Preview
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
MATTHEW BROWN
VS.
MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS LLC, etal
cy-22-156 {tae
C I-13 -26
Catine
CERTIFICATE OF COURT CLERK
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
COUNTY OF LEFLORE SS:
I, MINDY WHITE, DISTRICT COURT CLERK OF SAID COUNTY, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THESE ARE THE COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FILED, IN
THE ABOVE SAID CASE.
TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF
THIS COURT THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023.
MINDY WHITE
BY:
FILED | N MY OFFICE_AT DEPUTY
Wilburton, Latimer County, Okla.
JUN 97 2023
ME BRR)INLEE
LICONDURAT CLE
uty
By.
Printed: 06/22/23
LEFLORE COUNTY CJ _- CIVIL DOCKE
MINDY WHITE , COURT CLERK
TOTES et ee ne ne
Case No STYLE OF CASE
wert - ee --- eee eee car n-------------
NATURE OF ACT
eee woe eee -- + ee
CJ-2022-00156 MATTHEW BROWN MONEY JUDGMENT/CIVIL-OVER $1
PLAINTIFF
MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS LL
iS HUNTING SOLUTIONS LLC
OUTDOOR DISTRIBUTORS LLG
HUNTING SOLUTIONS INC
Ss iL OQUTD ORS LLC
JIM DI
LE:
OKO BROER: RTT BS LLC
enone eee ee eee eee tL ween eee ll
AN
anne ee ee ---------e
waren ee nee ee eee AT! RECORDS
w------ eee Tern eee nee ee ee ee eee
DATE TIME DESC
waren eee eee ee WUT Torts seesaw naan anew ne een - eee ee
06-08-2023 ST-DISPOSED
TOTS TT Se pe ene nn ene
Date All Moneys Received
wrote eee eee eee -- were ee ----e ee ee wore eee ee eee
09-16-2022| BY CHCK-o 322. CHECK# 18585, DENTON LAW FIRM
03-01-2023 BY CHCK-O 50.00,'c HECK# 27178, BARBER & BARBER
DUTT penne ene n neon nw nn none nnn en ee eee eee ee
Date Total Costs and Disburs.
oor eee eee Tot ttt tte e nnn e nee n neo eee eee
09 2022
COUNTY OF LEFLORE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA }ss
1, MINDY WHITE,
COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHCol(OMA,
URT CLERK IN AND FOR LEFL
ORE,
THE WITHIN AND FOREGO ING IS A SO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT
COPY OF THE ORIGINAL FULL, TRUE ANI \CORRECT
AS THE SAME APPEARS ON FILE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | HEREUNTO Y OFFICE.
THE SEAL OF SAID COURT. ‘SET MY HAND AND AFFIX
THIS THE DAY OF
03-02-2023 Mingy HITE, COURTSCLERK 2022
RK DEPUTY CLE
------ woot rrr ------ = ee eee Tort teeter r eer
Judg ee oe eee ee
JONATHAN SULLIVAN Case Information:
wrt tas gene anne e eee eee eet ‘comments:
were n eee eee - ee ee
Date
Entries
aoe eee --- 5 eee torre ---- eee ween eee ee eee
09-16-2022|FILE AND ENTER P ETITION
Oklahoma Court Inform ation System
LENGTHY TRIAL Fee - Effective 07/01/04
OK, COURT APPOL NTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES
10% OF CASA TO COURT CLERK REVOLVI
OK, COUNCIL 0! IN JUDICIAL COMP: INTS REVOLVING FUND
10% OF COJC_TO CO URT CLERK RE 'VOLV:
STATE JUDICIAL RE 'V. FUND INTERPRETER & TRANSLATOR
SERVICES
COURTHOUSE SECURITY FEE
10% OF CHSC TO COURT CLERK REVOLVING FUND
15% TO DISTRICT COURT REVOL' VI)
COURT CLERK PRESERVATION FUND
o9- -2022 ISSUE s IN,
12- -2022 FILE RETURN OF
12- -2022 FILE SPECIAL LI METED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF OKO
PROPERTIES, 1
12-12-2022 FILE SPECTAL Al PPEARANCE FOR PURPOSE OF CHALLENGING
ENUE AND JURI SDICTION AND MOTTON TO DISMISS
12-28-2022 FILE MOTION TO ASSOCIATE Col
12-28-2022 FILE MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
12-28-2022 FILE MATTHEW BRO! WN'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUI
12-28-2022 FILE PLAINTIFF MATTHEW BROWN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ROPERTIE
12-28-2022 RDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE
12-28-2022 FILE ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE
o1 -26-2023 FILE ENTRY OF APPE,
ol -26-2023 FILE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
03-01-2023 FILE MOTI
03-01-2023 FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
03-06-2023 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF Vv 'OLUNTARY DISMISSAL w/o
PRES UDICE AGAINST EDW;
03-16-2023 BROWN'S UNO PPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
03-16-2023 FILE OR:
03-23-2023 FILE RETURN OF SERVICE
03-23-2023 FILE RETURN OF SERVICE
03 -23-2023 FILE RETURN OF SERVICE
03 -23-2023 FILE RETURN OF SERVICE
03 -27-2023 FILE ELAINTIFF MATTHEW BROWNS UNOPPOSED MOTION
03-29-2023 FILE
04-10-2023 FILE PB. NTIFF MATTHEW BROWN'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS
TO DEFENDANT MALLENNIUM OUTDOOR, LLC'S MOTION FOR
04-27-2023 FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MSJ
05-03-2023 FILE MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
05-03-2023 FILE ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE
05-08-2023 PILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVI
06 -08-2023 FILE BRANTIFE'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
06-08-2023 FILE
Dorms s sana anne nnn --------------- +--+ ee eee
ne
© 06-07-2023 11:46 AM Fax #: (660) 259-457 99186477374 pg 4 of S
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
MATTHEW BROWN,
E
Plaintiff, Case No. CJ-22-156
l | ryH
Vv. n
Judge Sullivan
(1)
!
MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
| JUN 08 2999
:
MINDY we baw.
QRDER STATE OF Ona, »©. LEFL
COURT CLERK
ORE Counry
Itis hereby ORDERED on the day of Gun, 2023, that Plaintiff Matthew Brown’s
Unapposed Motion for Transfer of Venue is hereby granted. This case shall be transferred to the
District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma.
dge Jon Sullivan
VM
Submitted By:
By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Pike COUNTY OF LEFLORE
Jetirey M. Pike (Pro Hac Vice) STATE OF OKLAHOMA }ss
MO State Bar No. 73480 1, MINDY WHITE, COURT CLERK IN AND FOR LEFLORE
COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, SO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT
Mark A. Emison (Pro Hac Vice) THE WITHIN AND FOREGONNG I@ A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT
MO State Bar No. 63479 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL_
AS THE SAME APPEARS ON FILE AND RECORD IN MY OFFICE.
Langdon & Emison, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIX
911 Main Street, P.O. Box 220 THE SEAL OF WD COURT.
Lexington, MO 64067 THIS THE
MINDY WHITE, C
DAY OF
RT CL
2023
(660) 259-6175 Telephone BY _ __ DEPUTY CLERK
(660) 259-4571 Telecopicr
mark@lelaw.com
icff@lelaw.com
and
Austin C. Walters, OBA #33363
925 West State Highway 152
Mustang, Oklahoma 73064
(405) 376-2212 Telephone
(405) 376-2262 Telecopier
austin@dentonlawfirm.com
3 06-07-2023 11:46 AM
Fax #: (660) 259-457
> 9186477374
pg Sof 5
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
and
By: 4 tephen 7
Stephen J. Carmo, dy (Pro Hac
Vice)
Brunini, Grantham, Gro wer, and Hew
es, PLLC
Post Office Drawer 119
Jackson, MS 39205
Telephone: (601) 948-3101
Fax: (601) 960-6902
Russell V. Barber, OK Bar No.
10024
BARBER AND BARBER,
P.C,
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 518
107 Beard Ave.
Poteau, Oklahoma 74953
Telephone: (918) 647-8681
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS
, LLC
By: /s/ Aaron J. Goodman
Aaron J. Goodman, OBA #17434
LAWSON & SHELTON, P.L.L.
C
10777 S. Memorial Drive, Suit
e C
Tulsa, OK 74133-7351
(918) 369-9980
(844) 770-1902 (Fax)
odman@oktb.c
ATTORNEY FOR SPECIALLY APP
EARING
DEFENDA, NT OKO PROPERTIES,
LLC
Defendant OKO failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and keeping the premises
safe and
knew or should have known the premises was unsafe, unreasonably dangerous, and
would likely
result in serious injury, justifying the imposition of punitive damages in an amount sufficient
to
punish Defendant OKO and deter Defendant OKO and others from like conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Matthew Brown prays that this Court enter judgment against
Defendant OKO for a reasonable sum of damages as will fairly and justly compensate
Plaintiff
and for punitive damages in such sum as will serve to punish Defendant OKO and deter Defendan
t
OKO and others from engaging in like conduct in excess of the jurisdictional limit imposed
by 28
U.S.C. § 1332, for Plaintiffs costs incurred herein, and for such other and further
relief as the
Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
ee
Respectfully submitted,
Austin C. Walters, OBA #33363
DENTON LAW FIRM
925 West State Highway 152
Mustang, OK 73064
Phone: (405) 376-2212
Fax: (405) 376-2262
ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED austin@dentonlawfirm.com
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
49
- -
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEFLO)
STATE OF OKLAHO!
MATTHEW BROWN, ox No
op “6
Plaintiff, Hin &e
Vv. “Gy Re
ep Leg
MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS, LLC, and LY
MS HUNTING SOLUTIONS, LLC, and
OUTDOOR DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, and
HUNTING SOLUTIONS, INC., and
MS OL MAN OUTDOORS, LLC, and
bs aa.
JIM EDWARDS, and
BILL ALEXANDER, and
OKO PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendants.
PETITION
COMES NOW Plaintiff Matthew Brown, by and through his attorneys of record, and for
his Petition against Defendants Millennium Outdoors, LLC (“Millennium”), MS Hunting
Solutions, LLC (“MS Hunting”), Outdoor Distributors, LLC (“Outdoor”), Hunting Solutions, Inc.
(“Hunting Solutions”), MS OL Man Outdoors, LLC (“MS OL Man Outdoors”), Jim Edwards
(“Edwards”), Bill Alexander (“Alexander”), and OKO Properties, LLC (“OKO”), states and
alleges as follows:
N OF ACTION
1 This action arises from the personal injuries Plaintiff Matthew Brown sustained
while on a hunting trip on October 24, 2020. As he climbed onto a Millennium M25 Model Hang-
On treestand (“Subject Stand”) that was affixed approximately 20 to 24 feet high on a tree, a joint
failed and cables broke ultimately causing him to fall to the ground (“Subject Incident”).
2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was hunting as an invitee on land owned by
OKO Properties, LLC at the time of the Subject Incident.
1
- .
3 Upon information and belief, the Subject Stand was designed, tested, and
manufactured by Defendants MS Hunting, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man Outdoors, Jim
Edwards, Bill Alexander and/or Millennium.
4 Upon information and belief, Defendant Outdoor distributed Millennium M25
Model Hang-On treestands prior to an October 2014 Asset Purchase Agreement where Defendant
Millennium acquired inventory of Defendants MS Hunting, Hunting Solutions, Outdoor, MS OL
Man Outdoors, Jim Edwards, and Bill Alexander.
5 In or after February 2015, Millennium sold or gifted the Subject Stand to Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff's injuries in this action were caused by the acts and/or omissions of
Defendants Millennium, MS Hunting, Outdoor, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man Outdoors, Jim
Edwards, and/or Bill Alexander in failing to properly design, test, and manufacture the Subject
Stand, in marketing, distributing, selling and/or gifting the defective Subject Stand to Plaintiff,
and/or in failing to warn Plaintiff of its defective condition, and/or the acts and/or omissions of
Defendant OKO Properties, LLC in failing to protect its invitees and other persons legally upon
its premises, including Plaintiff, against unreasonable risks of physical harm.
THE PARTE
7 Plaintiff Matthew Brown is, and at all relevant times was, an adult citizen of
Mississippi.
8. Defendant Millennium Outdoors, LLC (“Millennium”) is a limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi, engaged in the business
of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems
for use while hunting. Defendant Millennium does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but
can be served with process through its registered agent, David Myers, at 1880 Lakeland Dr., Ste.
E., Jackson, MS 39216.
9. Defendant MS Hunting Solutions, LLC (“MS Hunting”) is, or was until its
administrative dissolution on November 30, 2016, a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi engaged in the business of designing, testing,
manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while
hunting. Defendant MS Hunting does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can be served
with process through its registered agent, Billy Alexander, at 515 Suite B North Bierdeman Rd.,
Pearl, MS 39208.
10. Defendant Outdoor Distributors, LLC (“Outdoor”) is, or was until its administrative
dissolution on December 10, 2018, a limited liability company organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Mississippi engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant
Outdoor does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can be served with process through its
registered agent, Billy Alexander, at 125 Dogwood Circle, Brandon, MS 39042.
11, Defendant Hunting Solutions, Inc. (“Hunting Solutions”) is, or was until its
administrative dissolution on November 30, 2016, a corporation incorporated and existing under
the laws of the State of Mississippi engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant
Hunting Solutions does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can be served with process
through its registered agent, Billy Alexander, at 515 Suite B North Bierdeman Rd., Pearl, MS
39208.
oe -*
12, Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors, LLC (“MS OL Man Outdoors”) is, or was until
jts administrative dissolution on December 6, 2017, a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi engaged in the business of designing, testing,
manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while
hunting. Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can
be served with process through its registered agent, Bill Alexander, at 201 Fairmont Plaza, Pearl,
MS 39208.
13. Defendant Jim Edwards is, upon information and belief, a Mississippi resident
engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant Edwards can be served with process
at 164 Woodlands Glen Cir, Brandon, MS 39047.
14, Defendant Bill Alexander is, upon information and belief, a Mississippi resident
engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant Alexander can be served with process
at 180 Woodlands Glen Cir., Brandon, MS 39047.
15. Defendant OKO Properties, LLC (“OKO”) is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and owns, and at all relevant times owned,
the land upon which the Subject Incident occurred. Defendant OKO can be served with process
through its registered agent, Donald R. Hackler, at 19 E. Carl Albert Pkwy., McAlester, OK 74501.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. Defendant Millennium is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that, at
all times relevant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the sale of its products in the State
of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to Defendant Millennium’s contacts with
oe
to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma.
Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing injury
systematic contacts with the State of
Defendant Millennium has substantial, continuous, and
marketing, distribution, and sale of its
Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture,
products, including the Millennium M 25 Hang-
On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. It
business relationships with businesses in
regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains
a “Find a Dealer” search on its website
Oklahoma, has authorized dealers in Oklahoma, features
ts including in Oklahoma, derives
which directs purchasers to authorized dealers of its produc
use of its products in Oklahoma, and
significant revenue from its activities and the sale and
gh its actions, Defendant Millennium has
regularly advertises its products in Oklahoma. Throu
reasonably anticipate being haled into an
consented to the jurisdiction of this Court and/or could
t to personal jurisdiction in this Court
Oklahoma Court. Defendant Millennium is also subjec
n of business, making of contracts, and
pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through its transactio
commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma.
of this Court in that,
17. Defendant MS Hunting is subject to the speci: fic jurisdiction
sale of its products in the State
at all times relev: ant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the
to Defen dant MS Hunting’s contacts with
of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate
injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma.
Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing
, and s} ystematic contacts with the State of
Defendant MS Hunting has substantial, continuous
e, marketing, distribution, and sale of its
Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufactur
tree: stand, within the State of Oklahoma. It
products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On
business relationships with businesses in
regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains
acti vities and the sale and use of its products
Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from its
consented to the. jurisdiction of this
in Oklahoma. Through its actions, Defendant MS Hunting has
-+
Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant MS
Hunting is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through its
transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma.
18. Defendant Outdoor is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that, at all
times relevant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the sale of its products in the State of
Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to Defendant Outdoor’s contacts with
Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma
to Plaintiff. Defendant Outdoor has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State
of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of its
products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. It
regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains business relationships with businesses in
Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from its activities and the sale and use of its products
in Oklahoma. Through its actions, Defendant Outdoor has consented to the jurisdiction of this
Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant Outdoor
is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through its transaction of
business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma.
‘
19. Defendant Hunting Solutions is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in
that, at all times relevant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the sale of its products in the
State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to Hunting Solutions’ contacts with
Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma.
Defendant Hunting Solutions has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State
of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of its
products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. It
_-——
te
regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains business relationships with businesses in
Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from its activities and the sale and use of its products
in Oklahoma. Through its actions, Defendant Hunting Solutions has consented to the jurisdiction
of this Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant
Hunting Solutions is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through
its transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma.
20. Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court
in that, at all times relevant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the sale of its products in
the State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to MS OL Man Outdoors
contacts with Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State
of Oklahoma. Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors has substantial, continuous, and systematic
contacts with the State of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing,
distribution, and sale of its products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within
the State of Oklahoma. It regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains business relationships
with businesses in Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from its activities and the sale and
use of its products in Oklahoma. Through its actions, MS OL Man Outdoors has consented to the
jurisdiction of this Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court.
Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. §
2004 through its transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in
Oklahoma.
21. Defendant Jim Edwards is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that,
at all times relevant hereto, he deliberately exploited a market for the sale of his products in the
State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiffs claims arise out of or relate to Defendant Edwards’ contacts
we
with Oklahoma in that his product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of
Oklahoma. Defendant Edwards has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State
of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of his
products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. He
regularly sells his products in Oklahoma, maintains business telationships with businesses in
Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from his activities and the sale and use of his products
in Oklahoma. Through his actions, Defendant Edwards has consented to the jurisdiction of this
Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant Edwards
is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through his transaction of
business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma.
22. Defendant Bill Alexander is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that,
at all times relevant hereto, he deliberately exploited a market for the sale of his products in the
State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to Defendant Alexander’s contacts
with Oklahoma in that his product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of
Oklahoma. Defendant Alexander has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the
State of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of
his products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. He
regularly sells his products in Oklahoma, maintains business relationships with businesses in
Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from his activities and the sale and use of his products
in Oklahoma. Through his actions, Defendant Alexander has consented to the jurisdiction of this
Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant
Alexander is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through his
transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma.
EEO
23. Defendant OKO is subject to personal jurisdiction of this Court in that it is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of Oklahoma.
24, Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 12-187 in that one or more of
the defendants is a resident of this state and venue would be proper as to the resident defendant,
OKO, because it owns property in LeFlore County and the cause of action arose in LeFlore County.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
The Accident
25. On or about October 24, 2020, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Plaintiff Matthew
Brown (‘Plaintiff’) was hunting as an invitee on leased property owned by Defendant OKO
located in Talihini, LeFlore County, Oklahoma (“Leased Property”).
26. Plaintiff had, at all times relevant, a special relationship with Defendant OKO, as
he was an invitee on land owned by Defendant OKO.
27. At the same time and place, Plaintiff was using his Millennium M25 Hang-On
treestand (“Subject Stand”).
28. The seat of the Subject Stand bears the logo and name “Millennium Treestands.”
29, The three primary components of the Millennium M25 Model treestand are a
standing platform, an upright assembly, and a seating platform.
30. Two cables connected the standing platform of the Subject Stand to its upright
assembly.
31. The cables were encased in a rubber or plastic coating, concealing their condition.
32. The Millennium M25 Model treestand is rated for up to 300 pounds; Plaintiff's
body and equipment weighed a total of approximately 250 pounds at the time of the Subject
Incident.
imately 20 to 24 feet
33. The Subject Stand was affixed to a tree at a height of approx
off the ground.
on the tree up to
34. On the date of the Subject Incident, Plaintiff climbed the ladder
s.
the Subject Stand, wearing a Hunter Safety System Harnes
s standing platform,
35. When Plaintiff stepped from the ladder onto the Subject Stand’
he sat down.
he began to adjust the harness straps between his legs before
on the platform failed and a
36. Just before Plaintiff re-fastened his hamess, a joint
platform to collapse from under him.
cable on the Subject Stand snapped, causing the standing
ded by his safety
37. After the standing platform collapsed, Plaintiff was initially suspen
harness, which was still latched on his chest. Hi: is harnes
s began to choke him. To avoid suffocating,
d approximately 20 to 24 feet below.
Plaintiff freed himself from the harness and fell to the groun
knee down.
38. Upon impact, the bones in Plaintiff's right leg shattered from his
ng p: ain two and a half hours
39. Plaintiff's hunting companions found him in excruciati
to dial 911, and an hour and a half to be
later. It took an hour for the men to obtain cellular service
in McAllister, Oklahoma.
transported by first responders to an emergency room
conditions of the Subject
40. As a result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous
ions of Defendants Outdoor, MS Hunting,
Stand and the negligent and reckless conduct and omiss
Outdoors, Edwards, and/or Alexander, and/or the
Millennium, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man
ty in a reasonably safe condition for its
failure of Defendant OKO to maintain the Leased Proper
s, severe, and permanent injuries more specifically
articulated
invitees, Plaintiff sustained seriou
below.
the following respects:
41. The Subject Stand was defective in one or more of
10
~—
The cables used to attach the standing platform to the upright assembly were not
designed to be sufficiently strong to withstand the weight of a person and equipment
weighing less than 300 pounds;
to
The Subject Stand used cables instead of chains to attach the standing platform
the upright assembly;
not
The cables used to attach the standing platform to the upright assembly were
designed to be sufficiently durable to withstand exposure to reasonably foreseeable
outdoor weather elements;
d with a
The cables used to attach the standing platform were improperly designe
the
rubber or plastic coating that prevented visual inspection of the condition of
cables;
to
The joint on the upright assembly was not designed to be sufficiently strong
withstand the weight of a person and equipment weighing less than 300 pounds;
The cables used to attach the standing platform were not properly manufactured
and, as a result, they broke when put to reasonably foreseeable use;
a result,
The joint on the upright assembly was not properly manufactured and, as
it failed when put to reasonably foreseeable use;
its
The Subject Stand did not include sufficient warnings and/or labels regarding
maximum weight bearing capabilities;
were
Proper and adequate wamings and instructions were not given and/or labels
or
not affixed to the Subject Stand regarding how to properly inspect the rubber-
plastic-coated cables for wear and tear or deterioration before use;
1
a
j. Proper and adequate warnings and instructions were not given and/or labels were
not affixed to the Subject Stand regarding its dangerous conditions; and/or
k. Proper and adequate warnings and instructions were not given and/or labels were
not affixed to the Subject Stand regarding the danger of failure of the joint.
Defendants MS Hunting, Outdoor, Millennium, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man Outdoors,
Edwards, and Alexander's Roles in the Manufacture and Distribution of The Subject Stand
42, Upon information and belief, MS Hunting, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man
um M25
Outdoors, Edwards, and/or Alexander manufactured, designed, and/or tested the Millenni
Model Hang-On treestand prior to October 8, 2014.
43. Upon information and belief, Outdoor was the distributor of the Millennium M25
Model Hang-On treestands prior to October 8, 2014.
44, From October 8, 2014, to the present, Millennium manufactures and distributes the
Millennium M25 Model Hang-On treestand.
45. On October 8, 2014, Millenium, as Buyer, entered into an Asset Purchase
Agreement (“APA”) with MS Hunting, Outdoor, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man Outdoors,
Edwards, and Alexander (collectively “Sellers”).
46. Sellers’ business consisted of “designing, developing, distributing,
commercializing, marketing, servicing, and selling” various types of outdoor equipment,
but not limited to, treestands under the trademark and tradename “Millennium
including,
Treestands.”
47, Since entering into the APA, Millennium continues to manufacture and sell
Model Hang-On”
treestands under the same tradename as Sellers did, the “Millennium M25
treestand.
12
Plaintiff's Acquisition of the Subject Stand
48. In February 2015, Plaintiff, an avid sportsman and owner of a sports equipment
sporting
business, attended the annual Nations’ Best Sports Show (“NBS Show”), a nationwide
goods buying group, in Ft. Worth, Texas.
49, Defendant Millennium was one of the vendors showcasing its treestands at the 2015
NBS Show.
50. At the NBS Show, Plaintiff met and began a relationship with Jim Willard, who
was then the Chief Operating Officer of Millennium.
31. Because of the relationship formed between them, Jim Willard, on behalf of
Millenium, began offering Plaintiff treestands at a discounted price or as a gift.
Plaintiff did not own a Millennium M25 treestand until after he formed a
52.
relationship with Jim Willard in 2015.
53. Plaintiff acquired the Subject Stand in or after 2015 by either purchasing it from
Millennium or receiving it as a gift from Millennium.
COUNT I-STRI PRODUCT LIABILITY
(efendant Millennium)
54, Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this Petition,
if fully set forth herein.
55. Defendant Millennium is engaged in the business of designing, testing,
including the
manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems,
Subject Stand.
to
56. Defendant Millennium gifted or sold the Subject Stand to Plaintiff subsequent
the execution of the APA.
13
57. At the time the Subject Stand left Defendant Millennium’s control and reached
Plaintiff's hands, it was defective and, because of the defects, was unreasonably dangerous to a
person who uses, consumes, or might be reasonably expected to be affected by the Subject Stand,
including Plaintiff.
58. At the time the Subject Stand left Defendant Millennium’s control and reached
Plaintiff's hands, it was not reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such products are
intended or may reasonably be expected to be used.
59. At the time the Subject Stand left Defendant Millennium’s control and reached
Plaintiff's hands, it was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the
ordinary user or consumer who purchased it with the ordinary knowledge common to the
community as to the product’s characteristics.
60. Plaintiff was a person who used, consumed, or could have reasonably been affected
by the Subject Stand.
61. At the time the Subject Stand left Defendant’s control and reached Plaintiff's hands,
it was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition because it failed to contain adequate
warnings or instructions.
62. Defendant Millennium knew or should have known that technologically and
commercially feasible safer alternative designs and methods of design, manufacture, and warning
existed that would have eliminated the unreasonably dangerous characteristics and condition of
the Subject Stand.
63. Despite this knowledge, Defendant Millennium designed and/or marketed and
distributed the Subject Stand to Plaintiff in a defective condition and without adequate warnings,
including, but not limited to, in the respects described in paragraph 43 above.
14
=
E
EE E ee
EE
|
unreasonably dangerous
64. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and
Preview
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MATTHEW BROWN VS. MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS LLC, etal cy-22-156 {tae C I-13 -26 Catine CERTIFICATE OF COURT CLERK STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF LEFLORE SS: I, MINDY WHITE, DISTRICT COURT CLERK OF SAID COUNTY, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THESE ARE THE COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FILED, IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE. TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS COURT THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023. MINDY WHITE BY: FILED | N MY OFFICE_AT DEPUTY Wilburton, Latimer County, Okla. JUN 97 2023 ME BRR)INLEE LICONDURAT CLE uty By. Printed: 06/22/23 LEFLORE COUNTY CJ _- CIVIL DOCKE MINDY WHITE , COURT CLERK TOTES et ee ne ne Case No STYLE OF CASE wert - ee --- eee eee car n------------- NATURE OF ACT eee woe eee -- + ee CJ-2022-00156 MATTHEW BROWN MONEY JUDGMENT/CIVIL-OVER $1 PLAINTIFF MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS LL iS HUNTING SOLUTIONS LLC OUTDOOR DISTRIBUTORS LLG HUNTING SOLUTIONS INC Ss iL OQUTD ORS LLC JIM DI LE: OKO BROER: RTT BS LLC enone eee ee eee eee tL ween eee ll AN anne ee ee ---------e waren ee nee ee eee AT! RECORDS w------ eee Tern eee nee ee ee ee eee DATE TIME DESC waren eee eee ee WUT Torts seesaw naan anew ne een - eee ee 06-08-2023 ST-DISPOSED TOTS TT Se pe ene nn ene Date All Moneys Received wrote eee eee eee -- were ee ----e ee ee wore eee ee eee 09-16-2022| BY CHCK-o 322. CHECK# 18585, DENTON LAW FIRM 03-01-2023 BY CHCK-O 50.00,'c HECK# 27178, BARBER & BARBER DUTT penne ene n neon nw nn none nnn en ee eee eee ee Date Total Costs and Disburs. oor eee eee Tot ttt tte e nnn e nee n neo eee eee 09 2022 COUNTY OF LEFLORE STATE OF OKLAHOMA }ss 1, MINDY WHITE, COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHCol(OMA, URT CLERK IN AND FOR LEFL ORE, THE WITHIN AND FOREGO ING IS A SO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL FULL, TRUE ANI \CORRECT AS THE SAME APPEARS ON FILE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | HEREUNTO Y OFFICE. THE SEAL OF SAID COURT. ‘SET MY HAND AND AFFIX THIS THE DAY OF 03-02-2023 Mingy HITE, COURTSCLERK 2022 RK DEPUTY CLE ------ woot rrr ------ = ee eee Tort teeter r eer Judg ee oe eee ee JONATHAN SULLIVAN Case Information: wrt tas gene anne e eee eee eet ‘comments: were n eee eee - ee ee Date Entries aoe eee --- 5 eee torre ---- eee ween eee ee eee 09-16-2022|FILE AND ENTER P ETITION Oklahoma Court Inform ation System LENGTHY TRIAL Fee - Effective 07/01/04 OK, COURT APPOL NTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES 10% OF CASA TO COURT CLERK REVOLVI OK, COUNCIL 0! IN JUDICIAL COMP: INTS REVOLVING FUND 10% OF COJC_TO CO URT CLERK RE 'VOLV: STATE JUDICIAL RE 'V. FUND INTERPRETER & TRANSLATOR SERVICES COURTHOUSE SECURITY FEE 10% OF CHSC TO COURT CLERK REVOLVING FUND 15% TO DISTRICT COURT REVOL' VI) COURT CLERK PRESERVATION FUND o9- -2022 ISSUE s IN, 12- -2022 FILE RETURN OF 12- -2022 FILE SPECIAL LI METED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF OKO PROPERTIES, 1 12-12-2022 FILE SPECTAL Al PPEARANCE FOR PURPOSE OF CHALLENGING ENUE AND JURI SDICTION AND MOTTON TO DISMISS 12-28-2022 FILE MOTION TO ASSOCIATE Col 12-28-2022 FILE MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL 12-28-2022 FILE MATTHEW BRO! WN'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUI 12-28-2022 FILE PLAINTIFF MATTHEW BROWN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ROPERTIE 12-28-2022 RDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE 12-28-2022 FILE ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE o1 -26-2023 FILE ENTRY OF APPE, ol -26-2023 FILE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE 03-01-2023 FILE MOTI 03-01-2023 FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 03-06-2023 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF Vv 'OLUNTARY DISMISSAL w/o PRES UDICE AGAINST EDW; 03-16-2023 BROWN'S UNO PPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 03-16-2023 FILE OR: 03-23-2023 FILE RETURN OF SERVICE 03-23-2023 FILE RETURN OF SERVICE 03 -23-2023 FILE RETURN OF SERVICE 03 -23-2023 FILE RETURN OF SERVICE 03 -27-2023 FILE ELAINTIFF MATTHEW BROWNS UNOPPOSED MOTION 03-29-2023 FILE 04-10-2023 FILE PB. NTIFF MATTHEW BROWN'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT MALLENNIUM OUTDOOR, LLC'S MOTION FOR 04-27-2023 FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MSJ 05-03-2023 FILE MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL 05-03-2023 FILE ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE 05-08-2023 PILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVI 06 -08-2023 FILE BRANTIFE'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 06-08-2023 FILE Dorms s sana anne nnn --------------- +--+ ee eee ne © 06-07-2023 11:46 AM Fax #: (660) 259-457 99186477374 pg 4 of S IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MATTHEW BROWN, E Plaintiff, Case No. CJ-22-156 l | ryH Vv. n Judge Sullivan (1) ! MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS, LLC, et al., Defendants. | JUN 08 2999 : MINDY we baw. QRDER STATE OF Ona, »©. LEFL COURT CLERK ORE Counry Itis hereby ORDERED on the day of Gun, 2023, that Plaintiff Matthew Brown’s Unapposed Motion for Transfer of Venue is hereby granted. This case shall be transferred to the District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma. dge Jon Sullivan VM Submitted By: By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Pike COUNTY OF LEFLORE Jetirey M. Pike (Pro Hac Vice) STATE OF OKLAHOMA }ss MO State Bar No. 73480 1, MINDY WHITE, COURT CLERK IN AND FOR LEFLORE COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, SO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Mark A. Emison (Pro Hac Vice) THE WITHIN AND FOREGONNG I@ A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT MO State Bar No. 63479 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL_ AS THE SAME APPEARS ON FILE AND RECORD IN MY OFFICE. Langdon & Emison, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIX 911 Main Street, P.O. Box 220 THE SEAL OF WD COURT. Lexington, MO 64067 THIS THE MINDY WHITE, C DAY OF RT CL 2023 (660) 259-6175 Telephone BY _ __ DEPUTY CLERK (660) 259-4571 Telecopicr mark@lelaw.com icff@lelaw.com and Austin C. Walters, OBA #33363 925 West State Highway 152 Mustang, Oklahoma 73064 (405) 376-2212 Telephone (405) 376-2262 Telecopier austin@dentonlawfirm.com 3 06-07-2023 11:46 AM Fax #: (660) 259-457 > 9186477374 pg Sof 5 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF and By: 4 tephen 7 Stephen J. Carmo, dy (Pro Hac Vice) Brunini, Grantham, Gro wer, and Hew es, PLLC Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, MS 39205 Telephone: (601) 948-3101 Fax: (601) 960-6902 Russell V. Barber, OK Bar No. 10024 BARBER AND BARBER, P.C, Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 518 107 Beard Ave. Poteau, Oklahoma 74953 Telephone: (918) 647-8681 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS , LLC By: /s/ Aaron J. Goodman Aaron J. Goodman, OBA #17434 LAWSON & SHELTON, P.L.L. C 10777 S. Memorial Drive, Suit e C Tulsa, OK 74133-7351 (918) 369-9980 (844) 770-1902 (Fax) odman@oktb.c ATTORNEY FOR SPECIALLY APP EARING DEFENDA, NT OKO PROPERTIES, LLC Defendant OKO failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and keeping the premises safe and knew or should have known the premises was unsafe, unreasonably dangerous, and would likely result in serious injury, justifying the imposition of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant OKO and deter Defendant OKO and others from like conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Matthew Brown prays that this Court enter judgment against Defendant OKO for a reasonable sum of damages as will fairly and justly compensate Plaintiff and for punitive damages in such sum as will serve to punish Defendant OKO and deter Defendan t OKO and others from engaging in like conduct in excess of the jurisdictional limit imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, for Plaintiffs costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. ee Respectfully submitted, Austin C. Walters, OBA #33363 DENTON LAW FIRM 925 West State Highway 152 Mustang, OK 73064 Phone: (405) 376-2212 Fax: (405) 376-2262 ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED austin@dentonlawfirm.com JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 49 - - IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEFLO) STATE OF OKLAHO! MATTHEW BROWN, ox No op “6 Plaintiff, Hin &e Vv. “Gy Re ep Leg MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS, LLC, and LY MS HUNTING SOLUTIONS, LLC, and OUTDOOR DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, and HUNTING SOLUTIONS, INC., and MS OL MAN OUTDOORS, LLC, and bs aa. JIM EDWARDS, and BILL ALEXANDER, and OKO PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff Matthew Brown, by and through his attorneys of record, and for his Petition against Defendants Millennium Outdoors, LLC (“Millennium”), MS Hunting Solutions, LLC (“MS Hunting”), Outdoor Distributors, LLC (“Outdoor”), Hunting Solutions, Inc. (“Hunting Solutions”), MS OL Man Outdoors, LLC (“MS OL Man Outdoors”), Jim Edwards (“Edwards”), Bill Alexander (“Alexander”), and OKO Properties, LLC (“OKO”), states and alleges as follows: N OF ACTION 1 This action arises from the personal injuries Plaintiff Matthew Brown sustained while on a hunting trip on October 24, 2020. As he climbed onto a Millennium M25 Model Hang- On treestand (“Subject Stand”) that was affixed approximately 20 to 24 feet high on a tree, a joint failed and cables broke ultimately causing him to fall to the ground (“Subject Incident”). 2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was hunting as an invitee on land owned by OKO Properties, LLC at the time of the Subject Incident. 1 - . 3 Upon information and belief, the Subject Stand was designed, tested, and manufactured by Defendants MS Hunting, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man Outdoors, Jim Edwards, Bill Alexander and/or Millennium. 4 Upon information and belief, Defendant Outdoor distributed Millennium M25 Model Hang-On treestands prior to an October 2014 Asset Purchase Agreement where Defendant Millennium acquired inventory of Defendants MS Hunting, Hunting Solutions, Outdoor, MS OL Man Outdoors, Jim Edwards, and Bill Alexander. 5 In or after February 2015, Millennium sold or gifted the Subject Stand to Plaintiff. 6. Plaintiff's injuries in this action were caused by the acts and/or omissions of Defendants Millennium, MS Hunting, Outdoor, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man Outdoors, Jim Edwards, and/or Bill Alexander in failing to properly design, test, and manufacture the Subject Stand, in marketing, distributing, selling and/or gifting the defective Subject Stand to Plaintiff, and/or in failing to warn Plaintiff of its defective condition, and/or the acts and/or omissions of Defendant OKO Properties, LLC in failing to protect its invitees and other persons legally upon its premises, including Plaintiff, against unreasonable risks of physical harm. THE PARTE 7 Plaintiff Matthew Brown is, and at all relevant times was, an adult citizen of Mississippi. 8. Defendant Millennium Outdoors, LLC (“Millennium”) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi, engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant Millennium does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can be served with process through its registered agent, David Myers, at 1880 Lakeland Dr., Ste. E., Jackson, MS 39216. 9. Defendant MS Hunting Solutions, LLC (“MS Hunting”) is, or was until its administrative dissolution on November 30, 2016, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant MS Hunting does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can be served with process through its registered agent, Billy Alexander, at 515 Suite B North Bierdeman Rd., Pearl, MS 39208. 10. Defendant Outdoor Distributors, LLC (“Outdoor”) is, or was until its administrative dissolution on December 10, 2018, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant Outdoor does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can be served with process through its registered agent, Billy Alexander, at 125 Dogwood Circle, Brandon, MS 39042. 11, Defendant Hunting Solutions, Inc. (“Hunting Solutions”) is, or was until its administrative dissolution on November 30, 2016, a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant Hunting Solutions does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can be served with process through its registered agent, Billy Alexander, at 515 Suite B North Bierdeman Rd., Pearl, MS 39208. oe -* 12, Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors, LLC (“MS OL Man Outdoors”) is, or was until jts administrative dissolution on December 6, 2017, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors does not have a registered agent in Oklahoma but can be served with process through its registered agent, Bill Alexander, at 201 Fairmont Plaza, Pearl, MS 39208. 13. Defendant Jim Edwards is, upon information and belief, a Mississippi resident engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant Edwards can be served with process at 164 Woodlands Glen Cir, Brandon, MS 39047. 14, Defendant Bill Alexander is, upon information and belief, a Mississippi resident engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems for use while hunting. Defendant Alexander can be served with process at 180 Woodlands Glen Cir., Brandon, MS 39047. 15. Defendant OKO Properties, LLC (“OKO”) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and owns, and at all relevant times owned, the land upon which the Subject Incident occurred. Defendant OKO can be served with process through its registered agent, Donald R. Hackler, at 19 E. Carl Albert Pkwy., McAlester, OK 74501. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. Defendant Millennium is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that, at all times relevant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the sale of its products in the State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to Defendant Millennium’s contacts with oe to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma. Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing injury systematic contacts with the State of Defendant Millennium has substantial, continuous, and marketing, distribution, and sale of its Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, products, including the Millennium M 25 Hang- On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. It business relationships with businesses in regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains a “Find a Dealer” search on its website Oklahoma, has authorized dealers in Oklahoma, features ts including in Oklahoma, derives which directs purchasers to authorized dealers of its produc use of its products in Oklahoma, and significant revenue from its activities and the sale and gh its actions, Defendant Millennium has regularly advertises its products in Oklahoma. Throu reasonably anticipate being haled into an consented to the jurisdiction of this Court and/or could t to personal jurisdiction in this Court Oklahoma Court. Defendant Millennium is also subjec n of business, making of contracts, and pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through its transactio commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma. of this Court in that, 17. Defendant MS Hunting is subject to the speci: fic jurisdiction sale of its products in the State at all times relev: ant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the to Defen dant MS Hunting’s contacts with of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma. Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing , and s} ystematic contacts with the State of Defendant MS Hunting has substantial, continuous e, marketing, distribution, and sale of its Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufactur tree: stand, within the State of Oklahoma. It products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On business relationships with businesses in regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains acti vities and the sale and use of its products Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from its consented to the. jurisdiction of this in Oklahoma. Through its actions, Defendant MS Hunting has -+ Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant MS Hunting is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through its transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma. 18. Defendant Outdoor is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that, at all times relevant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the sale of its products in the State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to Defendant Outdoor’s contacts with Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma to Plaintiff. Defendant Outdoor has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of its products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. It regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains business relationships with businesses in Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from its activities and the sale and use of its products in Oklahoma. Through its actions, Defendant Outdoor has consented to the jurisdiction of this Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant Outdoor is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through its transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma. ‘ 19. Defendant Hunting Solutions is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that, at all times relevant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the sale of its products in the State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to Hunting Solutions’ contacts with Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma. Defendant Hunting Solutions has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of its products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. It _-—— te regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains business relationships with businesses in Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from its activities and the sale and use of its products in Oklahoma. Through its actions, Defendant Hunting Solutions has consented to the jurisdiction of this Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant Hunting Solutions is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through its transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma. 20. Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that, at all times relevant hereto, it deliberately exploited a market for the sale of its products in the State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to MS OL Man Outdoors contacts with Oklahoma in that its product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma. Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of its products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. It regularly sells its products in Oklahoma, maintains business relationships with businesses in Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from its activities and the sale and use of its products in Oklahoma. Through its actions, MS OL Man Outdoors has consented to the jurisdiction of this Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant MS OL Man Outdoors is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through its transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma. 21. Defendant Jim Edwards is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that, at all times relevant hereto, he deliberately exploited a market for the sale of his products in the State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiffs claims arise out of or relate to Defendant Edwards’ contacts we with Oklahoma in that his product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma. Defendant Edwards has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of his products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. He regularly sells his products in Oklahoma, maintains business telationships with businesses in Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from his activities and the sale and use of his products in Oklahoma. Through his actions, Defendant Edwards has consented to the jurisdiction of this Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant Edwards is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through his transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma. 22. Defendant Bill Alexander is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court in that, at all times relevant hereto, he deliberately exploited a market for the sale of his products in the State of Oklahoma, and Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to Defendant Alexander’s contacts with Oklahoma in that his product malfunctioned, causing injury to Plaintiff in the State of Oklahoma. Defendant Alexander has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State of Oklahoma through the design, testing, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of his products, including the Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand, within the State of Oklahoma. He regularly sells his products in Oklahoma, maintains business relationships with businesses in Oklahoma, and derives significant revenue from his activities and the sale and use of his products in Oklahoma. Through his actions, Defendant Alexander has consented to the jurisdiction of this Court and/or could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Oklahoma Court. Defendant Alexander is also subject to jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 through his transaction of business, making of contracts, and commission of tortious acts in Oklahoma. EEO 23. Defendant OKO is subject to personal jurisdiction of this Court in that it is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Oklahoma. 24, Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 12-187 in that one or more of the defendants is a resident of this state and venue would be proper as to the resident defendant, OKO, because it owns property in LeFlore County and the cause of action arose in LeFlore County. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS The Accident 25. On or about October 24, 2020, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Plaintiff Matthew Brown (‘Plaintiff’) was hunting as an invitee on leased property owned by Defendant OKO located in Talihini, LeFlore County, Oklahoma (“Leased Property”). 26. Plaintiff had, at all times relevant, a special relationship with Defendant OKO, as he was an invitee on land owned by Defendant OKO. 27. At the same time and place, Plaintiff was using his Millennium M25 Hang-On treestand (“Subject Stand”). 28. The seat of the Subject Stand bears the logo and name “Millennium Treestands.” 29, The three primary components of the Millennium M25 Model treestand are a standing platform, an upright assembly, and a seating platform. 30. Two cables connected the standing platform of the Subject Stand to its upright assembly. 31. The cables were encased in a rubber or plastic coating, concealing their condition. 32. The Millennium M25 Model treestand is rated for up to 300 pounds; Plaintiff's body and equipment weighed a total of approximately 250 pounds at the time of the Subject Incident. imately 20 to 24 feet 33. The Subject Stand was affixed to a tree at a height of approx off the ground. on the tree up to 34. On the date of the Subject Incident, Plaintiff climbed the ladder s. the Subject Stand, wearing a Hunter Safety System Harnes s standing platform, 35. When Plaintiff stepped from the ladder onto the Subject Stand’ he sat down. he began to adjust the harness straps between his legs before on the platform failed and a 36. Just before Plaintiff re-fastened his hamess, a joint platform to collapse from under him. cable on the Subject Stand snapped, causing the standing ded by his safety 37. After the standing platform collapsed, Plaintiff was initially suspen harness, which was still latched on his chest. Hi: is harnes s began to choke him. To avoid suffocating, d approximately 20 to 24 feet below. Plaintiff freed himself from the harness and fell to the groun knee down. 38. Upon impact, the bones in Plaintiff's right leg shattered from his ng p: ain two and a half hours 39. Plaintiff's hunting companions found him in excruciati to dial 911, and an hour and a half to be later. It took an hour for the men to obtain cellular service in McAllister, Oklahoma. transported by first responders to an emergency room conditions of the Subject 40. As a result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous ions of Defendants Outdoor, MS Hunting, Stand and the negligent and reckless conduct and omiss Outdoors, Edwards, and/or Alexander, and/or the Millennium, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man ty in a reasonably safe condition for its failure of Defendant OKO to maintain the Leased Proper s, severe, and permanent injuries more specifically articulated invitees, Plaintiff sustained seriou below. the following respects: 41. The Subject Stand was defective in one or more of 10 ~— The cables used to attach the standing platform to the upright assembly were not designed to be sufficiently strong to withstand the weight of a person and equipment weighing less than 300 pounds; to The Subject Stand used cables instead of chains to attach the standing platform the upright assembly; not The cables used to attach the standing platform to the upright assembly were designed to be sufficiently durable to withstand exposure to reasonably foreseeable outdoor weather elements; d with a The cables used to attach the standing platform were improperly designe the rubber or plastic coating that prevented visual inspection of the condition of cables; to The joint on the upright assembly was not designed to be sufficiently strong withstand the weight of a person and equipment weighing less than 300 pounds; The cables used to attach the standing platform were not properly manufactured and, as a result, they broke when put to reasonably foreseeable use; a result, The joint on the upright assembly was not properly manufactured and, as it failed when put to reasonably foreseeable use; its The Subject Stand did not include sufficient warnings and/or labels regarding maximum weight bearing capabilities; were Proper and adequate wamings and instructions were not given and/or labels or not affixed to the Subject Stand regarding how to properly inspect the rubber- plastic-coated cables for wear and tear or deterioration before use; 1 a j. Proper and adequate warnings and instructions were not given and/or labels were not affixed to the Subject Stand regarding its dangerous conditions; and/or k. Proper and adequate warnings and instructions were not given and/or labels were not affixed to the Subject Stand regarding the danger of failure of the joint. Defendants MS Hunting, Outdoor, Millennium, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man Outdoors, Edwards, and Alexander's Roles in the Manufacture and Distribution of The Subject Stand 42, Upon information and belief, MS Hunting, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man um M25 Outdoors, Edwards, and/or Alexander manufactured, designed, and/or tested the Millenni Model Hang-On treestand prior to October 8, 2014. 43. Upon information and belief, Outdoor was the distributor of the Millennium M25 Model Hang-On treestands prior to October 8, 2014. 44, From October 8, 2014, to the present, Millennium manufactures and distributes the Millennium M25 Model Hang-On treestand. 45. On October 8, 2014, Millenium, as Buyer, entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) with MS Hunting, Outdoor, Hunting Solutions, MS OL Man Outdoors, Edwards, and Alexander (collectively “Sellers”). 46. Sellers’ business consisted of “designing, developing, distributing, commercializing, marketing, servicing, and selling” various types of outdoor equipment, but not limited to, treestands under the trademark and tradename “Millennium including, Treestands.” 47, Since entering into the APA, Millennium continues to manufacture and sell Model Hang-On” treestands under the same tradename as Sellers did, the “Millennium M25 treestand. 12 Plaintiff's Acquisition of the Subject Stand 48. In February 2015, Plaintiff, an avid sportsman and owner of a sports equipment sporting business, attended the annual Nations’ Best Sports Show (“NBS Show”), a nationwide goods buying group, in Ft. Worth, Texas. 49, Defendant Millennium was one of the vendors showcasing its treestands at the 2015 NBS Show. 50. At the NBS Show, Plaintiff met and began a relationship with Jim Willard, who was then the Chief Operating Officer of Millennium. 31. Because of the relationship formed between them, Jim Willard, on behalf of Millenium, began offering Plaintiff treestands at a discounted price or as a gift. Plaintiff did not own a Millennium M25 treestand until after he formed a 52. relationship with Jim Willard in 2015. 53. Plaintiff acquired the Subject Stand in or after 2015 by either purchasing it from Millennium or receiving it as a gift from Millennium. COUNT I-STRI PRODUCT LIABILITY (efendant Millennium) 54, Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this Petition, if fully set forth herein. 55. Defendant Millennium is engaged in the business of designing, testing, including the manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling various treestand systems, Subject Stand. to 56. Defendant Millennium gifted or sold the Subject Stand to Plaintiff subsequent the execution of the APA. 13 57. At the time the Subject Stand left Defendant Millennium’s control and reached Plaintiff's hands, it was defective and, because of the defects, was unreasonably dangerous to a person who uses, consumes, or might be reasonably expected to be affected by the Subject Stand, including Plaintiff. 58. At the time the Subject Stand left Defendant Millennium’s control and reached Plaintiff's hands, it was not reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such products are intended or may reasonably be expected to be used. 59. At the time the Subject Stand left Defendant Millennium’s control and reached Plaintiff's hands, it was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer who purchased it with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the product’s characteristics. 60. Plaintiff was a person who used, consumed, or could have reasonably been affected by the Subject Stand. 61. At the time the Subject Stand left Defendant’s control and reached Plaintiff's hands, it was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition because it failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions. 62. Defendant Millennium knew or should have known that technologically and commercially feasible safer alternative designs and methods of design, manufacture, and warning existed that would have eliminated the unreasonably dangerous characteristics and condition of the Subject Stand. 63. Despite this knowledge, Defendant Millennium designed and/or marketed and distributed the Subject Stand to Plaintiff in a defective condition and without adequate warnings, including, but not limited to, in the respects described in paragraph 43 above. 14 = E EE E ee EE | unreasonably dangerous 64. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and