Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

FILED

10/18/2018 1:51 PM
JOHN F. WARREN
COUNTY CLERK
DALLAS COUNTY

CC-18-05668-E
NO.

ISABEL ARANZAMENDI, §§ IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW


INDIVIDUALLY AS THE SOLE §§
WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY §§
OF WILBER DIMAS, DECEASED, §§
§§
vs.
VS. §§ NO.
§§
ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION, §
LOCHRIDGE-PRIEST, INC.,
INC., and §g
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. §§ TExAs
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORIGINAL PETITION AND


PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL
PLAINTIFF^S AND
RULE 194 REQUESTS
RULE FOR DISCLOSURE
REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:


THE HONORABLE

COMES NOW, Plaintiff,


Plaintiff, Isabel
Isabel Aranzamendi, Individually
Individually as
as the
the Sole
Sole Wrongful
WrongfiJI Death

Beneficiary
Beneficiary of
of Wilber Dimas,
Dimas, Deceased,
Deceased, by
by and through
through her
her undersigned
undersigned counsel,
counsel, complaining
complaining of
of

Atmos Energy
Energy Corporation,
Corporation, Lochridge-Priest,
Lochridge-Priest, Inc.,
Inc., and Johnson Controls,
Controls, Inc.,
Inc., (collectively
(collectively

"Defendants"), and for


“Defendants”), and for cause
cause of
of action
action would respectfully
respectfully show the
the following:
following:

L
I. Discovery Plan

1.
1. Plaintiff
Plaintiff intends
intends to
to conduct
conduct discovery
discovery in
in this
this matter
matter under
under Level
Level 3
3 of
of Tex.
TEX. R.
R. Civ.
CIV. P.
P. 190.
190.

II. Parties

2.
2. Plaintiff
Plaintiff Isabel
Isabel Aranzamendi is
is a
a resident
resident of the
the State
State of Texas.
Texas. She is
is the
the mother and
and sole
sole

wrongful death
death beneficiary
beneficiary of
of Wilber
Wilber Dimas,
Dimas, deceased
deceased (hereinafter
(hereinafter referred
referred to
to as
as "Mr.
“Mr.

Dimas"
Dimas” or
or "Wilber
“Wilber Dimas").
Dimas”).

3.
3. Defendant
Defendant Atmos Energy
Energy Corporation
Corporation is
is a
a Texas
Texas corporation
corporation that
that does
does business
business in
in this
this state
state

and can
can be
be served
served with
with citation
citation through
through its
its registered
registered agent.
agent, Corporation
Corporation Service
Service Company,
Company,

<Vb/a
dfb/a CSC-Lawyers
CSC—Lawyers Incorporating
Incorporating Service
Service Company,
Company, 211
211 E.
E. 7'“ Street,
Street, Suite
Suite 620,
620, Austin,
Austin,

Texas 78701-3218.
4. Defendant
Defendant Lochridge-Priest,
Lochridge-Priest, Inc., is aa Texascorporation
Inc., is Texas corporation that
that does
does business
business in this state,has
in this state, has

itsheadquarters
its headquarters in
in Waco, Texas,
Texas, andcanbeserved
and can be served withcitation through its
with citation through its registered
registered agent,
agent,

Billy
Billy J.
J. Akins,
Akins, 2901 E.
E. Industrial
Industrial Blvd.,
Blvd., Waco, Texas 76705.
76705.

5. Defendant Johnson Controls,


Controls, Inc.,
Inc., is
is a Wisconsin corporation that
that is registered to
is registered to do business
business

in
in Texas,
Texas, and can
can be
be served
served with citation
citation through its
its registered
registered agent,
agent, CT Corporation

System,
System, 1999 Bryan
Bryan St.,
St., Suite
Suite 900,
900, Dallas,
Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.
75201-3136.

III. Venue and Jurisdiction

6. Venue is
is proper
proper and maintainable
maintainable in
in Dallas
Dallas County,
County, Texas under
under Section
Section 15.002(3)
15.002(3) of the
the

Texas
TEXAS Civil
CIVIL Practice
PRACTICE & Remedies Code since
REMEDIES CODE since Defendant Atmos Energy
Energy Corporation has'
has

its principal
its principal oflice
office in
in said
said county.
county.

7. Moreover,
Moreover, because
because venue
venue is proper in
is proper in Dallas
Dallas County,
County, Texas
Texas as to Defendant
as to Defendant Atmos Energy
Energy

Corporation, is also
Corporation, venue is also proper as
as to
to Defendants Lochridge-Priest, Inc. and Johnson
Lochridge-Priest, Inc. Johnson

Controls,
Controls, Inc., pursuant to
Inc., pursuant to Section
Section 15.005 ofthe TEXAS CiViL
15.005 ofthe CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE

which provides
provides that
that when venue
venue is proper as
is proper as to one defendant
to one defendant it is proper
it is proper as to all
as to all defendants
defendants

and all
all claims.

8. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is
is proper
proper in this Court
in this Court since
since Plaintiffs
Plaintiff‘s damages are
are within
within its jurisdictional
its jurisdictional

limits, pursuant to
limits, pursuant to Section
Section 25.0592(a)
25.0592(a) of the
the TEXAS GOVERNMENT Code.
CODE.

IV.
IV. Nature and Background of
of Case

9. Plaintiff seeks monetary


Plaintiff seeks relief over
monetary relief over $1,000,000.00 and aa demand for
$1,000,000.00 and judgment for
for judgment for all the
all the

other relief to
to which Plaintiff herself entitled.
Plaintiff deems herself entitled.

10.
10. It has become necessary
It has to bring
necessary to this petition
bring this petition to
to collect
collect a
a legal
legal debt
debt and
and damages
damages due
due and
and

owing Plaintiff
Plaintiff as a result
as a result of
of an
an explosion that occurred
explosion that occurred on June 26,
on June 26, 2018 at the
2018 at the site
site of
of
Coryell
Coryell Memorial Hospital
Hospital in
in Gatesville,
Gatesville, Texas.

11.
11. Plaintiffs
Plaintiff” s son, Wilber Dimas,
son, Wilber Dimas, was an employee working at
at the
the Coryell
Coryell Memorial
Memorial Hospital
Hospital

site
site as
as an
an employee
employee of a
a subcontractor
subcontractor to
to DefendantJohnson
Defendant Johnson Controls,
Controls, Inc.
Inc. As a result
result of

work undertaken by Defendant Johnson Controls,


undertaken by Inc. pursuant
Controls, Inc. pursuant to
to its
its Subcontract Agreement

HC 6-640, Wilber Dimas was present


No. HC16-640,
1 present at
at the
the site
site where he sustained
sustained fatal
fatal injuries.
injuries. All

to
damages to Plaintiff
Plaintiff arise
arise out
out of work undertaken pursuant to Defendant Johnson Controls,
pursuant to Controls,

Inc. Subcontract
Inc. Subcontract Agreement No.
No. HC16-640.
HC16-640.

12.
12. On said
said date
date at
at approximately
approximately 2:30
2:30 p.m.,
p.m., as that hospital's
as that hospital’s campus was undergoing
undergoing

renovations
renovations as part of an expansion project,
as part project, a massive and tragic natural gas
tragic natural gas explosion

occurred
occurred within the Central
within the Central Utility
Utility Plant
Plant ("CUP") building at
(“CUP”) building at the rear ofthe hospital
the rear hospital campus.

13.
13. Atmos Energy
Energy Corporation provided the
Corporation provided natural gas
the natural gas and/or had control
and/or had control over
over the
the lines
lines through
through

which natural
natural gas
gas was supplied to the
supplied to the hospital campus.
hospital campus.

14.
14. The blast,
blast, which occurred
occurred in
in the
the CUP building
building ofthe
ofthe campus designed
designed to
to house boilers
boilers and

chillers for the hospital facility, resulted in injuries to more than


chillers for the hospital facility, resulted in injuries to than a
a dozen workers
workers at
at the
the site,
site,

including
including the
the wrongful
wrongful death
death of Wilber
Wilber Dimas.
Dimas.

15.
15. Plaintiffs
Plaintiff‘s injuries
injuries and
and damages were proximately
damages were proximately caused
caused by
by the
the negligent
negligent acts, both of
acts, both of

commission and omission, of the


the Defendants.

16.
16. Nothing Wilber Dimas did
did or
or failed
failed to
to do caused
caused or
or in
in any
any way
way contributed to cause
contributed to cause the
the

explosion incident
incident or his death.
or his death.

17.
17. Plaintiff
Plaintiff seeks
seeks all
all elements
elements of
of actual damages recoverable
actual damages by law.
recoverable by law.
18.
18. Defendant Atmos Energy
Defendant

proximate cause
proximate
Energy Corporation

cause of
of the
W
CAUSES OF ACTION

V. Negligence of Atmos Energy Corporation


V.

Corporation was negligent.

explosion and
the explosion
negligent. The negligence of

Plaintiffs
Plaintiff‘s injuries
of Defendant was a

injuries and damages.

VI. Negligence of Lochridge-Priest,


Lochridge-Priest, Inc.
Inc.

19.
19. Lochridge-Priest,
Lochridge-Priest, Inc.
Inc. was negligent.
negligent. The negligence
negligence of Defendant was a
a proximate cause

of the
the explosion
explosion and Plaintiff’s
Plaintiffs injuries
injuries and damages.
damages.

VII. Negligence of Johnson Controls, Inc.


Inc.

20.
20. Johnson Controls,
Controls, Inc. negligent. The negligence
Inc. was negligent. negligence of Defendant
Defendant was aa proximate
proximate cause
cause

of the
the explosion
explosion and Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs injuries
injuries and damages.

VIII.
VIII. Res Ipsa Loquitur
Loquitur

21.
21. Plaintiff
Plaintiff invokes
invokes the doctrine of
the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur. Plaintiff
Ipsa Loquitur. Plaintiff would show that the character
that the character

of the event made the


ofthe the basis of this
basis of this lawsuit
lawsuit is
is such
such that
that it not ordinarily
it would not ordinarily occur
occur in
in the
the

absence of negligence
negligence of Defendants.
Defendants.

DAMAGES WRONGFUL
DEATH
FOR WRONGFUL DEATH
DAMAGES FOR

X.

22.
22. Pursuant
Pursuant to
to §71.001,
§71 .001, et.
et. seq.,
seq. ofthe
, ofthe TEXAS CiVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES Code,
CIVIL PRACTICE CODE, commonly
commonly

referred
referred to
to as
as the
the "Wrongful Death Act”,
“Wrongful Death Act", Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, as the wrongful
as the wrongful death
death beneficiary
beneficiary of
of

Wilber Dimas,
Dimas, brings
brings this
this action
action to
to recover just compensation
recover just compensation for the damages
for the damages she
she has
has

suffered as aa result
result of the death of her son.

23.
23. As aa proximate
proximate result
result ofthe
ofthe above acts and/or
above acts and/or omissions on the
omissions on the part
part ofDefendants,
of Defendants, Plaintiff
Plaintiff

has
has suffered
suffered loss
loss by
by virtue
virtue ofthe
ofthe economic and non-economic
economic and damages associated
non-economic damages associated with the
with the
death of Wilber Dimas,
death Dimas, as well as
as well the destruction
as the destruction of the parent-child relationship.
the parent-child relationship.

24.
24. As
As aa direct, proximate, and
direct, proximate, and producing
producing result of the
result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffhas
Plaintiff has

suffered
suffered pecuniary
pecuniary loss
loss due
due to
to the
the death
death of
of Wilber Dimas, including
including loss
loss of
of care,
care,

maintenance, support,
maintenance, support, services,advice,counsel,and
services, advice, counsel, and contributions
contributions of a pecuniaJy
pecuniaryvaluethat
value that

Plaintiffwould, in
Plaintiffwould, reasonableprobability,have
in reasonable probability, have received from Wilber Dimas, during
received from during his
his life,
life,

had he lived.

25.
25. Plaintiff
Plaintiff has
has suffered
suffered additional
additional losses
losses by virtue of the
by virtue the destruction
destruction of the
the parent/child
parent/child

relationship including
relationship the right
including the right to
to positive
positive benefits
benefits flowing fiom
flowing from the
the love,
love, comfort,
comfort,

companionship,
companionship, and society
society that
that Plaintiffwould,
Plaintiffwould, in
in all reasonable probability,
all reasonable probability, have received

from Wilber
Wilber Dimas during his life,
during his life, had he
he lived.
lived.

26.
26. Plaintiff has
Plaintiff has suffered
suffered severe
severe mental depression and anguish,
anguish, including emotional pain,
pain,

torment,
torment, and grief,
grief, as a result
as a result of the wrongful death
the wrongful death of Wilber
Wilber Dimas and Plaintiff
Plaintiff will, in
will, in

all reasonable probability,


all reasonable probability, continue
continue to
to suffer
suffer these
these damages for a long
for a long time in the
time in the future.
future.

27.
27. For these
these losses.
losses, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, as the sole
as the wrongful death
sole wrongful beneficiary of
death beneficiary Wilber Dimas,
of Wilber Dimas, seeks
seeks

damages in
in excess
excess of the
the minimal jurisdictional
jurisdictional limits
limits of
of the Court.
the Court.

XI. Reservation of Rights


XI.

28.
28. These allegations
These allegations against Defendants Atmos Energy
against'Defendants Energy Corporation,
Corporation, Lochridge-Priest,
Lochridge-Priest, Inc.,
Inc., and

Johnson Controls,
Controls, Inc.
Inc. are
are made acknowledging that
that investigation
investigation and
and discovery,
discovery, although
although

undertaken,
undertaken, are
are continuing
continuing in
in this
this matter.
matter. As fiirther
further investigation
investigation and
and discovery
discovery are
are

conducted,
conducted, additional
additional facts
facts will
will surely
surely be uncovered that
that may and probably
probably will
will necessitate
necessitate

further,
further, additional,
additional, and/or
and/or different
different allegations,
allegations, including the potential
including the potential of
of adding
adding additional
additional

parties to the
parties to the case
case or
or dismissing
dismissing parties
patties from
from the
the case.
case. The right
right to
to do
do so
so is,
is, under
under Texas
Texas law.
law,
expressly reserved.
expressly reserved.

XIL Pre-Judgment Interest


XII. Pre-Judgment

29.
29. Plaintiff
Plaintiff would additionally say and show that
additionally say that she is
is entitled
entitled to
to recovery 0f
of pre-judgment

interest
interest in
in accordance with law and equity
equity as
as part
pan of her
her damages herein,
herein, and Plaintiff here
Plaintiff here

and now sues


sues for
for recovery
recovery ofpre-judgment
ofpre-j udgment interest
interest as
as provided by
by law and equity,
equity, under the
the

applicable provisions of the


the laws of
0f the State
State of Texas.

XIII. Requests for Disclosure

30.
30. Pursuant to
to Texas Rule
Rule of Civil
Civil Procedure 194,
194, Defendants are
are each requested
requested to
t0 disclose
disclose

within the
within time period set
the time set forth
forth in
in Rule 194.3 the
the information or
or material
material described in
in Rule

194.2(a)-
194.2(a) - 194.2(1).
194.2(1).

XIV. Jury Demand

31.
31. Plaintiff
Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
a jury trial.

PRAYER
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff
Plaintiff prays
prays that
that upon final
final trial
trial Plaintiff recover damages as
Plaintiffrecover as specified
specified

above from the


the Defendants, both jointly
Defendants, both jointly and
and severally, plus costs
severally, plus costs of
of court,
court, pre-judgment
pre-judgment and
and post-
post—

judgment interest at the


interest at legal rate,
the legal rate, attorneys'
attorneys’ fees
fees and
and expenses, and have
expenses, and such other
have such other and
and further
further

relief,
relief, general
general and special,
special, at law and
at law and in
in equity,
equity, to
t0 which Plaintiff may
which Plaintiff may show herselfjustly
herselfjustly entitled.
entitled.

Respectfully
Respectfully submitted,
submitted,

THE AMMONSXAW
THE A

)ert mmons
ert E. Afnmons

State Bar No. 01


01159820
159820
Andrea Zarikian
2409341 1
State Bar No. 24093411
3700 Montrose Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77006
Telephone:
Telephone: 713-523-1606
71 3-523 - 1 606
Facsimile: 713-523-4159
rob@ammonslaw.com
rob@ammonslaw.com
andrea@ammonslaw.com
andrea@ammonslaw.com
joy@animonslaw.com
joy@ammonslaw.com

and

Jim Dunnam
State Bar No. 0625 8010
Dunnam &Dunnam, LLP
4125 West Waco Dr.
P.O. Box 8418
841 8
Waco, Texas 76714-8418
Telephone:254-753-6437
Telephone:254-753-6437
Facsimile: 254-753-7434
jimdunnam@dunnamlaw.com
jimdunnam@dunnamlaw.com
nicole@dunnamlaw.com
nicole@dunnamlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF