 c.~.. eZ~, ~ e~r,~.w~e~ Jv o~ac . cA ►Y. Pl~~.o~tx , ~z~~D l ~c (List additional plaintiffs on page two and/or attach a separate sheet).

Defendants Narne(s): (List All) v,s.~.

(List additional defendants on page two and/or attach a separate sheet)

❑ 

EMERGENCY ORDER SOUGHT: ❑Temporary Restraining Order ❑Provisional Remedy ❑ OSC Election Challenge ❑Employer Sanction ❑Other

. (Specify). ❑ RULE 

civil actions 

8(i) COMPLEX 

that require 

LITIGATION 

continuous 

APPLIES. 

judicial management. 

Rule 8(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure defines a "Complex Case" as

substantial amount of documentary evidence, and a 

A typical case involves a large number of witnesses, a

large number of separately represented parties. (Mark appropriate box onpage two as to complexity, in addition t~ the Nature of Action case category.) ❑ THIS 

only.) 

CASE 

Rule 8.1 

IS ELIGIBLE 

defines a 

FOR 

commercial 

THE COMMERCIAL 

case and 

COURT UNDER EXPERIMENTAL RULE 8.1. (Maricopa County

commercial case primarily involves issues arising 

establishes eligibility criteria for the commercial court. Generally, a

consumer transactions are not eligible. A 

from a bu~.iness contract or business transaction. However,

household purposes. Please review• 

consumer 

Rule 

transact~n is one that is primarily for personal, family or

httP://www.suReriorcourt.maricopa.gov/commercial-court/. 8.7 for a complete list of the criteria. See

case. In addition, mark the appropriate 

You crust check this box if this is an eligible commercial

"commercial court assignment requested" 

box below in the "Nature of Action" case category. The words must appear in the caption of the original complaint.

NATURE OF ACTION

(Place an "X" next to the one case category that most accurately describes your primary case.)

100 RT MOTOR VEHICLE:

101 Non-Death/Personal Injury

[]102 Property Damage

❑103 Wrongful Death

110 TORT NON-MOTOR VEHICLE:

[111 Negligence

❑112 Product Liability—Asbestos

❑ 12 Product Liability—Tobacco

~ 112 Product Liability — Toxi er

❑113 Intentional Tort

❑114 Property Damage

❑115 Legal Malpractice

❑115 Malpractice —Other professional

❑1'17 Premises Liability

0118 Slander/LibeUDefamation

[]118 Other (Specify)

120 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE:

❑121 Physician M.D.

❑12? Physician D.O

❑123 Hospital

❑ 124 Other

Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Page 1 of 2 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CV10f — 010116

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 2 of 62
Case No.

f

,~

130 CONTRACTS:

❑131 Account (Open or Stated)

❑132 Promissory Note

❑133 Foreclosure

❑138 Buyer-Plaintiff

❑139 Fraud

❑134 Other Contract (i.e. Sreach of Contract)

❑135 Excess Proceeds-Safe

❑Construction Defects (Residential/Commercial)

❑136 Six to Nineteen Structures

❑137 Twenty or More Structures

'150-199 OTHER CIVIL CASE TYPES:

❑156 Eminent Domain/Condemnation

❑152 

❑151. Eviction Actions (Forcible and Special Detainers) Change of Name

❑153 Transcript of Judgment

❑154 Foreign Judgment

❑158 Quiet Title

❑160 Forfeiture

❑175 Election Challenge

❑179 NCGEmployer Sanction Action (A. R. S. §23-212)

❑181 

❑180 Injunction against Workplace Harassment Injunction against Harassment

❑182 Civil Penalty

❑187 

❑186 Water Rights (Not General Stream Adjudication) Real Property

❑ Special Action against Lower Courts (See lower court appeal cover sheet in Maricopa)

❑194 Immigration Enforcement Challenge (§§1-501, 1-502, 11-1051)

150-199 UNCLASSIFfED CIVIL:

[] Administrative Review

(See lower court appeal cover sheet in Maricopa)

❑150 Tax Appeal

(All 

co~rt~

other tax matters must be filed in the AZ Tax

❑155 Declaratory Judgment

[1157 Habeas Corpus

[184 Landlord Tenant Dispute-'Other [}190 Declaration of Factual Innocence

(A.R.5.§12-771)

❑193 

❑191 Declaration of Factual Improper Party Status Vulnerable Adult (A. R. S. §46-451) []165 Tribal Judgment

❑167 Structured Settlement (A.R:S. §12-2901)

❑169 Attorney Conservatorships 

❑170 

(State Bar) Unauthorized 

❑171 

Practice of Law (State Bar)

❑'72 

Out-of-State Deposition for Foreign Jurisdiction Secure Attendance of Prisoner

❑i73 Assurance of Discontinuance

❑174 In-State Deposition for Foreign Jurisdiction

❑176 Eminent Domain—Light Rail Only

❑177 Interpleader— Automobile Only

❑178 Delayed Birth Certificate (A.R.S. §36-333.Q3) ❑183 Employment Dispute- Discrimination

❑185 Employment Dispute-Other

❑135 (a) Amendment of Marriage License

❑'1~35(b) Amendment.of Birth Certificate ❑ 163 Other

(Specify)

COMPLEXITY OF~THE CASE If you marked the box on page one indicating that Complex Litigation applies, place an "X" in the box of no less than one

of~the following:

❑Antitrust/Trade Regulation

❑Construction 

❑Mass 

Qefect with many parties or structures Tort

❑Securities Litigation with many parties

❑Environmental 

❑Class 

Toxic Tort with many parties Action Claims

[]A 

❑Insurance 

Complex 

Coverage 

Case as defined 

Claims arising from the above-fisted case type= by Rule B(i}~ARCP

Additional Plaintiffs}

Additional Defendants)

OSuperior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Page 2 bf 2

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CV10f- 010116

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 3 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

:David T. Panzarella No. 013639

LERNER & ROWE, P.C.

2701 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 140

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Tel: (602) 977-1900

Fax: (602) 977-1901

dpanzarella~a lernerandrowe.com

minutes entries(u~lemerandrowe.com

Attorneys for Plainti, f~''

MiCHAEI_ Y a JEA~~~

(,ler~; of tf?e ~~~F~erior Ca~art

BY An9~Is McLaone, DaF~uL)'

~~~jr? 11;Of~1~L17 Time lE~e41:38

D2scriF~tion ;riount 

---------- ~ASE~ U?u~?-014:;6 ----------

CI!,►IL P~EU Cf1~iF'~AIPlT ~~2~'.OU

TOTRL RriOi!~~1 3?_4.0!J

SGC2~~~t~ ~E~~~JO~

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARK ~v~~1 ~l~~ ~~$2 HICKS, individually; )

CASE NO.

Plaintiff, )

r~

BLITZ U.S.A., INC.; LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, )

L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC; )

KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC.; )

KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP; )

BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, 1NC.; )

BLITZ ACQUISITION. LLC; BLITZ RE )

HOLDINGS, LLC; F3 BRANDS, LLC; WAL- )

MART STORES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES )

EAST, LP; DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC; )

LCB SHOW HORSES; LISA BULLOCK, )

Individually, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES )

I-X, husbands and wives; BLACK AND )

WHITE CORPORATIONS I-XX; BLACK )

AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-XX; )

Defendants.

CK~7~1I~1~~1

1. PRODUCTS LIABILITY

2. PRODUCT NEGLIGENCE

3. EXPRESSED WARRANTY

4. IMPLIED WARRANTY

5. NEGLIGENCE

Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff MARK HICKS (hereinafter, "Plaintiff'), an Individual, brings this Complaint against

all Defendants herein, and alleges as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 4 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

I8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. Plaintiff MARK HICKS is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an Individual residing

in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.

2. Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., is and was a corporation organized under the laws of

the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business located in the City of

Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., was

engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of

commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water. Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC.,

was, at times herein mentioned, authorized to conduct business, and was conducting business, in the

County of County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.

3. Defendant LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC and is a

domestic LLC entity organized under the laws of the State of Arizona, with its principal place of

business located in the City of Chandler, State of Arizona. At all times herein mentioned LAM 2011

HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ

U.S.A., INC., was actively engaged in management of the business of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC.,

and was the partner and joint venture of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing,

distributing, selling and placing in the stream of commerce containers to transport, store and dispense

fuel and water.

4. Defendant KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC, was and is a business entity organized

under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located in the City and

State of New York. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC

was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, was actively involved in management of

the business of BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and was the partner and joint venture of BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in

designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of commerce containers to

transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

5. Defendant KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP, was and is a business entity

organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located in the

City and State of New York. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant KINDERHOOK CAPITAL

-2-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 5 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

]5

16

17

18.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FiJND III, LP was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., was actively involved in

management of the business of engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., and was the

partner and joint venture of BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and

placing in the stream of commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

6. Defendant BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC, was and is a business entity

organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business

located in the City of Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant BLITZ

ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and

actively involved in management of the business of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and was the partner

and joint venture of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling

and placing in the stream of commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

7. Defendant BLITZ ACQUISITION LLC, was and is a business entity organized under

the laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business located in the

City of Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant BLITZ ACQUISITION

LLC was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, was actively involved in

management of the business of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A.,1NC, and was the partner and joint venture of

Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the

stream of commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

8. Defendant BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC, was and is a business entity organized under

the laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business located in the

City of Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant BLITZ ACQUISITION

LLC was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and actively involved in

management of the business of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and was the partner and joint venture of

Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the

stream of commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

9. Defendant F3 BRANDS LLC, was and is a business entity organized under the laws of

the State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business located in the City of Miami, State of

-3-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 6 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant F3 BRANDS LLC was engaged in the business

of design, manufacture, distribution, sale and placing in the stream of commerce containers to transport,

store and dispense fuel and water and, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant F3 BRANDS LLC was

engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and actively involved in management of the

business of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and was the partner and joint venturer of Defendant

BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of

commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

10. Defendant WAL-MART STORES, INC. was and is a corporation organized under the

laws of the State of Arkansas, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business located in the City of

Bentonville, State of Arkansas. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant WAL-MART STORES, INC.

owns and operates retail stores throughout the United States, including within the City of Arizona,

County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, at which Defendant WAL-MART STORES, INC. sells to

members of the public containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water that are designed and

manufactured by Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in partnership and joint venture with Defendants

I LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC,

KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE

~ HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC.

11. Defendant WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, was and is a business entity organized

under the laws of the State of Arkansas, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business located in

the City of Bentonville, State of Arkansas. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant WAL-MART

STORES EAST, LP, is engaged in business with Defendant WAL-MART STORES, INC. in the

ownership and operation of retail stores throughout the United States, including within the City of

Arizona, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, at which Defendant WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

sells to members of the public containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water that aze

designed and manufactured by Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in partnership and joint venture with

Defendants LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK

-4-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 7 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

l6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS,

INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC.

12. Defendant DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, is and was a business entity organized

under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business located in

the City of Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned Defendant DISCOVERY

PLASTICS, LLC, was and is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling

and placing in the stream of commerce plastic materials, including plastic caps used on the containers

to transport, store and dispense fuel and water that are designed and manufactured by Defendant BLITZ

U.S.A., IIVC., in partnership and joint venture with Defendants LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka

BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND

III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BR.ANDS

LLC.

13. IIefendant LISA BULLOCK is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an Individual

residing in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.

14. Defendant LCB SHOW HORSES is and was a sole proprietorship, partnership,

corporation or other business entity organized under the laws of the State of Arizona with its principal

place of business located in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.

15. All acts complained of herein occurred in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa,

State of Arizona.

16. Defendants BLACK AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-X, Defendants BLACK AND

WHITE CORPORATIONS I-XX, and Defendants JOHN DOES and JANE DOES I-XX are, and at all

times relevant herein were, corporations and/or partnerships and/or business entities and/or other

persons. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that one or more of said

Defendants denominated as BLACK AND WHITE CORPORATIONS I-XX, BLACK AND WHITE

PARTNERSHIPS I-XX and/or JOHN DOES and JANE DOES I-X caused an event to occur within the

State of Arizona out of which the claims which are the subject matter of this complaint arose. Plaintiff

does not know at the present time the true identities of said Defendants and thus, sues them by fictitious

~~

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 8 of 62
1'

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

names. However, such fictitious Defendants aze those corporations and/or partnerships andJor business

entities and/or other persons who were negligent in some manner so as to cause the incident which is

the subject matter of this lawsuit.

17. Venue is proper in Maricopa County.

18. On November 7, 2015, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was on the property of Defendants

LISA BULLOCK and LCB SHOW HORSES in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of

Arizona, and, at that time and place, Plaintiff Mark Hicks was holding and using as intended a fuel

container designed and manufactured by Defendants BLITZ U.S.A., INC., LAM 2011 HOLDINGS,

L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK

CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC

and F3 BRANDS LLC and DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, and exclusively sold by Defendants

WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, when said fuel container

exploded causing Plaintiff to suffered severe injuries and damages as alleged hereinafter.

COUNTI

CAUSE OF ACTION: PRODUCTS LIABILITY

(AS TO DEFENDANTS BLITZ U.S.A., INC., LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ

HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERNOOK CAPITAL FUND III,

LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANllS

LLC and DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART

STORES EAST, LP)

19. Plaintiff MARK HICKS incorporates by this reference each of the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 1 through 18, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

20. The injuries and damages to the Plaintiff, and all of the losses and damages described

herein were caused by the design and manufacture and marketing of the defective fuel container and

cap by Defendants BLITZ U.S.A., INC., I,AM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS,

LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ

ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC and

DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, both generally and in the following respects:

-6-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 9 of 62
1'

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 i

l5

16

17

18

19

20 !I 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. The fuel container and cap were designed in a manner which prevented dangerous and

explosive fumes from escaping from inside the fuel container;

b. The fuel container and cap were designed in a manner which promoted and allowed

the accumulation of dangerous and explosive fumes inside the fuel container;

c. The fuel container and cap failed to include a mesh component that would have

allowed dangerous fumes to escape from inside the fuel container.

d. These defects in design of the fuel container and cap caused the fuel container and cap

to be defective and unsafe, thereby rendering the fuel containez and cap a danger.

e. Other misconduct or omissions which rendered the fuel container and cap defective

and unreasonably dangerous as revealed by the evidence adduced in pre-trial discovery

or presented at the trial of this case.

21. Defendants WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP

exclusively sold the involved defective fuel container and cap to the public knowing that design of the

fuel container and cap was defective in the manners set forth above, and that use of the fuel container

and cap in the manner could and would result in explosion and injuries to members of the public while

using the fuel container and cap in the manner intended.

22. As a direct and legal result of the above-described product defects and acts and omissions

of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was severely injured and hurt in his health, strength, activity,

and well-being. Plaintiff sustained injuries to his mind and body, shock and injury to their nervous

systems and persons, and great physical, mental, and nervous pain and suffering, all of which said

injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff to suffer damages including, but not limited to,

loss of quality of life, in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial, but in an amount

greater than this court's minimum jurisdictional limit.

23. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described product defects and acts and

omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was required to and did seek professional help for

medical examination, treatment and care of his injuries. Plaintiff incurred medical and incidental

expenses, in an amount according to proof at trial. Further, as a legal result of the above described

-7-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 10 of 62
1'

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1~ ~I

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

product defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff will, in the future, continue to incur

medical and incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.

24. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described product defects and acts and

omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was prevented from attending to his employment

and duties, thereby sustaining a loss of past and future earnings, the exact amount of which will be

stated according to proof at trial.

COUNT II

CAIJSE OF ACTION: PRODUCT NEGLIGENCE

(AS TO DEFENDANTS BLITZ U.S.A., INC., LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ

HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III,

LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS

LLC and DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART

STORES EAST, LP)

25. Plaintiff MARK HICKS incorporates by this reference each of the allegations set forth

in Paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

26. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, and all of the losses and damages

described herein were caused by the negligence of Defendants BLITZ U.S.A., INC., LAM 2011

HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC,

KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FiJND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE

HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC and DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC„ both generally and in

the following respects:

a. Defendants failed to properly design the fuel container and cap in a manner which

allowed dangerous and explosive fumes from escaping from inside the fuel container;

b. Defendants failed to properly design the fuel container and cap to include a mesh

component that would have allowed dangerous fumes to escape from inside the fuel

container.

-8-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 11 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

f. These defects in design of the fuel container and cap caused the fuel container and cap

to be defective and unsafe, thereby rendering the fuel container and cap.

g. Other misconduct or omissions which rendered the fuel container and cap defective

and unreasonably dangerous as revealed by the evidence adduced in pre-trial discovery

or presented at the trial of this case.

27. Defendants WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP sold

the involved defective fuel container and cap to the public without any reasonable inspection of the fuel

container and cap to determine its negligent and defective design. Any such reasonable inspection by

Defendants WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, prior to selling the

fuel container and cap to the public, would have disclosed the negligent and defective design and its

propensity to result in explosion and serious injuries and damages to members of the public,

28. As a direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product design, defects and

acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was severely injured and hurt in his health,

strength, activity, and well-being, Plaintiff sustained injuries to his mind and body, shock and injury to

their nervous systems and persons, and great physical, mental, and nervous pain and suffering, all of

which said injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff to suffer damages including, but not

limited to, loss of quality of life, in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial, but in an

amount greater than this court's minimum jurisdictional limit.

29. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product design, .

defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was required to and did seek

professional help for medical examination, treatment and care of their injuries. Plaintiff incurred

medical and incidental expenses, in an amount according to proof at trial. Further, as a legal result of

the above described product defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff will, in the future,

continue to incur medical and incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.

30. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product design,

defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was prevented from attending

to his employment and duties, thereby sustaining a loss of past and future earnings, the exact amount of

which will be stated according to proof at trial.

-9-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 12 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT III

CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF EXPRESSED WARRANTY

31. Plaintiff MARK HICKS incorporates by this reference each of the allegations set forth

in Pazagraphs 1 through 30, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

32. Defendants warranted that the fuel container would be "...easy to use spout features

convenient variable flow, automatic venting, automatic locking when lever is released, and an airtight

seal when not in use to reduce spills quality" and that work would be free of defects and would

conform with the requirements as advertised.

33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the fuel container was

inadequately manufactured, developed, designed, and distributed to the public, so that the above

described defective conditions existed contrary to that advertised.

34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct and proximate

result of the foregoing breach of express warranty and the actions and/or omission of Defendants, and

each of them, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was required to and did seek professional help for medical

examination, treatment and care of their injuries. Plaintiff incurred medical and incidental expenses, in

an amount according to proof at trial. Further, as a legal result of the above described product defects

and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff will, in the future, continue to incur medical and

incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.

35. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product design,

defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was prevented from attending

to his employment and duties, thereby sustaining a loss of past and future earnings, the exact amount of

which will be stated according to proof at trial.

COi1NT IV

CAUSE OF ACTION: IMPLIED WARRANTY

36. Plaintiff MARK HICKS incorporates by this reference each of the allegations set forth

in Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

-~oCase 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 13 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37. Defendants warranted that the fuel container would contain "emission reducing

technology...easy to use spout features convenient variable flow, automatic venting, automatic locking

when lever is released, and an airtight seal when not in use to reduce spills quality", and fiu~ther implied

the goods purchased from the description implied the above conditions and be reasonably fit for such

purposes.

38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the fuel container was

inadequately manufactured, developed, designed, and distzibuted to the public, so that the above

described defective conditions existed contrary to that ad~•ertised.

39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct and proximate

result of the foregoing breach of implied warranty and the actions and/or omission of Defendants, and

each of them, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was required to and did seek professional help for medical

examination, treatment and Gaze of then injuries. Plaintiff incurred medical and incidental expenses, in

an amount according to proof at trial. Further, as a legal result of the above described product defects

and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff will, in the future, continue to incur medical and

incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.

40. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product design,

defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was prevented from attending

to his employment and duties, thereby sustaining a loss of past and future earnings, the exact amount of

which will be stated according to proof at trial.

COUNT V

CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE

(AS TO DEFENDANTS LISA BULLOCK and LCB SHOW HORSES)

31. Plaintiff MARK HICKS incorporates by ti~is reference each of the allegations set forth

in Paragraphs 1 through 30, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

32. On November 7, 2015, Defendants LISA BULLOCK and LCB SHOW HORSES each

had a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. Defendants LISA BULLOCK and

LCB SHOW HORSES breached their duty of caze by providing to Plaintiff MARK HICKS a fuel

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 14 of 62
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

container and cap that exploded and caused to Plaintiff severe injuries and damages while Plaintiff was

using the fuel container and cap in an intended manner.

22. As a direct and legal result of the above-described negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff

MARK HICKS was severely injured and hurt in his health, strength, activity, and well-being. Plaintiff

sustained injuries to his mind and body, shock and injury to their nervous systems and persons, and

great physical, mental, and nervous pain and suffering, all of which said injuries have caused, and

continue to cause, Plaintiff to suffer damages including, but not limited to, loss of quality of life, in an

amount to be determined according to proof at trial, but in an amount greater than this court's minimum

jurisdictional limit.

23. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligence of Defendants,

Plaintiff MARK HICKS was required to and did seek professional help for medical examination,

treatment and care of their injuries. Plaintiff incurred medical and incidental expenses, in an amount

according to proof at trial. Further, as a legal result of the above described product defects and acts and

omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff will, in the future, continue to incur medical and incidental expenses

in an amount according to proof at trial.

24. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligence of Defendants,

Plaintiff MARK HICKS was prevented from attending to his employment and duties, thereby

sustaining a loss of past and future earnings, the exact amount of which will be stated according to

proof at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARK HICKS prays for Judgment against Defendants and each of

them as follows:

a. For damages incurred by the Plaintiff (and all those entitled to recover under the

applicable law) in such amounts as are reasonable to compensate for the injuries and

losses suffered;

b. For recovery of all economic damages suffered by Plaintiff;

c. For recovery of all non-economic damages suffered by Plaintiff;

d. For the value of past and future intangible losses recoverable under applicable law;

e. For any other past and future losses permitted by law;

-12-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 15 of 62
1'

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ll

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

f. For costs of this action; and

g. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: November 6,.2017

LERNER & ROWE, P.C.,

~~E. Camp eI~ack Rd.YSte. 140

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Attorney for Plainti, f,J`~

-13-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 16 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

David T: Panz rella, No. 013639

LERNER & ROWE, P.C.

2701 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 140

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 977-1900

Fax: (602) 977- l 901

dnanzarellana.dernerandrowe. com

minute entriesna,lernerandrowe.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

~Y

~P'~ °~~.

•A. Pfc~L~~~£; FtLF~J

~17 NOV -6 P~9 4: ~ f

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

CV 2U1 7-0'I 4;~~2

MARK HICKS, individually;

Plaintiff,

v.

BLITZ U.S.A., INC.; LAM 2011 HOLDINGS,

L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC;

KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC.;

KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP;

BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC.;

BLITZ ACQUISITION. LLC; BLITZ RE

HOLDINGS, LLC; F3 BRANDS, LLC; WALMART STORES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES

EAST, LP; DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC;

LCB SHOW HORSES; LISA BULLOCK,

Individually, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES IX, husbands and wives; BLACK AND WHITE

CORPORATIONS I-XX; BLACK AND WHITE

PARTNERSHIPS I-XX;

Defendants.

No. CV2017-

PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE

REGARDING COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

The undersigned certifies that he knows the dollaz limits and any other limitations set forth by

the local rules of practice for the applicable superior court, and further certifies that this case IS NOT

subject to compulsory arbitration, as provided by Rules 72 through 77 of the Arizona Rules of Civil

Procedure.

//

I/I

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 17 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• ..' v

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6~' day of November 2017.

LERNER & 3Q3~E, P.~.

~, .

2701 E. Cam k R

Phoenix, Arizona i

Attorney for Plainti, fJ`'

Gig]

-2-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 18 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

~13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MBY1't4~l,~S. ~~ E3~ S, Gt~£3~~t

David T.~T~~an~ella, No. 013639 ~c ~~~-

LERNER & ROWE, P.C. ,A; M~;~~~p~~~

2701 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 140

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 1r~Jpd _~ P~ ~:'~'

Telephone: (602) 977-1900

Fax: (602) 977-1901

dpanzarella(a~lernerandrowe. com

minute entries c , erneran rowe.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNT' OF ~~~~ ,

~~ ~~~~

MARK HICKS, individually;

Plaintiff,

v.

BLITZ U.S.A., INC.; LAM 2011 HOLDINGS,

L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC;

KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC.;

KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP;

BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC.;

BLITZ ACQUISITION. LLC; BLITZ RE

HOLDINGS, LLC; F3 BRANDS, LLC; WALMART STORES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES

EAST, LP; DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC;

LCB SHOW HORSES; LISA BULLOCK,

Individually, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES IX, husbands and wives; BLACK .AND WHITE

CORPORATIONS I-XX; BLACK AND WHITE

PARTNERSHIPS I-XX;

Defendants.

No. CV2017-

PL.~INTIFF'S DEMAND FOR

JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, by and through

counsel undersigned, hereby DEMANDS TRIAL BY JiJRY ON ALL COUNTS.

I //

!/

RESPEC'B'FULLY SUBMITTED this 6~' day of November, 2017.

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 19 of 62
1 ' ~ '" LERNER & ROWE, P.C.,

_~~

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

~11~1~E. Camelbac Rd.,`Ste. 140

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Attorney for Plaint

-' 2 -

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 20 of 62
.e

,R 1

In the Superior Court of th~ State of~Arizona

Ca: CV2017-01432

C1Vi~ c:uvtR SHEET- NEW FILING~~

(Paease Type or Print) ~~~~~~ n en

►' UCA' ~

Plaintiffs Attorney "~V~~c~ T- I~~r in-Z.~.,re1~C.,

Attorney Bar Number (•7 ~ ~ ~. ~ ~.

~ 

~x~~~.

Is Interpreter Nei . ~ ~~~E~

If yes, what tang

~~ ~a~ —~ ~~ ion ~~

Plaintiffs Name(s): (List all) Plaintiffs Address: ~ _ Phone #: Email Address: 0 Levv~s~ ~t lam. ('~.n1J ~t-► -7 - I g oa

?~~J%~~~. Rte• ~.~vv~e~►JY~x•~Y►-. Q ~~,~xx.~ -~z~Sa l ~~._ (List additional plaintiffs on page two and/or attach a separate sheet).

Defendants Name(s): (List All) ~ S~'2 U ~S-~ • i ~ N~_~ i' ~-~

(List additional defendants on page two and/or attach a separate sheet)

❑ 

EMERGENCY ORDER SOUGHT: ❑Temporary Restraining Order ❑Provisional Remedy [] OSC Election Challenge ❑Employer Sanction ❑Other

(Specify). ❑ RULE 

civil actions 

8() COMPLEX 

that require 

LITIGATION 

continuous 

APPLIES. 

judicial management. 

Rule 8() of the Rules of Civif Procedure defines a "Complex Case' as A typical case involves a large number of witnesses, a

' substantial amount of documentary evidence, and a large number of separately represented parties. (Mark appropriate box on page two as to complexity, in addition t~ the Nature of Action case category.) ❑ TNIS 

only.) 

CASE 

Rule 8.1 

IS ELIGI6LE 

defines a 

FOR 

commercial 

THE COMMERCIAL 

case 

COURT UNDER F.~CPERIMENTAL RULE 8.1. (Maricopa County

commercial case primarily involves issues 

and 

arising 

establishes eligibifity criteria for the commercial court. Generally, a

consumer transactions are not eligible. 

from a business contract or business transaction. However,

household purposes. Please review. 

A consumer transaction is one that is primarily for personal, family or

htta://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/commercial-court/. Rule 8.7 for a complete list of the criteria. See

case. In addition, mark the appropriate 

You crust check this box if this is an eligible commercial

"commercial court assignment requested" 

box below in the "Nature ofi Action" case category. The words must appear in the caption of the original cor~nplaint.

NATURE. OF ACT10N '

(Place an "X" next to the one case category that most accura:elf describes your primary case.)

1 DO RT MOTOR VEHICLE:

101 Non-Death/Pecsonal Injury

[]102 Property damage

❑103 Wrongful Death

110 TORT NON-MOTOR VEHICLE:

J i 11 •Negligence

❑112 Product Liability -Asbestos

(-1112 Product Liability-Tobar~~

12' Product Liability -Toed ~

❑113 Intentional Tort

❑174 Property Damage

❑115 Legal Malpractice

❑115 Malpractice -Other professional

❑1'17 Premises Liability

E]118 Slander/LibeWefamation

x]118 Other (Specify) -

7 20 MEDICAt MALPRACTICE:

❑121 Physician M.D. ' ❑123 Hospital

❑122 Physician D.O ❑124 Other

Superior Court of Arizona in Mericopa County Page 1 of 2 CV10f - 010116 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 21 of 62
~ ~

~aa corrrwacrs:

❑131 Account (Open or Stated)

❑132 Promissory Note

❑133 Foreclosure

❑138 Buyer-Plaintiff

❑139 Fraud

❑134 Other Cohtract (i,e. Breach of Contract) []135 Excess Proceeds-Sale ,

❑Construction Defects (Resident(aUCommercial)

❑136 Sa to Nineteen Structures

❑137 Twenty or More Structures

150-199 OTHER CIVIL. CASE T1fPE~:

❑156 Eminent Domain/Condemnation

❑152 

❑151, Eviction Actions (Forcible and Special Detainers) Change of Name

❑153 Transcript of Judgment

❑154 Foreign Judgment

❑158 Quiet Title

❑160 Forfeiture

❑175 Election Challenge

❑179 NCC-Employer Sanction Action (A. R. S. §23-212) '

❑180 injunction against Workplace Harassment

❑181 Injunction against Harassment

❑182 Civil Penalty

❑187 

❑186 Water Rights (Not General Stream Adjudication) Real Property

❑ Special Action against Lower Courts (See lower court appeal cover sheet in Maricopa)

Case No

❑194 Immigration Enforcement Challenge

(§§1-5Q1, 1-5Q2, 11-151)

150-199 UNCLASSIFIED 

..

CIVIL:

Q Administrative Review

(See lo~~rer court appeal cover sheet in Maricopa)

❑150 Tax Appeal

(All~other tax matters must be filed. In the AZ Tax Court)

x155 Declaratory Judgment

❑157 Habeas Corpus

[184 Landlord Tenant Dispute= Other [190 Dec;aration of Factual Innocence

(A.R.S. §12-771)

❑193 

❑191 Qeclaration of Factual improper Party Status Vulnerable Adult (A R. S. §46-451) []165 Tribal Judgment

❑167 Structured Serilement (A.R:S. §12-2901)

❑169 Attorney Conservatorships (State Bar)

❑171 

❑770 Unauthorised Practice bf Law (State Bar) Out-of-State Deposition for ForeignJurisdiction []'' 72 Secure Attbndance of PPsoner ❑ :73 Assurance of Discontinuance

❑174 In-State Deposition for Foreign Jurisdiction

❑176 EminArrt Domain— Light Rail Only

❑177 Inter~•leader—Automobile Only

❑178 Delayed Birth Cert~cate (A.R.S. §36-333.03)

❑183 Employment Dispute- Discrimination

❑185 Employment Disput~Other

❑135(a) Amendment of Marriage License

❑'195(b) Arr.endment.of Birth Certifipte

❑163 Other

(Specify)

COMPLEXITY OF~THE cA5E If you marked the box on page one indicating that Complex Litigation applies, place an "X" in the box of no less than one

of'the following:

~Antitrust/Trade Regulation

❑Mass 

❑Construction Defect with many parties or structures Tort 

❑Securities '

Litigation with many parties

❑Environmental 

❑Class 

Toxic Tort with many parties Action Claims

QA 

❑Insurance 

Complex 

Coverage 

Case ~as defined 

Elaims arising from the above-listed case types by Rule S(~'ARCP

Additional Plaintiffs)

Additional Def~ndant(s)

R6Superior Courk of Arizona in Maricopa County Page 2 bf 2 ~ CV10f - 010116

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 22 of 62
Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of C

*** Electronically Filed **

T. Hays, Deputy

1/5/2018 9:13:00 AM

Filing ID 8974545

David T. Panzarella, Esq., #013639

LERNER & ROWE,1'.C.

2701 East Ca~nelback Road

Suite 140

Phoenix, A7 85016

Telephone (602) 977-1900

Facsimile (602) 977-1901

Attorneys fior Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OT THE STATE OF ARIZ41~iA

FOR THE CUUNTY OF MARICOPA.

MARK HICKS, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

BI.,IT7 tJ.S.A., 1NC., et al.,

17efendants.

Lase Na.: C;V2017-0143$2

1VIOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

PRO HAC VICE

_.__

David T. Panzarella, Esq., pursuant to Rule 39, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., moves the court to

associate Garo Mardirassian, Esq., as counsel pro hac vice in this action. 1n support of this .motion

and pursuant to Rule 39(c)(1)(A), the fallowing original documents are attached:

1. Verified Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice;

2. Certificate of Good Standing; and

3. State Bar of Arizona Notice of Receipt ~f Complete Application.

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 23 of 62
David T. Panrarella, F,sq., hereby agrees to serve as local counsel in fihis matter and accepts

the responsibilities detailed in ~~«1 ~ 39(b), Ariz. K. Sup. Ct.

;~ ~,~~

DATF,D this --- _day sit: ~ ~ t►~-~~r~ ; 2 '

~.,~..,.

LERNER & ROWE, P.C.

~W

. ~ -- ~~-'""

--~-

C a~ ~~1 : - x Panzarella, ~sq. _ 

~ _

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Copies of the foregoing mailed/hand-delivered.

this ~ day of-~3ee~rrb~r, 201.7, to:

~,, ,-~

~y ~ ~~ ~; .~~~ {

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 24 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of C

*** Electronically Filed

M. De La Cruz, Deputy

1/10/2018 2:23:00 PM

Filing ID 8989501

!David T. Panzaxella No. 013639

LERNER & ROWE, P.C.

2701 F. Camelback Rd., Ste. 140

Phoenix, Arizona 85d1b

Tel: (602) 977-1900

Fax: (602) 977-1401

~~anzarelia_ ~r lernerandrowe.com

minutes entries ~r lernerandrowe.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE SiJPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF AW70NA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARK HICKS, individually;

Plaintiff,

v.

BLITZ U.S.A., INC.; LAM 2011

HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ

HOLDINGS, LLC; KINDER.HUUK.

INllUSTRIES, LLC.; KINDERHO~K

CAPITAL FUND III, LP; BLITZ

ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC.; BLITZ

ACQUISITION. LLC; BLITZ RE

HOLDINGS, LLC; F3 BRANDS, LI:C;

WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WAL-MART

STORES EAST, LP; DISCOVF,RY

PLASTICS, LLC; LCB SHOW HORSES;

LISA BULLOCK, Individually, JOHN

DOES AND JANE DOES I-X, husbands

and wives; BLACK AND WHl"I'E

CORPORATIONS I-XX; BLACK AND

WHITE PARTNERSHIPS l-XX;

Defendants.

CASE N4. CV20I7-014382

A1V~ND~D COMPLf1INT

1. PRODUCTS LIABILITY

2. PRODUCT NEGLIGENCE

3. BREACH OF WARRANTY

4. NEGLIGENCE

Jury Trial Demanded

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 25 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

]9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff MARK HICKS (hereinafter, "Plaintiff'), an Individual, brings this Complaint

against all Defendants herein, and alleges as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff MARK HICKS is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an Individual

residing in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.

2. Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., is and. was a corporation organized under the

laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business located in

the City of Miami, State of Uklahorna. At all times herein mentioned Defendant BLITZ U.S.A,,

INC., was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and

placing in the stream of commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

Defendant BLITZ (J.S.A., INC., was, at all times herein mentioned, authorized to conduct

business, and was conducting business, in the County of County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.

3. Defendant LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLIT'L HOLDINGS, LLC and is

a domestic LLC entity organized under the Taws of the State of Arizona, with its principal place

of business located in the City of Chandler, State of Arizona. At all times herein mentioned

LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L..C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC was engaged in business with

Defendant BLl'I"L U.S.A., 1NC., was actively engaged in management of the business of

Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., and vvas the partner and joint venture of Defendant BLITZ

IJ.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of

commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

4. Defendant KINDERHOOK iND[1STRIF.S, LLC, was and is a business entity

organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located

in the City and State of New York. At all times herein mentioned, llefendant KINDERHUUK

INDUSTRIES, LLC was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ tJ.S.A., INC, was

actively involved in management of the business of BLIT7 U.S.A., I1~1C, and was the partner

and joint venture of BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and

placing in the stream of commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

-2-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 26 of 62
1

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Za

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Defendant KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP, was and is a business

entity organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business

located in the CiTy and State of New York. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant

KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND lII, LP was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ

U.S.A., INC., was actively involved in management of the business of engaged in business with

Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., and was the partner and joint venture of BLIT7. U.S.A., INC.,

in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of commerce

containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

6. Defendant BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., was and is a business

entity organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal

place of business located in the City of Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein

mentioned, Defendant BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC was engaged in business with

Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and actively involved in management of the business of

Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., 1NC, and was the partner and joint venture of Defendant BLITZ

U.S.A., INC., in designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream. ofi

commerce containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

7. Defendant BLITZ ACQUISI"I'IUN LLC, was and is a business entity organized

under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business

located in the City of Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant

BLITZ ACQUISITION LLC was engaged in business with Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC,

was actively involved in management of the business of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC, and

was the partner and joint venture of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing,

manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of commerce containers to

transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

8. Defendant BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC, was and is a business entity organized

under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business

located. in the City of Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein menticmed, Defendant

-3-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 27 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1b

l7

18

l9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

'BLITZ ACQUISITION LLC was engaged in business with Defendant BLI"I'L U.S.A., INC, and

actively involved in management of the business of Defendant BI.,IT7... U.S.A., INC, and was

the partner and joint venture of Defendant BLI"TZ U.5.~., INC., in designing, manufacturing,

distributing, selling and placing in the stream of commerce containers to transport, stare and

dispense fuel and water.

9. Defendant F3 BK.ANDS LLC, was and is a business entity organized under the

laws of the State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business located in the City of Miami,

State of Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant F3 BRANDS LLC was engaged

in the business of design., manufacture, distribution, sale and placing in the stream of commerce

containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water and, at all times herein mentioned,

Defendant F3 BRANDS LI.,C was engaged in business with Defendant BI.,IT7.., U.S.A., INC,

and actively involved in management of the business of Defendant ~3LITZ U.S.A., INC, and

was the partner and joint venture of Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in designing,

manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of commerce containers to

transport, store and dispense fuel and water.

10. Defendant WAL-MA.RT STORES, INC. was and is a corporation organized

under the laws of the State of Arkansas, or a Sister State, with its principal place of business

located in the City of Bentonville, State of Arkansas. At all tines herein. mentioned, Defendant

WAL-MART ST4IZES, INC. owns and operates retail stores throughout the United States,

including within the City of Arizona, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, at which

Defendant WAL-Mt1RT STARES, INC. sells to members of the public containers to transport,

store and dispense fuel and water that are designed and manufactured by Defendant BLITZ

U.S.A., INC., in partnership and joint venture with Defendants LAM 2011 HOLDINGS,

L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHO~K INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK

CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLnnvc~s, INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS

LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC.

-4-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 28 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

h

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. Defendant WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, was and is a business entity

organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas, or a Sister State, with its principal place of

business located in the City of ~ientonv lle, State of Arkansas. At all times herein mentioned,

Defendant WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, is engaged in business with Defendant WALMART STORES, INC. in the ownership and operation of retail stores throughout the United

States, including within the City of Arizona, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, at which.

Defendant WAL-MAIZ"1' STORES EAST, LP, sells to members of the public containers to

transport, store and dispense fuel and water that are designed. and manufactured by Defendant

BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in partnership and joint venture with 17efendants LAM 2011

HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BL1T7, HOLDINGS, I,LC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC,

KINDERHOOK CAPITAL F[JND IIT, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION Ht~LI7INGS, INC., BLITZ

RE HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC.

12. Defendant DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, is and was a business entity

organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, or a Sister State, with its principal place of

business located in the City of Miami, State of Oklahoma. At all times herein mentioned

Defendant DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, was and is engaged in the business of designing,

manufacturing, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of commerce plastic materials,

including plastic caps used on the containers to transport, store and dispense fuel and water that

are designed and manufactured by Defendant BLITZ U.S.A., INC., in partnership and joint

venture with Defendants LAM 2011 HOI,DTNGS, I,.I.,.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC,

KINDERHUOK INDiJSTRIF,S, LLC, KINllERH~OK CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ

ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC and I'3 BRA1V17S LLC.

13. Defendant LISA BULLOCK is, and at all times herein mentioned. was, an

Individual residing in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.

14. Defendant LCB SHOW HORSES is and was a sole proprietorship, partnership,

corporation or other business entity organized under the laws of the State of Arizona tivith its

-5-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 29 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

principal place of business located in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of

Arizona.

15. All acts complained of herein occurred in the City of Phoenix, County of

Maricopa, State of Arizona.

16. Defendants BLACK AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-XX, Defendants BLACK

AND WHITE CORPORATIONS I-XX, and Defendants JOHN DOES and JANE DOES I-X

are, and at all times relevant herein were, corporations and/or partnerships and/or business

entities and/or other persons. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that

one or more of said Defendants denominated as BLACK AND WHITE CORPORATIONS IXX, BLACK AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-XX and/or JOHN DOES and JANE DOES IX caused an event to occur within the State of Arizona out of which the claims which are the

subject matter of this complaint arose. Plaintiff does not know at the present time the true

identities of said Defendants and thus, sues them by fictitious names. However, such fictitious

Defendants are those corporations and/or partnerships andlor business entities and/or other

persons who were negligent in some manner so as to cause the incident which is the subject

matter of this lawsuit.

17. Venue is proper in Maricopa County.

18. On No~~ember 7, 2015, Plaintiff MARK. HICKS was on the property of

Defendants LISA Bi7LLOCK and LCB SHOW HORSES in the City of Phoenix, County of

Maricopa, State of Arizona, and, at that time and place, Plaintiff Mark Ilicks was holding and

using as intended a fuel container designed and manufactured by Defendants BLII'L U.S.A.,

INC., LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KII~IDER~IOOK.

INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK CAPITAL, FUND III, LP, BLI"1 G ACQUISITION

HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ R~ HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC and DISCOVERY

PLASTICS, LLC, BLACK AND WHI"I'E CORE'ORATIONS I-XX, BLACK AND WHITE

PARTNERSHIPS I-XX and/or JOHN DOES and JANE DIES I-X and exclusively sold by

Defendants WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART S'T'ORES EAST, LP, when said

-~-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 30 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fuel container exploded causing Plaintiff to suffered severe injuries and damages as alleged

hereinafter.

COUNT I

CAUSE OF ACTION: PRODUCTS LIABILITY

(AS TO DEFENDANTS BLITZ U,S.A., INC., LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka

BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK

CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE

HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC and DiSCOVF.RY PLASTICS, LLC, WALMART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; and, BLACK AND

WHITE CORPORATIONS i-XX; BLACK .AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-XX)

19. Plaintiff MARK HICKS incorporates by this reference each of the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1 through 18, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

2d. The injuries and damages to the Plaintiff, and all of the losses and damages

described herein were caused by the design and manufacture and marketing of the defective

fuel container and cap by Defendants BLITZ iJ.S.A., INC., LAM 20l 1 HQLDTNGS, L.L.C.,

aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK

CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC., BLITZ RE HOLDINGS

LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC and DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, BI.,ACK and WHITE

CORPORATIONS I-XX, BLACK and WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-XX and/or JOI-iN DOLS

and JANE DOES I-X both generally and in the following respects:

a. The fuel container and cap were designed in a manner which prevented dangerous

and explosive fumes from escaping from inside the fuel container;

b. The Cuel container and cap were designed in a manner which promoted and

allowed the accumulation of dangerous and explosive fumes inside the fuel

container;

c. The fuel container and cap failed to include a mesh component that would have

allowed dangerous fumes to escape from inside the fuel container.

-~-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 31 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

lb

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d. These defects in design of the fuel container and cap caused the fuel container

and cap to be defective and unsafe, thereby rendering the fuel container and cap

a danger.

e. Other misconduct or omissions which rendered the fuel container and cap

defective and unreasonably dangerous as revealed by the evidence adduced in

pre-trial discovery or presented at the trial of this case.

21. Defendants WAL-1VIART S'I'ORLS, INC. and Wf1L-MART STOKES EAST, LP

and BLACK AND WHITE CORPORATIONS I-XX; BLACK AND WHITE

PARTNERSHIPS I-XX exclusively sold the involved defective fuel container and cap to the

public knowing that design of the fuel container and cap was defective in the manners set forth

above, and that use of the fuel container and cap in the manner could and ~voutd result in

explosion and injuries to members of the public while using the fuel container and cap in the

manner intended.

22. As a direct and legal. result of the above-described product defects and acts and

omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was severely injured and hurt in his healCh,

strength, activity, and well-being. Plaintiff sustained .injuries to his mind and body, shock and

injury to their nervous systems and persons, and great physical, mental, and nervous pain and

suffering, all of which said injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff to suffer

damages including, but not limited to, loss of quality of life, in an amount to be determined

according to proof at trial, but in an amount greater than this court's minimum jurisdictional

limit.

23. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described product defects and

acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was required to and did seek

professional help for medical examination, treatment and care of his injuries. Plaintiff incurred

medical and incidental expenses, in an amount according to proof at trial. rurther, as a legal

result of the above described product defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff

will, in the future, continue to incur medical and incidental expenses in an amount according to

proof at trial.

-sCase 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 32 of 62
1

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

13

14

]5

l6

17

18

l9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described product defects and

acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK H1CKS was prevented from. attending to his

employment and duties, thereby sustaining a loss of pas# and future earnings, the exact amount

of which will be stated according to proof at trial.

COUNT II

CAUSE OF ACTION: PRODUCT NEGLIGENCE

(AS TO DEFENDANTS BLITZ U.S.A., INC., LAM 2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka

BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERH~OK INDUSTRIES, LLC, KINDERHOOK

CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDIP~iGS, INC., BLITZ RE

HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC and DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC, WALMART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; and, BLACK AND

WHITE CORPORATIONS Y-XX; SLACK AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-XX)

25. Plaintiff MARK HICKS incorporates by this reference each of the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

26. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, and all of the losses and damages

described herein were caused by the negligence of Defendants BLITZ U.S.A., INC., LAM

2011 HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ HOLDINGS, LLC, KINDERHOOK INDUSTRIES,

LLC, KINDERHOOK CAPITAL FUND III, LP, BLITZ ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC.,

BLITZ RE HOLDINGS LLC and F3 BRANDS LLC and DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LI,C, and,

BLACK AND WHITE CORPORATIONS I-XX; BLACK. AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS IXX, both generally and in the following respects:

a. Defendants failed to properly design the fuel container and cap in a manner

which allowed dangerous and explosive fumes from escaping from inside the

fuel container;

b. Defendants failed to properly design the fuel container and cap to include a

mesh component that would have allo~~ved dangerous fumes to escape from

inside the fuel container..

-9-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 33 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

f. These defects in design of the fuel container and cap caused the fuel container

and cap to be defective and unsafe, thereby rendering the fuel container and cap.

g. Other misconduct or omissions which rendered the fuel container and cap

defective and unreasonably dangerous as revealed by the evidence adduced in

pre-trial discovery or presented at the trial of this case.

27. Defendants WAL-MART STARES, INC. and WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP

sold the involved defective fuel container and cap to the public without any reasonable

inspection of the fuel container and cap to determine its negligent and defective design. Any

such reasonable inspection by Defendants WAL-MART STORES, INC. and WAL-MART

STORES EAST, LP, prior to selling the fuel container and cap to the public, would have

disclosed. the negligent and defective design and its propensity to result in explosion and

serious injuries and damages to members of the public.

28. As a direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product design,

defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff 1VIAItK HICKS was severely injured

and hurt in his health, strength, activity, and well-being. Plaintiff sustained injuries to his mind

and body, shock and injury to their nervous systems and persons, and great physical, mental,

and nervous pain and suffering, all of which said injuries have caused, and continue to cause,

Plaintiff to suffer damages including, but not limited tn, loss of quality of life, in an amount to

be determined according to proof at trial, but in an amount greater than this court's minimum

jurisdictional limit.

29. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product

design, defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was required to

and did seek professional help for medical exaunination, treatment and care of their injuries.

Plaintiff incurred medical and incidental expenses, in an amount according to proof at 

Further, as a legal result of the above described product defects and acts and omissions of

Defendants, Plaintiff will, in the future, continue to incur medical and incidental expenses in an

amount according to proof at trial.

-toCase 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 34 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

l5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product

design, defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK ~-TICKS was prevented

from attending to his employment and duties, thereby sustaining a loss of past and future

earnings, the exact amount of which will he stated according to proof at trial.

COUNT III

CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF WARRANTY

31. Plaintiff MAKK HICKS incorporates by this reference each of the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1 through 30, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

32. Defendants warranted that the fuel container would be "...easy to use spout

features convenient variable flow, automatic venting, automatic locking when lever is released,

and an airtight seal when not in use to reduce spills quality" and that work would be free of

defects and would conform with the requirements as advertised.

33. The express warranties made by Defendants about the product's safety were

part of the basis of the bargain. between Plaintiff and Defendants at the time of the product's

sale/purchase.

33. Defendants implicitly warranted to the public generally and specifically to

Plaintiff that the fuel container was of merchantable quality, that it was fit for a particular

purpose, and that it was safe for use under ordinary, foreseeable circumstances by the

consumer. Defendants were merchants with respect to the product in question, and the

product was not merchantable as warranted. Plaintiff relied upon all representations made

about the product, implied or express, particularly about its safety in deciding to purchase and

use the subject fuel container.

34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the fuel container was

inadequately manufactured, developed, designed, and distributed to the public, so that the

above described defective conditions existed contrary to that advertised.

35. Defendants knew or should have known that the product in question was unfit

for the purpose for which it was intended to be used.. Upon information and belief, at a

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 35 of 62
1.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

minimum, Defendants were aware prior to this lawsuit, that the subject product had

exploded and injured numerous other consumers who used the product in accordance with

the product use instructions andlor in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

36. The product sold to Plaintiff was not of the quality or condition expressly

warranted by Defendants' representations, was defective and unreasanablydangerous.

1 37. Defendants' breach of warranty, taken singularly or in combination, are a

proximate cause of Plaintiffls injuries and. damages.

38. Defendants warranted that the fuel container would. contain "emission reducing

technology...easy to use spout features convenient variable flow, automatic ETenting, automatic

locking when lever is released, and an airi;ight seal when not in use to reduce spills quality",

and further implied the goods purchased from the description implied the above conditions and

be reasonably fit for such purposes.

34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the fuel container was

inadequately manufactured, developed, designed, and distributed. to the public, sa that the

above described defective conditions existed contrary to that advertised. Plaintiff is informed

and believes and thereon alleges that, as a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breach of

express warranty and the actions and/or omission of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff

MARK HICKS was required to and did seek professional help for medical examination,

treatment and care of their injuries. Plaintiff incurred medical and incidental expenses, in an

amount according to proof at trial. Further, as a legal result of the above described product

defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff will, in the future, continue to incur

medical and incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.

40. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligent product

design, defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was prevented

from attending to his employment and duties, thereby sustaining a loss of past and future

earnings, the exact amount of which will be stated according to proof at trial.

COUNT IV

-12-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 36 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2Q

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE

(AS TO DEFENDANTS LISA BULLOCK and LCB SHOW HORSES}

41. Plaintiff MARK HICKS incorporates by this reference each of the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1 through 40, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

42. On November 7, 2015, Defendants LISA BULLOCK and LCB SHOW HORSES

each had a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. Defendants LISA

~ BULLOCK and LCB SHOW HORSES breached their duty of care by providing to Plaintiff

MARK HICKS a fuel container and cap that exploded and caused to Plaintiff severe injuries

'', and damages while Plaintiff was using the fuel container and cap in an intended or reasonably

foreseeable manner.

43. Defendants, and each of them, were negligent in developing, developing,

designing, manufacturing, testing, selling, testing, and marketing the fuel container at issue.

44. Defendants, and each of them, failed to take reasonable care in developing,

designing, manufacturing, testing, selling, and marketing the subject fuel container, and

placed it into the stream of commerce in an unsafe condition.

45. The product was defective in that if failed to conform to safe product

design and specifications of such fuel container, and its defective design failed to prevent

the sudden and unexpected explosion of scalding hot liquids when used by the consumer

according to the product's instructions.

46. Defendants are liable for failing to exercise reasonable care in determining

accuracy of representations made to consumers regarding the safety and functionality of the

fuel container, and such reliance was foreseeable by Defendant.

47. The specific acts of negligent manufacturing or design on the part of each

Defendant rests in facts that are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Defendants. Plaintiff

relies on the doctrine of Res Ipra Loquitor. Plaintiff will show that the character of the

occurrence giving rise to this litigation is such that it would not happen in the absence of

-13-

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 37 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I1

l2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

negligence and that the design and manufacture of the subject fuel container was within the

exclusive control of Defendants at the time the negligence occurred.

48. As a direct and legal result of the above-described negligence of Defendants,

Plaintiff MARK HICKS was severely injured and hurt in his health, strength, activity, and wellbeing. Plaintiff sustained injuries to his mind and body, shock and injury t~ their nervous

systems and persons, and great physical, mental, and nervous pain and suffering, all of which

said injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff to suffer damages including, but not

ti:mited to, loss of quality of life, in an amount to he determined according to proof at trial, but

in an amount greater than this court's minimum jurisdictional limit.

49. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligence of

Defendants, Plaintiff MARK HICKS was required to and did seek professional help far

medical examination, treatment and care of their injuries. Plaintiff incurred medical and

incidental expenses, in an amount according to proof at trial. Further, as a legal result of the

above described product defects and acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff will, in the

future, continue to incur medical and incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at

trial.

50. As a further direct and legal result of the above-described negligence of

Defendants, Plaintiff MARK. HICKS was prevented from. attending to his employment and.

duties, thereby sustaining a loss of past and future earnings, the exact amount of which will be

stated according to proof at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARK HICKS prays for Judgment agai~ist Defendants and

each of them as follows:

a. For damages incurred by the Plaintiff (and all those entitled to recover under the

applicable law) in such amounts as are reasonable to compensate for the injuries

and losses suffered;

b. For recovery of all economic damages suffered by Plaintiff;

c. For recovery of all non-economic damages suffered by Plaintiff;

~[~

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 38 of 62
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

~g

d. For the value of past and future intangible losses recoverable under applicable

law;

e. For any other past and future losses permitted by law;

f For costs of this action; and

g. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 10, 2018

L.F,RNER & ROWE, P.C.,

~'~ ... _~~ :~

~;,.

,~

~~

.~

")<i~3 ~ ~.,u~zarella, Esq.

t, Camelback Rd., Ste. 140

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Attorney for Plaintiff

- ISCase 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 39 of 62
Office Distribution ~:3~.

~..

9 Q`

~:

O 1 /06/20 l 8

Case Number: CV2017-014382

Mark Hicks

V.

Blitz U S A Inc

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

MARICOPA COUNTY

COURT ADMINISTRATION

The Judge assigned to this action is the Honorable Kerstin G LeMaire

NOTICE O~ INTENT TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SERVICE

**FQ.ED*~

01/10/2018

by Superior Court Admin

on behalf of Clerk of the

Superior Court

Ct. Admin

Deputy

You are hereby notified that the complaint filed on 11/06/2017 is subjecf to dismissal pursuant to

Rule 4 (i) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The deadline for completing service is 02/05/2018.,

If the time for completing service has not been extended by the court and nn defendants have been

served by this date, the case will be dismissed without prejudice.

All documents required to be filed with the court should be electronically filed through Arizona Turbo

Court at www.azturbocourt. ov.

322 - ME: Notice of Intent to Dismiss Notice Report Version: {CV025B 1.02} Tuesday, 9 January, 2018

Page 1 of 1

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 40 of 62
Superior Court of Maricopa County -integrated Court Information System

Endorsee Party Listing

Case Number: CV2017-014382

'~P~arty Name ~° "~3: ,; Attorney Naide =~; .r C ~ , y'~"~ .3 .~F.~~ ~ 

F;Y

Mark Hicks David T Panzarella Baz ID: 013639

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 41 of 62
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/16/2018 8:00 AM

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-014382 01/]0/2018

CLERK OF THE COURT

HONORABLE KERSTIN LEMAIRE D. Charbagi

Deputy

MARK HICKS

v.

BLITZ U S A INC, et al.

DAViD T PANZARELLA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received the Motion to Associate Counsel Pro Hac Vice filed January 5,

2018. The Motion fails to comply with the requirements of the Rules of the Supreme Court,

Rule 38(c) as it fails to include as exhibits the original verified application for admission pro hac

vice, the original certificates of good standing, and the State Bar of Arizona Notice.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Motion to Associate Counsel Pro Hac Vice without

prejudice.

Docket Code 019 Form v000A Page 1

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 42 of 62
. FEB ~ ~ 2018

Affidavit of Process Server ~

~NA O COURT) 

MIC K

~~~

(C

not a party to this act

perform said service.

Service: I served

r ~ ~c ~. ~-~ pm

e~ uty

~C.~ ~( n

-~~ ~~

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTCV20~...~-Q~~~jg,~, E UMB

being first duly sworn, depose and say: that I am over ~I~F oT~b ~it~

hat within the boundaries o1 the state where service was effected, I was authorized by law to

e

C

wit ^'y. ~~~~,(

t

~~e~~

~~ _ `

(~ I ' Co.~n P

On n U AT `~-'- l ~ Q1MC Ste`.. 

^ ~I DATE / TIME ~ ` 1,"~

11 / Inquired if subject wa a member of the U.S. Military and was informed they are not.

I V

Thereafter copies of the documents were mailed ~~r.prepaid,~first class mail on .~-= ---~

from ~'!' 

DATE

CITY STATE ZIP

anner of ice:

y personally delivering copies to the person being served.

❑ ituted at Residence: By leaving copies at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the person being

served with a member of the household over the age of and explaining the general nature of the papers.

❑ Substituted at Business: By leaving, during office hours, copies at the office of the person/entity being served with

the person apparently in charge thereof.

❑ Posting: By posting copies in a conspicuous manner to the front door of the person/entity being served.

NAME OF PERSON /ENTITY BEING SERVED ~ f u~

~~ ~ ~'`1C ~ _ l

with (list documents

by leaving with ~r`~ ~ (~ ~. S ~~ ~i] ~ S

E ~ RELAT

❑ Reside

L~$usine;

Non-Service: After due search, careful inquiry and diligent attempts at the addresses) listed above, I have been

unable to effect process upon the person/entity being served because of the following reason(s):

❑ Unknown at Address ❑Moved, Left no Forwarding O Service Cancelled by Litigant ❑ Unable to Serve in Timely Fashion

❑ Address Does Not Exist ❑Other

Service Attempts: Service was attempted on: (1) (2)

DATE TIME DATE TIME

(3) DATE TIME (4) DATE TIME (5) DATE TIME

Description:. Age Sex Race Height Weight Hair Beard Glasses

N TITRE OF PROCESS S V ~~

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to ~~it~~ 4hy~ (.day of 20_, by ~~s 1~

Proved to me on the basis of ~ a to be the persons) who appeare before me.

?p'~

*1 ~. n~ ~~ Sf A UR OF NOT

d~~~ ~ 

- ~~~ NOTARY PU for the st e f ~ .

~~Si~~ 

~~~~~~~

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 43 of 62
FEB ~ ~ 201 FILED ,~. ~,~ pm

Affidavit of Process Server H K. EAN S, ~ e~k

.G ~.

In The Su erior Court For The State Of Arizona In And For The Coun Of Ma ~ t .,. • ~t~

(NAME OF COURT) 

OEP ~ pR f SIDE

Mark Hicks, individually ~S Discovery Plastics, LLC CV~017-01438

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT CA R 2: (1

~ Betty Johnson ,being first duly sworn, depose and say: that I am over the age of 18 years and

not a party W this action, and that within the boundaries of the state where service was effected, I was authorized by law to

perform said service.

Service: I served Discovery Plastics, LLC

NAME OF PERSON /ENTITY BEING SERVED

With (IISt doCU►1'lents) Summons, Complaint, Amended Complaint, Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration, Oemand for a Jury Trial

by leaving with Tracy Andrews HR Manager At

NAME RELATIONSHIP

❑ Residence

ADDRESS CITY /STATE

m Business 3607 28th Avenue NE Miami, Oklahoma 74354

ADDRESS CITY/STATE

On 1/18/2018 AT

DATE

2:24 PM

TIME

Thereafter copies of the documents were mailed by prepaid, first class mail on

DATE

from

CITY STATE ZIP

Manner of Service:

D Personal:,:By. personally delivering._copies to.the person being served, .

a Substituted;at Residence: By leaving.copies~at the dwelling; hoase or•usual place.of abode.of the person_being.... .

served with a member of the household over the age of and explaining the general nature of the papers.

~ Substituted at Business: By leaving, during office hours, copies at the once of the person/entity being served with

the person apparently in charge thereof.

❑ Posting: By posting copies in a conspicuous manner to the front door of the person/entity being served.

Non-Service: After due search, careful inquiry and diligent attempts at the addresses) listed above, I have been

unable to effect process upon the person/entity. being served because of the following reason(s):

❑ Unknown at Address ❑Moved, Left no Forwarding ❑Service Cancelled by Litigant O Unable to Serve in Timely Fashion

O Address Does Not Exist D Other

Service Attempts: Service was attempted on: (1) 01/18/2018 2:24 PM ~2~

DATE TIME DATE TIME

(3) (4) (5)

DATE TIME DATE TIME DATE TIME

Description:. Age40 Sex F RaceW Height 5'3" Weight 150 Haug'°'"" Beard N Glasses N

~~,

SI N RE OF.PROCESS SERVER

.. ..

,.

SUBSCRIBED;AND.SWORN to.before.me this. .- ; day.of 20„~; Eby

Proved-tq.me on:the basis of satisfactory.evidence to.be the.person(s).w o pea~ed 6efore~me:

ERIN M BOUDREAUX SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC Notary ?ublic -Notary Seal.

State of Missouri, Jasper County NOTARY PUBLIC for the state of Commission # 16696240

~~~ ~ My Commission Expires Feb 9, 2020 ' ~,;~F~~

~i~ FORM 2 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL PROCESS SERVERS

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 44 of 62
Affidavit of Process Server

~f e ~ ~~ .rl /~ / (n.l ~ / .~. V~C_~ I" )Y' / lY `-1~~~_. ~II fy ~~ ~4. ~ILIr s .. ~ 1 ~.'1 '

'PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER DEFENDANT/RESPONfJ@NT~vZUI~I~OI~I3$'ZCASENUMBER 

t "KJ Y l ~~eing first duly sworn, depose and say: that I am over t~~ ~~~Of 1~ y~aHs ~d' ~

not a arty to this ction, d ha w hin the boundaries of the state where service was effected, I was authorized~y perform said service. _ FILED BY N. t~ ~ACH

Service: I served

with (list documents)

S CC

O /ENTITY BEING

by Io~~iinn with ~~~~~1~ f" l~ ~' 1 ~e.. i II~V( '- ~U r~ ~U /`s !t Y .4 Y " Af

ADDRESS ~ CITY/STATE ~

Ofl ~ Cl,~ ~ ~'-~ 

DA ~~— ~— 

AT l ~ l.~ ~~. ~'1Vy~~. S ~ ~~

TIME Inquired if subject was a member of the U.S. Military and was 

r~~ informed they are not.

Thereafter copies of the documents -+filed ~by prepaid, first class mail on

from DATE

CITY STATE ZIP

a ~Sery

Perso personally delivering copies to the person being served.

served 

ubstltuted 

with a member 

at Residence: 

of the household 

By leaving 

over 

copies at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the person being

❑ Substituted at Business: By leaving, 

the age of and explaining the general nature of the papers. during office hours, copies at the office of the person/entity being served with 4he person apparently in charge thereof. ❑ Posting: By posting copies in a conspicuous manner to the front door of the person/entity being served.

unable 

Non-Service: 

to effect 

After 

process 

due search, 

upon the 

careful 

person/entity 

inquiry and diligent attempts at the addresses) listed above, I have been being served because of the following reason(s):

❑ 

❑Unknown 

Address Does 

at Address 

Not 

❑Moved, Left no Forwarding ❑Service Cancelled by Litigant ❑ Unable to Serve in Timely Fashion Exist ❑Other

Service Attempts:Service was attempted on: (1) (2)

DATE TIME DATE TIME

(3) (4) 

DATE (5) TIME DATE TIME DATE TIME DescrlptJon:. Age Sex... .Race _ Height Weight H

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to ~friF~` 46~§ Proved to me on~the basis of

~;.~ ~OZ Y

_~`y

`~ 3 v~•~,MePm

~ 

;~ 

",, ~ ~ 1'"8`'

FORM 2 ~~~r~ir ~

~2.day of

to be the persons) who

air Beard

..

Glasses

SIGN UR OF PR ESS R

,x..20 . b~~ ~ r:~s ~ ~-~~

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 45 of 62
2

3

4

5

s

z

8

s

10

~~

12

13

14

15

16

~~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 I

Victory Services, L.L.C.

3223 E. Hillery Drive

Phoenix, Arizona 85032

602-404-2075

Process service company

~~Rf~E VED NE OUTSIQE~

DEPaSItGRY

18 FFB -F PM 2~ 0b

FILED BY N. BUTZBACH

IN TN.E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARK HICKS, individually;

Plaintiff,

vs.

BLITZ U.S.A., INC.; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No: CV2017-014382

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BY COURT CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVER

THOMAS D. SARRETT states: That he is duly qualified and certified to serve process in

the cause within the State in which it was served, having been so appointed by the

Maricopa County Superior Court; that he received the documents as described below:

Summons, Complaint, Amended Complaint, Plaintiff s Certificate

Regarding Compulsory Arbitration &Plaintiff's Demand for Jury Demand

That he personally served true copies of the above documents on at 12:46 p.m. on

January 16, 2018 at 1001 West Minton Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85041. Service was

effected on LCB Show Horses by providing the documents to Lisa-Bullock.

declare under penalty of pery'ury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 6, 2018.

~`~~.~y ~

Thomas D. Barrett, cert. MC-7567

18A17

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 46 of 62
z

3

4

5

6

7

s

9

10

~~

12

13

14

15

16

~~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Victory Services, L.L.C.

3223 E. Hillery Drive

Phoenix, Arizona 85032

602-404-2075

Process service company

MICb~[~ 

I~E~EYID NE 0 tS ~E~I

~f.4'OSI',?~Y

18 FEB -~ P~1 2~ r!~

~~ILED BY N. BUTZBACH

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

MARK HICKS, individually;

Plaintiff,

VS.

BLITZ U.S.A., INC.; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No: CV2017-014382

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BY COURT CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVER

THOMAS D. SARRETT states: That he is duly qualified and certified to serve process in

the cause within the State in which it was served, having been so appointed by the

Maricopa County Superior Court; that he received the documents as described below:

Summons, Complaint, Amended Complaint, Plaintiff s Certificate

Regarding Compulsory Arbitration & Plaintiff s Demand for Jury Demand

That he personally served true copies of the above documents on Lisa Bullock at 12:46

p.m. on January 16, 2018 at 1001 West Minton Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85041.

declare under penalty of perjury That the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 6, 2018.

9

~~ G___ ~ -D

Thomas D. Barrett, cent. MC-7567

~ ,ao,~

~!

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 47 of 62
Davis Process Service L.L.C.

1524 S. Main Street

Little Rock, AR 72202

501-376-8379 FAX 501-376-8479

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA

STATE OF ARKANSAS

COUNTY OF PULASKI

Case Number: CV2017-014382

Date Received: 16-Jan-18

Attorney:

Attorney: David T. Panzarella

Plaintiff: Mark Hicks, Individually

On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 10:33 AM I have duly served this

A1ICHAEL K. ~EANE~~., ~LfRIS

" REC~IvED NE DUl SIDE

DEP~~ITuh'f

18 FFB -6 PM 2~ 09

FILED BY N. BUTZHACH

SUMMONS/COMPLAINT/AMENDED COMPLAINT/PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE

REGARDING COMPULSORY ARBITRATION/& PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

on Wal-Mart Stores East, LP by the following manner of service: by delivering a true copy to:

Karen Price. Address where party served: AFS: The Corporation Company, 124 West

Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock, AR 72201.

Client No:

Fee: $55.00

Subscribed and sworn to before me on Thursday, January

My Commission expires 12/10/2020 ao°°' EL S.

ono`'° ono ~~~°°000mc~ e

q ~~~~~v ~~~ Q

+~

0

~$°o~00000~ ~.

°°eo ~p~s~~`a

BOo..r.,t,,,ogN~''

m Sibert

it

. Davis, Notary Public

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 48 of 62
Davis Process Service L.L.C.

1524 S. Main Street

Little Rock, AR 72202

501-376-8379 FAX 501-376-8479

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA

STATE OF ARKANSAS

COUNTY OF PULASKI

cvw~-t-o►4~~z

Case Number: CV201-014382

Date Received: 16-Jan-18

Attorney:

Attorney: David T. Panzarella

Plaintiff: Mark Hicks, Individually

On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 10:33 AM I have duly served this

rticHaE~ n. ~~ANt~:.;;.~E:~K

RECEIYEO NE OUTSIDE

O~?OS! f ~. ~

18 FFB -F PM 2: ~g

i~ILED BY N. BUTZBACH

SUMMONS/COMPLAINT/AMENDED COMPLAINT/PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE

REGARDING COMPULSORY ARBITRATION/& PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. by the following manner of service: by delivering a true copy to;

Karen Price. Address where party served: AFS: The Corporation Company, 124 West

Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock, AR 72201.

Client No:

Fee: $55.00

Subscribed and sworn to before me on Thursday,

My Commission expires 12/10/2020

P cess server: Tim Sibert

~000000~ ~a:

~'oo,,.~~iPIRESI'L

m

Davis, Notary Public

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 49 of 62

 1 CV2017-014382 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

STEVEN T. LONG (021190) 

LANGLEY LAW FIRM, P.C. 

8170 North 86th Place, Suite 100 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 

(480) 609-9616 

(480) 609-9620 Fax 

docketing@langleyazlaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Discovery Plastics, LLC 

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA 

COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

MARK HICKS, individually, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BLITZ U.S.A., INC.; LAM 2011 

HOLDINGS, L.L.C., aka BLITZ 

HOLDINGS, LLC; KINDERHOOK 

INDUSTRIES, LLC; KINDERHOOK 

CAPITAL FUND III, LP; BLITZ 

ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC.; 

BLITZ ACQUISITION, LLC; BLITZ RE 

HOLDINGS, LLC; F3 BRANDS, LLC; 

WAL-MART STORES, INC.; 

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; 

DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC; LCB 

SHOW HORSES; LISA BULLOCK, 

Individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE 

DOES I-X, husbands and wives; BLACK 

AND WHITE CORPORATIONS I-XX; 

BLACK AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS 

I-XX; 

Defendants.

Case No. CV2017-014382 

DISCOVERY PLASTICS, LLC’s 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK 

OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 

(Honorable Kerstin LeMaire)

Comes now, Discovery Plastics, LLC (“Discovery Plastics”), and hereby moves 

for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Rule 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 51 of 62
 2 CV2017-014382 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12(b)(2), Ariz. R. Civ. P. This Motion to Dismiss is supported by the following 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

 I. Statement of Facts 

 According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Mark Hicks was holding and 

using, as intended, a portable fuel container on November 7, 2015, when the subject 

container exploded, causing severe injuries and damage. Plaintiff claims that he 

purchased the subject container from a Wal-Mart Store. Plaintiff further alleges that the 

container was manufactured by one or more of several known defendants (Blitz U.S.A., 

Inc.; LAM 2011 Holdings, L.L.C. a/k/a Blitz Holdings, LLC; Kinderhook Industries, 

LLC; Kinderhook Capital Fund III, LP; Blitz Acquisition Holdings, Inc.; Blitz 

Acquisition, LLC; Blitz RE Holdings, LLC; F3 Brands, LLC) or unknown defendants 

John Doe, Black and White Corporations I-XX, and Black and White Partnerships IXX. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Discovery Plastics manufactured a component part, 

namely the cap on the portable gas container. 

 Discovery Plastics is a custom mold shop located in Miami, Oklahoma. 

Discovery Plastics is owned by Tom R. Paul and his wife. See Paragraphs 2 and 3, 

Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto as Exhibit A. Discovery Plastics is a custom 

plastics molder, meaning that it molds plastic into products which are designed and sold 

by third parties. See Paragraph 4, Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto as Exhibit 

A. 

 For a limited period of time, Discovery Plastics contracted with Blitz U.S.A., 

Inc. (“Blitz”) whereby Discovery Plastics would mold plastic into spouts and caps 

which Blitz incorporated into its portable fuel containers. 2008 was the last year in 

which Discovery Plastics molded spouts and caps for Blitz. See Paragraph 8, 

Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto as Exhibit A. Discovery Plastics has never 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 52 of 62
 3 CV2017-014382 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

designed, molded, manufactured, or sold a plastic portable gas can. See Paragraph 5, 

Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

 For the Blitz spouts and caps, Blitz provided Discovery Plastics with the designs, 

parameters, specifications, and molds which Discovery Plastics used to mold Blitz 

spouts and caps. Discovery Plastics did not design or even participate in the design of 

any Blitz spout or cap. Rather, Discovery Plastics merely melted plastic, injected the 

melted plastic into molds designed and owned by Blitz, and delivered the cooled spouts 

and caps to Blitz. See Paragraphs 9 and 10, Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto as 

Exhibit A. Blitz then incorporated these spouts and caps into portable gas cans, which 

Blitz sold to retailers. 

 During the relevant periods, Discovery Plastics employed approximately 80-100 

employees and had many customers other than Blitz. Currently, Discovery Plastics 

employs approximately 150 people in Miami, Oklahoma–a town in Northeast 

Oklahoma with a population of approximately 13,000 people. See Paragraph 14, 

Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

 Discovery Plastics does not, and never has (a) had offices in Arizona, (b) had 

property in Arizona, (c) had employees, agents, or sales people in Arizona, (d) had 

customers in Arizona, (e) sold products in Arizona, (f) solicited business in Arizona, (g) 

shipped its products into Arizona, or (h) performed custom molding for any Arizona 

person or business. See Paragraphs 15-21, Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto as 

Exhibit A. 

 Discovery Plastics did not design, participate in the design, or otherwise consult 

with Blitz concerning the design of its spouts and caps. Discovery Plastics did not 

design or control the system of distribution that carried the Blitz gasoline containers 

into Arizona. See, Paragraphs 9 and 22 of the Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto 

as Exhibit A. 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 53 of 62
 4 CV2017-014382 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Discovery Plastics did not contemplate that performing custom molding of 

spouts and caps for Blitz in Miami, Oklahoma, would subject it to lawsuits in Arizona. 

See Paragraph 23, Affidavit of Tom R. Paul attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

 II. Argument and Authority 

 Blitz manufactured red portable gas cans. Blitz’ manufacturing facility was 

located in Miami, Oklahoma. Discovery Plastics was also located in Miami, 

Oklahoma, approximately three (3) miles from the Blitz manufacturing plant. Blitz 

asked Discovery Plastics to mold spouts and caps for the Blitz gas cans. Discovery 

Plastics agreed to do so. For a relatively short period of time, Discovery Plastics melted 

plastic in its mold shop, injected plastic into Blitz’s molds, and delivered the cooled 

spouts and caps across town to Blitz. Blitz then incorporated the spouts and caps 

molded by Discovery Plastic into its portable gas cans and sold Blitz-manufactured gas 

cans to various retailers. Discovery Plastics has never designed, molded, manufactured, 

marketed, or sold a plastic gas can. Rather, Discovery Plastics merely molded 

component parts (the spout and cap) using the Blitz spout and cap designs and molds 

which Blitz owned. 

A. General Standards 

 Arizona courts may exercise personal jurisdiction to the maximum extent 

allowed by the United Sates Constitution. Planning Grp. of Scottsdale, L. L. C. v. Lake 

Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., 246 P. 3d 343, 346 (Ariz. 2011); see also Ariz. R. Civ. 

P. 4.2(a). The question of personal jurisdiction hinges on federal law. A. Uberti & C v. 

Leonardo, 898 P.2d 1354 at 1358 (Ariz. 2008). The Due Process Clause contained in 

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a defendant from 

“the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful 

‘contacts, ties, or relations.’ Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.462 (1985), 

quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 54 of 62
 5 CV2017-014382 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

U.S. 310 (1945). Due process thus requires that before a state court exerts jurisdiction 

over a nonresident defendant such as Discovery Plastics, it must first be shown that the 

defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit 

does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe, 326 

U.S. at 316 quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 

(1940). 

 Personal jurisdiction is either “general” or “specific.” Williams v. Lakeview Co. 

199 Ariz. 1, ¶ 6, 13 P.3d 280, 280 (2000). Arizona may exercise general jurisdiction 

over nonresident limited liability companies whose activities in the state are ‘systematic 

and continuous,” even if the suit’s subject matter is wholly unrelated to the forum. 

Planning Grp. 246 P.3d at 346, quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 320, 66 S.Ct. 154. 

Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, is “jurisdiction with respect to a particular 

claim,” and requires “sufficient contacts” with the forum such that it is “reasonable, in 

the context of our federal system of government, to require the [defendant] to defend 

the particular suit which is brought there.” Planning Grp. 226 Ariz. 262, ¶ ¶ 13-14, 246 

P. 3d. at 346-347, quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 317, 66 S.Ct. 154. 

 Arizona has adopted a “holistic approach” for determining whether personal 

jurisdiction exists. Planning Grp. 226 Ariz. 262, ¶ 25, 246 P.3d at 349. Under this 

approach, Arizona courts consider (a) the breadth of the contacts between the defendant 

and the forum state, and (b) whether the defendant engaged in purposeful conduct for 

which it could reasonably expect to be hailed in to an Arizona court with respect to that 

conduct. Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd., 276 P.3d 46 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). 

Arizona has no mechanical formula. Rather, the facts of each case must be weighed in 

determining whether personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial 

justice.” Id. 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 55 of 62
 6 CV2017-014382 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 If a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the burden then shifts to 

the Plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs “cannot meet the 

burden of establishing personal jurisdiction with bare allegations, but must come 

forward with facts, established by affidavit or otherwise, supporting jurisdiction.” Van 

Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd., 276 P.3d 46, 50 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). 

B. Discovery Plastics has NO contacts with Arizona and has Never Engaged in 

any Conduct Directed to Arizona or its Residents. 

 Blitz, the alleged designer and manufacturer of the portable gasoline container at 

issue here, sold its red portable gasoline containers to major retailers such as Walmart, 

Lowes, and Home Depot. As such, Blitz is likely subject to general personal 

jurisdiction in each state in which its gas cans were sold. Conversely, Discovery 

Plastics merely molded a component parts (the spout) of certain models of Blitz 

gasoline containers and delivered those to Blitz at its manufacturing facility in Miami, 

Oklahoma. Although Discovery Plastics was aware that Blitz containers were being 

sold throughout the United States, it never engaged in conduct, purposeful or otherwise, 

directed to Arizona or its residents. Discovery Plastics has never availed itself to the 

benefits of Arizona law. 

 A similar fact pattern was presented to the United States Supreme Court in Asahi 

Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, 107 S. Ct. 

1026 (1987). In Asahi, the plaintiff was driving a motorcycle and claimed the rear tire 

blew out which caused an accident. The plaintiff was severely injured and his wife was 

killed in the motorcycle wreck. Plaintiff sued Cheng Shin, the tire’s manufacturer, who 

in turn asserted a third-party claim against Asahi Metal Industry Co. (“Asahi”). Asahi 

was a Japanese manufacturer of valve stems. Asahi sold valve stems to Cheng Shin, 

which was located in Taiwan. Cheng Shin then incorporated the Asahi-manufactured 

valve stems into its tires and sold the tires internationally. 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 56 of 62
 7 CV2017-014382 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The California Supreme Court concluded that Asahi knew that some of its valve 

stems sold to Cheng Shin would be incorporated into tire tubes sold in California, and 

that Asahi benefitted indirectly from those sales. The California Supreme Court held 

that this indirect benefit, coupled with Asahi’s knowledge of California sales, were 

sufficient to subject Asahi to personal jurisdiction in California. 

 The United States Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the California Supreme 

Court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court held that mere knowledge that one’s 

product may be swept into a forum state is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. 

The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is 

not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. 

Additional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to 

serve the market in the forum State, for example designing the product for 

the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing 

channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or 

marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the 

sales agent in the forum State. But, a defendant’s awareness that the 

stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State 

does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an 

act purposefully directed toward the forum state. Asahi at 1032. 

 Like the valve stem manufacturer in Asahi, supra, Discovery Plastics merely 

manufactured components of certain models of Blitz red portable gasoline containers, 

namely the spout and cap.1

 Such spout was manufactured to Blitz’ design, Blitz’ 

specifications, and by using Blitz’ molds. Discovery Plastics merely melted plastic and 

injected the plastic into the Blitz molds. “The substantial connection required by 

Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S. Ct., at 2184; McGee, 355 U.S., at 223, 78 S. Ct., 

at 201 between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum 

contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward 

 

1

 Nothing herein is intended to be construed as an admission that Discovery Plastics molded the spout and 

cap which was on the container used by the Plaintiff. Blitz molded many of its own spouts and caps. Additionally, 

Blitz used various mold shops over the years to mold spouts and caps which it incorporated into its red plastic gas 

cans. 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 57 of 62
 8 CV2017-014382 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the forum state.” Asahi at 1032. Even assuming, arguendo, that Discovery Plastics 

molded the spout and cap on the gasoline container used by Plaintiff, Discovery Plastic 

has taken no action purposefully directed toward Arizona which would subject it to this 

Court’s jurisdiction. 

 III. Conclusion and Prayer 

 Discovery Plastics is a small custom plastics molding shop in Northeast 

Oklahoma which, for a limited period of time, molded spouts and caps for Blitz. Blitz 

incorporated these spouts and caps into its portable gas containers which it sold to 

retailers. It would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to 

require Discovery Plastics to defend litigation in a state in which it has no contacts. 

Discovery Plastics had never availed itself to the benefits of the laws of Arizona and 

should be dismissed from this litigation. 

DATED this 16th day of February, 2018. 

 LANGLEY LAW FIRM, P.C. 

By: /s/ Steven T. Long

LARRY D. LANGLEY 

STEVEN T. LONG 

8170 North 86th Place, Suite 100 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 

Attorneys for Defendant Discovery 

Plastics, LLC

 PDF of the foregoing e-served this 

same day on: 

David T. Panzarella, Esq. 

LERNER & ROWE, P.C. 

2701 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 140 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

dpanzarella@lernerandrowe.com

minutes_entries@lernerandrowe.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

By: /s/Cheryl Dunlap 

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 58 of 62
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 59 of 62
Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 60 of 62
Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 61 of 62
Case 2:18-cv-00543-DJH Document 1-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 62 of 62