CAUSE N o .

- - - - - -

LUIS ROCHA,
Plaintiff,

v.
RADIOSHACK CORP., CAMPI #1,
INC. D/B/A CAMPISI'S ITALIAN
RESTAURANT, AND PARKLANE
INVESTMENTS, INC. D/B/A CORINTH
PROPERTIES,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Luis Rocha, and files this, his Plaintiff's Original Petition,
complaining of Defendants RadioShack Corp., CAMPI #1, Inc. d/b/a Campisi's Italian
Restaurant, and Parklane Investments, Inc. d/b/a Corinth Properties and, for cause,
would respectfully show unto this Court as follows:
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1.

Discovery shall be conducted under Level 3 pursuant to Rule 190.4 of the

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
PARTIES

2.

Plaintiff, Luis Rocha, is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas.

3.

Defendant, RadioShack Corp. ("RadioShack"), is a Delaware corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, has its principal office

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGE 1

at 300 RadioShack Circle, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas 76102, and may be
served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Corporation
Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company at 211 E. 7th
Street, Suite 620, Austin, Travis County, Texas 78701.
4.

Defendant CAMPI #1, Inc. d/b/a Campisi's Italian Restaurant ("Campisi's")

is a Texas corporation that may be served with process by serving its registered agent,
David J. Campisi at 5520 LBJ Freeway, Suite 370, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 75240,
or wherever else he may be found.
5.

Defendant Parklane Investments, Inc. d/b/a Corinth Properties ("Corinth

Properties") is a Texas company that may be served with process by serving its
registered agent Maryann Sarris Brousseau at 4645 N. Central Expressway, Suite 300,
Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 75205, or wherever else she may be found.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6.

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as the damages fall within the

jurisdictional limits of this Court. Pursuant to TEX. R. C1v. P. 47, Plaintiff seeks monetary
relief over $1,000,000.00. 1
7.

Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, because it is the county in which

all, or part of, the events or omissions which give rise to the claims set forth below
occurred. TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE § 15.002. Furthermore, venue is proper in
Dallas County, as all of the Defendants have a principal place of business in Dallas
County, Texas.

1
PlainUff reserves the right to amend, decrease and/or increase the amount of damages pled based on evidence developed before
trial.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGE2

FACTS

8.

Luis Rocha ("Rocha") is a seventy (70) year old man, who has lived in and

been a beloved member of the Dallas community since 1974. He, along with his wife
Katherine, not only raised their own two children, but they have actively participated in
raising dozens of other misguided youth that were in need of stability.
9.

Rocha has lived an impressive and accomplished life, being the child of a

military veteran that was killed the year he was born.

Rocha graduated from the

University of Texas at El Paso and went on to hold several positions in the military,
which included being a 'Missile Commander' in both Germany and Korea.

After his

military career, Rocha was a supervisor of several different development projects for
notable companies. Currently, he and his business partner of twenty-seven (27) years
are the owners of American Genetics International, where they proudly export livestock
to numerous countries around the world.
10.

On Sunday, January 5, 2014, Rocha was watching a college football

game with friends when he got the call from his wife. She was hungry and wanted him
to pick up dinner for herself and her mother. At that moment, like the loyal and caring
husband that Rocha is, he got up, left where he was, and went to Campisi's, to pick up
a pizza for the three of them.
11.
location.

At or around 9:30 p.m., Rocha pulled up to Campisi's Mockingbird
On this evening, Rocha pulled up to the restaurant only to find that all the

handicapped parking spots were occupied. Thus, like many of Campisi's customers
often do, Rocha followed the other overflow parkers over to the east side of Campisi's

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGE3

toward RadioS hack. Rocha then parked his car and walked through the parking lot and
into Campisi's to pick up the pizza, which he had already ordered.
12.

When the pizza was ready, he grabbed the box, paid his bill and was on

his way back to his car when he was suddenly attacked. Rocha was beaten, kicked,
punched, and hit with objects by three unknown individuals.
13.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that the parking lots were devoid of

adequate security or lighting, the attack was not seen by Rocha, any passersby,
Campisi's patrons, or Campisi's employees. In effect, Rocha was left for dead in the
dark of night while lying sprawled across the pavement fighting for his life.

Nothing

warned invitees about the dangers of parking in the overflow parking lot at night. (There
was one small sign that stated only during regular business hours [of RadioShack] is
there no parking in the RadioShack parking lot for restaurant customers.)
14.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Rocha's injuries

include but are not limited to:

(a) fluid and blood filling his heart cavity (required

surgery); (b) broken scapula; (c) fractured right forearm; (d) injury to the right hand; (e)
injury to the right shoulder; (f) at least ten broken ribs; (g) mini-fractures to the spine
with a chip off of the top vertebrae; (h) fractured orbital (required surgery); and, (i) a
bulging eyeball (required surgery), which had to be sewn shut. Rocha was required to
undergo an extensive open heart surgery because his heart cavity had filled with fluid
and blood during this vicious attack.

He and his family were forced to wait until the

open heart surgery healed before he could have his eye worked on, where he
eventually had five (5) titanium plates inserted. His family was told that he might not

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGE4

have survived this brutal attack had he been discovered even a couple minutes later
than he had been found.
15.

Had Campisi's, RadioShack, or Corinth Properties, all of whom were

possessors of the premises at the time of the incident, installed adequate warnings,
adequate signage, adequate lighting, and/or had adequate security in place to protect
invitees, Rocha would not have been injured.

Rocha would not be required to take

numerous medications to get through the day. He would not be in immense pain daily.
He would not be in financial ruin due to the medical bills that continue to accumulate.
He would not have had to take months away from his business and his ability to make a
living. In other words, he would still be living his life without the daily struggle that is a
result of Defendants' neglect.
CAUSES OF ACTION
PREMISES LIABILITY (INJURY TO INVITEE)

16.

Plaintiff re-alleges each and every paragraph as though they are set forth

fully herein.
17.

At the time of the incident, Defendants Campisi's, RadioShack, and

Corinth Properties were each possessors of the premises on or around the parking lot
where Plaintiff was attacked.

The parking arrangement and parking lot posed an

unreasonable risk of harm to invitees, such as Plaintiff, particularly at night. Defendants
knew, reasonably should have known, or had reason to know of an unreasonable and
foreseeable risk of harm by criminal conduct to invitees or to persons similarly situated
on, around, or in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#6B2452

PAGE5

18.

Because Plaintiff was an invitee at the time of injury, Defendants owed

him a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition,
inspect the premises to discover latent defects, and to make safe any defects and give
Plaintiff adequate warning of any dangers.
19.

Defendants' conduct, and that of their respective agents, servants, and

employees, acting within the scope of their employment, constituted a breach of the
duty of ordinary care owed by Defendants to Plaintiff. Defendants knew or should have
known the likelihood of a criminal act occurring on, around, or in the immediate vicinity
of their premises. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff occurred on, around, and/or in the
immediate vicinity of the premises which Defendants possessed. Defendants breached
the duty of care they owed to Plaintiff as invitee on their premises by not having
adequate lighting, by knowing of the propensity of their customers to park on or around
their premises, and by not having adequate safeguards in, around, and surrounding
their businesses to protect their customers and invitees from an unreasonable risk of
harm. Plaintiff was seriously injured as a direct and proximate result of that breach.
20.

Defendants' conduct, and that of their respective agents, servants, and

employees, acting within the scope of their employment, constituted gross negligence,
in that it demonstrated an entire want of care that tends to show Defendants' conscious
indifference to the welfare of persons who might come upon the premises. Specifically,
Defendants created an extreme risk of harm by knowingly leaving the premises without
adequate security measures that would protect customers and invitees, such as Rocha,
by failing to provide adequate lights in the parking lot at night, failing to post adequate
notices, warnings, or signage, failing to have adequate security, and failing to

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGE6

adequately warn invitees. Furthermore, Defendants have failed to provide customers
with an adequate amount of handicapped parking spaces. Defendants' had both actual
and constructive knowledge of the extreme risk of harm because of Defendants'
awareness of the occurrence of crimes in the area. Each of these acts and omissions,
whether taken singularly or in any combination, was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's
injuries and damages that are described below.
INJURY CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS' NEGLIGENCE
(FAILING TO PROTECT INVITEE AGAINST INJURY BY THIRD PARTY)

21.

Plaintiff re-alleges each and every paragraph as though they are set forth

fully herein.
22.

Defendants' conduct, and that of their respective agents, servants, and

employees, acting within the scope of their employment, constituted a breach of the
duty of ordinary care owed by Defendants to Plaintiff. Defendants knew or should have
known that criminal activities were likely to occur on the premises from past experience
and due to the nature of their businesses, in that Campisi's was aware that their
customers were parking in front of other businesses during nighttime hours and in that
RadioShack and the property owners and managers had knowledge of Campisi's
customers use of their parking during Campisi's business hours and after RadioShack
had closed. Defendants also knew of the unreasonable risk of harm to invitees on the
occasion in question and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent it, in that
Defendants did not have adequate security measures in place at the time of the incident
to protect invitees from criminal activities despite the property being in very close
proximity to properties where there had been publicized crimes similar to the current
incident. Defendants breached their duty of care by not providing adequate means of

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGE?

protecting invitees and by not providing any warnings, signage, or notice (or inadequate
warnings, signage, or notice) to invitees. Furthermore, Defendants provide inadequate
parking accommodations for invitees who need to use handicapped parking spaces.
Each of these acts and omissions, whether taken singularly or in any combination, was
a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages as described below.
NEGLIGENCE

23.

Plaintiff re-alleges each and every paragraph as though they are set forth

fully herein.
24.

On the occasion in question, Defendants operated their businesses in a

negligent manner.

Defendants violated the duties owed Plaintiff to exercise ordinary

care and to provide safe parking for invitees in the following particulars: (a) in failing to
maintain a proper security; (b) in failing to maintain a proper lookout; (c) in failing to
provide an adequate number of parking spaces; (d) in failing to provide an adequate
number of handicapped parking spaces; (e) in failing to provide adequate lighting
surrounding their businesses at night; and, (f) in failing to provide adequate warning and
signage to customers and invitees. Each of such acts and omissions, singularly or in
combination with others, constituted negligence which proximately caused the attack
and the injuries which Plaintiff suffered.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE

25.

Plaintiff re-alleges each and every paragraph as though they are set forth

fully herein.
26.

Defendants' conduct described herein constitutes gross negligence as

defined in TEX. CIV. P. & REM. CODE § 41.001 (11 )(A) & (B).

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGES

DAMAGES

27.

Defendants' egregiously wrongful conduct resulted in and proximately

caused injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks damages allowed in the State of Texas in an
amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

The damages include past and

future physical pain, past and future mental anguish, past and future physical
impairment, past and future loss of earning capacity, and past and future medical
expenses.
28.

Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages that are within the jurisdictional limits

of this Court, and exemplary damages for the harm caused by Defendants'
carelessness and/or gross negligence and/or failure to provide security devices required
by the Texas Property Code and Dallas City Ordinances.
29.

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the

trier of fact.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

30.

Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants

are hereby requested to disclose the information or material described in Rule 194.2.
This is a continuing duty and requires supplementation in accordance with the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

31.

All conditions precedent necessary for Plaintiff to have and recover in this

action have been performed or have occurred.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGE9

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that

citations issue and process be served on Defendants and that, upon final hearing,
Plaintiff have and recover judgment from and against Defendants in the amounts set
forth above, for costs and expenses of suit herein, for pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on all monetary relief sought herein at the highest rates allowed by law, and for
such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

awrence . Frie
State Bar o. 07 46
lfriedman@fflawoffice.com
Jason H. Friedman
State Bar No. 24059784
jhfriedman@fflawoffice.com
Eric M. Friedman
State Bar No. 24090106
efriedman@fflawoffice.com
FRIEDMAN & FElGER, L.L.P.
5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75254
(972) 788-1400 (Telephone)
(972) 788-2667 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

#682452

PAGE10