CASTILLO Et Al. v. STANDARDAERO, GARRETT AVIATION SERVICES, L.L.C. D/B/A STANDARDAERO Et Al Complaint

Case 4:10-cv-04694 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/23/10 Page 1 of 37
Cause No. _ _ _ _ __
MARiA DE LOS ANGELES ESCALANTE CASTILLO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE AND §
ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF JUAN CAMILO §
MAURINO TERRAZO, DECEASED, AND AS NEXT §
FRIEND OF M.D.L.A.M.E., A MINOR, AS NEXT §
FRIEND OF I.M.E., A MINOR, AND AS NEXT FRlEND§
OF J.C.M.E. A MINOR; DEYSI YOLANDA CALDER6N§
SILVA,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE §
AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ARCADIO §
ECHEVERRiA LANZ, DECEASED, AND AS NEXT §
FRIEND OF A.M.E.C, A MINOR, AND AS NEXT §
FRIEND OF A.E.C., A MINOR; ALBERTO CARRILLO § NOV 04 ?'Ow
SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF §
THE ESTATE OF G1SELY EDENISE CARRILLO §
PEREIRA, DECEASED, AND LUCELIA MARiA §
PEREIRA DE MORAIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON §
BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF G1SELY EDENISE §
CARRILLO PEREIRA,DECEASED; JOVITA §
PARADES GARCiA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON §
BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF VICTOR § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ALTAMIRANO ROBLES, DECEASED, AND §
ALEJANDRO ALTAMIRANO PAREDES AND SILVIA §
GUADALUPE ALTAMIRANO PAREDES; JOAQUiN §
GARCiA SANTOVENA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON §
BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF RODRIGO GARCiA §
ALVAREZ DEL CASTILLO, DECEASED; AND MARiA §
GUADALUPE DEL CASTILLO G6MEZ, §
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OFTHE ESTATE §
OF RODRIGO GARCiA ALVAREZ DEL CASTILLO, §
DECEASED; SANTA NATALIA MONTERO NuNEZ, §
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE §
OF MARiA JOSEFINA ASCENCION NuNEZ SORCIA, §
DECEASED, AND VICTOR GREGORIO MONTERO §
NuNEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF §
THE ESTATE OF MARiA JOSEFINA ASCENCION §
NuNEZ SORCIA, DECEASED; ALEJANDRO §
OROPEZA QUEREJETA, INDIVIDUALLY,AND ON §
BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA MARiA §
DEL CARMEN OROPEZA QUEREJETA, DECEASED; §
HILDA RODRIGUEZ BAHENA, INDIVIDUALLY AND §
ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ALLAN CRlSTIAN §
J.Jtl JUDICIAL DISTRICT
VAZQUEZ VARGAS, DECEASED, AND AS NEXT §

FRIEND OF C.J.V.R., A MINOR, AND AS NEXT §
EXHIBIT
I B
FRIEND OF V.M.V.R, A MINOR, AND GILBERTO §

VAZQUEZ GARCiA AND SOLEDAD ISQUIERDO §
VARGAS; IVAN DiAZ AMADOR AND NORMA §
SANCHEZ DE TAGLE; EDMUNDO ABARCA §
BALCAzAR, INDIVIDUALLYAND AS NEXT §
FRIEND OF P.C.A.S., A MINOR, AND MERCEDES §
SOLIS TREJO; RODRIGO DANIEL MARTINEZ §
CRUCES; PATRICIA PICON GOMEZ, INDIVIDUALLY § NOV 4 - ZOIO
AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF O.I.B.P .,A MINOR, §
AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF D.O.B.P., A MINOR, AND
§
CESAR BELMONT HINOJOSA, §
Plaintiffs §
§
~ §
§
STANDARDAERO, GARRETT AVIATION SERVICES, §
L.L.C., d/b/a STANDARD AERO, STANDARD AERO §
(SAN ANTONIO), INC., ALVIN M. HOWELL, §
CENTROS DE SERVICIOS DE AVIACION §
EJECUTIVA SA DE C.V., BOMBARDIER §
AEROSPACE CORPORATION, LEARJET, INC., §
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE AVIATION §
SYSTEMS, L.L.C., AND HONEYWELL §
INTERNATIONAL, INC., §
Defendants §
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW Plaintiffs Maria de Los Angeles Escalante Castillo, individually and as
representative and on behalf of the Estate of Juan Camilo Mourifio Tenazo, deceased, and as next
friend ofM.D.L.A.M E., a minor, as next friend of I.M.E, a minor, and as next friend of J.C.M.E.
a minor; Deysi Yolanda Calder6n Silva, individually and as representative and on behalf of the
Estate of Arcadio EcheverrIa Lanz, deceased, and as next friend of A.M.E.C., a minor, and as next
friend of A.E.C., a minor; Alberto Carrillo Sanchez, individually and on behalf of the Estate of
Gisely Edenise Carrillo Pereira, deceased, and Lucelia Maria Pereira de Morais, individually and on
2
behalf ofthe Estate of Gis ely Edenise Carrillo Pereira, deceased; Jovita Paredes Garcia, individually
and on behalf of the Estate of Victor Altamirano Robles, deceased, and Alejandro Altamirano
Paredes and Silvia Guadalupe Altamirano Paredes; Joaquin Garcia Santovefia, individually and on
behalf of the Estate of Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, deceased, and Maria Guadalupe del
Castillo G6mez, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo,
deceased; Santa Natalia Montero Nunez, individually and on behalf ofthe Estate of Maria Josefina
Ascencion Nunez SOl'cia, deceased, and Victor Gregorio Montero Nunez, individually and on behalf
of the Estate of Maria Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia, deceased; Alejandro Oropeza Querejeta,
individually and on behalf ofthe Estate of Patricia Maria del Carmen Oropeza Querejeta, deceased;
Hilda Rodriguez Bahena, individually and on behalf ofthe Estate of Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas,
Deceased, and as next friend ofC.lV.R., a minor, and as next friend ofV.M.V.R., a minor, and
Gilberto Garcia Vazquez and Soledad Isquierdo Vargas; Ivan Dfaz Amador and Nonna Sanchez de
Tagle; Edmundo Abarca Baldzar, individually and as next friend of P.C.A.S., a minor, and
Mercedes Solis Trejo; Rodrigo Daniel Martinez ClUces; Patricia Picon G6mez, individually and as
next friend of OJ.B.P., a minor, and as next friend of D.O.B.P, a minor, and Cesar Belmont
Hinojosa, complaining of Defendants StandardAero, Garrett Aviation Services, L.L.C., d/b/a
Standard Aero, Standard Aero (San Antonio), Inc., .Alvin M. Howell, Centros de Servicios de
AviacionEjecutiva S.A. de C.V., Bombardier Aerospace Corporation, LearJet, Inc., General Electric
Company, GE Aviation Systems, L.L.C., and Honeywell Intemational, Inc., and for cause of action
would show unto the Court as follows:
DiscovelY Plan
1. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery in this matter under Level 3. of Rule 190.
3
Patties
2. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Mexico, with the exception of A.M.E.C. and A.E.C.,
minors, who are citizens of the United States, and whose suits arc brought by their next friend and
mother Deysi Yolanda Calderon Silva.
3. Defendant StandardAero is a corporation, limited liability cOlporation or other legal entity
doing business as "StandardAero" with its principal place of business located in Harris County,
Texas, at George Bush Intemational Aliport, 17250 Chanute Road, Houston, Texas 77032. It may
be served with citation and service of process by serving its registered agent, CT Corporation
System, at the agent's registered business address, 350 North St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas
75201-4234.
4. Defendant GalTett Aviation Services, LLC d/b/a Standard Aero ("Ganett Aviation") is a
Delaware corporation, licensed to do business in the State of Texas and doing business in the State
of Texas sufficient for this Court to exercise jm1sdiction. Garrett Aviation Services, LLC d/b/a
Standard Aero may be served with citation and sClvice of process by serving its registered agent, CT
Corporation System, at the agent's registered business address, 350 NOlih St. Paul St., Suite 2900,
Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
5. Defendant Standard Aero (San Antonio) Inc., ("Standard Aero - San Antonio") is a Delaware
corporation which has its principal place of business in Texas and is ·licensed to do business in and
does business in the State of Texas sufficient for the jurisdiction ofthis Comi. Standard Aero - San
Antonio may be served with citation and service of process by serving its registered agcnt, CT
Corporation System, at the agent's registered business address, 350 North St. Paul St., Suite 2900,
Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
4
6. Defendant Alvin M. Howell ("Howell") is a Texas resident and may be served with service
ofproccss at his home address, 22715 Piper Road, Needville, Texas 77461.
7. Defendant Centros de Servicios de Aviaci6n Ejecutiva S.A. de C.V., ("Centros"), is an entity
based at Hangar CII, Puerta 2, Aeropuerto Internacional Adolfo Lopez Mateos, CP 50130, Toluca,
Edo de Mexico, Mexico and is a foreign cOl]loration organized under the laws of Mexico. Said
Defendant is doing business in the State of Texas but is not licensed to do business in the State of
Texas and does not maintain a registered agent for service of process. Under Alticles 2.11 and 8.10
of the Business Corporation Act, service may be had upon Centros de Set"Vicios de Aviaci6n
Ejecutiva S.A. de C.V., at its registered and principal place of business by sel"Vice upon the Texas
SecretalY of State, Assistant Secretmy of State or clerk having charge of the corporation depaltment
of the Texas SecretmyofState who immediately upon being served with duplicate copies of service
of process shall cause one such copy to be forWarded by registered mail to the corporation Centros
de Sel"Vicios de Aviaci6n Ejecutiva S.A. de C.V. ,Hangar CII, Puerta 2, Aeropuerto Internacional
Adolfo Lopez Mateos, CP 50130, Toluca, Edo de Mexico, Mexico which is its registered and
principal place of business.
Alternatively, Defendant Centros de Servicios de Aviaci6n Ejecutiva S.A.de C.V., as a
company incorporated under the laws of Mexico, not licensed to do business in the State of Texas,
may be set"Ved with delivelY of citation and this petition pursuant to rule 108a(l}(d} of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure and the terms and conditions of the Hague Convention on the Sel"Vice
Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, TIAS#1 0072 and
20 UST 361, by sel"Ving same through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate-General of Legal
Affairs, Plaza Juarez No. 20, Planta Baja, Edificio Tlatelolco, Colonia Ceptro, delegation
5
Cuauhtemoc, c.P. 06010, Mexico, Districto Federal, and having same served upon any officer or
designated agent for the receipt of process on behalf of Centros de Servicios de Aviaci6n Ejecutiva
S.A. de C.Y., Hangar CII, Puelia 2, Aeropuclio Internacional Adolfo Lopez Mateos, CP 50130,
Toluca, Edo de Mexico, Mexico.
8. Derendant Bombardier Aerospace Corporation ("Bombardier") is a Delaware corporation
which is licensed to do business and does busincss in the State of Texas sufficient to subject it to the
jurisdiction of this Court. Bombardier Aerospace Corporation may served with citation and service
of process by service on its registered agent, CT Corporation System, at the agent's registered
business address, 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
9. Defendant Leadet, Inc., (hereinafter "LearJet'') is a Delaware corporation doing business in
the State of Texas. It may be served through its agent, CT Corporation System, located at 350 N.
St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
10. Defendant General Electric Company ("GE") is a New York corporation which is licensed
to do business and does business in the State of Texas sufficient to subject it to the jurisdiction of
this Court. General Electric Company may be served with citation and service of process by service
on its registered agent, CT Corporation System, at the agent's registered business address, 350 N.
St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
II. Defendant GE Aviation Systems, L.L.C. ("GE Aviation") is a Delaware corporation which
is licensed to do business and does business in the State of Texas sufficient to subject it to the
jurisdiction ofthis Court. GE Aviation Systems, L.L.C., may be served with citation and service of
process by service on its registered agent, CT Corporation System, at the agent's registered business
address, 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
6
12. Defendant HoncywellIntel1lational, Inc. ("Honeywell") is a Delaware corporation which is
licensed to do business and does business in the State of Texas sufficient to subject it to the
jurisdiction of this Court. Honeywell Intcl1lational, Inc., may be served with citation and service
of process by service on its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers
Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7" Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
Jurisdiction
13. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter because the damages in controversy are within
the jurisdictional limits of this Court, because Howell is a Texas resident, Standard Aero (San
Antonio), Inc., is also a Texas corporation with it principal place of business in Texas. and because
StandardAero has its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. The remaining Defendants
conduct substantial and continuous business in Texas, enter into and perfonn contracts with Texas
residents, recmit Texas residents for employment directly or indirectly through an intermediary
located in Texas, and/or committed tmis in Texas that are the subject of this suit. Accordingly,
jurisdiction is proper in this Court under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 17.042.
Venue
14. Venue is properinHanis County, Texas pursuant to Sections 15.002 (a)(I) and 15.002(a)(3)
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because StandardAero's principal office and place
of business is located in Hanis County, Texas, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in Harris Couhty,Texas and a tort was committed in whole or in
part in Harris County, Texas.
Background Facts
15. On November 4, 2008, a LearJe! 45 aircraft bearing registration XC-VMC operated by pilots
7
from Centros de Servicios de Aviaci6n Ejecutiva S.A. de C. V., was on a flight from San Luis Potosi,
Mexico to Mexico City, Mexico.
16. The flight was uneventful until the approach to the airport in Mexico City. During the
process of slowing down the jet as patt of the approach, suddenly and without waming, the pilot and
co-pilot lost control and were unable to control the aircraft and maintain level flight. Despite effmtg
by both men and to the absolute tenor of all those on board, the plane rotated over and plunged to
earth, striking the ground in excess of three hundrcd miles per hour. The plane crashed in the
downtown financial section of Mexico City, killing all those aboard as well as other persons on the
ground, in addition to injuring many others. In addition to the two pilots, the aircraft was occupied
by Mexico Secretary of the Interior Juan Camilo Mourino, coordinator of special events for the
Office of the Secretary of the Interior Arcadio E.cheverrla; and flight attendant Gisely Edenise
Carrillo, as well as others.
17. On the ground in the area where the subject aircraft crashed on the date ofthe subject crash
wcre the following: Victor Altamirano Rob\es, Ivan Diaz Amador, Edmundo Abarca Balcazar,
Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, Rodrigo Daniel Martinez ClUces, Patricia Pic6n G6mez, Maria
Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia, Patricia Maria del Calmen Oropeza Querejeta, and Allan Cristian
Vazquez Vargas.
18. Victor Altamirano Robles" Ivan Diaz Amador, Edmundo Abarca Balcazar, Rodrigo Garcia
Alvarez del Castillo, Rodrigo Daniel Martinez Cruces, Patricia Pic6n G6mez, Maria Josefina
Ascencion Nunez Sorcia, Patricia Maria del Carmen Oropeza Querejeta, and Allan Cristian Vazquez
Vargas suffered very serious personal and bodily injuries, both physical and psychological in nature.
8
19. Victor Altamirano Robles" Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, Maria Josefina Ascencion
Nunez Sorcia, Patricia Maria del Cannen Oropeza Querejeta, and Allan Crist ian Vazquez Vargas
died from their injuries.
20. The subject aircraft, designed, manufactured, assembled, and sold by Bombardier Aerospace
Corporation through its subsidiary LearJet, Inc. The aircraft was powered by two Honeywell
engines. General Electric Company and General Electric Aviation Systems, LLC, designed and
manufactured the aircraft's spoileron actuators.
21. The subject aircraft had recently undergone extensive renovations at the StandardAero
facility in Houston, Harris County, Texas which had been completed according to the StandardAero
logs of repair 011 October 21, 2008, approximately two weeks prior to the crash. Many of the
renovations concerned parts critical to the operation ofthe plane in flight such as cables and controls
for ailerons, elevators and rudder control systems. In excess of thirty palis identified as defective
were slated for replacement, including throttle sensing position Wiring, right hand spoileron position
sensor, left hand spoileron position sensor, and aileron hardware. Exhaustive modifications in order
to comply with service bulletins were also scheduled, which included the spoilerons and flight
controls. As part of this inspection and replacement or modifications process, many parts were
removed from the LearJet 45 in question and replaced with new or refurbished parts.
22. Centros personnel had actually attempted to pick up the aircraft previously when it had been
celtified as complete and airwolihy. Despite the certification, the aircraft was not airworthy and was
returned for additional work.
23. Later, Standard again certified the aircraft as airwolthy and informed Centros that it was
ready and that the maintenance and re-furbishing of the aircraft was complete. This work was
9
completed less than two weeks before the crash and was authorized, approved and signed off on
again by Howell, who ce11ified that the jet was airw0l1hy and that the work had been completed as
required.
24. As set out fiu1her herein, one or more of the acts of Defendants caused or contributed to
cause the loss of control ofLearJet XC-VMC on November 4, 2008. As the aircraft followed in the
traffic pattern, there was a sudden loss of control which otherwise should have been controllable but
for the acts of one or more of the Defendants as set forth more specifically herein.
Negligence - Standard, Standard Aero - San Antonio, and GatTett i
25. Prim' to November 4, 2008, Standard Aero performed substantial and extensive maintenance
on the subject aircraft at its office in Houston, Texas, including the aircraft's engine and flight
controls.
26. At all tim~s relevant hereto, StaildardAero owed a duty to Plaintiffs to use reasonable care
in perfOlming the maintenance on the subject aircraft so as not to cause injury to Plaintiffs.
27. StandardAero breached this duty by failing to detect, discover, cOlTect, and repair the defects
in fhe subject aircraft and in failing to wam of these defects.
28. StandardAero's negligent acts and omissions causcd or contributcd to cause the subject
aircraft to crash on approach to Benito Juarez International Airp0l1 in Mexico City, Mexico on
November 4, 2008. Those negligent acts and omissions werc proximate and producing causes of
Plaintiffs' injuries and damages.
iStandardAero, Gan'et Aviation Services, L.L.C., d/b/a Standard Aero, and Standard Aero
(San Antonio) Inc., are collectively referred to as "Standard Aero."
10
Negligence Per Se - Standard Aero'
29. StandardAero had a duty to follow and comply with all Federal Aviation Regulations,
manufacturer's guidelines, and rules promulgated regarding the repairs of aircraft.
30. StandardAero violated those regulations, rules or guidelines.
31. The harm that occuned to Plaintiffs was the type of harm these regulations were created to
prevent.
32. StandardAero's negligent acts and omissions caused or contributed to cause the subject
aircraft to crash on approach to Benito Juarez International AirpOit in Mexico City, Mexico on
November 4,2008.
33. StandardAero's negligent acts and omissions were proximate and producing causes of
Plaintim' injuries and damages.
Breach ofWananty - StandardAero'
34. Prior to November 4, 2008, StandardAero performed major maintenance on the subject
aircraft, including to the aircraft's engine and flight controls.
35. StandardAero expressly walTanted that the maintenance it performed on the subject aircraft
would be performed in a competent, proper and non-negligent manner and further impliedly
warranted that the maintenance it performed on the subject aircraft would be perfOimed in a
competent, proper and non-negligent manner.
'Again, as mentioned herein above, StandardAero, Garret Aviation Services, L.L.C., &b/a
Standard Aero, and Standard Aero (San Antonio) Inc., are collectively referred to as "Standard
Aero/'
'As mentioned herein above, StandardAero, Ganet Aviation Services, L.L.C., &b/a
Standard Aero, and Standard Aero (San Antonio) Inc., are collectively referred to as "Standard
Aero."
11
36. StandardAero breached both its express and implied warranties in that it failed to detect,
discover, correct, repair and wam of the defects on the subject aircraft, as herein further described.
37. StandardAero's negligent acts and omissions caused or contributed to cause the subject
aircraft to crash on approach to Benito Juarez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico on
November 4, 2008.
38. StandardAero's negligent acts and omissions were proximate and producing causes of
Negligence - Howell
39. From approximately September 17, 2008, through October 23, 2008, Howell approved,
inspected and signed off on substantial and extensive maintenance on the subject aircraft at the
maintenance facility in Houston, Texas, including the aircraft's engine and flight controls. The
subject crash occurred less than two weeks after Howell inspected, approved and signed off on that
extensive maintenance. Upon infOlmation and belief, Howell was an employee of one ofthe
StandardAero defendants at all times peltinent to this suit and those StandardAero defendant
employing him would be liable for his acts of negligence under respondeat superior.
40. At all times relevant hereto, Howell owed a duty to Plaintiffs to use reasonable care in
approving, inspecting and signing off on the maintenance on the subject aircraft so as not to cause
injury to Plaintiffs.
41. Howell breached that duty and was negligent in the inspection, ·maintenance, repair and
approval ofthe subject Leadet aircraft and violated the authority of his iuspection authorization as
the IA Inspector. He was also negligent in authorizing and approving the major repair and
maintenance conducted on the subject aircraft to include, but not limited to,. the flight controls,
12
ailerons, ntdder, elevator, rudder torque tube, vertical stabilizer, fairings, spoilerons and other parts
which would either directly or indirectly affect the aerodynamic capabilities ofthe aircraft including
the control of the said aircraft and failed to follow the manufacturers' approved maintenance
program required by FAR 91.409 (1)(3). Howell further breached his duty by representing the
aircraft to be in an airworthy condition.
42. Howell's negligent acts and omissions caused or contributed to cause the subject aircraft to
crash on approach to Benito Juarez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico on November 4,
2008.
43. Howell's negligent acts and omissions were proximate and producing causes of Plaintiffs'
injuries and damages.
Negligence Per Se· Howell
44. Howell had a duty to follow and comply with all Federal Aviation Regulations,
manufacturer's guidelines, and lUles promulgated regarding the repairs of aircraft ..
45. Howcll violated those regulations, rules or guidelines.
46. The harm that OCCUlTed to Plaintiffs was the type ofharID these regulations were created to
prevent.
47. Howell's negligent acts and omissions causcd the subject aircraft to crash on approach to
Benito Juarez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico on November 4, 2008.
48. Howell's negligent acts and omissions were proximate and producing causes of Plaintiffs'
Negligence· Centros
49. Centros had a duty to Plaintiffs to operate the Leadet 45 XC. VMC in a: reasonably pntdent
13
manner, free from negligence and in accordance with all Air Traffic Control instructions, Civil
Aviation Regulations, and LearJet's recormnendations.
50. Centros failed to operate the LearJet 45 XC-VMC in a reasonably prudent manner in all,
though not limited to, the following ways:
a. failure to maintain safe flying speed;
b. failure to maintain control of the aircraft;
c. failure to follow manufacturers' operating instlUctions;
d. failure to maintain safe wake turbulence avoidance distance;
e. failure to obey Air Traffic Control instructions;
f. failure to maintain a safe following distance;
g. failure to execute a proper approach;
h. failure to recognize and react to a reasonably foreseeable systems failure;
i. failure to break off an unsafe approach;
J. failure to execute a proper missed approach;
k. failure to obey Civil Aviation Regulations;
1. failure to initialize a stabilized approach;
m. failure to report an equipment malfimction that would prevent compliance with Air
Traffic Control requests;
n. failure to properly hire and screen flight crew;
o. failure to properly train flight crew;
p. negligence in hiring;
q. failure to properly maintain the aircraft in accordance with manufacturers'

specifications;
14
r. negligent selection of maintenance providers;
s. negligence in pre-flight preparation; and
t. failure to maintain the safety of individuals on the ground.
51. Centros' negligent acts and omissions caused or contributed to cause the subject aircraft to
crash on approach to Benito Juarez Intemational Airport in Mexico City, Mexico on November 4,
2008.
52. Centros' negligent acts and omissions were proximate and producing causes of Plaintiffs'
Strict Liability - Defendant LearJetJBombardier
54. Dcfendant LearJetiBombardier designed, manufactured, and marketed the subject aircraft.
55. At all times; LearJetJBombardier was in. the business of designing, manufacturing, and
marketing aircraft to its customers.
56. There were design, manufacturing, and marketing defects in the subject aircraft at the time
it left LearJet/Bombardier's possession, rendering the subject aircraft defective and um'easonably
dangerous in several ways, including but not limited to the following:
a. the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer actuator was faulty and subject to failure;
b. the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer actuator was substandard;
c. the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer actuator was improperly and inadequately

refurbished and was not airworthy;
d. the aircraft's spoileron actuators were subject to causing asymmetric deployment

of the aircraft's spoilerons;
e. the aircraft engines, hydraulic lines, or hydraulic pumps were subject to chafing,
causing hydraulic fires and loss of flight control;
f. the aircraft's engines were subject to losing thrust, causing the aircraft to depart
IS
from controlled flight;
g. the aircraft's flying control cables, linkages, actuators, and hydraulics were subject
to failure, causing a loss of flight control;
h. the aircraft did not contain any warnings of the above-described defects; and
57. The design, manufacturing, and marketing defects were proximate and producing causes of
58. LearIetiBombardier is therefore strictly liable for designing, manufacturing, and marketing
a defective and umeasonably dangerous aircraft and introducing it into the stream of commerce.
Negligence - LearIetlBombardier
59. At all times relevant hereto, LearIct and Bombardier ("LearIetiBombardier") owed a duty
to Plaintiffs to use reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft
so as not to cause injmy to Plaintiffs.
60. LearIetiBombardier breached its duty of care owed to Plaintiffs through one or more ofthe
following negligent acts and omissions:
a. negligently designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft in that the
aircraft's horizontal stabilizer actuator was faulty and subject to failure;
b. negligently designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft in that the
aircraft's horizontal stabilizer actuator was improperly and inadequately refurbished
and was not airworthy;
c. negligently designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft in that the
aircraft's horizontal stabilizer actuator 'vas improperly and inadequately refurbished
and was not aitwolihy;
d. negligently designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft in that the
aircraft's spoileron actnators were subject to causing asymmetric deployment ofthe
aircraft's spoilerons;
e. negligently designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft in that the
aircraft engines, hydraulic lines to the hydraulic pumps were subject to chafing,
16
causing a hydraulic fire and loss of flight control;
f. negligently designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft in that the
engines were subject to losing thrust, causing the aircraft to depatt from controlled
flight;
g. negligently designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft in that the
aircraft's flying control cables, linkages, actuators and hydraulics were subject to
failure, causing a loss of flight control; and
h. negligently designing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject aircraft in that the
aircraft did not contain any wamings of the above-described defects.
61. LearJet/Bombardicr's negligent acts and omissions caused or conh'ibuted to cause the subject
aircraft to crash on approach to Benito Juarez Intemational Airport in Mexico City, Mexico on
November 4, 2008.
62. LearJetlBombardier's ncgligent acts and omissions were proximate and producing causes of
Plaintiff.~' injuries and damages.
Breach ofWammty - Leat:let/Bombardicr
63. LearJet/Bombardier expressly wananted that the subject aircraft was not defective in its
design, manufacture or assembly and further impliedLy wananted that the subject aircraft was
merchautable and fit for the particular purpose for which it was to be used.
64. LearJet/Bombardier breached both its express and impliedwarranties of merchantability and
fitness for a particular purpose in that the subject aircraft was defective and unreasonably dangerous,
as set forth above. LearJet/Bombardier did not disclaim these wananties.
65. LearJet/Bombardier's breaches ofthese warranties caused or contributed to cause the subject
aircraft to crash on approach to Benito Juarez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico on
November 4, 2008.
66. LearJet/Bombardier's breaches of these wananties were proximate and producing c~uses of
17
Strict Liability - General Electric Company and GE Aviation Systems, LLC 4
67. On a date prior to November 4, 2008, the GE Defendants designed, mannfactured, assembled
and sold the spoileran actuators on the accident aircraft.
68. At the time the spoileron actuators on the accident aircraft left the custody and control of the
GE Defendants, they were defective and unreasonably dangerous in one or more of the following
respects, among other defects:
(a) the spoileron actuators were subject to causing asymmetric deployment of the
aircraft's spoilerons,
(b) the spoileron actuators did not contain any warnings of the above-described defccts.
69. As the direct and proximate result of one or more ofthe aforesaid defective and unreasonably
dangerous conditions of the spoileron actnators on the accident aircraft, the accident aircraft was
caused or contributed to lose control and to violently crash on approach to Mexico City Ahport on
November 4,2008.
Negligence - General Electric Company and GE Aviation Systems, LLC
70. On a date prior to November 4, 2008, the GE Defendants designed, manufactnrcd,
assembled and sold the spoileron actnators all the accident aircraft.
71. At all times relevant hereto, the GE Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs to use
reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, assembling, and selling their spoileron actnators on
the acci~.e)lt aircraft·so as to not cause injury. to Plaintiffs.
72. The GE Defendants negligently breached their duty of care owed. to Plaintiffs through one
'General Electric Company and GE Aviation Systems, LLC are collectively refened to as
the "GE Defeildimts."·
18
or more ofthe following negligent acts or omissions:
Ca) negligently designed, mannfachlred, assembled and sold the spoileron actuators
on the accident aircraft such that the spoileron actuators were subject to causing
asymmetric deployment of the aircraft's spoilerons,
Cb) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the spoilcron achIators
on the accident aircraft such that the spoileron achIators on the accident aircraft
did not
contain any warnings of the above-described defects.
73. As the direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid negligent acts and
omissions of the GE Defendants, the accident aircraft was caused or contributed to lose control
and to violently crash on approach to Benito Juarez International AiIport in Mexico City, Mexico
on November 4, 2008.
Breach of Express and Implied Warranties -

General Electric Company and GE Aviation Systems, LLC
74. Oll a date prior to November 4, 2008, GE Defendants designed, manufactured, assembled
and sold the spoileron achmtors on the accident aircraft.
75. GE Defendants expressly walTanted that the spoileron actuators on the accident aircraft
were not defective in their design, manufachlre or assembly and fhrther impliedly wal1'anted that
the spoileron achIators on the accident aircraft were merchantable and fit for the pmticular purpose
foJ' which they were to be used.
76. GE Defendauts breached both their express and implied warranties of merchantability
and fitness for a pmticular purpose in that the spoileron actuators on the accident aircraft were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.
77. As the direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid defective and unreasonably
dangerous conditions ofthe spoileJ'onactuators on the accident aircraft in breach ofGE Defendant~'
19
wan'anties, the accident aircraft was caused or contributed to lose control and to violently crash on
approach to Benito Juarez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico ou November 4,2008.
Strict Liability - Honeywell
78. On a date prior to November 4, 2008, defendant Honeywell designed, manufactured,
assembled and sold the engines on the accident aircraft.
79. At the time the engines on the accident aircraft left the custody and control of defendant
Honeywell, they were defective and unreasonably dangerous in one or more of the following
respects, among other defects:
(a) the engines' hydraulic pipes to the engines' hydraulic pumps were subjectto chafing,
causing a hydraulic fire and loss of flight control,
(b) the engines were subjcct to losing thrust, causing the aircraft to depart from
controlled flight,
(cj the engines did not contain any waruings. of the above-described defects.
80. As the direct and proximate result ofone ormm'" ofthe aforesaid defective and unreasonably
dangerous conditions of the engines on the accident aircraft, the accident aircraft
was caused or .contributed to lose control and to violently crash on approach to Benito Juarez
lntemational Airpmt in Mexico City, Mexico on November 4, 2008.
Negligence - Honeywell
8 J. On a date prior to Novembcr 4, 2008, defendant Honeywell designed, manufactured,
assembled and sold the engines on the accident aircraft ..
82. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Honeywell owed a duty to Plaintiffs to use reasonable
care in designing, manufacturing, assembling, and selling the engines on the accident aircraft so as
to not cause injury to plaintiffs.
20
83. Defendant Honeywell negligently breached its duty of care owed to Plaintiffs through one
or more of the following negligent acts and omissions:
(a) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the engines on the accident
aircraft such that the engines' hydraulic pipes to the hydraulic pumps were subject
to chafing, causing a hydraulic fire and loss of flight control,
(b) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the engines on the accident
aircraft such that they were subject to losing thmst, causing the aircraft to depatt from
contro lled flight,
(c) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the engines on the accident
aircraft such that the engines did not contain any warnings of the above- described
defects.
84. As the direct and proximate result of one or 1110re of the aforesaid negligent acts and
omissions of defendant Honeywell, the accident aircraft was caused or contributed to lose control
and to violently crash on approach to Benito Juarez'lntemational Airport in Mexico City, Mexico
on November 4, 2008.
Breach of Express and Implied Warranties - Honeywell
85. On a date prior to November 4, 2008, defendant Honeywell designed, manufactured,
as~embled and sold the engines on the accident aircraft.
86. Defendant Honeywell expressly wa!1'anted that the engines on the accident aircraft were not
defective in their de~ign, mamifacture.or assembly and fUliher impliedly warranted.that the engines
on the accident aircraft were merchantable and fit for the particular purpose for which they were to
be.used.
87. Defendant Honeywell breached both its express and implied warranties of merchantability
and fitness for a particular purpose in that the engines on the accident aircraft were defective and
unreasonably dangerous.
21
88. As the direct and proximate result of one or more ofthe aforesaid defective and unreasonably
dangerous conditions of the engines on the accident aircraft in breach of defendant Honeywell's
warranties, the accident aircraft was caused to lose control and to violently crash on approach to
Benito Juarez Intemational AirpOlt in Mexico City, Mexico on November 4, 2008.
Damages
89. Marfa de Los Angeles Escalante Castillo seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death
Act for the loss of her husband Juan Camilo Mouriiio Terrazo, about age 37 at the time of his death,
as follows:
a. Loss of care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable

contributions of a pecuni31Y value;
b. Loss of companionship and society; and
c. Emotional pain, tonnent and suffering experienced by her because of the death of her
husband."
90. . Marfa de Los Angeles.Escalante Castillo also seeks damages in her capacity as heir of the
Estate of Juan Camilo Mourmo Terrazo, deceased. Maria de Los Angeles Escalante Castillo also
seeks damages in her representative capacity as next friend of the minor children, I.M.E.,
M.D.L.A.M E., and J.C.M.E., for recovery in their capacity as heirs of the Estate of their dead
father. Damages accming to the Estate of Juan Camilo Mouriiio Terrazo under the Texas Survival
Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain, tonnent and suffering experienced by
Juan Camilo Mouriiio Terrazo prior to his death. Maria de Los Angeles Escalante Castillo seeks all
damages recoverable as representative of the Estate of Juan Camilo Mourifio Terrazo, deceased.
91. Maria de Los Angeles Escalante Castillo, individually and as next friend ofM.D.L.A.M E.,
a minor, as next friend of I.M.E., a minor, and as next friend of lC.M.E., a minor, seeks damages
22
under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for loss of their father, Juan Camilo Mourino Terrazo, as
follows:

contributions of pecuniary value;
b. Loss of companionship and society;
c. Emotional pain, tmment and suffering experienced by each of them because of the
death of their father.
92. Deysi Yolanda Calderon Silva seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the
loss of her husband Arcadio Echeverria Lanz, about age 36 at the time of his death, as follows:

contributions of a pecuni31y value;
c. Emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by her because of the death of her
husband.
93. Deysi Yolanda Calderon Silva also seeks damages in her capacity as heir ofthe Estate of
Arcadio Echeverria Lanz, deceased. Deysi Yolanda Calder6n Silva also seeks damages in her
representative capacity as next friend of the minor children, A.M.E.C. and A.E.C. for recovery in
their capacity as heirs of the Estate of their dead father. Damages acclUing to the Estate of Arcadio
Echeverria Lanz llllder the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional
pain, tmment and suffering experienced by Arcadio Echeve11'1a Lanz prior to his death. Deysi
Yolanda Calderon Silva.seeks.all damages recoverable as !'epresentative of the Estate of Arcadio
Echeverria Lanz, deceased.
94. Deysi Yolanda Calderon Silva, individually and as next friend of A.M.E.C., a minor, and as
next friend of A.E.C., a.minor, seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for loss of their
23
father, Arcadio Echeverria Lanz, as follows:

contributions of pecuniary value;
c. . Emotional pain, tonnent and suffering experienced by each of them because of the
95. Alberto Carrillo Sanchez seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the loss
of his daughter Gisely Edenise Canillo Pereira, about age 24 at the time of her death, as follows:

contributions of a pecuniary value;
c. Emotional pain, tOlTIlCnt and suffering experienced by him because of the death of
his daughter.
96. Alberto Canillo Sanchez also seeks damages in his capacity as heir ofthe Estate of Gisely
Edenise Carrillo Pereira, deceased. Damages accruing to the Estate of Gisely Edenise Carrillo
Pereira under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain,
torment and suffering experienced by Gisely Edenise Canillo Pereira prior to her death. Alberto
Carrillo Sanchez seeks all damages recoverable as representative of lhe Estate of Gisely Edenise
Carrillo Pereira, deceased.
97. Lucelia Marla Pereira de Morais seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for
the loss of her daughter Gisely Edenise Carrillo Pereira, about age 24 at the time of her death, as
follows:

24
daughter.
98. Lucelia Maria Pereira de Morais also seeks damages in her capacity as heir ofthe Estate of
Gisely Edenise Canillo Pereira, deceased. Damages accrllingto the Estate of Gisely Edenise Carrillo
Pereira under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain,
torment and snffering experienced by Gisely Edenisc Carrillo Pereira prior to her death. Lucelia
Maria Pereira de Morais seeks all damagcs recoverable as representative of the Estate of Gisely
Edenise Carrillo Pereira, deceased.
99. Jovita Paredes Garda seeks damages under the Texas Wrongfhl Death Act for the loss of
her husband Victor Altamirano Robles as follows:

contributions of a pecunimy value;
c. Emotional pain, tonnent and suffering experienced by her because of the death of her
husband.
100. Jovita Paredes Garcia also seeks damages in her capacity as heir of the Estate of Victor
Altamirano Robles, deceased. Damages acclUing to the Estate of Victor Altamirano Robles under
the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain, lO1ment and suffering
experienced by Victor Altamirano Robles prior to his death. Jovita Paredes Garda secks all damages
recoverable as representative ofthe Estate of Victor Altamirano Robles, deceased.
101. Alejandro Altamirano Paredes seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the
loss of his father Victor Altamirano Robles as follows:

25
c. Emotional pain, torment and suffering experienccd by him because of the death of
his fathcr.
102. Alejandro Altamirano Paredes also seeks damages in his capacity as heir of the Estate of
Victor Altamirano Robles, deceased. Damages accruing to the Estate of Victor Altamirano Robles
under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain, tonnent and
suffering experienced by Victor Altamirano Robles prior to his death. Alejandro Altamirano Paredes
seeks all damages recoverable as representative oftheEstate of Victor Altamirano Robles, deceased.
103. Silvia Guadalupe Altamirano Paredes seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act
for the loss of her father Victor Altamirano Robles as follows:

c. Emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by her because ofthe death of her
father.
104. Silvia GuadalupeAltamirano Paredes also seeks damages in her capacity as heir ofthe Estate
of Victor Altamirano Robles, deceased. Damages accruing to the Estate of Victor Altamirano
Robles underthe Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain, tonnent
and suffering experienccd by Victor Altamirano Robles prior to his death. Silvia Guadalupe
Altamirano Paredes seeks all damages recoverable as representative of the Estate of Victor
Altamirano Robles, deceased.
105. Joaquin Garcia Santovefia seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the loss
of his son Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, about age 28 at the time of his death, as follows:
a. Loss of care, maintenance, SUppOlt, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable
26
c. Emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by him because of the death of
his son.
106. Joaquin Garcia Santovefia also seeks damages in his capacity as heir ofthe Estate of Rodrigo
Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, deceased. Damages acclUing to the Estate of Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez
del Castillo under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain,
torment and suffering experienced by Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo prior to his death.
Joaquin Garcia Santovefia seeks all damages recoverable as representative ofthe Estate of Rodrigo
Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, deceased.
107. Maria Guadalupe del Castillo Gomez seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act
for the loss of her son Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, about age 28 at the time ofhis death, as
follows:
a, Loss of care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable

e. Emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by her because ofthe death of her
son.
108. Marfa Guadalupe del Castillo Gomez also seeks damages in her capacity as heir ofthe Estate
of Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, deceased. Damages accruing to the Estate of Rodrigo Garcia
Alvarez del Castillo under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional
pain, torment and suffeling experienced by Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo prior to his death.
Maria Guadalupe del Castillo G6mez seeks all damages recoverable as representative of the Estate
of Rodrigo Garcia Alvarez del Castillo, deceased.
27
109. Santa Natalia Montero Nufiez seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the
loss of her mother Maria Josefina Ascencion Nufiez Sorcia, about age 44 at the time of her death,
as follows:

contributions of a pecuniaty value;
c. Emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by her because ofthedeath of her
mother.
110. Santa Natalia Montero Nufiez also seeks damages in her capacity as heir of the Estate of
Maria Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia, deceased. Damages accnting to the Estate of Maria
Josefina Asceneion Nuficz Sorcia under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain
and emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by Maria JoscfinaAscencion Nunez Sorcia
prior to her death. Santa Natalia Montero Nufiez seeks all damages recoverable as representative of
the Estate of Maria Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia, deceased.
111. Victor Gregorio Montero Nunez seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for
the loss of his mother Maria Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia, about age 44 at the time of her death,
as follows:

contributions of a pecuniaty value;
c. Emotional pain, tOlment and suffering experienced by him because of the death of
his mother.
112. Victor Gregorio Montero Nufiez also seeks damages in his capacity as heir of the Estate of
Marla Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia, deceased. Damages accnting to the Estate of Marla
28
Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain
and emotional pain, tonnent and suffering experienced by Maria Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia
prior to her death. Victor Gregorio Montero Nunez seeks all damages recoverable as representative
of the Estate of Marla Josefina Ascencion Nunez Sorcia, deceased.
113. Alejandro Oropeza Querejeta seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the
loss of his mother Patricia Marla del Carmen Oropeza Querejeta, about age 55 at the time of her
death, as follows:
a, Loss of care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable

c. Emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by him hecause of the death of
his mother.
114. Alejandro Oropeza Querejeta also seeks damages in his capacity as heir of the Estate of
Patricia Maria del Cannen Oropeza Querejeta, deceased. Damages acc11ling to the Estate of Patricia
Maria del Carmen Oropeza Querejeta under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical
pain and emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by Patricia Maria del Carmen Oropeza
Querejeta prior to her death. Alejandro Oropeza Querejeta seeks all damages recoverable as
representative of the Estate Patricia Maria del Cannen Oropeza Querejeta, deceased.
115. Hilda Rodriguez Bahena seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the loss
of her husband Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas, about age 28 at the time of his death, as follows:

c. Emotional pain, tOlmentand suffering experienced by her because of the death of her
29
husband.
116. Hilda Rodriguez Bahena was a bystander as that term is known in law and sceks damages
for her suffering as allowed by law. Hilda Rodriguez Bahena seeks bystander damages including
past and future mental anguish, emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by her witnessing
the injmy, suffering and death of her husband Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas, deceased.
117. Hilda Rodriguez Bahena also seeks damages in her capacity as heir of the Estate of Allan
Cristian Vazquez Vargas, deceased. Hilda Rodriguez Bahena also seeks damages in her
representative capacity as next friend of the minor children, C.J.V.R. and V.M.V.R, for recovery in
their capacity as heirs of the Estate of their dead father. Damages accming to the Estate of Allan
Cristian Vazquez Vargas under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and
emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas prior to his
death. Hilda Rodriguez Bahena seeks all damages recoverable as representative of the Estate of
Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas, deceased.
118. Hilda Rodriguez Bahena, individually and as next friend of C.J.V.R., a minor, and as next
friend ofV.M.V.R, a minor, seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for loss of their
father, Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas, as follows:

contributions of pecunialY value;
c. Emotional pain, tOlment and suffering experienced by each of them because of the
119. Gilberta Vazquez Garcia seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the loss
of his son Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas, about age 28 at the time of his death, as follows:
30
a. Loss of care, maintenance, support, scrvices, advice, counsel, and reasonable

c. Emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by him because of the death of
his son.
120. Gilbelto Vazquez Garcia also seeks damages in his capacity as heir of the Estate of Allan
Cristian Vazquez Vargas, deceased. Damages accruing to the Estate of Allan Cristian Vazquez
Vargas under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain,
tOlment and suffering experienced by Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas prior to his death. Gilberto
Vazquez Garcia seeks all damages recoverable as representative of the Estate of Allan Cristian
Vazquez Vargas, deceased.
121. Soledad lsquierdo Vargas seeks damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the loss
of her son Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas, about age 28 at the time of his death, as follows:
a. Loss of care, maintenance, SUppOlt, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable

contributions of a pecuniaJy value;
son.
,
122. Soledad lsquierdo Vargas also seeks damages in her capacity as heir of the Estate of Allan
Cristian Vazquez Vargas, deceased. Damages accming to the Estate of Allan Cristian Vazquez
Vargas under the Texas Survival Statute include conscious physical pain and emotional pain,
tOlment and suffering experienced by Allan Cristian Vazquez Vargas prior to his death. Soledad
Isquierdo Vargas seeks all damages recoverable as representative of the Estate of Allan Cristian
Vazquez Vargas, deceased.
31
123. As a direct and proximate result of Defend ants ' conduct described herein, Ivan Diaz Amador
sustained bodily injuries and damages as set forth herein. Ivan Diaz Amador seeks damages for his
injuries as follows:
a. Physical pain and mental anguish sustained in the past;
b. Physical pain and mental anguish that in all reasonable probability, Ivan Diaz
Amador, will sustain in the future;
c. Loss of earning capacity sustained in the past;
d. Loss of earning capacity that, in all reasonable probability, Ivan Diaz Amador, will
sustain in the future;
e. Disfigurement in the past;
f. Disfigurement that, in all reasonable probability, Ivan Dlaz Amador, will sustain in
the future;
g. Physical impairment in the past;
h. Physical impairment that, in all reasonable probability, Ivan Dlaz Amador, will
i. Medical expenses in the past; and
j. Medical expenses that, in all reasonable probability, Ivan DiazAmador, will sustain
in the future.
124. Norma Sanchez de Tagle was a bystander as that term is known in law and seeks damages
for her suffering as allowed by law. Nanna Sanchez de Tagle seeks bystander damages including
past and future mental anguish, emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by her witnessing
the injury to and suffering of her husband Ivan Dlaz Amador.
125. As a dircct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct described herein, Nanna Sanchez
de Tagle sustained additional damages as set fmih below. Nonna Sanchez de Tagle seeks damages
as a result the injuties to her husband, Ivan Diaz Amador, as follows:
32
a. Loss of consoliium, including the loss of affection, solace, comfort, companionship,

society, assistance, sexual relations, emotional support, love, and felicity necessary
to a successful malTiage, in the past and that in all reasonable probability she will
sustain in the futnre; and
b. loss of household services in the past and that in all reasonable probability she will
sustain in the future.
126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' conduct described herein, Edmundo Abarca
Balcazar sustained bodily injuries and damages as set forth herein. Edmundo Abarca Balcazar seeks
damages for his injuries as follows:
b. Physical pain and mental anguish that in all reasonable probability, Edmundo Abarca
Balc"zar, will sustain in the futnre;
c. Loss of eaming capacity sustained in the past;
d. Loss of eaming capacity that, in all reasonable probability, Edmundo Abarca

Balcitzar, will sustain in the futnre;
f. Disfigurement that, in all reasonable probability, Edmundo Abarca Balcazar, will

g. Physical impainnent in the past;
h. Physical impailment that, in all reasonable probability, Edmundo Abarca Balcazar,

will sustain in the future;
j. Medical expenses that, in all reasonable probability, Edmundo Abarca Balcazar, will
sustain in the futnre.
127. Mercedes Solis Trejo was a bystander as that term is known in law and seeks damages for
her suffering as allowed by law. Mercedes Solis Trejo seeks bystander damages including past and
future mental anguish, emotional pain, torment and suffering experienced by her witnessing the
33
injury to and suffering of her husband Edmundo Abarca Balcazar.
128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct described herein, Mercedes Solis
Trejo sustained additional damages as set forth below. Mercedes Solis Trejo seeks damages as a
result of the injuries to her husband, Edmundo Abarca Balcazar, as follows:
a. Loss of consortium, including the loss of affection, solace, comfOlt, companionship,

society, assistance, sexual relations, emotional support, love, and felicity necessaty
to a successful mal1'iage, in the past and that in all reasonable probability she will
sustain in the future; and
b. loss of household services in the past and that in all reasonable probability she will
129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct described herein, P.C.A.S., a minor,
sustained damages as set forth below. As a result of the injuries of her father, Edmundo Abarca
Baldzar, which were serious, permanent and disabling. Edmundo Abarca Balcazar, individually
and in his representative capacity as next friend ofthe P.C.A.S., a minor seeks damages for her loss
of parental consortium, including the loss ofthe positive benefits flowing from her father's love,
affection, protection, emotional SUppOlt, services, companionship, care and society, in the past and
that in all reasonable probability P.C.A.S. will sustain in the future.
130. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct described herein, Rodrigo Daniel
Mattinez Cmces sustained bodily injuries and damages as set forth herein. Rodrigo Daniel Martinez
Cmces seeks damages for his injuries as follows:
b. .Physical pain and mental anguish that in all reasonable probability, Rodrigo Daniel
Mattinez Cmces, will sustain in the fhture;
c. Loss of eat'ning capacity sustained in the past;
d. Loss ofeaming capacity that, in all reasonable probability, Rodrigo Daniel Mattinez
34
ClUces, will sustain in the future;
f. Disfigurement that, in all reasonable probability, Rodrigo Daniel Martinez ClUces,

g. Physical impahment in the past;
h. Physical impairment that, in all reasonable probability, Rodrigo Daniel Martinez

ClUCes, will sustain in the future;
j. Medical expenses that, in all reasonable probability, Rodrigo Daniel Martinez

ClUces, will sustain in the future.
131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct describcd herein, Patricia Picon
G6mez sustained bodily il\iuries and damages as set forth herein. Patricia Pic6n Gomez secks
damages for her iqiuries as follows:
b. Physical pain and mental anguish that in all reasonable probability, Patricia Picon
Gomez, will sustain in the future;
c. Loss of earning capacity sustained in the past;
d. Loss of earning capacity that, in all reasonable probability, Patricia Picon Gomez,
f. Disfigurement that, in all reasonable probability, Patricia Picon Gomez, will sustain
in the future;
g. Physical impaitment in the past;
h. Physical impairment that, in all reasonable probability, Patricia Picon Gomez, will
35
j. Medical expenses that, in all reasonable probability, Patricia Picon Gomez, will
132. Cesar Belmont Hinojosa was a bystander as that tenn is known in law and seeks damages
for his suffering as allowed by law. Cesar Belmont Hinojosa seeks bystander damages including past
and future mental anguish, emotional pain, torment and suffering expericnced by his witnessing the
injury to and suffering of his wife Patricia Pic6n Gomez.
133. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct described herein, Cesar Belmont
Hinojosa sustained additional damages as set forth below. Cesar Belmont Hinojosa seeks damages
as a result the injuries to his wife, Patricia Picon Gomez, as follows:
a. Loss of consortium, including the loss of affection, solace, comfort, companionship,

society, assistance, sexual relations, emotional support, love, and felicity necessary
to a successful marriage, in the past and that in all reasonable probability he will
sustain in the future; and
b. loss of household services in the past and that in all reasonable probability he will
134. As a direct and proximate resnlt of Defendants' conduct described herein, O.I.B.P., a minor,
sustained damages as set fOlih below. As a result of the injuries of his mother, Patricia Picon
G6mez, which were selious, pennanent and disabling, Patricia Picon G6mez in her representative
capacity as next friend of O.I.B.P. seeks damages on behalf of O.I.B.P. for the loss of parental
consOliium, including the loss of the positive benefits flowing Ii-om his mother's love, affection,
protection, emotional support, services, companionship, care and society, in the past and that in all
reasonable probability he will sustain in the future.
135. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' conduct described herein, D.O.B.P., a minor,
sustained damages as set forth below. As a result of the injnries of his mother, Patricia Pic6n
Gomez, which were selious, pennancnt and disabling, Patricia Picon Gomez in her representative
36
capacity as next friend of D.O.B.P. seeks damages on behalf of D.O.B.P. for the loss of parental
consortium, including the loss of the positive benefits flowing from his mother's love, affection,
protection, emotional support, services, companionship, care and society, in the past and that in all
reasonable probability he will sustain in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel, pray for the entry of a
judgment in their favor and against StandardAero, Garrett Aviation Services, L.L.C., d/b/a Standard
Aero, Standard Aero (San Antonio), Inc., Alvin M. Howell, Centros de Servicios de Aviacion
Ejecutiva S.A. de C.V., Bombardier Aerospace Corporation, LearJet, Inc., General Electric
Company, GE Aviation Systems, L.L.C., and Honeywell International, Inc., for actual damages as
alleges, costs of court, and such other and further relief both at law and in equity to whihc Plaintiffs
may show themselves justly entitled.
COLLMER LAW GRW .4/7
By~,(4'~2
MARK W. COLLMER
State Bar No. 04626420
CONRAD GUTHRIE
State Bar No. 45006102
4 Houston Center
1221 Lamar Street, Suite 1302
Houston, Texas 77010
TEL: (713) 337-4040
FAX: (713) 337-4044
FLOYD A. WISNER
WISNER LAW FIRM
3N 780 Trotter Lane
St Charles, IL 60175
630-513-9434
630-513-6287 (fax)
(Pending admission pro hoc vice)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
37

CASTILLO Et Al. v. STANDARDAERO, GARRETT AVIATION SERVICES, L.L.C. D/B/A STANDARDAERO Et Al Complaint

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CASTILLO Et Al. v. STANDARDAERO, GARRETT AVIATION SERVICES, L.L.C. D/B/A STANDARDAERO Et Al Complaint

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 4:10-cv-04694 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/23/10 Page 1 of 37

MARiA DE LOS ANGELES ESCALANTE CASTILLO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

VAZQUEZ VARGAS, DECEASED, AND AS NEXT §

FRIEND OF V.M.V.R, A MINOR, AND GILBERTO §

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Hinojosa, complaining of Defendants StandardAero, Garrett Aviation Services, L.L.C., d/b/a

would show unto the Court as follows:

mother Deysi Yolanda Calderon Silva.

3. Defendant StandardAero is a corporation, limited liability cOlporation or other legal entity

Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.

Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.

7. Defendant Centros de Servicios de Aviaci6n Ejecutiva S.A. de C.V., ("Centros"), is an entity

principal place of business.

Alternatively, Defendant Centros de Servicios de Aviaci6n Ejecutiva S.A.de C.V., as a

Toluca, Edo de Mexico, Mexico.

8. Derendant Bombardier Aerospace Corporation ("Bombardier") is a Delaware corporation

9. Defendant Leadet, Inc., (hereinafter "LearJet'') is a Delaware corporation doing business in

St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.

St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.

12. Defendant HoncywellIntel1lational, Inc. ("Honeywell") is a Delaware corporation which is

part in Harris County, Texas.

Mexico to Mexico City, Mexico.

Carrillo, as well as others.

died from their injuries.

manufactured the aircraft's spoileron actuators.

returned for additional work.

Negligence - Standard, Standard Aero - San Antonio, and GatTett i

in fhe subject aircraft and in failing to wam of these defects.

Plaintiffs' injuries and damages.

Negligence Per Se - Standard Aero'

manufacturer's guidelines, and rules promulgated regarding the repairs of aircraft.

30. StandardAero violated those regulations, rules or guidelines.

Plaintim' injuries and damages.

Breach ofWananty - StandardAero'

aircraft, including to the aircraft's engine and flight controls.

competent, proper and non-negligent manner.

Plaintiffs' injuries and damages.

aircraft to be in an airworthy condition.

injuries and damages.

Negligence Per Se· Howell

manufacturer's guidelines, and lUles promulgated regarding the repairs of aircraft ..

45. Howcll violated those regulations, rules or guidelines.

Benito Juarez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico on November 4, 2008.

injuries and damages.

Aviation Regulations, and LearJet's recormnendations.

though not limited to, the following ways:

a. failure to maintain safe flying speed;

b. failure to maintain control of the aircraft;

c. failure to follow manufacturers' operating instlUctions;

d. failure to maintain safe wake turbulence avoidance distance;

e. failure to obey Air Traffic Control instructions;

f. failure to maintain a safe following distance;

g. failure to execute a proper approach;

h. failure to recognize and react to a reasonably foreseeable systems failure;

i. failure to break off an unsafe approach;

J. failure to execute a proper missed approach;

k. failure to obey Civil Aviation Regulations;

1. failure to initialize a stabilized approach;

n. failure to properly hire and screen flight crew;

o. failure to properly train flight crew;

q. failure to properly maintain the aircraft in accordance with manufacturers'

r. negligent selection of maintenance providers;