Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
_______________
NOW COME the Plaintiffs and would respectfully show the Court:
I.
1. Pursuant to TRCP 47, the seven Plaintiffs affirmatively pleads that they seek
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
TRCP 202 cause rooted in the same events and subject matter:
_________________________________________
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
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.
Court as their child’s Next Friend. Pursuant to TRCP 21c, the Minor’s name is
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.
6. Xiaoli Wei comes to the Court individually for her damages resulting from the
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
Child is a resident of China, and may be contacted through the undersigned counsel.
B. The Defendants:
is a foreign limited partnership. Service may be achieved by serving its Registered Agent:
Nancy Nasher
8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75206.
Land”), is a Delaware limited partnership, and may be served through its Registered Agent:
a. This suit is to be construed as seeking compensation for the damages for which
_________________________________________
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.
David Haemisegger
8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75206.
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:
IV.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
7. Further, the NorthPark Defendants have denied Plaintiffs’ request to share above-
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.”
that it unreasonably interfered with public health, safety, or peace, and ultimately caused the
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
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
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
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
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
in the past, and her loss of consortium will continue in the future.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
1. Plaintiffs seek interest in accordance with TEXAS FINANCE CODE § 304.001, et seq.
IX.
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.
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
_________________________________________
Luo & Wang, et al. v. NorthPark Center & Shaw:
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition Page 15 of 15