Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

CAUSE NO.

_______________

LI HUANG, § IN THE _______ JUDICIAL


(1) INDIVIDUALLY; §
(2) ON BEHALF OF HER §
WRONGFULLY DECEASED §
HUSBAND, §
YU LUO; §
AND AS §
(3) NEXT FRIEND OF THEIR §
SURVIVING CHILD, §
MINOR ; §
§
ZHIMING LUO, §
INDIVIDUALLY; §
§
SHIGUO WANG, §
(1) INDIVIDUALLY; §
AND AS §
(2) NEXT FRIEND OF §
MINOR ; § DISTRICT COURT OF
AND §
XIAOLI WEI, §
INDIVIDUALLY; §
§
PLAINTIFFS, §
§
V. §
§
NORTHPARK PARTNERS, L.P.; §
NORTHPARK MANAGEMENT COMPANY; §
NORTHPARK LAND PARTNERS, L.P. §
(INDIVIDUALLY AND IN REM); §
NORTHPARK SECURITY, INC.; §
§
AND; §
§
CHRISTOPHER RYAN SHAW, §
§
DEFENDANTS. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION SEEKING:


COMPENSATION FOR CATASTROPHIC INJURIES AND
FULL-YEAR CLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS’ COMMON NUISANCE PARKING LOTS

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 1 of 15
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COME the Plaintiffs and would respectfully show the Court:

I.

TRCP 47, TRCP 190.4, AND CRPC 125.003

1. Pursuant to TRCP 47, the seven Plaintiffs affirmatively pleads that they seek

monetary relief well in excess of $1,000,000 each.

2. A Level 3 Scheduling Order pursuant to TRCP 190.4 is requested.

3. This action is to be construed to include an action against the property itself as an

action in rem pursuant CPRC 125.002(b); and seeking the mandatory closure of the property’s

parking lots for one year, pursuant to CPRC 125.002(e): “The judgment must order that the

place where the nuisance exists be closed for a period of one year after the date of judgment.”

II.

Related Case

1. Pursuant to LOCAL RULE 1.08, Plaintiffs hereby reference a previously-filed

TRCP 202 cause rooted in the same events and subject matter:

Huang v. NorthPark Center, Ltd., et al.

Cause No. DC- 19-05631

68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County.

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 2 of 15
III.

PARTIES

A. The Plaintiffs:

1. Li Huang comes to the Court individually for the loss of her husband. She is a

resident of China, and may be contacted through the undersigned counsel.

2. Yu Luo was killed in the collision. Plaintiff Li Huang comes to the Court on his

behalf. He was a resident of China. Herein, “Yu Luo” and “Estate of Yu Luo” are used

interchangeably.

3. Minor s father was killed in the collision. Li Huang comes to the

Court as their child’s Next Friend. Pursuant to TRCP 21c, the Minor’s name is

SENSITIVE DATA, requiring redaction. The Minor is to be referred to in writing

in this litigation as “Minor ” or “Yu’s Plaintiff Child.” Yu’s Plaintiff

Child is a resident of China, and may be contacted through the undersigned counsel.

4. Zhiming Luo lost his son, Yu Luo, in the collision, and comes to the Court

individually. He is a resident of China, and may be contacted through the undersigned counsel.

5. Shiguo Wang comes to the Court individually. He is a resident of China, and

may be contacted through the undersigned counsel.

6. Xiaoli Wei comes to the Court individually for her damages resulting from the

lifelong injuries sustained by her husband, Plaintiff Shiguo Wang.

7. Minor is the child of Plaintiff Xiaoli Wei and Plaintiff Shiguo

Wang, who has been hospitalized since the collisions. Plaintiff Shiguo Wang comes to the Court

as his child’s Next Friend. Pursuant to TRCP 21c, the Minor’s name is SENSITIVE

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 3 of 15
DATA, requiring redaction. The Minor is to be referred to in writing in this

litigation as “Minor ” or “Shiguo’s Plaintiff Child.” Shiguo’s Plaintiff

Child is a resident of China, and may be contacted through the undersigned counsel.

B. The Defendants:

1. Defendant NorthPark Partners, L.P. (hereinafter “Defendant NorthPark Partners”),

is a foreign limited partnership. Service may be achieved by serving its Registered Agent:

NorthPark Land GP, Inc.


ATTN: David Haemisegger, President
8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75206.

Or by serving its President:

Nancy Nasher
8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75206.

2. Defendant NorthPark Management Company, a Texas company, may be served

through its Registered Agent:

David Haemisegger, President


8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75206.

3. Defendant NorthPark Land Partners, L.P. (hereinafter “Defendant NorthPark

Land”), is a Delaware limited partnership, and may be served through its Registered Agent:

NorthPark Land GP, Inc.


ATTN: David Haemisegger, President
8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75206.

a. This suit is to be construed as seeking compensation for the damages for which

Defendant NorthPark Land Partners is found responsible; and

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 4 of 15
b. This suit is also to be construed against the real property itself, in rem, generally

located at and around 8687 N. Central Expy, Dallas, Texas, and known as NorthPark Center.

The in rem action excludes the distinct piece of real estate denoted as “NorthPark NE Parking

Deck, L.L.C.,” which is the parking deck providing direct access to Macy’s.

4. Defendant NorthPark Security, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant NorthPark Security”),

is a domestic corporation. Service may be achieved by serving its Registered Agent:

David Haemisegger
8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75206.

5. Defendant Christopher Ryan Shaw (hereinafter “Defendant Driver”), is an

individual, charged with Manslaughter (F1976147) and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

(F1976147), and released on a personal bail bond to the place where he may be served:

Christopher Ryan Shaw


318 Santa Fe Lane
Royce City, Texas 75189.

6. Hereinafter, the term “NorthPark Defendants” shall refer collectively to Defendant

NorthPark Partners, L.P.; Defendant NorthPark Management Company; Defendant NorthPark

Land Partners, L.P.; and Defendant NorthPark Security, Inc.

IV.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

1. Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to § 15.001, et seq., of the TEXAS CIVIL

PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE. As the county of the collisions and the property, all of, or a

substantial part of, the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred here.

2. The amounts sought exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 5 of 15
V.

FACTS

1. On the evening of March 11, 2019, Plaintiff Yu and Plaintiff Wang best

friends came to NorthPark Center in hopes of enjoying a meal at one of the property’s

restaurants. They parked in the garage that provided direct access to Nordstrom (hereinafter,

“Nordstrom Garage”).

2. Finding that the skywalk entrances directly into Nordstrom had already closed for

the evening, they intend to try to enter through the other skywalk, which provided direct access to

NorthPark Center’s main corridors, and its still-open restaurants and AMC movie theater.

3. The best friends stepped-off the curb from the second story Nordstrom skywalk

with the plan of following the crosswalk towards the other skywalk on the same floor.

4. They had no way to know that Defendant Driver was joyriding at the NorthPark

Defendants’ property. His intent was to do a high-speed run from the ground floor of the

parking garage, upwards ramp to ramp to ramp until he reached the open expanses of the

rooftop where he would burn celebratory donuts.

5. For at least the eight years preceding, other joyriding drifters had done the same:

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 6 of 15
_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 7 of 15
6. The NorthPark Defendants made no efforts to warn the best friends nor any of

NorthPark’s guests that, when they stepped-off of the curb, they were walking onto a de facto

race track. Grotesquely, the NorthPark Defendants intentionally hide this from their customers.

7. Nor could the best friends know that the NorthPark Defendants knew, or should

have known, that the crosswalk presented a hidden danger by unnecessarily drawing pedestrians

traveling from one skybridge to the other into the flow of NorthPark Center’s Fast & Furious

“drifting” scene.

8. The NorthPark Defendants further knew, or should have known, that the

crosswalk was defective in that it heightened the risks of being struck rather than reducing them.

9. When Defendant Driver emerged from the ramp heading from the first floor onto

the second, he turned 180º to his left, down the second aisle, hitting the gas, and then saw the

best friends in the crosswalk.

10. In trying to avoid the best friends, Defendant Driver completely lost control of the

car, hitting the distant wall so hard that he suffered lifelong injuries.

11. The two best friends who stepped into the crosswalk were healthy and alert.

Plaintiff Yu was an IronMan who owned a chain of sporting goods stores; Mr. Wang an

international tech executive.

12. Even so, there was nothing they could do to dodge the vehicle.

13. Plaintiff Yu was thrown into the white brick wall of the elevator shaft, his skull

hitting like a watermelon. He had no chance to fight for his life, and no chance of survival. He

leaves behind his widow, his child, and his father all of whom are Plaintiffs in this case.

14. Plaintiff Wang was launched over the edge of the garage, falling two flights. He’s

been hospitalized ever since, away from his wife and child, both Plaintiffs in this case.
_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 8 of 15
VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION

1. Defendant Driver is liable to the Plaintiffs through causes of action to include

negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence; and bears liability via wrongful death and

survival.

2. The NorthPark Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs through causes of action to

include premises liability, negligence, negligent undertaking, negligence per se, and gross

negligence; and bear liability via wrongful death and survival. Additionally, this suit seeks

damages arising out of a public nuisance, and seeks to enjoin and abate a common nuisance

under CPRC §125.002.

3. The NorthPark Defendants knew, and should have known, that their parking lots

in general, and the Nordstrom garage in particular, are the recurring locations of joyriding.

4. Any attempts to eliminate the risks posed by joyriders have been negligently

undertaken and have failed entirely.

5. Even after the death of Plaintiff Luo and the debilitating of Plaintiff Wang,

joyriding continues at the NorthPark Defendants’ property, and the NorthPark Defendants

continue to try to hide that from the mall’s employees, shoppers, and the families who patronize

the mall. In seeking to keep the evening’s video from the public, Mr. David Jensen, President of

NorthPark Security, Inc., stated in an Affidavit to the Court that, release of the “video would be

detrimental to the image and reputation NorthPark Center has assiduously worked to create and

maintain for years in Dallas, North Texas, and throughout the country. If the video were to leak

[…], it would likely permanently damage the image and reputation of NorthPark that it has

worked so hard to cultivate.”


_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 9 of 15
6. NorthPark knowingly tolerated, and failed to make reasonable attempts to abate,

joyriding by large groups meeting the definition of “organized criminal activity.”

7. Further, the NorthPark Defendants have denied Plaintiffs’ request to share above-

referenced videos with the Dallas Police Department.

8. Accordingly, this action includes an action against the property itself as an action

in rem pursuant CPRC 125.002(b); and seeking the mandatory closure of the property’s parking

lots for one year, pursuant to CPRC 125.002(e): “The judgment must order that the place where

the nuisance exists be closed for a period of one year after the date of judgment.”

9. Additionally, the NorthPark Defendants’ conduct created a public nuisance, in

that it unreasonably interfered with public health, safety, or peace, and ultimately caused the

damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

10. At all relevant times, the NorthPark Defendants owned, possessed, managed, and

maintained the parking lots at NorthPark center, to include the Nordstrom Garage.

11. At all relevant times, the NorthPark Defendants failed to put in place speed bumps

or curb stops, and failed to make other physical changes to their properties which would have, as

a matter of physics, prevented joyride drifting in their lots.

12. The NorthPark Defendants failed to properly install cameras that would track and

deter joyriding drifters, and which would permit for the prosecution thereof.

13. The NorthPark Defendants maintained their parking lots in their unreasonably

dangerous state without providing warning to a single customer using those lots.

14. The NorthPark Defendants owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in ensuring

that their parking lots were properly designed, maintained, engineered, and equipped so as to

eliminate the risks known to them given their decision to not warn their customers of those risks.
_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 10 of 15
15. The NorthPark Defendants are liable via negligent supervision; and for the failure

to promulgate and enforce policies, procedures, and rules to ensure that its parking lots were

reasonably safe.

16. The NorthPark Defendants were each joint venture employers of the other.

17. The NorthPark Defendants are vicariously liable for all damages caused by each

other as each was acting within the course and scope of their employment/agency relationship

with the others.

18. The NorthPark Defendants were each partners of the other.

19. The NorthPark Defendants were parties to a joint enterprise with the other.

20. Plaintiffs would show the Court that all Defendants’ acts and omissions were a

direct and proximate cause of the incident in question, the resulting injuries suffered by Plaintiffs,

and the damages sustained by the Plaintiffs. The acts and omissions of Defendants constitute a

breach of the duty of care which proximately caused the physical injuries and damages to the

Plaintiffs, making Defendants liable to Plaintiffs.

21. Plaintiffs will show that the acts and omissions of the Defendants, constitute gross

negligence. Defendants acted with willful, wanton disregard both before, and at the time of, the

incident in question. Given the extreme degree of risks of potential harm to others, Defendants

proceeded with the acts and omissions described above, with conscious indifference to the rights,

safety or welfare of others, including Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek awards of exemplary

damages.

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 11 of 15
VII.

DAMAGES

A. Luo Family Plaintiffs

1. As a result of the incident described herein, the Luo Family Plaintiffs incurred

mental anguish in the past, and mental anguish will continue in the future for the Surviving Luo

Family Plaintiffs: Li Huang, Yu’s Plaintiff Child, and Zhiming Luo.

2. As a result of the incident described herein, Li Huang incurred loss of consortium

in the past, and her loss of consortium will continue in the future.

3. As a result of the incident described herein, Li Huang incurred loss of household

services in the past, and her loss of household services in the past will continue in the future.

4. As a result of the incident described herein, Yu’s Plaintiff Child incurred loss of

parental services, and loss of parental services will continue in the future.

5. The Surviving Luo Family Plaintiffs incurred loss of companionship and society in

the past, and will incur loss of companionship and society in the future.

6. The Surviving Luo Family Plaintiffs incurred loss of advice & counsel, and will

incur loss of advice & counsel in the future.

7. Li Huang incurred funeral expenses.

8. The Surviving Luo Family Plaintiffs incurred loss of inheritance.

9. Yu Luo suffered disfigurement in the past.

10. Yu Luo suffered physical impairment in the past.

11. Yu Luo incurred pain and suffering in the past.

12. The Surviving Luo Family Plaintiffs jointly and individually request the damages

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 12 of 15
available to them pursuant to the TEXAS WRONGFUL DEATH ACT, CPRC § 71.001, et. seq., and

wrongfully deceased Plaintiff Yu Luo seeks all of the damages available by virtue of a survival

action, pursuant to CPRC § 71.021, et. seq.

13. The Luo Family Plaintiffs suffered pecuniary damages to include the fact that

assets of the family’s business such as having secured long-term leases for its storefronts

have been turned into liabilities, instead. The Luo Family’s pecuniary losses will be specified via

expert Disclosures.

14. The Luo Family Plaintiffs jointly and individually request an amount of

exemplary damages to be determined by the Jury, and request an award of same from the

Defendant.

A. Wang Family Plaintiffs

1. As a result of the incident described herein, the Wang Family Plaintiffs incurred in

mental anguish in the past, and mental anguish will continue in the future.

2. As a result of the incident described herein, Xiaoli Wei incurred loss of

consortium in the past, and her loss of consortium will continue in the future.

3. As a result of the incident described herein, Xiaoli Wei incurred loss of household

services in the past, and her loss of household services in the past will continue in the future.

4. The Wang Family Plaintiffs incurred loss of companionship and society in the

past, and will incur loss of companionship and society in the future.

5. Shiguo Wang incurred incurred pain and suffering in the past, and pain and

suffering will continue in the future.

6. Shiguo Wang suffered disfigurement in the past, and disfigurement will continue

in the future.
_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 13 of 15
7. Shiguo Wang suffered physical impairment in the past, and disfigurement will

continue in the future.

8. Shiguo Wang suffered loss of earnings and diminished earning capacity in the

past, and loss of earnings and diminished earning capacity will continue in the future.

9. Shiguo Wang suffered medical expenses in the past, and medical expenses will

continue in the future.

10. As a result of the incident described herein, Shiguo’s Plaintiff Child incurred loss

of parental services, and loss of parental services will continue in the future.

11. The Wang Family Plaintiffs incurred loss of advice & counsel, and will incur loss

of advice & counsel in the future.

12. The Wang Family Plaintiffs jointly and individually request an amount of

exemplary damages to be determined by the Jury, and request an award of same from the

Defendant.

VIII.

CLAIM FOR PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

1. Plaintiffs seek interest in accordance with TEXAS FINANCE CODE § 304.001, et seq.

IX.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES

1. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendants

are each requested to disclose and produce to Plaintiffs the information and materials described

in RULE 194.2, through Plaintiffs’ attorneys at LENAHAN LAW, P.L.L.C., 2655 Villa Creek, Suite

204, Dallas, Texas 75234, during normal business hours, within 50 days of service.

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 14 of 15
a mark on him, and he drove is motorcycle to work the next morning without so much as an
ache to attribute.

Acceptance of this Stowers settlement opportunity must be by correspondence


received before its automatic withdrawal at 5 p.m., on Tuesday, September 7, 2010.

X. Brayshaw warrants to fully Release your


In exchange for the policy limits, Jeffrey
insureds. This offer guarantees all of the obligations the Stowers doctrine requires of the
PRAYER
Releasing party, to include a full and unconditional Release as to all claims arising through
him. WHEREFORE,
This offer includes the promise
Plaintiffs pray tothat,
be responsible
upon final for, honor,
trial, and resolve
Plaintiffs any liens,against
have Judgment to
include medical liens, and to provide indemnification from any such liens for your insured.
Defendants for actual and punitive damages, for costs of suit, pre-judgment and post-judgment
Your call is always welcome.
interest, and for such other relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,
Respectfully,



Marc
MarcC.C.Lenahan
Lenahan
State Bar No. 24007546
Law@LenahanLaw.com
P. Wes Black
State Bar No. 24009904
Wes@LenahanLaw.com
LENAHAN LAW, P.L.L.C.
2655 Villa Creek, Suite 204
Dallas, Texas 75234
214.295.1008
Confirmed July 2009 Template 888.473.2820 toll-free
214.295.2664 fax
DallasSevereInjuryLawyer.com

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 15 of 15

Оценить