San Marcos Fire Lawsuits

9/11/2018 4:15 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-003866 D-1-GN-18-003866
Nancy Ramirez
PHILLIP MIRANDA, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF §
THE ESTATE OF JAMES §
MIRANDA, DECEASED, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
SAN MARCOS GREEN §
INVESTORS, LLC, ELEVATE §
MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND §
DEBORAH JONES §
§
Defendants. § 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition
PHILLIP MIRANDA, individually and as representative of the Estate of JAMES
MIRANDA, BENJAMIN MUNOZ, ABRIL CARDENAS, CHRISTINA MARTINEZ,
PABLO TORRES, MICHELLE TREVINO, SEAN KINDER, ASHLEY GUTIERREZ,
BETH CONBOY, CIARA COLLETT, and ADRIANA RODRIGUEZ (collectively referred
to as “Plaintiffs”) file this petition against SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC,
ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH JONES and THOMAS STEUBING, JR.
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and would show the Court the following:
I.
Discovery Level
1. Discovery in this matter may be conducted under Level 2 of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
II.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2. The claims asserted arise under the common law of Texas.
3. The District Courts of Travis County, Texas have jurisdiction over this case.
The amount in controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court, and the
exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the Defendants is proper.
4. Venue is proper because one or more Defendants reside in Travis County or
maintain a principal office in Travis County.
III.
Parties
5. Plaintiff, Phillip Miranda is an Arkansas resident, the father of James Miranda,
and the representative of his estate. He is a Plaintiff in his own capacity and also as a
representative of James Miranda’s estate.
6. Plaintiff, Benjamin Munoz is a Texas resident.
7. Plaintiff, Abril Cardenas is a Texas resident.
8. Plaintiff, Christina Martinez is a Texas resident.
9. Plaintiff, Pablo Torres is a Texas resident.
10. Plaintiff, Michelle Trevino is a Texas resident.
11. Plaintiff, Sean Kinder is a Texas resident.
12. Plaintiff, Ashley Gutierrez is a Texas resident.
13. Plaintiff, Beth Conboy is a Texas resident.
14. Plaintiff, Ciara Collett is a Texas resident.
15. Plaintiff, Adriana Rodriguez, is a Texas resident.

2
16. Defendant, San Marcos Green Investors, LLC, is a Texas limited liability
company with a principal place of business in Chicago, IL. The Court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over this Defendant because it performs a substantial amount of business in Texas.
This Defendant’s continuous and systematic contacts with Texas justify the exercise of general
jurisdiction. Further, this Defendant’s contacts with Texas arising out of the incident made the
basis of this lawsuit justify specific jurisdiction. This Defendant may be served through its
registered agent of process, Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd, Suite 300,
Austin, Texas 78744. This Defendant has made an appearance in this matter through counsel.
17. Defendant, Elevate Multifamily, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with
a principal place of business in Boston, MA. The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over
this Defendant because it performs a substantial amount of business in Texas. This Defendant’s
continuous and systematic contacts with Texas justify the exercise of general jurisdiction.
Further, this Defendant’s contacts with Texas arising out of the incident made the basis of this
lawsuit justify specific jurisdiction. This Defendant may be served through its registered agent
of process, Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd, Suite 300, Austin, Texas
78744. This Defendant has made an appearance in this matter through counsel.
18. Defendant Deborah Jones is an individual and a Texas resident who resides in
Travis County, Texas. This Defendant may be served through personal process at 3306
Dolphin Drive, Apt A, Austin, TX 78704, or wherever she may be found. This Defendant has
made an appearance in this matter through counsel.
19. Defendant Thomas Steubing, Jr. is an individual and a Texas resident who
resides in Comal County, Texas. This Defendant may be served through personal process at
3
481 North Central Avenue, New Braunfels, Texas 78130, or wherever he may be found. This
Defendant has made an appearance in this matter through counsel.
IV.
Facts
20. On or about July 20, 2018, Plaintiffs were residents at the Iconic Village
Apartments in San Marcos, Texas. On that date, at around 4:30 AM, a fire broke out at the
Iconic Village Apartments while Plaintiffs were sleeping. While the blaze spread through the
apartment complex filling it with fire and smoke, the fire alarms in the complex failed to
activate. Numerous witnesses have confirmed that smoke and fire alarms failed to timely
activate during the fire, preventing the residents, including Plaintiffs, from being warned about
the approaching flames. Furthermore, the apartment complex did not have functioning fire
sprinkler(s) and/or suppression system(s) in place.
21. Ultimately, the fire destroyed the apartment complex. At all material times, the
Iconic Village Apartments were owned by Defendant San Marcos Green Investors, LLC, and
4
managed by Defendant Elevate Multifamily, LLC. Defendant Deborah Jones and Defendant
Steubing were the apartment complex managers at the time of the incident, and were
responsible for the safety of the residents at the apartment complex. Additionally, Defendant
Jones and Defendant Steubing were responsible for ensuring that proper maintenance,
including but not limited to fire safety equipment check(s) and test(s), was being performed
leading up to the underlying fire. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not cause or start the fire at the
Iconic Village Apartments.
22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jones and Defendant Steubing
managed the Iconic Village Apartments which contained 108 units. Despite the hundreds of
people and students living within these unites, Defendants chose never to install sprinklers in
the complex to protect its residents in the event of a fire. Furthermore, the smoke detectors
that had been installed on the property were not adequately maintained or inspected for
arguably years before the fire that took place on July 20, 2018, rendering them virtually useless
to the residents during the blaze. As a result of Defendants’ failures, including Defendant
Jones and Defendant Steubing as the managers of the complex, more than two hundred (200)
people were displaced, multiple victims were hospitalized, and five (5) people were killed.
5
23. As a result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions, multiple residents were
trapped and killed in the apartment fire on July 20, 2018. Tragically, James Miranda was one
of the residents who was killed. He died at the age of 23.
24. Plaintiff Christina Martinez was sleeping in her apartment at the complex when
the fire broke out, and was jolted awake by the sound of screams. Upon realizing the apartment
complex was on fire, she quickly worked to gather her pet, as well as wake another person
sleeping in the complex, before escaping. As Ms. Martinez was rushing to escape the flames,
she could hear the screams of individuals coming from apartments engulfed with flames.
During the escape, Ms. Martinez suffered injury to her knee(s), leg(s) and other parts of her
body. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff Martinez also suffered serious psychological, mental
and emotional injuries
6
25. Plaintiff Pablo Torres and his girlfriend, Plaintiff Michelle Trevino, were asleep
in his apartment when the fire broke out at the complex. Ms. Trevino woke him up when she
heard glass breaking and smelled smoke. Mr. Torres got up to investigate, and discovered that
the apartment was on fire. Despite the extensive amount of smoke and flames, no fire alarms
and/or smoke detectors went off. Due to the overwhelming amount of smoke, Ms. Trevino
began passing out. Mr. Torres had to break an apartment window in order to escape, along
with Ms. Trevino and his dog. As a result of the incident, Plaintiffs Torres and Trevino suffered
severe injuries, including injuries to their arms, back, and other parts of their bodies. As a result
of the incident, Plaintiffs Torres and Trevino also suffered serious psychological, mental and
emotional injuries
26. Plaintiffs Sean Kinder and Ashley Gutierrez were in their apartment when the
fire began, and began hearing loud yelling and screams coming from outside their door and
windows. Plaintiffs Kinder and Gutierrez became aware that the apartments were on fire, and
were forced to quickly evacuate, only being able to retrieve their keys and their dog. Plaintiffs
Kinder and Gutierrez suffered serious injuries to their feet, ankles, legs and other parts of their
bodies as a result of the fire and evacuation. Furthermore, Plaintiffs Kinder and Gutierrez have
also suffered serious psychological, mental and emotional injuries.
27. Plaintiffs Benjamin Munoz, Abril Cardenas and Beth Conboy were trapped by
flames in apartments on the second floor of the complex. Considering the lack of any warning
of the fire spreading through the complex before it was too late, Plaintiffs Munoz, Cardenas
and Conboy were required to leap from a second story window to escape. As a result, Plaintiffs
Munoz, Cardenas and Conboy suffered severe injuries including a broken leg, broken ankles,
a broken back, as well as injuries to other parts of their bodies. As a result of the incident,
7
Plaintiffs Munoz, Cardenas and Conboy also suffered serious psychological, mental and
emotional injuries.
28. Plaintiffs Ciara Collett and Adriana Rodriguez were in their apartments when
the blaze began, and were alerted to the fire by the sounds of screaming, banging on doors,
and windows breaking. Plaintiffs Collett and Rodriguez became aware that the apartments
were on fire, and were forced to quickly evacuate, only being able to retrieve a few personal
belongings. Plaintiffs Collett and Rodriguez suffered serious injuries as a result of the fire and
evacuation, including injuries to their lungs, throats, and other parts of their bodies.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs Collett and Rodriguez have also suffered serious psychological, mental
and emotional injuries.
V.
Causes of Action
A. Negligence and Gross Negligence Against all Defendants.
29. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above.
30. Plaintiffs sustained severe and fatal injuries because of Defendants’ negligence
and gross negligence when Defendants:
 Failed to create, enforce and implement adequate safety protocols and

procedures;
 Failed to maintain a safe living environment;
 Failed to adequately inspect and test fire alarm systems;
 Failed to provide fire sprinkler systems;
 Failed to adequately inspect and test fire prevention systems;
 Failed to train its employees;
8
 Failed to warn of dangerous hazards at the apartment complex;
 Failed to supervise its employees;
 Failed to provide adequate safety equipment;
 Failed to warn the Plaintiffs of hidden dangers;
 Failed to abide by applicable rules and regulations;
 Failed to keep the premises free of known hazards; and
 Other acts so deemed negligent and grossly negligent.
31. As a result of Defendants’ negligence and gross negligence, Mr. James Miranda
suffered severe physical injuries that ultimately led to his death. Additionally, as a result of
Defendants’ negligence and gross negligence, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical and
emotional injuries. The Defendants had the above referenced duties. Defendants breached
those duties and Defendants’ breaches were the cause in fact and the proximate cause of all
Plaintiffs’ injuries and Mr. Miranda’s death. Furthermore, Defendants’ actions were done with
reckless disregard to a substantial risk of severe bodily injury. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled
to exemplary damages.
B. Premises Liability Against all Defendants.
33. Upon information and belief, Defendants owned, occupied and/or controlled the
area where Plaintiffs were caused to suffer severe injuries, and Mr. Miranda was killed. The
condition of the area where Plaintiffs were injured and killed posed an unreasonable risk of
harm, and Defendants had actual knowledge or reasonably should have known of the
9
unreasonably dangerous condition. Moreover, Plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge of the
unreasonably dangerous condition.
34. Moreover, Plaintiffs entered Defendants’ premises with permission.
Defendants had a duty to either warn Plaintiffs of this unreasonably dangerous condition, or
make the unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. Defendants breached this duty
by failing to warn Plaintiffs of this known unreasonably dangerous condition, and by failing
to make the unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. Defendants’ breach
proximately caused Plaintiffs severe injuries and death.
VI.
Damages
A. Damages sought by Plaintiffs Benjamin Munoz, Abril Cardenas, Christina Martinez

Pablo Torres, Michelle Trevino, Sean Kinder, Ashley Gutierrez, Beth Conboy, Ciara
Collett, and Adriana Rodriguez.
35. As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit,
Plaintiffs suffered severe personal injuries, bodily injury, physical impairment, disfigurement,
loss of household services, pain, suffering, and mental anguish. Plaintiffs pray for relief and
judgment as follows:
 Compensatory damages against Defendants;
 Actual damages;
 Consequential damages;
 Past and future Pain and suffering;
 Exemplary damages;
 Past and future mental anguish;
10
 Past and future impairment;
 Past and future disfigurement;
 Interest on damages (pre and post-judgment) in accordance with the law;
 Costs of Court;
 Expert witness fees;
 Costs of copies of depositions; and
 Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
B. Damages sought by Phillip Miranda, individually, and as Representative of the

Estate of James Miranda.
Plaintiff, was caused to suffer severe personal injuries, bodily injury, pain, suffering, mental
anguish and death. Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:
a. Wrongful Death
37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.
38. As a wrongful death beneficiary, Plaintiff seeks to recover the following
elements of damages resulting from the death of James Miranda:
 Pecuniary loss in the past and future, including but not limited to the loss of
care, maintenance, guidance, nurture, support, services, advice, counsel,
inheritance, and reasonable contributions of pecuniary value;
 Loss of companionship and society in the past and future, including but not
limited to the loss of the positive benefits flowing from the love, comfort,
companionship, and society that would have been received from James
Miranda, had he lived;
11
 Mental anguish in the past and future, including but not limited to the emotional
pain, torment, and suffering experienced in the past, and to be experienced in
the future, because of the death of James Miranda; and
 Any other forms of damages available to wrongful death beneficiaries.
b. Survival Action.
40. As the personal representative of the Estate of James Miranda, Phillip Miranda
seeks to recover the following elements of wrongful death and survival damages:
 Past and future pain and mental anguish, including the conscious physical pain
and emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by James Miranda
before his death;
 Medical expenses; and
 Funeral and burial expenses.
 All other damages entitled to by law.
VII.
Punitive Damages
42. Because Defendants are guilty of gross negligence, they should have punitive
damages assessed against them in an amount deemed appropriate by the jury.
12
VIII.
Prayer
43. Plaintiffs pray that this citation issue and be served upon Defendants in a form
and manner prescribed by law, requiring that Defendants appear and answer, and that upon
final hearing, Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants, both jointly and severally, in a total
sum in excess of $1,000,000.00, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interests, all costs of
Court, exemplary damages, and all such other and further relief, to which they may show
themselves justly entitled.
IX.
Jury Trial Demanded
44. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
Respectfully Submitted,
ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP
/s/ Kurt B. Arnold

_______________________________
Kurt B. Arnold
SBN: 24036150
karnold@arnolditkin.com
J. Kyle Findley
SBN: 24076382
KFindley@arnolditkin.com
Kala F. Sellers
SBN: 24087519
KSellers@arnolditkin.com
Adam D. Lewis
SBN: 24094099
ALewis@arnolditkin.com
6009 Memorial Drive
Houston, TX 77007
Tel: 713.222.3800
Fax: 713.222.3850
e-service@arnolditkin.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
been forwarded to all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
on this 11th day of September, 2018.
Darrell L. Barger
Jennifer D. Akre
Kristina Everhart
HARTLINE, DACUS, BARGER & DREYER, LLP
1980 Post Oak Boulevard, suite 1800
Houston, Texas 77056
Counsel for Defendants,
San Marcos Green Investors, LLC,
Elevate Multifamily, LLC,
Deborah Jones, and Thomas Steubing, Jr.
/s/ Kurt B. Arnold
Kurt B. Arnold
14
10/8/2018 10:10 AM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-003866 D-1-GN-18-003866
Chloe Jimenez
e
ic
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE §
Pr
OF THE ESTATE OF §
JAMES MIRANDA, DECEASED §
Plaintiff, §
L.
§
a
§
lv
SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, §
Ve
LLC, ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC §
AND DEBORAH JONES §
Defendants. § 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
k
er
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE SUBJECT
Cl
TO ITS PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO INTERVENOR
MARISELA RORIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ct
ESTATE BELINDA MOATS, DECEASED’S ORIGINAL PETITION
tri
COMES NOW, DEFENDANTS SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC,
is
ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH JONES, AND THOMAS STEUBING,

.D
JR., (“DEFENDANTS”) Defendants in the above – entitled and numbered cause, and file this
Co
Original Answer and Request for Disclosure to Intervenor Marisela Rodriguez, Individually and
is
as Representative of the Estate of Belinda Moats, deceased’s Original Petition subject to its
av
previously filed Motion to Transfer Venue and would respectfully show unto the Court as
Tr
follows:
y
op
I. GENERAL DENIAL
lc
1. Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants deny each
ia
and every material allegation contained in Intervenor Marisela Rodriguez, Individually and as
fic
Representative of the Estate of Belinda Moats, deceased’s Original Petition and any amendments
of
and supplement thereto, demand strict proof thereof, and, to the extent such matter are questions
Un
of fact, Plaintiffs should prove such facts by a preponderance of the evidence to a jury if they can
e
do so.
ic
Pr
II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
L.
2. Pleading further and in the alternative, Defendants say that the occurrence in
a
question as well as the damages complained of were proximately caused, in whole or in part, by
lv
the acts, omissions, fault, negligence, or other conduct of third parties or persons or entities over
Ve
whom Defendants have no right of control nor for whom Defendants are legally responsible.
k
er
Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to a jury instruction on sole proximate cause and new and
Cl
independent or superseding cause.
ct
3. Pleading further and in the alternative, Defendants would show that in the event
tri
they are found liable to the Plaintiffs, any such liability being expressly denied, then, in that
is
event, Defendants will show that they are entitled to a reduction for the negligence, liability, fault
.D
or other conduct which is attributable to any other party in accordance with the Doctrine of
Co
Comparative Fault or Causation as enunciated by the Supreme Court of the State of Texas.
is
4. Pleading further and in the alternative, Defendants say that they are entitled to a
av
credit or offset for all monies or consideration paid to the Plaintiffs by virtue of any type or form
Tr
of settlement agreement entered into by and between the Plaintiffs and any defendant herein or
y
op
any other person or entity not a party to this litigation. Further, Defendants would assert the
affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction, release, payment, credit, offset, acts of God,
lc
ia
sudden emergency, res judicata, collateral estoppel, waiver and laches, as provided under Rule
fic
94 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

of
Un
that they are found liable to Plaintiffs, any such liability being expressly denied, then, in that
event, Defendants say that they are entitled to contribution, credit, and/or indemnity, as provided
e
by the laws and statutes of the State of Texas including, but not limited to, the provisions of
ic
Pr
Chapter 32 and Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, as well as other
L.
applicable laws and statutes.
a
6. Pleading further, alternatively, and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants
lv
contend that any claims for medical or health care expenses are limited to the amount actually
Ve
paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiffs pursuant to Section 41.0105 of the Texas Civil
k
er
Practice and Remedies Code.
Cl
7. For any claims for pre-judgment interest, Defendants invoke the limitations on
ct
prejudgment interest contained in the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.
tri
is
invoke all rights and limitations found in Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and
.D
Remedies Code, including the limitations on damage awards.

Co

is
plead the defense of unconstitutionality, in that any award of punitive or exemplary damages
av
would constitute the imposition of a criminal penalty without the safeguards guaranteed by the
Tr
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and
y
op
similar provisions of the Texas Constitution. Furthermore, the imposition of such punitive or
exemplary damages constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, denies
lc
ia
Defendants’ equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and violates the due
fic
process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants plead that any claim by
of
Plaintiffs for punitive or exemplary damages should be stricken as unconstitutional and that any
Un
award of punitive or exemplary damages should be set aside for the reasons stated above.
e
would show that the imposition of punitive damages sought by Plaintiffs violates Defendants’
ic
Pr
rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
L.
Constitution, to due course of law and equal protection under Article 1, Sections 3 and 19 of the
a
Texas Constitution, and the prohibition against excessive fines in Article 1, Section 13 of the
lv
Texas Constitution, in that:
Ve
(a) Texas law and the Texas punitive-damage scheme, both facially and as
k
er
applied in this case, provide no constitutionally adequate or meaningful standards to
Cl
guide a jury or the court in determining whether, and if so in what amount, to award
ct
punitive damages; there is no sufficiently clear definition of the conduct or mental state
tri
that makes punitive damages permissible, and no sufficiently clear standard for
is
determining the appropriate size of an award. Texas law and the Texas punitive-damage
.D
scheme leave the determination whether to award and, if so, the amount of punitive
Co
damages to the arbitrary discretion of the trier of fact without providing adequate or
is
meaningful guidelines for or limits to the exercise of that discretion.

av
(b) Under Texas law and the Texas punitive-damage scheme, the jury is not
Tr
instructed on the limits on punitive damages imposed by the purposes for which such
y
op
damages are assessed.
(c) Under Texas law and the Texas punitive-damage scheme, the jury is not
lc
ia
expressly prohibited from awarding punitive damages, in whole or in part, on the basis of
fic
invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the corporate status of a defendant.

of
(d) No provision of Texas law or the Texas punitive-damage scheme provides

Un
adequate procedural safeguards consistent with the criteria set forth in BMW of North
America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v.
e
Haslip, 499 U.S.1 (1990), and Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), for the
ic
Pr
imposition of a punitive award.
L.
(e) Texas law and the Texas punitive-damage scheme do not provide for
a
adequate post-trial review of punitive-damage awards or the amount thereof, and do not
lv
provide objective standards for such review.
Ve
(f) Texas law and the Texas punitive-damage scheme do not provide for
k
er
adequate appellate review of punitive-damage awards or the amount thereof, and do not
Cl
provide objective standards for such review. Those inadequacies are compounded by the
ct
constraints upon review of such awards by the Texas Supreme Court, including Article 5,
tri
Section 6 of the Texas Constitution and Section 22.225 of the Texas Government Code.
is
(g) In the admission of evidence, the standards provided the trier of fact
.D
(including jury instructions), and post-trial and appellate review, Texas law and the Texas
Co
punitive-damage scheme, including Sections 41.001 through 41.013 of the Texas Civil
is
Practice and Remedies Code, place undue emphasis on a defendant’s wealth as a basis for
av
making and enhancing a punitive damage award, and do not require that the award not be
Tr
based on any desire to redistribute wealth.

y
op
(h) Under Texas law and the Texas punitive-damage scheme, there is no limit
on the number of times Defendant could be held accountable for punitive damages based
lc
ia
on the same alleged conduct as that alleged in this case.

fic

of
would show that the net effect of Texas’s punitive-damage system is to impose punitive damages
Un
in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The lack of adequate guidelines or review and undue
emphasis on a defendant’s wealth inevitably lead to variations in result without any rational basis
e
for differentiation, and without serving any legitimate governmental purpose or interest. As a
ic
Pr
result, the federal and state constitutional mandates for equal protection (U.S. Const. Amend 14;
L.
Texas Const. Art. 1, § 3) are violated. Insofar as the lodestone of the Texas punitive-damage
a
system is in the depth of the defendant’s pockets, that invidious discrimination is itself an affront
lv
to the federal and state constitutions’ equal-protection mandates.
Ve
k
er
would show that by virtue of Section 41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, any
Cl
award of punitive damages is subject to the cap specified in that section and any award in excess
ct
of that cap must be reduced accordingly. tri
13. Defendants reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert additional
is
defenses, affirmative or otherwise, to challenge venue, and to assert third-party claims, all as
.D
may be required upon the completion of reasonable discovery and investigation

Co
14. In accordance with Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants
is
hereby provide written notice to Plaintiffs that any and all documents produced during discovery
av
may be used against Plaintiffs, if any, at any pre-trial proceeding and/or trial of this matter
Tr
without the necessity of authenticating the document.

y
op
III. JURY DEMAND
15. Defendants respectfully demand a jury for the trial of this matter.
lc
ia
IV. REQUEST FOR COURT REPORTERS

fic
16. Defendants respectfully request that a court reporter attend all sessions of court in
of
connection with this case, and that said court reporter take full notes of all testimony offered,
Un
together with any objections, rulings, and remarks by Defendants. See Christie v. Price, 558
e
S.W.2d 922 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1977, no writ).
ic
Pr
V. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
L.
17. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, you are requested to
a
disclose, within 50 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule
lv
194.2. Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2
Ve
VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
k
er
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS SAN MARCOS
Cl
GREEN INVESTORS, LLC, ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH JONES,
ct
AND THOMAS STUEBING, JR., pray that Plaintiffs take nothing by this suit; for an award of
tri
all costs and expenses incurred on its behalf; and for such other and further relief, both at law
is
and in equity, to which Defendants may show itself to be justly entitled.

.D
Respectfully submitted,
Co
/s/ Jennifer D. Akre 

DARREL L. BARGER
is
State Bar No.01733800

av
dbarger@hdbdlaw.com
JENNIFER D. AKRE
Tr
State Bar No. 24059950

jakre@hdbdlaw.com
y
KRISTINA EVERHART
op

keverhart@hdbdlaw.com
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER L.L.P.
lc
1980 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1800

ia

Telephone: (713) 759-1990
fic
Facsimile: (713) 652-2419

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS SAN
of
MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC,

ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH
Un
JONES, AND THOMAS STEUBING, JR.

e
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
ic
Pr
forwarded to all known parties and counsel of record in this cause in accordance with the Texas
L.
Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 8th day of October 2018.
a
John H. Patterson, Jr. Kurt B. Arnold
lv
ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC J. Kyle Findley
6800 Park Ten Blvd., Ste. 220N Kala F. Sellers
Ve
San Antonio, Texas 78213 Adam D. Lewis
john@johnpatlaw.com ARNOLD & ITKIN, LLP
k
6009 Memorial Drive
er
Cl
kfindley@arnolditkin.com
ksellers@arnolditkin.com
ct
alewis@arnolditkin.com
tri
is
/s/ Jennifer D. Akre

.D
JENNIFER D. AKRE
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
10/8/2018 10:16 AM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-004799 D-1-GN-18-004799
Melissa Romero
e
STEVEN VICTOR MROSKI § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
ic
and ZACHARY A. ROSENFELD §
Pr
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
L.
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
a
lv
Ve
Defendants. § 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
k
er
TO ITS PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Cl
ct
ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND DEBORAH JONES, (“DEFENDANTS”)
tri
Defendants in the above – entitled and numbered cause, and file this Original Answer and
is
Request for Disclosure to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition subject to its previously filed Motion to
.D
Transfer Venue and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
Co
I. GENERAL DENIAL
is
av
and every material allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and any amendments and
Tr
supplement thereto, demand strict proof thereof, and, to the extent such matter are questions of
y
op
fact, Plaintiffs should prove such facts by a preponderance of the evidence to a jury if they can
lc
do so.
ia

fic
of
Un
e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D
Co
is

av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic

of

Un
e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
would show that the imposition of punitive damages sought by Plaintiffs violates Defendants’
lc
ia
fic
of
Un

e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is

.D
Co
is

av

Tr
y
op
lc
ia

fic
of
Un

e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D
Co

is

av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un

e
ic
Pr
L.
of that cap must be reduced accordingly.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
III. JURY DEMAND

.D
Co

is
av
Tr
y
op

lc

ia
fic
of
194.2. Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2

Un

e
GREEN INVESTORS, LLC, ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND DEBORAH
ic
Pr
JONES, pray that Plaintiffs take nothing by this suit; for an award of all costs and expenses
L.
incurred on its behalf; and for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which
a
Defendants may show itself to be justly entitled.
lv
Ve
/s/ Jennifer D. Akre 
k
DARREL L. BARGER
er
dbarger@hdbdlaw.com
Cl
JENNIFER D. AKRE
ct
jakre@hdbdlaw.com
KRISTINA EVERHART
tri
is
.D

Co
Telephone: (713) 759-1990

Facsimile: (713) 652-2419
is

av
ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND

DEBORAH JONES
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
e
ic
Pr
L.
Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 8th day of October 2018.
a
lv
Anthony G. Buzbee
Ryan S. Pigg
Ve
Leah M. Fiedler
THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM
k
JP Morgan Chase Tower
er
600 Travis, Ste. 7300
Cl
tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
rpigg@txattorneys.com
ct
lfiedler@txattorneys.com tri
is
JENNIFER D. AKRE
.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
9/27/2018 1:39 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
D-1-GN-18-005879 Travis County
NO. __________________ D-1-GN-18-005879
Ruben Tamez
e
CHERYL ESTES AND TROY ESTES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
ic
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF §
Pr
THE ESTATE OF DRU ESTES, DECEASED §
§ 345TH
L.
V. § ________JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
a
SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC, §
lv
ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, §
DEBORAH JONES, AND §
Ve
THOMAS STEUBING, JR. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
k
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
er
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Cl
NOW COME CHERYL ESTES and TROY ESTES, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF
ct
OF THE ESTATE OF DRU ESTES, DECEASED, the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled and
tri
numbered cause (hereinafter called “Plaintiffs”), complaining of the Defendants SAN MARCOS
is
.D
GREEN INVESTORS, LLC, ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH JONES, and

Co
THOMAS STEUBING, JR., the Defendants herein (hereinafter called “Defendants”), and for
cause of action would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

is
av
I.
DISCOVERY PLAN
Tr
In accordance with Rule 190 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiffs intend
y
op
to conduct the discovery of this case in accordance with Level 3.

lc
II.
PARTIES
ia
Plaintiffs CHERYL ESTES and TROY ESTES reside in San Antonio, Texas. Plaintiffs
fic
are the parents of DRU ESTES, DECEASED, and are the rightful heir-at-law to their son’s estate
of
Un
and therefore a member of the class of persons authorized by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §71.021
to initiate a survival cause of action on behalf of his estate.
1
Defendant SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC is a domestic limited liability
e
company. Defendant has its principal place of business at 820 Davis St., Suite 420, Evanston, IL
ic
Pr
60201. Defendant may be served with citation by serving its registered agent, Registered Agent
L.
Solutions, Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin, TX 78744. Citation is requested at this
a
time.
lv
Defendant ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC is a domestic limited liability company.
Ve
Defendant has its principal place of business at 73 W. Monroe, Suite 507, Chicago, IL 60603.
k
er
Defendant may be served with citation by serving its registered agent, Registered Agent Solutions,
Cl
Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin, TX 78744. Citation is requested at this time.
ct
Defendant, DEBORAH JONES, is an individual and a resident of the State of Texas.
tri
Defendant may be served at her place of residence, 3306 Dolphin Dr., Apt. A, Austin, TX 78704
is
or wherever she may be found. Citation is requested at this time.

.D
Defendant, THOMAS STEUBING, JR., is an individual and a resident of the State of

Co
Texas. Defendant may be served at his place of residence, 481 North Central Ave., New Braunfels,
is
TX 78130 or wherever he may be found. Citation is requested at this time.

av
III.
Tr
JURISDICTION/VENUE
y
The Court has jurisdiction in this case based on appropriate subject matter and based upon
op
sufficient amount in controversy.

lc
Defendant DEBORAH JONES was a resident of Austin, Travis County, Texas at the time
ia
the cause of action accrued and, therefore, venue is proper in Travis County pursuant to the
fic
provisions of Section 15.002(a)(2) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
of
Un
2
IV.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
e
ic
In the early morning hours of July 20, 2018, a fire broke out at the Iconic Village apartment
Pr
complex located at 222 Ramsay Street in San Marcos, Texas. While the blaze spread though the
L.
apartment complex filling it with fire and smoke, the fire alarms in the complex failed to activate.
a
lv
DRU ESTES, who was 20 years old, resided at the Iconic Village apartment complex. Tragically,
Ve
he and four other people died in the fire, and many others were injured.
k
At all times relevant herein, the Iconic Village apartment complex was owned, operated
er
and/or managed by Defendants SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC, and ELEVATE
Cl
MULTIFAMILY, LLC. Defendants DEBORAH JONES and THOMAS STEUBING, JR. were
ct
the apartment complex managers at the time of the incident.
tri
V.
is
CAUSES OF ACTION
.D
A. NEGLIGENCE - ALL DEFENDANTS

Co
Plaintiffs believe and allege that Defendants owned, operated, and/or managed the Iconic
is
Village apartment complex where Plaintiff DRU ESTES resided and tragically died. In owning,
av
operating, and/or managing the Iconic Village apartment complex, Defendants owed Plaintiff
Tr
DRU ESTES the duty to exercise that ordinary care that would be exercised by a reasonable and
y
op
prudent property owner, manager, and landlord. Defendants committed acts and/or omissions,
which collectively and severally constituted negligence, which were a proximate cause of the
lc
injury and death of DRU ESTES. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions which constitute negligence
ia
fic
include but are limited to the following

of
1. Failing to provide and maintain a safe premise and living environment for the
Un
residents of the apartment complex.
2. Failing to adequately inspect and test the fire alarms in the apartments.
3
3. Failing to provide a fire sprinkler system.
e
ic
4. Failing to provide a fire suppression system.
Pr
5. Failing to provide a fire warning system.
L.
6. Failing to adequately inspect and test fire prevention or warning systems.
a
lv
7. Failing to promulgate and implement adequate safety protocols, policies, and
procedures.
Ve
8. Failing to warn of the dangerous hazards at the apartment complex.
k
er
9. Failing to provide sufficient safety equipment.
Cl
10. Failing to follow applicable local and state rules and regulations in the operation
and maintenance of the apartment complex.
ct
Plaintiffs would show that each and all of the above and foregoing acts and/or omissions
tri
is
on the part of the Defendants herein constitute negligence, and each and all were a direct and
.D
proximate cause of the injury and death of DRU ESTES and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs
Co
herein.
B. PREMISES LIABILITY - ALL DEFENDANTS

is
av
Plaintiffs believe and allege that Defendants owned, operated, and/or managed the Iconic
Tr
Village apartment complex where Plaintiff DRU ESTES resided and tragically died. The
y
condition of the area where Plaintiff was injured/died posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and
op
Defendants had actual knowledge or reasonably should have known of the unreasonably dangerous
lc
condition.
ia
Because Plaintiff DRU ESTES was a resident of the Iconic Village apartment complex,
fic
Defendants had a duty to either warn Plaintiff of the unreasonably dangerous condition or make
of
Un
the unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff of this
known unreasonably dangerous condition and failed to make the unreasonably dangerous
4
condition reasonably safe. Defendants’ failure was a direct and proximate cause of the injury and
e
death of DRU ESTES and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs herein.
ic
Pr
C. GROSS NEGLIGENCE - ALL DEFENDANTS
L.
Defendants, acting by and through its employees, managers, representatives, and/or agents,
a
committed acts and omissions which constituted gross negligence, which proximately caused the
lv
injury and death of DRU ESTES. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages.
Ve
Each of the acts or omissions of the Defendants were more than momentary thoughtlessness,
k
er
inadvertence, or errors of judgment. Such acts or omissions constituted such an entire want of care
Cl
as to establish that the act or omission was a result of actual conscious indifference to the rights,
ct
safety and welfare of DRU ESTES, and the other residents, and constitutes gross negligence, as
tri
such terms is defined in Texas. This conduct when viewed objectively from this Defendants’
is
standpoint at the time of the conduct, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the
.D
probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and the Defendants was actually,
Co
subjectively aware of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to
is
the rights, safety, or welfare of DRU ESTES, and the other residents. Defendants’ acts or
av
omissions, collectively and severally, constituted gross negligence that proximately caused the
Tr
injury and death of DRU ESTES. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to recover judgment against the
y
op
Defendants for exemplary damages for the acts and omissions set forth below:
1. Failing to provide and maintain a safe premise and living environment for the
lc
residents of the apartment complex.

ia
2. Failing to adequately inspect and test the fire alarms in the apartments.
fic
3. Failing to provide a fire sprinkler system.

of
Un
4. Failing to provide a fire suppression system.
5. Failing to provide a fire warning system.
5
6. Failing to adequately inspect and test fire prevention or warning systems.
e
ic
Pr
procedures.
L.
8. Failing to warn of the dangerous hazards at the apartment complex.
a
9. Failing to provide sufficient safety equipment.
lv
10. Failing to follow applicable local and state rules and regulations in the operation
Ve
and maintenance of the apartment complex.
k
Plaintiffs would show that each and all of the above and foregoing acts and/or omissions
er
on the part of the Defendants herein constitute gross negligence, and each and all were a direct and
Cl
proximate cause of the injury and death of DRU ESTES and the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs
herein. ct
tri
is
VI.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
.D
Plaintiffs would show that the Defendant SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC,
Co
acting by and through their employees, managers, representatives, agents, ostensible agents and/or
is
agents by estoppel, including but not limited to DEBORAH JONES and THOMAS STEUBING,
av
JR., committed certain acts and/or omissions constituting negligence and/or gross negligence as
Tr
set forth above and, therefore, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs under the doctrine of respondeat
y
op
superior for the acts and/or omissions of its employees, managers, representatives, agents,
ostensible agents and/or agents by estoppel.

lc
ia
Plaintiffs would show that the Defendant ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, acting by
fic
and through their employees, managers, representatives, agents, ostensible agents and/or agents
of
by estoppel, including but not limited to DEBORAH JONES and THOMAS STEUBING, JR.,
Un
committed certain acts and/or omissions constituting negligence and/or gross negligence as set
6
forth above and, therefore, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs under the doctrine of respondeat
e
superior for the acts and/or omissions of its employees, managers, representatives, agents,
ic
Pr
ostensible agents and/or agents by estoppel.
L.
VII.
JOINT AND SEVERAL RESPONSIBILITY
a
lv
The negligence and/or gross negligence of the Defendants, as set forth above, operating
Ve
separately and concurrently, were a proximate cause of the injury and death of DRU ESTES and
k
the damages of the Plaintiffs, as more specifically set forth below. Accordingly, said Defendants
er
are jointly and severally responsible for the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiffs herein.
Cl
VIII.
ct
DAMAGEStri
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or gross negligence of the
is
Defendants herein, the deceased Plaintiff DRU ESTES was caused to suffer conscious physical
.D
pain and emotional pain, anguish, torment, and suffering prior to the time of his death, for which
Co
Plaintiffs CHERYL ESTES and TROY ESTES, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DRU
is
ESTES, DECEASED, seek recovery herein. Further, THE ESTATE OF DRU ESTES,
av
DECEASED, has been caused to incur reasonable and necessary funeral and burial expenses, for
Tr
which Plaintiffs CHERYL ESTES and TROY ESTES, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DRU
y
op
ESTES, DECEASED, seek recovery herein. Further Plaintiffs CHERYL ESTES and TROY
ESTES, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DRU ESTES, DECEASED, also seek compensation
lc
ia
for any other damages allowable to said Estate pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Remedies Code Ann.
fic
§71.021.
of
Further, Plaintiffs would show that as a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or
Un
gross negligence of the Defendants herein, Plaintiffs CHERYL ESTES and TROY ESTES,
7
INDIVIDUALLY, have been caused to suffer the loss of care, maintenance, support, services,
e
advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value due to the loss of their son,
ic
Pr
DRU ESTES, and in reasonable probability, they will continue to suffer the same in the future for
L.
which they seek recovery herein. Further, Plaintiffs CHERYL ESTES and TROY ESTES,
a
INDIVIDUALLY, have been caused to suffer the loss of the positive benefits flowing from the
lv
love, comfort, companionship, and society due to the loss of their son, DRU ESTES, and in
Ve
reasonable probability, they will continue to suffer the same in the future for which they seek
k
er
recovery herein. Further, Plaintiffs CHERYL ESTES and TROY ESTES, INDIVIDUALLY, have
Cl
been caused to suffer grief, sorrow, and mental pain and anguish due to the loss of their son, DRU
ct
ESTES, and in reasonable probability, they will continue to suffer the same in the future for which
tri
they seek recovery herein. Further, Plaintiffs CHERYL ESTES and TROY ESTES,
is
INDIVIDUALLY, seek to recover for any other damages allowed by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Remedies
.D
Code Ann. §71.001, et seq.

Co
Plaintiffs believe they have been injured and damaged in a sum within the jurisdictional
is
limits of this Court.

av
IX.
Tr
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

y
Under the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Defendants SAN MARCOS GREEN
op
INVESTORS, LLC, ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH JONES, and THOMAS

lc
STEUBING, JR., are requested to disclose within fifty (50) days of service of this request, the
ia
information or material described in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2(a) through (l).
fic
of
Un
8
X.
PRAYER
e
ic
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for and demand a jury trial, and pray that the Defendants
Pr
be cited to appear and answer herein, and that the Plaintiffs have and recover judgment of and
L.
from the Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
a
lv
a. Damages as set forth above;
Ve
b. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest to the maximum extent allowed by
law;
k
Attorney’s fees and expenses as allowed by law;
er
c.
Cl
d. Costs of court;
ct
e. Punitive/Exemplary Damages; and,
tri
f. Such other and further general and special, legal and equitable relief to
is
which the Plaintiffs may be entitled.
.D
Co
LYONS & LYONS, P.C.

126 Villita St.
San Antonio, TX 78205
is
Telephone: (210) 225-5251

av
Telefax: (210) 225-6545

Tr
By: /s/ Clem Lyons

Clem Lyons
Clem@lyonsandlyons.com
y

op
Sean Lyons
Sean@lyonsandlyons.com
lc

ia
LoAn K. Vo
LoAnVo@lyonsandlyons.com
fic

of
Un
9
CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET
CAUSE NUMBER (FOR CLERK USE ONLY): _______________________________ COURT (FOR CLERK USE ONLY): ______________________
STYLED ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cheryl Estes and Troy Estes, Individually and On Behalf of the Estate of Dru Estes, Dec'd v. San Marcos Green Investors, LLc, et al.
(e.g., John Smith v. All American Insurance Co; In re Mary Ann Jones; In the Matter of the Estate of George Jackson)
A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when an original petition or application is filed to initiate a new civil, family law, probate, or mental
health case or when a post-judgment petition for modification or motion for enforcement is filed in a family law case. The information should be the best available at
e
the time of filing.
ic
1. Contact information for person completing case information sheet: Names of parties in case: Person or entity completing sheet is:
Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
Pr
Name: Email: Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Pro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner
Title IV-D Agency
LoAn Vo
_____________________________ LoAnVo@lyonsandlyons.com
____________________________ Cheryl Estes
_________________________________ Other: _________________________
L.
Address: Telephone: Troy Estes
_________________________________
Additional Parties in Child Support Case:
126 Villita St.
_____________________________ (210) 225-5251
____________________________
a
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s): Custodial Parent:
lv
City/State/Zip: Fax: _________________________________
San Marcos Green Investors, LLC
_________________________________
San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 225-6545
Ve
_____________________________ ____________________________ Non-Custodial Parent:
Elevate Multifamily, LLC
_________________________________ _________________________________
Signature: State Bar No:
(See additional page)
_________________________________ Presumed Father:
24013692
k
_____________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________
[Attach additional page as necessary to list all parties]
er
2. Indicate case type, or identify the most important issue in the case (select only 1):
Cl
Civil Family Law
Post-judgment Actions
Contract Injury or Damage Real Property Marriage Relationship (non-Title IV-D)
Debt/Contract Assault/Battery Eminent Domain/ Annulment Enforcement
Consumer/DTPA
Debt/Contract
Construction
Defamation
Condemnation
Partition
ct Declare Marriage Void
Divorce
Modification—Custody
Modification—Other
tri
Fraud/Misrepresentation Malpractice Quiet Title With Children Title IV-D
Other Debt/Contract: Accounting Trespass to Try Title No Children Enforcement/Modification
is
____________________ Legal Other Property: Paternity
Foreclosure Medical ____________________ Reciprocals (UIFSA)
Home Equity—Expedited Other Professional
.D
Support Order
Other Foreclosure Liability:
Franchise _______________ Related to Criminal
Insurance Motor Vehicle Accident Matters Other Family Law Parent-Child Relationship
Co
Landlord/Tenant Premises Expunction Enforce Foreign Adoption/Adoption with

Non-Competition Product Liability Judgment Nisi Judgment Termination
Partnership Asbestos/Silica Non-Disclosure Habeas Corpus Child Protection
Other Contract: Other Product Liability Seizure/Forfeiture Name Change Child Support
is
______________________ List Product: Writ of Habeas Corpus— Protective Order Custody or Visitation
_________________ Pre-indictment Removal of Disabilities Gestational Parenting
av
Other Injury or Damage: Other: _______________ of Minority Grandparent Access

_________________ Other: Parentage/Paternity
__________________ Termination of Parental
Tr
Employment Other Civil  Rights

Other Parent-Child:
Discrimination Administrative Appeal Lawyer Discipline _____________________
Retaliation Antitrust/Unfair Perpetuate Testimony
y
Termination Competition Securities/Stock

op
Workers’ Compensation Code Violations Tortious Interference

Other Employment: Foreign Judgment Other: _______________
______________________ Intellectual Property
lc
Tax Probate & Mental Health

Tax Appraisal Probate/Wills/Intestate Administration Guardianship—Adult
ia
Tax Delinquency Dependent Administration Guardianship—Minor

Other Tax Independent Administration Mental Health
fic
Other Estate Proceedings  Other: ____________________

of
3. Indicate procedure or remedy, if applicable (may select more than 1):

Appeal from Municipal or Justice Court Declaratory Judgment Prejudgment Remedy
Arbitration-related Garnishment Protective Order
Un
Attachment Interpleader Receiver

Bill of Review License Sequestration
Certiorari Mandamus Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction
Class Action Post-judgment Turnover
4. Indicate damages sought (do not select if it is a family law case):
Less than $100,000, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees
Less than $100,000 and non-monetary relief
Over $100, 000 but not more than $200,000
Over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000
Over $1,000,000
NO. __________________
e
CHERYL ESTES AND TROY ESTES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
ic
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF §
OF THE ESTATE OF DRU ESTES, §
Pr
DECEASED §
§ ________JUDICIAL DISTRICT
L.
V. §
§
a
lv
LLC, ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, §
Ve
LLC, DEBORAH JONES, AND § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
THOMAS STEUBING, JR.
k
er
CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET (CONTINUE)
Cl
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s):
Deborah Jones ct
tri
Thomas Steubing, Jr.
is
.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
SERVICE REQUEST FORM
e
VELVA L. PRICE
ic
District Clerk, Travis County
Pr
Civil Division (512) 854-9457
L.
REQUESTED BY:
a
ATTORNEY/FILER: LoAn Vo SUBMITTED BY: LoAn Vo
lv
PHONE #: (210) 225-5251 TITLE: Attorney
Ve
EMAIL: LoAnVo@lyonsandlyons.com SIGNATURE:
ISSUE PROCESS FOR:
k
CAUSE #: CASE STYLE: Cheryl Estes and Troy Estes, et al v. San Marcos Green Investors, LLC, et al
er
Cl
QUICK CITATION REQUEST: (FOR SERVICE OF CITATION ON ALL DEFENDANTS BY PERSONAL
ct
ISSUE CITATION TO ALL DEFENDANTS LISTED IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AT THE ADDRESS SPECIFIED IN THE PETITION AND FORWARD THE CITATION(S) TO THE FOLLOWING:
☐TRAVIS CO. CONSTABLE (specify): ☐CERTIFIED MAIL BY CLERK ☐ATTORNEY/REQUESTER

tri
☐PRIVATE PROCESS AGENCY (specify): ☐I HAVE INCLUDED ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST (e.g. DISCOVERY) TO INCLUDE
is
.D
DETAILED SERVICE REQUEST: (ON PARTICULAR PARTIES, BY VARIOUS DELIVERY METHODS, OR FOR NON-CITATION
PROCESS)
DESRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT(S) TO BE SERVED:
Co
☐I HAVE INCLUDED ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST (e.g. discovery) TO INCLUDE IN THE CITATION
TYPE OF PROCESS TO ☐CITATION ☐CERTIFIED NOTICE ☐PROTECTIVE ORDER* ☐TRO*^ ☐INJUNCTION*^ ☐SEQUESTRATION*^
ISSUE: ☐ATTACHMENT* ☐EXECUTION* ☐ABSTRACT* ☐SUPERSEDEAS^ ☐SCIRE FACIAS* ☐OTHER^
is
*SPECIFY TITLE AND DATE OF UNDERLYING ORDER IN CASE RECORD: ^ATTACH A COPY OF BOND AND/OR OTHER SUPPORTING
DOCUMENT
av
SERVICE TO BE ISSUED:
Tr
PARTY NAME: EMAIL PROCESS TO: SERVE VIA:

☐TRAVIS CO. CONSTABLE ☐PERSONAL SERVICE
y
PARTY TYPE: ☐ATTORNEY/REQUESTOR ☐CERTIFIED MAIL (BY CONSTABLE)

op
☐PRIVATE PROCESS AGENCY: ☐CERTIFIED MAIL (BY CLERK)

☐USE ADDRESS IN ORIGINAL PETITION ☐SECRETARY OF STATE Process Agency Name: ☐CITATION BY POSTING*
☐OTHER ADDRESS: ☐CITATION BY PUBLICATION*
lc

ia

fic
of

Un

*THIS TYPE OF SERVICE MAY REQUIRE A COURT ORDER. ENTER DATE OF SERVICE ORDER IN CASE RECORD:
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR CLERK OR FOR OFFICER SERVING PROCESS:
FOR ADDITIONAL PARTIES TO BE SERVED, USE e-FILED PROCESS ISSUANCE REQUEST FORM ADDENDUM
AMALIA
Velva L.RODRIGUEZ-MENDOZA
Price
DistrictCOUNY
TRAVIS Clerk, Travis County
DISTRICT CLERK SERVICE REQUEST FORM
Civil DIVISION
CIVIL Division (512) 854-9457
(512) 854-9457
Cause #: Case Style:

e
ic
☐OTHER ADDRESS:
Pr
☐CITATION BY PUBLICATION*
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D

Co

is

av

Tr

y

op

lc

ia

fic
of

Un

*This Type of Service may require a court order. Enter date of service order in case record:
8/22/2018 3:25 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-18-004799
CAUSE NO. ______________ D-1-GN-18-004799
Victoria Benavides
e
STEVEN VICTOR MROSKI § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
ic
and ZACHARY A. ROSENFELD §
Pr
§
v. §
L.
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
a
LLC, ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, §
lv
and DEBORAH JONES § 200TH
§ ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Ve
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
k
er
COME NOW Steven Victor Mroski and Zachary A. Rosenfeld (“Plaintiffs”),
Cl
who file this Petition, complaining of San Marcos Green Investors, LLC, Elevate
ct
Multifamily LLC, and Deborah Jones (“Defendants”) and would respectfully show the
tri
following:
is
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

.D
Plaintiffs intend for discovery to be conducted under Level 2.

Co
II. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

is
Plaintiffs seek damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. This Court
av
has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are either individuals residing in
Tr
or companies doing business in this State. The causes of action herein arose from
y
op
Defendants’ activities in this State.

lc
Venue is proper in Travis County, Texas, pursuant to Section 15.002(3) of the

ia
Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, as one or more Defendants reside in or
fic
maintain a principal office in this county.

of
III. PARTIES
Un
Plaintiff Steven Victor Mroski is an individual who resides in Texas.
1
Plaintiff Zachary A. Rosenfeld is an individual who resides in Texas.
e
Defendant San Marcos Green Investors, LLC, is a Texas limited liability
ic
Pr
company doing business in Texas. It may be served by and through its registered
L.
agent: Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin,
a
Texas 78744.
lv
Defendant Elevate Multifamily, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company
Ve
doing business in Texas. It may be served by and through its registered agent:
k
er
Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin, Texas
Cl
78744.
ct
Defendant Deborah Jones is an individual who resides in Travis County,
tri
Texas. She may be served through personal process at 3306 Dolphin Drive, Apt. A,
is
Austin, Texas 78704, or wherever she may be found.

.D
IV. BACKGROUND
Co
On or about July 20, 2018, Plaintiffs were sleeping in the Iconic Village
is
Apartments, owned and managed by the Defendants and located, 222 Ramsay Street,
av
San Marcos, Texas. In the early morning hours that day, a large fire broke out and
Tr
spread throughout the apartment complex. Due to defective alarms, or the nonexistence
y
op
or inadequacy of such, Plaintiffs were not immediately alerted of the fire. Due to the lack
lc
of a fire suppression system, or the inadequacy of such, the fire spread quickly. Plaintiffs
ia
finally awoke to the sound of screams, people running, and glass breaking. The heat from
fic
the fire by this point had started to crack the windows inside of their individual apartment
of
unit. By this point, flames were rising through the breezeway near their individual unit.
Un
Both Plaintiffs attempted to reach the front door of the complex but were confronted with
2
a wall of fire and smoke. Plaintiffs then went into one of the individual units in attempt
e
to escape out of a window. The apartment was on the second floor. Plaintiffs were forced
ic
Pr
to jump from the apartment unit, causing significant injuries to their feet, legs, backs,
L.
necks, and other parts of their bodies. After jumping, Plaintiffs lay there helplessly on the
a
ground because neither of them could walk due to injury. Fortunately, other residents
lv
discovered Plaintiffs and helped them reach a safe position.
Ve
The Iconic Village Apartments is owned by Defendant San Marcos Green
k
er
Investors, LLC. At the time of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, the site was
Cl
also managed and maintained controlled and supervised by Defendants Elevate
ct
Multifamily, LLC and Deborah Jones. Defendants failed to adequately maintain,
tri
inspect, or test the smoke detectors for years before the fire occurred on or about July
is
20, 2018. Defendants also failed to put in place an adequate fire suppression system,
.D
and failed to properly maintain and inspect wiring and appliances at the complex.
Co
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
is
Negligence/Gross Negligence (All Defendants)

av
Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if set forth in full below.

Tr
All Defendants owed the Plaintiffs the duty of ordinary care. Defendants, by
y
op
and through their officers, employees, agents and representatives, committed acts of
lc
omission and commission, which breached that duty, and which, collectively and
ia
severally, constitute negligence and gross negligence.

fic
Defendants’ negligent acts and omissions include, inter alia:

of
1) Contributing or causing an unsafe living condition;

Un
2) Participating in and contributing to acts that caused the incident in
3
question;
e
3) Failing to adequately inspect and test fire alarm systems;
ic
Pr
4) Failed to adequately inspect and test fire prevention systems;
L.
5) Failing to provide fire sprinkler systems;
a
6) Failing to provide assistance, or to ensure proper fire alarm systems
lv
were in place;
Ve
7) Failing to install proper and necessary fire escape systems;
k
er
8) Failing to warn of known hazards;
Cl
9) Failing to properly screen, hire, train and supervise employees and
ct
contractors; tri
10) Creating latent dangers, but failing to warn of same; and
is
11) Violating standards regarding dwelling safety intended to protect

.D
occupants.
Co
These acts of negligence and gross negligence were the actual and proximate
is
cause of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs.

av
Further, by way of the failures above, Defendants’ actions were knowing,

Tr
reckless, and/or malicious, and when viewed objectively from these Defendants’
y
op
standpoint, involve an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude
of potential harm to others. Defendants had subjective awareness of the risk involved,
lc
ia
but nevertheless proceeded in conscious indifference to the rights, safety and/or welfare
fic
of others. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against Defendants.

of
Premises Liability (All Defendants)

Un
Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if set forth in full below.
4
Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous conditions of
e
the premises. The conditions posed an unreasonable risk, and Defendants did not
ic
Pr
exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to others, including
L.
Plaintiffs. Defendants’ failure to use such care proximately caused the injuries at issue.
a
Moreover, Plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge of the unreasonable
lv
dangerous condition. Plaintiffs entered Defendants’ premises with permission as
Ve
invitees. Defendants had a duty to either warn Plaintiffs of the unreasonably dangerous
k
er
condition, or make the unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. Defendants
Cl
breached this duty by failing to warn Plaintiffs of this known unreasonably dangerous
ct
condition and by failing to make the unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe.
tri
Defendants’ breach proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries.
is
VI. DAMAGES
.D
Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount greater than $5,000,000. Plaintiffs seek

Co
damages for past and future medical expenses; loss of past and future earning capacity;
is
past and future pain and suffering; past and future mental anguish; past and future
av
disfigurement; and past and future physical impairment.

Tr
Because of the nature of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages.

y
op
Plaintiffs also seek costs as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the
appropriate rate allowed by law. Plaintiff seeks any other and further relief to which he
lc
ia
may be justly entitled.

fic
All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

of
VII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Un
5
Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 194, Plaintiffs request that each Defendant disclose
e
within fifty (50) days of service of this Request for Disclosure, the information and/or
ic
Pr
material described in Rule 194.2.
L.
VIII. JURY DEMAND
a
Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee.
lv
IX. PRAYER
Ve
For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask that each Defendant be cited to appear and
k
er
answer this suit. Plaintiffs ask that this case be set for trial without delay, and that
Cl
Plaintiffs recover judgment from Defendants for damages in such an amount that they
ct
evidence may show and the trier of fact may determine to be proper.
tri
is
THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM

.D
Co
By: /s/ Anthony G. Buzbee___

Anthony G. Buzbee
is

tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
av
Ryan S. Pigg
State Bar. 24088227
Tr
rpigg@txattorneys.com
Leah M. Fiedler
y

op
lfiedler@txattorneys.com
JP Morgan Chase Tower
lc
600 Travis, Ste. 7300

ia
Telephone: (713) 223-5393

fic
Facsimile: (713) 223-5909

of
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Un
6
CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET
CAUSE NUMBER (FOR CLERK USE ONLY): _______________________________ COURT (FOR CLERK USE ONLY): ______________________
STYLED STEVEN VICTOR MROSKI AND ZACHARY A. ROSENFELD V SAN MARCOS GREEN
INVESTORS, LLC., ET AL
e
(e.g., John Smith v. All American Insurance Co; In re Mary Ann Jones; In the Matter of the Estate of George Jackson)
ic
A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when an original petition or application is filed to initiate a new civil, family law, probate, or mental
Pr
health case or when a post-judgment petition for modification or motion for enforcement is filed in a family law case. The information should be the best available at
the time of filing.
1. Contact information for person completing case information sheet: Names of parties in case: Person or entity completing sheet is:
L.
Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
Name: Email: Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Pro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner
Anthony G. Buzbee tbuzbee@txattorneys.c Title IV-D Agency
a
om Steven Victor Mroski and Other:
lv
Address: Zachary A. Rosenfeld
600 Travis Street, Additional Parties in Child Support Case:
Telephone:
Ve
Suite 7300 713-223-5393 Custodial Parent:
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s):
City/State/Zip: Fax: Non-Custodial Parent:
k
Houston, TX 77002 713-223-5909 San Marcos Green
er
Presumed Father:
Signature: State Bar No: Investors, LLC, Elevate
Cl
_____________________________
24001820 Multifamily, LLC, and
Deborah Jones
ct
tri
[Attach additional page as necessary to list all parties]
2. Indicate case type, or identify the most important issue in the case (select only 1):
is
Civil Family Law
Post-judgment Actions
.D
Contract Injury or Damage Real Property Marriage Relationship (non-Title IV-D)

Debt/Contract Assault/Battery Eminent Domain/ Annulment Enforcement
Consumer/DTPA Construction Condemnation Declare Marriage Void Modification—Custody
Co
Debt/Contract Defamation Partition Divorce Modification—Other

Fraud/Misrepresentation Malpractice Quiet Title With Children Title IV-D
Other Debt/Contract: Accounting Trespass to Try Title No Children Enforcement/Modification
Legal Other Property: Paternity
is
Foreclosure Medical Reciprocals (UIFSA)

Home Equity—Expedited Other Professional Support Order
av
Other Foreclosure Liability:

Franchise Motor Vehicle Accident Related to Criminal
Insurance Matters Other Family Law Parent-Child Relationship
Premises
Tr
Landlord/Tenant Product Liability Expunction Enforce Foreign Adoption/Adoption with

Non-Competition Asbestos/Silica Judgment Nisi Judgment Termination
Partnership Other Product Liability Non-Disclosure Habeas Corpus Child Protection
Seizure/Forfeiture Name Change Child Support
y
Other Contract: List Product:

Writ of Habeas Corpus— Protective Order Custody or Visitation
op
Other Injury or Damage: Pre-indictment Removal of Disabilities Gestational Parenting

Other: of Minority Grandparent Access
Other: Paternity/Parentage
lc
Employment Other Civil  Termination of Parental

Discrimination Administrative Appeal Lawyer Discipline Rights
Other Parent-Child:
ia
Retaliation Antitrust/Unfair Perpetuate Testimony

Termination Competition Securities/Stock
Code Violations
fic
Workers’ Compensation Tortious Interference

Other Employment: Foreign Judgment Other:
Intellectual Property
of
Tax Probate & Mental Health

Tax Appraisal Probate/Wills/Intestate Administration Guardianship—Adult
Un
Tax Delinquency Dependent Administration Guardianship—Minor

Other Tax Independent Administration Mental Health
Other Estate Proceedings  Other:
3. Indicate procedure or remedy, if applicable (may select more than 1):

Appeal from Municipal or Justice Court Declaratory Judgment Prejudgment Remedy
Arbitration-related Garnishment Protective Order
Attachment Interpleader Receiver
Bill of Review License Sequestration
Certiorari Mandamus Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction
Class Action Post-judgment Turnover
4. Indicate damages sought (do not select if it is a family law case):
Less than $100,000, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees
Less than $100,000 and non-monetary relief
Over $100, 000 but not more than $200,000
Over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000
Over $1,000,000 
e
Rev 2/13
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
CIVIL PROCESS REQUEST FORM
FOR EACH PARTY SERVED YOU MUST FURNISH ONE (1) COPY OF THE PLEADING
FOR WRITS FURNISH TWO (2) COPIES OF THE PLEADING PER PARTY TO BE SERVED
CASE NUMBER: ___________________________ CURRENT COURT: _____________________________________
e
ic
TYPE OF INSTRUMENT TO BE SERVED (See Reverse For Types): Plainiff’s Original Petition ________________________________
Pr
FILE DATE OF MOTION: August 22, 2018 ____________________________________________________________________
Month/ Day/ Year
L.
SERVICE TO BE ISSUED ON (Please List Exactly As The Name Appears In The Pleading To Be Served):
1. NAME: San Marcos Green Investors, LLC ___________________________________________________________________
a
ADDRESS: 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin, TX 78744 ___________________________________________________
lv
AGENT, (if applicable): Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. _________________________________________________________
Ve
Citation
TYPE OF SERVICE/PROCESS TO BE ISSUED (see reverse for specific type): __________________________________________
SERVICE BY (check one):
k
ATTORNEY PICK-UP CONSTABLE
er
CIVIL PROCESS SERVER - Authorized Person to Pick-up: Court Record Research ____ Phone:713-227-3353 __
MAIL CERTIFIED MAIL
Cl
PUBLICATION:
Type of Publication: COURTHOUSE DOOR, or
NEWSPAPER OF YOUR CHOICE: ______________________________________
ct
OTHER, explain ________________________________________________________________________________
tri
ATTENTION: Effective June1, 2010
is
For all Services Provided by the DISTRCT CLERKS OFFICE requiring our office to MAIL something back to the
.D
Requesting Party, we require that the Requesting Party provide a Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope with sufficient postage
for mail back. Thanks you,
Co
**********************************************************************************************************
2. NAME: Elevate Multifamily, LLC __________________________________________________________________________

is
ADDRESS: 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin, TX 78744 ___________________________________________________

av
AGENT, (if applicable): Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. _________________________________________________________

citation
Tr

y
CIVIL PROCESS SERVER - Authorized Person to Pick-up: Court Record Research ___ Phone: 713-227-3353 __
op
MAIL CERTIFIED MAIL

lc
PUBLICATION:
ia

OTHER, explain ________________________________________________________________________________
fic
of
ATTORNEY (OR ATTORNEY'S AGENT) REQUESTING SERVICE:

NAME: Anthony G. Buzbee_____________________________________ TEXAS BAR NO./ID NO. 24001820 ______________
Un
MAILING ADDRESS: 600 Travis St., Suite 7300, Houston, TX 77002 ________________________________________________
PHONE NUMBER: 713 _____ 223-5393 ________________ FAX NUMBER: 713 _____ 223-5909_________________
area code phone number area code fax number
EMAIL ADDRESS: ledelacruz@txattorneys.com _________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2
S:\FormsLib\Civil Bureau\Civ Fam Intake & Customer Svc\Civintake\Civil Process Request Form Rev. 5/7/10
CIVIL PROCESS REQUEST FORM
FOR EACH PARTY SERVED YOU MUST FURNISH ONE (1) COPY OF THE PLEADING
FOR WRITS FURNISH TWO (2) COPIES OF THE PLEADING PER PARTY TO BE SERVED
CASE NUMBER: ___________________________ CURRENT COURT: _____________________________________
e
ic
TYPE OF INSTRUMENT TO BE SERVED (See Reverse For Types): Plainiff’s Original Petition ________________________________
Pr
FILE DATE OF MOTION: August 22, 2018 ____________________________________________________________________
Month/ Day/ Year
L.
SERVICE TO BE ISSUED ON (Please List Exactly As The Name Appears In The Pleading To Be Served):
1. NAME: Deborah Jones __________________________________________________________________________________
a
ADDRESS: 3306 Dolphin Dr., Apt. A, Austin, TX 78704, or wherever she may be found. ______________________________
lv
AGENT, (if applicable): ___________________________________________________________________________________
Ve
Citation
k
er
CIVIL PROCESS SERVER - Authorized Person to Pick-up: Court Record Research ____ Phone:713-227-3353 __
MAIL CERTIFIED MAIL
Cl
PUBLICATION:
ct
OTHER, explain ________________________________________________________________________________
tri
ATTENTION: Effective June1, 2010
is
For all Services Provided by the DISTRCT CLERKS OFFICE requiring our office to MAIL something back to the
.D
Requesting Party, we require that the Requesting Party provide a Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope with sufficient postage
for mail back. Thanks you,
Co
**********************************************************************************************************
2. NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
is
ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________________________________________
av
AGENT, (if applicable): ____________________________________________________________________________________

Tr

y
CIVIL PROCESS SERVER - Authorized Person to Pick-up: ______________________ Phone: ______________

op
MAIL CERTIFIED MAIL

lc
PUBLICATION:
ia

OTHER, explain ________________________________________________________________________________
fic
of
ATTORNEY (OR ATTORNEY'S AGENT) REQUESTING SERVICE:

NAME: Anthony G. Buzbee_____________________________________ TEXAS BAR NO./ID NO. 24001820 ______________
Un
MAILING ADDRESS: 600 Travis St., Suite 7300, Houston, TX 77002 ________________________________________________
PHONE NUMBER: 713 _____ 223-5393 ________________ FAX NUMBER: 713 _____ 223-5909_________________
area code phone number area code fax number
EMAIL ADDRESS: ledelacruz@txattorneys.com _________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2
S:\FormsLib\Civil Bureau\Civ Fam Intake & Customer Svc\Civintake\Civil Process Request Form Rev. 5/7/10
9/25/2018 5:27 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-004613 D-1-GN-18-004613
Melissa Romero
e
KARL SUTTERFIELD AND DEONA JO § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
ic
SUTTERFIELD AS NEXT FRIENDS OF §
Pr
ZACHARY SUTTERFIELD, MIGUEL ORTIZ §
AND GINA ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND §
ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID §
L.
ORTIZ, DECEASED, AND BRIAN §
FRIZZELL AND MICHELE FRIZZELL, §
a
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE §
lv
ESTATE OF HALEY FRIZZELL, DECEASED §
Ve
Plaintiffs, §
§
k
§
er
Cl
201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ct
Defendants. § tri
TO ITS PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
is
.D

Co
ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND DEBORAH JONES (“DEFENDANTS”)
Defendants in the above – entitled and numbered cause, and file this Original Answer and
is
av
Request for Disclosure to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition Subject to its previously filed
Tr
Motion to Transfer Venue and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
y
I. GENERAL DENIAL
op
lc
and every material allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition and any
ia
amendments and supplement thereto, demand strict proof thereof, and, to the extent such matter
fic
are questions of fact, Plaintiffs should prove such facts by a preponderance of the evidence to a
of
Un
jury if they can do so.

e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y

op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is

.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of

Un
would show that the imposition of punitive damages sought by Plaintiff violates Defendants’
e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D

Co
is
av

Tr
y
op

lc

ia
fic
of
Un
e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D
Co
is
av

Tr
y
op

lc

ia
fic
of
Un
e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
of that cap must be reduced accordingly.
ct
tri
is

.D
Co
is
av

Tr
III. JURY DEMAND

y
op

lc
ia
fic
of
Un

e
ic
Pr
194.2. Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2
L.
a
lv
Ve
GREEN INVESTORS, LLC, ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND DEBORAH
k
JONES, pray that Plaintiffs take nothing by this suit; for an award of all costs and expenses
er
Cl
incurred on its behalf; and for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which
ct
Defendants may show itself to be justly entitled. tri
is

.D
DARRELL L. BARGER
Co
dbarger@hdbdlaw.com
JENNIFER D. AKRE
is
jakre@hdbdlaw.com
av
KRISTINA EVERHART
Tr
y
op

Telephone: (713) 759-1990
Facsimile: (713) 652-2419
lc

ia

ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH
fic
JONES
of
Un
e
ic
Pr
L.
Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 25th day of September 2018.
a
lv
Dean Greshman
Ve
Bruce Steckler
Kirstine Rogers
STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
k
1270 Hillcrest Rd. Suite 1045
er
Dallas, Texas 75230
Cl
dean@stecklerlaw.com
bruce@stecklerlaw.com
ct
krogers@stecklerlaw.com tri
Hugh P. Lambert, T.A.
Cayce C. Peterson
is
THE LAMBERT FIRM, PLC

.D
701 Magazine Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Co
hlambert@thelambertfirm.com
cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com
is
John Cummings
av
CUMMINGS & CUMMINGS, LLC

416 Gravier Street
Tr

y
op
JENNIFER D. AKRE
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
9/21/2018 12:43 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-004613 D-1-GN-18-004613
Nancy Rodriguez
e
KARL SUTTERFIELD AND DEONA JO § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ic
SUTTERFIELD, as Next Friends of §
Pr
ZACHARY SUTTERFIELD, MIGUEL §
ORTIZ AND GINA ORTIZ, Individually and §
L.
on behalf of the Estate of DAVID ORTIZ, §
deceased, and BRIAN FRIZZELL AND §
a
MICHELE FRIZZELL, Individually and on §
lv
behalf of the Estate of HALEY FRIZZELL, §
deceased §
Ve
§
Plaintiffs, § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
k
§
er
V. §
§
Cl
SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC, §
ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND §
ct
DEBORAH JONES tri§
§
Defendants. § 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
is
______________________________________________________________________________
.D
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION

Co
______________________________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

is
av
COMES NOW Karl Sutterfield and Deona Jo Sutterfield, as Next Friends of Zachary
Tr
Sutterfield, Miguel Ortiz and Gina Ortiz, Individually and behalf of the Estate of David Ortiz,
y
deceased, and Brian Frizzell and Michele Frizzell, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of
op
Haley Frizzell, deceased (“Plaintiffs”) complaining of San Marcos Green Investors, LLC,
lc
Elevate Multifamily, LLC, and Deborah Jones (hereinafter referred to collectively as

ia
“Defendants”) and would respectfully show unto the Honorable Court the following:
fic
of
Un
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 1

I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
e
ic
Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
Pr
respectfully request that discovery in this cause is intended to be conducted under Level 3 given
L.
that this is a complex, multi-party case.
a
lv
II.
PARTIES
Ve
Plaintiffs Karl Sutterfield and Deona Jo Sutterfield are the biological parents of Zachary
k
er
Sutterfield. Plaintiffs Karl Sutterfield and Deona Jo Sutterfield are citizens of Texas and reside
Cl
in San Angelo, Texas. Zachary Sutterfield was a student at Texas State University who was
ct
severely injured in the Iconic Village apartment fire in San Marcos, Texas on July 20, 2018.
tri
Zachary Sutterfield is currently hospitalized in San Antonio, Texas.
is
Plaintiffs Miguel Ortiz and Gina Ortiz are the biological parents of David Ortiz. Plaintiffs
.D
Miguel Ortiz and Gina Ortiz are citizens of Texas and reside in Pasadena, Texas. David Ortiz
Co
was a student at Texas State University who was killed in the Iconic Village apartment fire in
is
San Marcos, Texas on July 20, 2018.

av
Plaintiffs Brian Frizzell and Michele Frizzell are the biological parents of Haley Frizzell.
Tr
Plaintiffs Brian Frizzell and Michele Frizzell are citizens of Texas and reside in San Angelo,
y
op
Texas. Haley Frizzell was a student at Texas State University who was killed in the Iconic
lc
Village apartment fire in San Marcos, Texas on July 20, 2018.

ia
Defendant San Marcos Green Investors, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with a
fic
principal place in Chicago, Illinois. The Court has personal jurisdiction over San Marcos Green
of
Investors, LLC as it performs a substantial amount of business in Texas. San Marcos Green
Un
Investors, LLC’s continuous and systematic contacts with Texas justify the exercise of general

jurisdiction. Moreover, this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant as its
e
contacts with Texas arise out of the horrible incident made the basis of this lawsuit. Counsel for
ic
Pr
Defendant San Marcos Green Investors, LLC has accepted service of this lawsuit but has not
L.
filed their answer with this Court.
a
Defendant Elevate Multifamily, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its
lv
principal place of business in Boston, MA. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant
Ve
Elevate Multifamily, LLC as it performs a substantial amount of business in Texas. Defendant
k
er
Elevate Multifamily, LLC’s continuous and systematic contacts with Texas justify the exercise
Cl
of general jurisdiction. Moreover, this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant as
ct
its contacts with Texas arise out of the horrible incident made the basis of this lawsuit. Counsel
tri
for Defendant Elevate Multifamily, LLC has accepted service of this lawsuit but has not filed
is
their answer with this Court.

.D
Defendant Deborah Jones is an individual and resident and citizen of Texas who resides
Co
in Travis County, Texas. Counsel for Defendant Deborah has accepted service of this lawsuit but
is
has not filed their answer with this Court.

av
III.
Tr
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

y
Venue is proper in this district as Defendant Deborah Jones resided in Travis County,
op
Texas at the time the causes of action accrued. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(2). As
lc
such, venue is proper against all Defendants in Travis County, Texas. This Court has jurisdiction
ia
over this action pursuant to Article V Section 8 of the Texas Constitution and section 24.007 of
fic
the Texas Government Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all claims asserted
of
Un
in this action because they are common law and/or statutory causes of action existing under

Texas law by which Plaintiffs seek damages that are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
e
All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action against Defendants have been met.
ic
Pr
IV.
L.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
a
In the early morning hours of July 20, 2018, a horrible fire tore through the Iconic Village
lv
and Vintage Pads apartments in San Marcos, Texas, killing five people, including David Ortiz
Ve
and Haley Frizzell, injuring many more, including Zachary Sutterfield, and displacing
k
er
approximately 200 Texas State University students from their homes. According to the San
Cl
Marcos Fire Chief, the apartment fire was the deadliest blaze in San Marcos’s history.
ct
tri
is
.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
Zachary Sutterfield, 20, was a student at Texas State University and resided at the Iconic
of
Village apartments and was horribly burned by the fire. While the blaze tore through the
Un
apartment complex, the fire and smoke alarms failed to effectively activate to warn the residents

and occupants. The apartment complex did not have functioning fire sprinklers or any other fire
e
suppression system. Zachary Sutterfield suffered head trauma and third-degree burns over 70
ic
Pr
percent of his body. He remains in critical condition after having undergone several surgeries
L.
and skin grafts at the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research Burn Center in San Antonio.
a
David Ortiz was a student at Texas State University and resided at the Iconic Village
lv
apartments. He was unable to escape and was tragically killed by the blaze of the fire. David
Ve
Ortiz was 21 years old.
k
er
Haley Frizzell was a student at Texas State University and was staying in her brother’s
Cl
apartment at the Iconic Village apartments when the fire broke out. Tragically, she too was
ct
unable to escape. Haley Frizzell was only 19 years old.
tri
V.
is
CAUSES OF ACTION
.D
A. NEGLIGENCE – ALL DEFENDANTS

Co
In operating and managing the apartment complex, Defendants owed Plaintiffs Zachary
is
Sutterfield, David Ortiz, and Haley Frizzell the duty to exercise that ordinary care that would be
av
exercised by a reasonable and prudent property owner, manager, and landlord. In addition to
Tr
other acts of negligence that may be identified as discovery progresses, Plaintiffs would show
y
op
that Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by one or more of the following particulars:
lc
1. Failing to provide and maintain a safe premises and living environment for the
ia
fic
residents of the apartment complex;

of
2. Failing to adequately inspect and test the fire alarms in the apartments;
Un
3. Failing to provide a fire sprinkler system;
4. Failing to adequately inspect and test fire prevention or warning systems;

e
procedures;
ic
Pr
6. Failing to properly train employees of the apartment complex on fire prevention;
L.
7. Failing to warn of the dangerous hazards at the apartment complex;
a
8. Failing to properly hire, retain, and supervise employees of the apartment
lv
complex;
Ve
9. Failing to provide sufficient safety equipment;
k
er
10. Failing to follow applicable City, State, and federal regulations; and
Cl
11. Other acts of negligence that will be identified as discovery progresses.
ct
Plaintiffs would show that Defendant’s breach of duty to Plaintiffs Zachary Sutterfield,
tri
David Ortiz, and Haley Frizzell in the manner set forth above, constitutes negligence, and that
is
such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs as
.D
more specifically described herein. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover from Defendants
Co
such sums as would properly and appropriately compensate them for such injuries and damages.
is
B. NEGLIGENCE PER SE – ALL DEFENDANTS

av
Both federal and state laws impose duties and obligations on landlords and property
Tr
managers such as Defendants. Failure to comply with these regulations constitutes negligence as
y
op
a matter of law.
lc
Defendants knew or should have known that its inspection, maintenance, service,
ia
modification, installation, repair or other work on the premises was unsafe and created a
fic
dangerous premise for Plaintiffs and the other residents. Plaintiffs did not know or have reason to
of
know of the risk involved; and, Defendants knew or had reason to know of the condition and
Un
realized or should have realized the risk and had reason to know that the lessees would not

discover the condition or recognize the risk. These acts and/or omissions were singularly and/or
e
severally a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the severe injuries suffered by
ic
Pr
Plaintiffs.
L.
C. PREMISES LIABILITY – ALL DEFENDANTS
a
Upon information and belief, Defendants owned, managed, and controlled the apartment
lv
complex where Plaintiffs Zachary Sutterfield, David Ortiz, and Haley Frizzell resided and/or
Ve
occupied and were injured. The condition of the area where Plaintiffs were injured posed an
k
er
unreasonable risk of harm, and Defendants had actual knowledge or reasonably should have
Cl
known of the unreasonably dangerous condition. Plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge of the
ct
unreasonably dangerous condition. tri
Because Plaintiffs were residents or occupants of the apartment complex, Defendants had
is
a duty to either warn Plaintiffs of the unreasonably dangerous condition or make the
.D
unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. Defendants failed to warn Plaintiffs of this
Co
known unreasonably dangerous condition and failed to make the unreasonably dangerous
is
condition reasonably safe. Defendants’ breach proximately caused Plaintiffs’ severe injuries and
av
deaths.
Tr
D. GROSS NEGLIGENCE – ALL DEFENDANTS

y
op
The acts and/or omissions of Defendants, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of
lc
Defendants at the time of the occurrence, involved an extreme risk, considering the probability,
ia
magnitude and potential harm to others; and, of which, Defendants had actual, subjective
fic
awareness of the risks involved; but, nevertheless, proceeded with conscious indifference to the
of
rights, safety, and welfare of the public, including Zachary Sutterfield, David Ortiz, and Haley
Un
Frizzell. Further, gross negligence can be imputed to Defendants because: the grossly negligent

acts were committed by Defendants’ employees/agents; and/or Defendants were reckless in
e
hiring and/or retaining incompetent employees and/or agents. This grossly negligent conduct was
ic
Pr
a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the resulting severe injuries of Plaintiff
L.
Zachary Sutterfield, and the death of David Ortiz and Haley Frizzell.
a
VI.
lv
DAMAGES
Ve
As a direct and proximate result of the occurrences made the basis of this lawsuit,
k
Plaintiffs seek all damages to which they are entitled to recover as well as exemplary damages.
er
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff Zachary
Cl
Sutterfield is entitled to recover the following damages including, but not limited to:
• Past and future medical expenses; ct

tri
•
is
Past and future loss of earning capacity;
.D
• Past and future pain and suffering;

Co
• Past and future mental anguish;
• Loss of enjoyment of life;

is
av
• Physical impairment;
Tr
• Disfigurement; and
y
• Exemplary damages.
op
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs Miguel
lc
Ortiz and Gina Ortiz, as the surviving parents of David Ortiz, and statutory beneficiaries under
ia
fic
the Wrongful Death Statute, are entitled to bring this cause of action for all damages that they
of
have suffered as a result of the wrongful death of David Ortiz, pursuant to Section 71 of the
Un
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Such wrongful death damages include:

• Pecuniary loss in the past and future, including but not limited to the loss of care,
e
maintenance, guidance, nurture, support, services, advice, counsel, inheritance,
ic
Pr
and reasonable contributions of pecuniary value;
L.
Loss of companionship and society in the past and future, including but not
a
limited to the loss of positive benefits flowing from the love, comfort,
lv
companionship, and society that would have been received from David Ortiz, had
Ve
he lived;
k
er
• Mental anguish in the past and future, including but not limited to the emotion
Cl
pain, torment, and suffering experienced in the past, and to be experienced in the
ct
future, because of the death of David Ortiz; and
tri
• Any other forms of damages available to wrongful death beneficiaries.
is
As the representatives of the Estate of David Ortiz, Miguel and Gina Ortiz seek to
.D
recover the following elements of wrongful death and survival damages:

Co
• Pain and mental anguish, including the conscious physical pain and emotional
is
pain, torment, and suffering experienced by David Ortiz before his death;
av
• Medical expenses; and

Tr
• Funeral and burial expenses.

y
op
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs Brian
lc
and Michele Frizzell, as the surviving parents of Haley Frizzell, and statutory beneficiaries under
ia
the Wrongful Death Statute, are entitled to bring this cause of action for all damages that they
fic
have suffered as a result of the wrongful death of Haley Frizzell, pursuant to Section 71 of the
of
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Such wrongful death damages include:
Un

• Pecuniary loss in the past and future, including but not limited to the loss of care,
e
maintenance, guidance, nurture, support, services, advice, counsel, inheritance,
ic
Pr
and reasonable contributions of pecuniary value;
L.
Loss of companionship and society in the past and future, including but not
a
limited to the loss of positive benefits flowing from the love, comfort,
lv
companionship, and society that would have been received from Haley Frizzell,
Ve
had she lived;
k
er
• Mental anguish in the past and future, including but not limited to the emotion
Cl
pain, torment, and suffering experienced in the past, and to be experienced in the
ct
future, because of the death of Haley Frizzell; and
tri
• Any other forms of damages available to wrongful death beneficiaries.
is
As the representatives of the Estate of Haley Frizzell, Brian and Michele Frizzell seek to
.D
recover the following elements of wrongful death and survival damages:

Co
• Pain and mental anguish, including the conscious physical pain and emotional
is
pain, torment, and suffering experienced by Haley Frizzell before her death;
av
• Medical expenses; and

Tr
• Funeral and burial expenses.

y
op
VII.
PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST
lc
Plaintiffs seek recovery for pre-judgment interest at the highest legal rate allowed by law.
ia
fic
VIII.
DOCUMENTS TO BE USED
of
Pursuant to Rule 193.3(d) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs intend to use
Un
all documents exchanged and/or produced between the parties including, but not limited to,

correspondence and discovery responses, during the trial of the above-entitled and numbered
e
cause.
ic
Pr
IX.
JURY DEMAND
L.
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and have paid the appropriate fee.
a
lv
X.
PRAYER
Ve
Plaintiffs pray that the Defendants be summoned to appear and answer herein and that
k
er
upon a full and final hearing of this case, Plaintiffs have judgment of and from the Defendants,
Cl
as follows:
ct
• All actual and special damages, both past and future, as prayed for herein;
tri
• Exemplary damages;
is
• Plaintiffs’ cost of court and attorneys’ fees;

.D
• Pre-judgment interest at the highest legal rate and for the longest period of time allowed
Co
by law on all elements of damages claimed herein;

is
• Post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate allowed by law on the amount of the
av
judgment entered by the Court from the date of judgment until collected; and
Tr
• Such other further relief, both general and specific, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs
y
op
are entitled.
lc
ia
fic
of
Un

Dated: September 21, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
e
STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
ic
Pr
/s/ Bruce Steckler
Dean Gresham
L.
Texas Bar No. 24027215
Bruce Steckler
a
lv
Kirstine Rogers
Ve
Stuart Cochran
k
12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
er
Dallas, Texas 75230
972-387-4040
Cl
dean@steckler.law.com
bruce@stecklerlaw.com
ct
krogers@stecklerlaw.com
stuart@stecklerlaw.com
tri
is
THE LAMBERT FIRM, PLC
Hugh P. Lambert, T.A. (La. Bar No. 7933)
.D
[Pending Admission Pro Hac Vice]

Cayce C. Peterson (La. Bar No. 32217)
Co

701 Magazine Street
is
Telephone: (504) 581-1750

av
Facsimile: (504) 529-2931

hlambert@thelambertfirm.com
Tr
cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com
y
LAW OFFICE OF S. C. NALLIE-COURTNEY

op
S. Chris Nallie-Courtney
Texas State Bar No. 24004836
lc
Kyle Courtney
Texas State Bar No. 00798119
ia
P.O. Box 1973

Friendswood, TX 77546
fic
Telephone: (281) 648-4358

Facsimile: (281) 648-4364
of
nallie-courtney@sbcglobal.net
Un
klcourtneylaw@yahoo.com

OF COUNSEL:
e
CUMMINGS & CUMMINGS, LLC
ic
John Cummings (La. Bar No. 4652)
Pr
416 Gravier Street
L.
Telephone: (504) 586-0000
a
Facsimile: (504) 522-8423
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served in
.D
accordance with Rule 21a of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE on all counsel of record on
September 21, 2018.
Co
/s/ Bruce Steckler

Bruce Steckler
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un

9/11/2018 4:15 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-003866 D-1-GN-18-003866
Nancy Ramirez
e
ic
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF §
Pr
THE ESTATE OF JAMES §
MIRANDA, DECEASED, §
L.
§
Plaintiff, §
a
§
lv
§
Ve
SAN MARCOS GREEN §
INVESTORS, LLC, ELEVATE §
k
MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND §
er
DEBORAH JONES §
§
Cl
Defendants. § 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ct
Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition
tri
PHILLIP MIRANDA, individually and as representative of the Estate of JAMES
is
.D
MIRANDA, BENJAMIN MUNOZ, ABRIL CARDENAS, CHRISTINA MARTINEZ,

Co
PABLO TORRES, MICHELLE TREVINO, SEAN KINDER, ASHLEY GUTIERREZ,
BETH CONBOY, CIARA COLLETT, and ADRIANA RODRIGUEZ (collectively referred

is
av
to as “Plaintiffs”) file this petition against SAN MARCOS GREEN INVESTORS, LLC,
Tr
ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH JONES and THOMAS STEUBING, JR.

y
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and would show the Court the following:
op
I.
lc
Discovery Level
ia
fic
1. Discovery in this matter may be conducted under Level 2 of the Texas Rules of
of
Civil Procedure.
Un
II.
e
Jurisdiction and Venue
ic
Pr
2. The claims asserted arise under the common law of Texas.
L.
3. The District Courts of Travis County, Texas have jurisdiction over this case.
a
The amount in controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court, and the
lv
exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the Defendants is proper.
Ve
4. Venue is proper because one or more Defendants reside in Travis County or
k
er
maintain a principal office in Travis County.
Cl
III.
Parties
ct
tri
5. Plaintiff, Phillip Miranda is an Arkansas resident, the father of James Miranda,
is
.D
and the representative of his estate. He is a Plaintiff in his own capacity and also as a
Co
representative of James Miranda’s estate.
6. Plaintiff, Benjamin Munoz is a Texas resident.

is
av
7. Plaintiff, Abril Cardenas is a Texas resident.

Tr
8. Plaintiff, Christina Martinez is a Texas resident.

y
9. Plaintiff, Pablo Torres is a Texas resident.

op
10. Plaintiff, Michelle Trevino is a Texas resident.

lc
11. Plaintiff, Sean Kinder is a Texas resident.

ia
fic
12. Plaintiff, Ashley Gutierrez is a Texas resident.

of
13. Plaintiff, Beth Conboy is a Texas resident.

Un
14. Plaintiff, Ciara Collett is a Texas resident.
15. Plaintiff, Adriana Rodriguez, is a Texas resident.

2
16. Defendant, San Marcos Green Investors, LLC, is a Texas limited liability
e
company with a principal place of business in Chicago, IL. The Court may exercise personal
ic
Pr
jurisdiction over this Defendant because it performs a substantial amount of business in Texas.
L.
This Defendant’s continuous and systematic contacts with Texas justify the exercise of general
a
jurisdiction. Further, this Defendant’s contacts with Texas arising out of the incident made the
lv
basis of this lawsuit justify specific jurisdiction. This Defendant may be served through its
Ve
registered agent of process, Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd, Suite 300,
k
er
Austin, Texas 78744. This Defendant has made an appearance in this matter through counsel.
Cl
17. Defendant, Elevate Multifamily, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with
ct
a principal place of business in Boston, MA. The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over
tri
this Defendant because it performs a substantial amount of business in Texas. This Defendant’s
is
.D
continuous and systematic contacts with Texas justify the exercise of general jurisdiction.
Co
Further, this Defendant’s contacts with Texas arising out of the incident made the basis of this
lawsuit justify specific jurisdiction. This Defendant may be served through its registered agent
is
av
of process, Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd, Suite 300, Austin, Texas
Tr
78744. This Defendant has made an appearance in this matter through counsel.
y
18. Defendant Deborah Jones is an individual and a Texas resident who resides in
op
Travis County, Texas. This Defendant may be served through personal process at 3306
lc
Dolphin Drive, Apt A, Austin, TX 78704, or wherever she may be found. This Defendant has
ia
fic
made an appearance in this matter through counsel.

of
19. Defendant Thomas Steubing, Jr. is an individual and a Texas resident who
Un
resides in Comal County, Texas. This Defendant may be served through personal process at
3
481 North Central Avenue, New Braunfels, Texas 78130, or wherever he may be found. This
e
Defendant has made an appearance in this matter through counsel.
ic
Pr
IV.
L.
Facts
a
20. On or about July 20, 2018, Plaintiffs were residents at the Iconic Village
lv
Apartments in San Marcos, Texas. On that date, at around 4:30 AM, a fire broke out at the
Ve
Iconic Village Apartments while Plaintiffs were sleeping. While the blaze spread through the
k
er
apartment complex filling it with fire and smoke, the fire alarms in the complex failed to
Cl
activate. Numerous witnesses have confirmed that smoke and fire alarms failed to timely
ct
activate during the fire, preventing the residents, including Plaintiffs, from being warned about
tri
the approaching flames. Furthermore, the apartment complex did not have functioning fire
is
.D
sprinkler(s) and/or suppression system(s) in place.

Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
21. Ultimately, the fire destroyed the apartment complex. At all material times, the
Iconic Village Apartments were owned by Defendant San Marcos Green Investors, LLC, and
4
managed by Defendant Elevate Multifamily, LLC. Defendant Deborah Jones and Defendant
e
Steubing were the apartment complex managers at the time of the incident, and were
ic
Pr
responsible for the safety of the residents at the apartment complex. Additionally, Defendant
L.
Jones and Defendant Steubing were responsible for ensuring that proper maintenance,
a
including but not limited to fire safety equipment check(s) and test(s), was being performed
lv
leading up to the underlying fire. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not cause or start the fire at the
Ve
Iconic Village Apartments.
k
er
22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jones and Defendant Steubing
Cl
managed the Iconic Village Apartments which contained 108 units. Despite the hundreds of
ct
people and students living within these unites, Defendants chose never to install sprinklers in
tri
the complex to protect its residents in the event of a fire. Furthermore, the smoke detectors
is
.D
that had been installed on the property were not adequately maintained or inspected for
Co
arguably years before the fire that took place on July 20, 2018, rendering them virtually useless
to the residents during the blaze. As a result of Defendants’ failures, including Defendant
is
av
Jones and Defendant Steubing as the managers of the complex, more than two hundred (200)
Tr
people were displaced, multiple victims were hospitalized, and five (5) people were killed.
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
5
e
ic
Pr
L.
a
lv
Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D
23. As a result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions, multiple residents were
Co
trapped and killed in the apartment fire on July 20, 2018. Tragically, James Miranda was one
of the residents who was killed. He died at the age of 23.

is
av
24. Plaintiff Christina Martinez was sleeping in her apartment at the complex when
Tr
the fire broke out, and was jolted awake by the sound of screams. Upon realizing the apartment
y
complex was on fire, she quickly worked to gather her pet, as well as wake another person
op
sleeping in the complex, before escaping. As Ms. Martinez was rushing to escape the flames,
lc
she could hear the screams of individuals coming from apartments engulfed with flames.
ia
fic
During the escape, Ms. Martinez suffered injury to her knee(s), leg(s) and other parts of her
of
body. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff Martinez also suffered serious psychological, mental
Un
and emotional injuries
6
25. Plaintiff Pablo Torres and his girlfriend, Plaintiff Michelle Trevino, were asleep
e
in his apartment when the fire broke out at the complex. Ms. Trevino woke him up when she
ic
Pr
heard glass breaking and smelled smoke. Mr. Torres got up to investigate, and discovered that
L.
the apartment was on fire. Despite the extensive amount of smoke and flames, no fire alarms
a
and/or smoke detectors went off. Due to the overwhelming amount of smoke, Ms. Trevino
lv
began passing out. Mr. Torres had to break an apartment window in order to escape, along
Ve
with Ms. Trevino and his dog. As a result of the incident, Plaintiffs Torres and Trevino suffered
k
er
severe injuries, including injuries to their arms, back, and other parts of their bodies. As a result
Cl
of the incident, Plaintiffs Torres and Trevino also suffered serious psychological, mental and
emotional injuries
ct
tri
26. Plaintiffs Sean Kinder and Ashley Gutierrez were in their apartment when the
is
.D
fire began, and began hearing loud yelling and screams coming from outside their door and
Co
windows. Plaintiffs Kinder and Gutierrez became aware that the apartments were on fire, and
were forced to quickly evacuate, only being able to retrieve their keys and their dog. Plaintiffs
is
av
Kinder and Gutierrez suffered serious injuries to their feet, ankles, legs and other parts of their
Tr
bodies as a result of the fire and evacuation. Furthermore, Plaintiffs Kinder and Gutierrez have
y
also suffered serious psychological, mental and emotional injuries.

op
27. Plaintiffs Benjamin Munoz, Abril Cardenas and Beth Conboy were trapped by
lc
flames in apartments on the second floor of the complex. Considering the lack of any warning
ia
fic
of the fire spreading through the complex before it was too late, Plaintiffs Munoz, Cardenas
of
and Conboy were required to leap from a second story window to escape. As a result, Plaintiffs
Un
Munoz, Cardenas and Conboy suffered severe injuries including a broken leg, broken ankles,
a broken back, as well as injuries to other parts of their bodies. As a result of the incident,
7
Plaintiffs Munoz, Cardenas and Conboy also suffered serious psychological, mental and
e
emotional injuries.
ic
Pr
28. Plaintiffs Ciara Collett and Adriana Rodriguez were in their apartments when
L.
the blaze began, and were alerted to the fire by the sounds of screaming, banging on doors,
a
and windows breaking. Plaintiffs Collett and Rodriguez became aware that the apartments
lv
were on fire, and were forced to quickly evacuate, only being able to retrieve a few personal
Ve
belongings. Plaintiffs Collett and Rodriguez suffered serious injuries as a result of the fire and
k
er
evacuation, including injuries to their lungs, throats, and other parts of their bodies.
Cl
Furthermore, Plaintiffs Collett and Rodriguez have also suffered serious psychological, mental
and emotional injuries.

ct
tri
V.
is
.D
Causes of Action
Co
A. Negligence and Gross Negligence Against all Defendants.

is
av
30. Plaintiffs sustained severe and fatal injuries because of Defendants’ negligence
Tr
and gross negligence when Defendants:

y
 Failed to create, enforce and implement adequate safety protocols and

op
procedures;
lc
 Failed to maintain a safe living environment;

ia
 Failed to adequately inspect and test fire alarm systems;

fic
 Failed to provide fire sprinkler systems;

of
 Failed to adequately inspect and test fire prevention systems;

Un
 Failed to train its employees;
8
 Failed to warn of dangerous hazards at the apartment complex;
e
ic
 Failed to supervise its employees;
Pr
 Failed to provide adequate safety equipment;
L.
 Failed to warn the Plaintiffs of hidden dangers;
a
lv
 Failed to abide by applicable rules and regulations;
Ve
 Failed to keep the premises free of known hazards; and
k
 Other acts so deemed negligent and grossly negligent.
er
Cl
31. As a result of Defendants’ negligence and gross negligence, Mr. James Miranda
suffered severe physical injuries that ultimately led to his death. Additionally, as a result of
ct
tri
Defendants’ negligence and gross negligence, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical and
is
emotional injuries. The Defendants had the above referenced duties. Defendants breached
.D
those duties and Defendants’ breaches were the cause in fact and the proximate cause of all
Co
Plaintiffs’ injuries and Mr. Miranda’s death. Furthermore, Defendants’ actions were done with
is
reckless disregard to a substantial risk of severe bodily injury. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled
av
to exemplary damages.
Tr
B. Premises Liability Against all Defendants.

y
op

lc
33. Upon information and belief, Defendants owned, occupied and/or controlled the
ia
area where Plaintiffs were caused to suffer severe injuries, and Mr. Miranda was killed. The
fic
condition of the area where Plaintiffs were injured and killed posed an unreasonable risk of
of
harm, and Defendants had actual knowledge or reasonably should have known of the
Un
9
unreasonably dangerous condition. Moreover, Plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge of the
e
unreasonably dangerous condition.
ic
Pr
34. Moreover, Plaintiffs entered Defendants’ premises with permission.
L.
Defendants had a duty to either warn Plaintiffs of this unreasonably dangerous condition, or
a
make the unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. Defendants breached this duty
lv
by failing to warn Plaintiffs of this known unreasonably dangerous condition, and by failing
Ve
to make the unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. Defendants’ breach
k
er
proximately caused Plaintiffs severe injuries and death.
Cl
VI.
Damages
ct
tri
A. Damages sought by Plaintiffs Benjamin Munoz, Abril Cardenas, Christina Martinez
is
Pablo Torres, Michelle Trevino, Sean Kinder, Ashley Gutierrez, Beth Conboy, Ciara
.D
Collett, and Adriana Rodriguez.

Co
Plaintiffs suffered severe personal injuries, bodily injury, physical impairment, disfigurement,
is
av
loss of household services, pain, suffering, and mental anguish. Plaintiffs pray for relief and
Tr
judgment as follows:
y
 Compensatory damages against Defendants;

op
 Actual damages;
lc
 Consequential damages;
ia
fic
 Past and future Pain and suffering;

of
 Exemplary damages;
Un
 Past and future mental anguish;
10
 Past and future impairment;
e
 Past and future disfigurement;
ic
Pr
 Interest on damages (pre and post-judgment) in accordance with the law;
L.
 Costs of Court;
a
 Expert witness fees;
lv
Ve
 Costs of copies of depositions; and
 Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
k
er
B. Damages sought by Phillip Miranda, individually, and as Representative of the
Cl
Estate of James Miranda.
36.
ct
As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit,
tri
Plaintiff, was caused to suffer severe personal injuries, bodily injury, pain, suffering, mental
is
anguish and death. Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:
.D
a. Wrongful Death
Co

is
38. As a wrongful death beneficiary, Plaintiff seeks to recover the following

av
elements of damages resulting from the death of James Miranda:

Tr
 Pecuniary loss in the past and future, including but not limited to the loss of
y
op
care, maintenance, guidance, nurture, support, services, advice, counsel,

lc
inheritance, and reasonable contributions of pecuniary value;

ia
 Loss of companionship and society in the past and future, including but not
fic
limited to the loss of the positive benefits flowing from the love, comfort,
of
Un
companionship, and society that would have been received from James
Miranda, had he lived;
11
 Mental anguish in the past and future, including but not limited to the emotional
e
pain, torment, and suffering experienced in the past, and to be experienced in
ic
Pr
the future, because of the death of James Miranda; and
L.
 Any other forms of damages available to wrongful death beneficiaries.
a
b. Survival Action.
lv
Ve
40. As the personal representative of the Estate of James Miranda, Phillip Miranda
k
er
seeks to recover the following elements of wrongful death and survival damages:
Cl
 Past and future pain and mental anguish, including the conscious physical pain
ct
and emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by James Miranda
tri
before his death;
is
.D
 Medical expenses; and

Co
 Funeral and burial expenses.
 All other damages entitled to by law.

is
av
VII.
Tr
Punitive Damages
y

op
42. Because Defendants are guilty of gross negligence, they should have punitive
lc
damages assessed against them in an amount deemed appropriate by the jury.

ia
fic
of
Un
12
VIII.
e
Prayer
ic
Pr
43. Plaintiffs pray that this citation issue and be served upon Defendants in a form
L.
and manner prescribed by law, requiring that Defendants appear and answer, and that upon
a
final hearing, Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants, both jointly and severally, in a total
lv
sum in excess of $1,000,000.00, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interests, all costs of
Ve
Court, exemplary damages, and all such other and further relief, to which they may show
k
er
themselves justly entitled.
Cl
IX.
Jury Trial Demanded
ct
tri
44. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
is
Respectfully Submitted,
.D
ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP

Co
/s/ Kurt B. Arnold

_______________________________
is
Kurt B. Arnold
SBN: 24036150
av
Tr
J. Kyle Findley
SBN: 24076382
KFindley@arnolditkin.com
y
op
Kala F. Sellers
SBN: 24087519
KSellers@arnolditkin.com
lc
Adam D. Lewis
ia
SBN: 24094099
ALewis@arnolditkin.com
fic
6009 Memorial Drive

Houston, TX 77007
of
Tel: 713.222.3800
Un
Fax: 713.222.3850
13
e
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
ic
been forwarded to all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
Pr
on this 11th day of September, 2018.
L.
Darrell L. Barger
Jennifer D. Akre
a
Kristina Everhart
lv
HARTLINE, DACUS, BARGER & DREYER, LLP
1980 Post Oak Boulevard, suite 1800
Ve
Counsel for Defendants,
k
San Marcos Green Investors, LLC,
er
Elevate Multifamily, LLC,
Cl
Deborah Jones, and Thomas Steubing, Jr.
ct
/s/ Kurt B. Arnold
tri
Kurt B. Arnold
is
.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un
14

San Marcos Fire Lawsuits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Marcos Fire Lawsuits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/11/2018 4:15 PM

PHILLIP MIRANDA, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

PHILLIP MIRANDA, individually and as representative of the Estate of JAMES

MIRANDA, BENJAMIN MUNOZ, ABRIL CARDENAS, CHRISTINA MARTINEZ,

PABLO TORRES, MICHELLE TREVINO, SEAN KINDER, ASHLEY GUTIERREZ,

BETH CONBOY, CIARA COLLETT, and ADRIANA RODRIGUEZ (collectively referred

ELEVATE MULTIFAMILY, LLC, DEBORAH JONES and THOMAS STEUBING, JR.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. The claims asserted arise under the common law of Texas.

exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the Defendants is proper.

4. Venue is proper because one or more Defendants reside in Travis County or

maintain a principal office in Travis County.

5. Plaintiff, Phillip Miranda is an Arkansas resident, the father of James Miranda,

representative of James Miranda’s estate.

6. Plaintiff, Benjamin Munoz is a Texas resident.

7. Plaintiff, Abril Cardenas is a Texas resident.

8. Plaintiff, Christina Martinez is a Texas resident.

9. Plaintiff, Pablo Torres is a Texas resident.

10. Plaintiff, Michelle Trevino is a Texas resident.

11. Plaintiff, Sean Kinder is a Texas resident.

12. Plaintiff, Ashley Gutierrez is a Texas resident.

13. Plaintiff, Beth Conboy is a Texas resident.

14. Plaintiff, Ciara Collett is a Texas resident.

15. Plaintiff, Adriana Rodriguez, is a Texas resident.

made an appearance in this matter through counsel.

Defendant has made an appearance in this matter through counsel.

sprinkler(s) and/or suppression system(s) in place.

Iconic Village Apartments.

of the residents who was killed. He died at the age of 23.

and emotional injuries

also suffered serious psychological, mental and emotional injuries.

and emotional injuries.

A. Negligence and Gross Negligence Against all Defendants.

29. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above.

and gross negligence when Defendants:

 Failed to create, enforce and implement adequate safety protocols and

 Failed to maintain a safe living environment;

 Failed to adequately inspect and test fire alarm systems;

 Failed to provide fire sprinkler systems;

 Failed to adequately inspect and test fire prevention systems;

 Failed to train its employees;

 Failed to supervise its employees;

 Failed to provide adequate safety equipment;

 Failed to warn the Plaintiffs of hidden dangers;

 Failed to abide by applicable rules and regulations;

 Failed to keep the premises free of known hazards; and

 Other acts so deemed negligent and grossly negligent.

B. Premises Liability Against all Defendants.

32. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation contained above.

unreasonably dangerous condition.

34. Moreover, Plaintiffs entered Defendants’ premises with permission.

to make the unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. Defendants’ breach

proximately caused Plaintiffs severe injuries and death.

A. Damages sought by Plaintiffs Benjamin Munoz, Abril Cardenas, Christina Martinez

 Compensatory damages against Defendants;

 Past and future Pain and suffering;

 Past and future mental anguish;

 Past and future disfigurement;

 Interest on damages (pre and post-judgment) in accordance with the law;

 Expert witness fees;

 Costs of copies of depositions; and

B. Damages sought by Phillip Miranda, individually, and as Representative of the

37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained above.