Preview
7/12/2021 2:08 PM
Marilyn Burgess -District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 55254238
2021-41798 / Court: 127 By: Rhonda Momon
Filed: 7/12/2021 2:08 PM
CAUSE NO.:
DISHA ROY IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
Vv. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
JANET DOBBS,
Defendant. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, DISHA ROY, individually, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and
files this her Original Petition and Request for Disclosure complaining of JANET DOBBS
(hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), and would respectfully show this Honorable Court as
follows:
I
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1 Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level II of TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 190.3
Il.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 47 DISCLOSURE
2.1 As required by Rule 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiff seeks
only monetary relief of $250,000.00 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages
and penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs!.
2.2 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this damage calculation as discovery in this
| This statement is made solely for the purpose of providing information on the nature of this case, does not affect
Plaintiffs’ substantive rights, and is made subject to Plaintiffs’ right to amend.
cause progresses. At this time, Plaintiff makes this damage calculation as stated in Paragraph 2.1,
pursuant to Rule 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
iil.
PARTIES
3.1 Plaintiff, DISHA ROY, is an individual and a resident of the State of Texas.
3.2 Defendant, JANET DOBBS, Texas Driver’s License Number 03496127, is an
individual and a resident of Texas. Defendant JANET DOBBS may be served with process at
her last known address of 2031 Teague, Houston, Texas 77080, or wherever she may be found.
3.3 Plaintiff hereby expressly invokes the right under Rule 28 of the TEXAS RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE to have the true and correct name(s) of the parties substituted at a later time
upon the motion of any party or this Court.
Iv.
JURISDICTION
4.1 The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case because the amount in
controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court
4.2 There is no 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because Plaintiff
and Defendant are both Texas citizens.
43 There is no removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) inasmuch as the
properly joined Defendant is a citizen of Texas, in which this instant action is brought.
44 Finally, there is no 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs claims
raise no federal question, nor does Plaintiff seek relief under federal law, statute, regulation, treaty,
or the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s rights to relief do not depend on the resolution
of a substantial question of federal law.
45 The Court has personal jurisdiction over all the parties to this cause.
Plaintiff's Original Petition and
Request for Disclosure Page 2 of 8
46 This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action because Plaintiff seeks
damages in an amount exceeding the Court’s minimal jurisdictional limits.
Vv.
VENUE
5.1 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM
CODE § 15.002(a)(1) in that Harris County is the county all or a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred.
5.2 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE § 15.002(a)(2) because Harris County is the county of Defendant’s resident at the time the
cause of action accrued.
VI.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6.1 The facts of this case are straightforward. On or about July 12, 2019, Plaintiff
Disha Roy (“Ms. Roy”), was travelling north on the feeder road of Intestate 610, approaching
the Westheimer Road traffic light. At approximately the same time, Defendant Janet Dobbs
(“Ms. Dobbs”), was also travelling on the feeder road of Intestate 610, approaching the
Westheimer Road traffic light.
6.2 As Plaintiff Ms. Roy approached the Interstate 610 and Westheimer Road traffic
light, she turned her vehicle indicator on, traveled into the right most lane, in an attempt to make
aright turn onto Westheimer Road. Suddenly, and without any warning, Defendant Ms. Dobbs,
in a blatant disregard to traffic laws, regulations, and persons on the road, violently struck
Plaintiff's Ms. Roy’s vehicle, from behind, what is commonly termed as a rear-end crash.
Plaintiff Ms. Roy was pregnant at the time.
Plaintiff's Original Petition and
Request for Disclosure Page 3 of 8
6.3 The violent impact caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff. As a result of the
incident, Plaintiff sustained personal injuries that have necessitated medical treatment.
6.4 In no way, did Plaintiff cause or contribute to this collision. The failure to use
ordinary care by Defendant Ms. Dobbs proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
VII.
CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE
7A The incident made the basis of this lawsuit resulted from the improper conduct of
Defendant Ms. Dobbs which proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Defendant
Ms. Dobbs owed Plaintiff a duty to conduct herself as a person of ordinary prudence would have
in similar circumstances. At the time and on the occasion in question, Defendant Ms. Dobbs, while
operating her motor vehicle, failed to use ordinary care by various acts and/or omissions, including
but not limited to the following, each of which singularly or in combination, was a proximate cause
of the incident in question:
a) Failing to maintain control of her motor vehicle;
b) Failing to keep a proper lookout;
¢) Tn driving with willful and wanton disregard for persons of property;
qd) Failing to operate her vehicle in obedience of traffic laws and regulations;
e) Failing to control her speed;
f) Failing to keep a proper distance between vehicles;
8) In failing to make timely application of the brakes; and
h) In failing to take evasive action to avoid the collision.
7.2 The above-stated conduct is not an exhaustive list of Defendant Ms. Dobbs’ various
acts and/or omissions. Each and all of the above and foregoing acts, both of omission and
commission, singularly or in combination with others, constituted negligence which proximately
Plaintiff's Original Petition and
Request for Disclosure Page 4 of 8
caused the occurrence in question, and Plaintiffs resulting injuries and damages.
73 Nothing Plaintiff did or failed to do was a proximate or contributing cause of the
incident. The failure to use ordinary care by Defendant Ms. Dobbs proximately caused the injuries
and damages to Plaintiff.
CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE PER SE
74 Negligence per se is the legal theory that a person may be negligent due to the
violation of a public duty under a law that defines the failure of care required to constitute
negligence. Defendant Ms. Dobbs’ conduct described herein constitutes an unexcused breach
of the duties imposed by the TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE in the following manners:
a) Driver inattention;
b) Failure to keep a proper lookout;
c) Failing to keep a proper distance between vehicles;
d) Failing to take evasive action to avoid the collision; and
e) Failing to maintain control of her vehicle.
7.5 Plaintiff is a member of the class of persons that the TEXAS TRANSPORTATION
CODE was designed to protect, and the collision was the type of incident intended to be protected
against. Nothing Plaintiff did or failed to do was a proximate or contributing cause of the
incident.
7.6 The failure to use ordinary care by Defendant Ms. Dobbs proximately caused the
injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's Original Petition and
Request for Disclosure Page 5 of 8
Vill.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 54
8.1 Pursuant to Rule 54 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiff avers that
all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred, and that every notice required
by law to be given has been properly and timely given
IX.
PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
91 Plaintiff hereby request and demand that Defendant preserves and maintains all
evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit,
or the damages resulting therefrom, or any information related to the referenced claim
9.2 Failure to maintain such items will constitute a “spoliation” of the evidence.
X.
NOTICE OF AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS
10.1 Plaintiff hereby provides actual notice to Defendant that Plaintiff will use each
and every document produced by Defendant in response to written discovery in a pretrial
proceeding or at trial. Pursuant to TEX. R. CIv. P. 193.7, Defendant’s production of a document
in response to written authenticates the document for use against Defendant unless—within ten
(10) days or a longer or shorter time ordered by the Court—Defendant objects to the authenticity
of the document, or any part of it, stating the specific basis for its objection. An objection must
be either on the record or in writing and must have a good faith factual and legal basis. An
objection made to the authenticity of only part of a document does not affect the authenticity of
the remainder
Plaintiff's Original Petition and
Request for Disclosure Page 6 of 8
Xi.
DAMAGES
11.1 As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendant JANET DOBBS, Plaintiff
DISHA ROY, suffered injuries and damages which are within the jurisdictional limits of this
Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover the following damages, both past and future
damages, as a result of the injuries and damages caused by the negligence of Defendant
a) Pecuniary losses;
b) Medical, hospital, pharmaceutical charges and expenses in the past;
¢) Medical, hospital, pharmaceutical charges and expenses that, in reasonable
probability, will be incurred in the future;
qd) Pain and suffering in the past;
e) Pain and suffering that, in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future;
f) Mental anguish suffered in the past;
8) Mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future;
h) Disability and impairment in the past;
i) Disability and impairment that, in reasonable probability, will occur in the future;
D Disfigurement in the past;
k) Disfigurement that, in reasonable probability will occur in the future;
) Expenses of physiological treatment in the past;
m) Expenses of psychological treatment that, in reasonable probability, will occur in
the future;
n) Loss of earnings and earning capacity in the past;
0) Loss of earnings and earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, will occur in
the future;
p) Costs of the Court; and
Plaintiff's Original Petition and
Request for Disclosure Page 7 of 8
q) Pre- and post-judgment interest allowed by law.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff DISHA ROY, requests that
Defendant JANET DOBBS be cited to appear herein, that upon final trial and other hearing of this
cause, Plaintiff has and recover from Defendant, damages in accordance with the evidence, and as
the jury deem them deserving; in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, together with
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs of Court, and for such other and further relief;
both general and special, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Roy & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
By: /s/ Brandon Roy
Brandon Roy
Texas Bar No. 24085248
3130 Grants Lake Boulevard, #17719
Sugar Land, Texas 77479
Telephone: (832) 353-3930
Facsimile: (832) 353-3931
Email: service@roytrialattorneys.com
Email: brandon@roytrialattorneys.com
Email: disha@roytrialattorneys.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff's Original Petition and
Request for Disclosure Page 8 of 8
Preview
7/12/2021 2:08 PM Marilyn Burgess -District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 55254238 2021-41798 / Court: 127 By: Rhonda Momon Filed: 7/12/2021 2:08 PM CAUSE NO.: DISHA ROY IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, Vv. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS JANET DOBBS, Defendant. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, DISHA ROY, individually, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and files this her Original Petition and Request for Disclosure complaining of JANET DOBBS (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), and would respectfully show this Honorable Court as follows: I DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1 Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level II of TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 190.3 Il. TEX. R. CIV. P. 47 DISCLOSURE 2.1 As required by Rule 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief of $250,000.00 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs!. 2.2 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this damage calculation as discovery in this | This statement is made solely for the purpose of providing information on the nature of this case, does not affect Plaintiffs’ substantive rights, and is made subject to Plaintiffs’ right to amend. cause progresses. At this time, Plaintiff makes this damage calculation as stated in Paragraph 2.1, pursuant to Rule 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. iil. PARTIES 3.1 Plaintiff, DISHA ROY, is an individual and a resident of the State of Texas. 3.2 Defendant, JANET DOBBS, Texas Driver’s License Number 03496127, is an individual and a resident of Texas. Defendant JANET DOBBS may be served with process at her last known address of 2031 Teague, Houston, Texas 77080, or wherever she may be found. 3.3 Plaintiff hereby expressly invokes the right under Rule 28 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE to have the true and correct name(s) of the parties substituted at a later time upon the motion of any party or this Court. Iv. JURISDICTION 4.1 The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case because the amount in controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court 4.2 There is no 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because Plaintiff and Defendant are both Texas citizens. 43 There is no removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) inasmuch as the properly joined Defendant is a citizen of Texas, in which this instant action is brought. 44 Finally, there is no 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs claims raise no federal question, nor does Plaintiff seek relief under federal law, statute, regulation, treaty, or the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s rights to relief do not depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. 45 The Court has personal jurisdiction over all the parties to this cause. Plaintiff's Original Petition and Request for Disclosure Page 2 of 8 46 This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action because Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount exceeding the Court’s minimal jurisdictional limits. Vv. VENUE 5.1 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM CODE § 15.002(a)(1) in that Harris County is the county all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred. 5.2 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(2) because Harris County is the county of Defendant’s resident at the time the cause of action accrued. VI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6.1 The facts of this case are straightforward. On or about July 12, 2019, Plaintiff Disha Roy (“Ms. Roy”), was travelling north on the feeder road of Intestate 610, approaching the Westheimer Road traffic light. At approximately the same time, Defendant Janet Dobbs (“Ms. Dobbs”), was also travelling on the feeder road of Intestate 610, approaching the Westheimer Road traffic light. 6.2 As Plaintiff Ms. Roy approached the Interstate 610 and Westheimer Road traffic light, she turned her vehicle indicator on, traveled into the right most lane, in an attempt to make aright turn onto Westheimer Road. Suddenly, and without any warning, Defendant Ms. Dobbs, in a blatant disregard to traffic laws, regulations, and persons on the road, violently struck Plaintiff's Ms. Roy’s vehicle, from behind, what is commonly termed as a rear-end crash. Plaintiff Ms. Roy was pregnant at the time. Plaintiff's Original Petition and Request for Disclosure Page 3 of 8 6.3 The violent impact caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff sustained personal injuries that have necessitated medical treatment. 6.4 In no way, did Plaintiff cause or contribute to this collision. The failure to use ordinary care by Defendant Ms. Dobbs proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff. VII. CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE 7A The incident made the basis of this lawsuit resulted from the improper conduct of Defendant Ms. Dobbs which proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Defendant Ms. Dobbs owed Plaintiff a duty to conduct herself as a person of ordinary prudence would have in similar circumstances. At the time and on the occasion in question, Defendant Ms. Dobbs, while operating her motor vehicle, failed to use ordinary care by various acts and/or omissions, including but not limited to the following, each of which singularly or in combination, was a proximate cause of the incident in question: a) Failing to maintain control of her motor vehicle; b) Failing to keep a proper lookout; ¢) Tn driving with willful and wanton disregard for persons of property; qd) Failing to operate her vehicle in obedience of traffic laws and regulations; e) Failing to control her speed; f) Failing to keep a proper distance between vehicles; 8) In failing to make timely application of the brakes; and h) In failing to take evasive action to avoid the collision. 7.2 The above-stated conduct is not an exhaustive list of Defendant Ms. Dobbs’ various acts and/or omissions. Each and all of the above and foregoing acts, both of omission and commission, singularly or in combination with others, constituted negligence which proximately Plaintiff's Original Petition and Request for Disclosure Page 4 of 8 caused the occurrence in question, and Plaintiffs resulting injuries and damages. 73 Nothing Plaintiff did or failed to do was a proximate or contributing cause of the incident. The failure to use ordinary care by Defendant Ms. Dobbs proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff. CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE PER SE 74 Negligence per se is the legal theory that a person may be negligent due to the violation of a public duty under a law that defines the failure of care required to constitute negligence. Defendant Ms. Dobbs’ conduct described herein constitutes an unexcused breach of the duties imposed by the TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE in the following manners: a) Driver inattention; b) Failure to keep a proper lookout; c) Failing to keep a proper distance between vehicles; d) Failing to take evasive action to avoid the collision; and e) Failing to maintain control of her vehicle. 7.5 Plaintiff is a member of the class of persons that the TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE was designed to protect, and the collision was the type of incident intended to be protected against. Nothing Plaintiff did or failed to do was a proximate or contributing cause of the incident. 7.6 The failure to use ordinary care by Defendant Ms. Dobbs proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Original Petition and Request for Disclosure Page 5 of 8 Vill. TEX. R. CIV. P. 54 8.1 Pursuant to Rule 54 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiff avers that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred, and that every notice required by law to be given has been properly and timely given IX. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE 91 Plaintiff hereby request and demand that Defendant preserves and maintains all evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, or the damages resulting therefrom, or any information related to the referenced claim 9.2 Failure to maintain such items will constitute a “spoliation” of the evidence. X. NOTICE OF AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS 10.1 Plaintiff hereby provides actual notice to Defendant that Plaintiff will use each and every document produced by Defendant in response to written discovery in a pretrial proceeding or at trial. Pursuant to TEX. R. CIv. P. 193.7, Defendant’s production of a document in response to written authenticates the document for use against Defendant unless—within ten (10) days or a longer or shorter time ordered by the Court—Defendant objects to the authenticity of the document, or any part of it, stating the specific basis for its objection. An objection must be either on the record or in writing and must have a good faith factual and legal basis. An objection made to the authenticity of only part of a document does not affect the authenticity of the remainder Plaintiff's Original Petition and Request for Disclosure Page 6 of 8 Xi. DAMAGES 11.1 As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendant JANET DOBBS, Plaintiff DISHA ROY, suffered injuries and damages which are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover the following damages, both past and future damages, as a result of the injuries and damages caused by the negligence of Defendant a) Pecuniary losses; b) Medical, hospital, pharmaceutical charges and expenses in the past; ¢) Medical, hospital, pharmaceutical charges and expenses that, in reasonable probability, will be incurred in the future; qd) Pain and suffering in the past; e) Pain and suffering that, in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future; f) Mental anguish suffered in the past; 8) Mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future; h) Disability and impairment in the past; i) Disability and impairment that, in reasonable probability, will occur in the future; D Disfigurement in the past; k) Disfigurement that, in reasonable probability will occur in the future; ) Expenses of physiological treatment in the past; m) Expenses of psychological treatment that, in reasonable probability, will occur in the future; n) Loss of earnings and earning capacity in the past; 0) Loss of earnings and earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, will occur in the future; p) Costs of the Court; and Plaintiff's Original Petition and Request for Disclosure Page 7 of 8 q) Pre- and post-judgment interest allowed by law. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff DISHA ROY, requests that Defendant JANET DOBBS be cited to appear herein, that upon final trial and other hearing of this cause, Plaintiff has and recover from Defendant, damages in accordance with the evidence, and as the jury deem them deserving; in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, together with pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs of Court, and for such other and further relief; both general and special, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Roy & ASSOCIATES, PLLC By: /s/ Brandon Roy Brandon Roy Texas Bar No. 24085248 3130 Grants Lake Boulevard, #17719 Sugar Land, Texas 77479 Telephone: (832) 353-3930 Facsimile: (832) 353-3931 Email: service@roytrialattorneys.com Email: brandon@roytrialattorneys.com Email: disha@roytrialattorneys.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiff's Original Petition and Request for Disclosure Page 8 of 8