Download - Pinedo complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GERARDO PINEDO, SR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF GERARDO PINEDO, JR

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, JAMAL ROBINSON, AND MARK MELTABARGER

Civil Action No. _____ _

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, GERARDO PINEDO, SR., individually and on behalf of the

ESTATE OF GERARDO PINEDO, JR., complaining of Defendants, THE CITY OF DALLAS,

TEXAS, more particularly the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, by and

through its agents and servants acting jointly and severally in their official capacities and

Officers JAMAL ROBINSON, and MARK MELTABARGER, individually and in their official

capacities as Dallas Police Officers, and for cause would show the Honorable Court as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

I. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the City of Dallas, Texas, and Officers

JAMAL ROBINSON and MARK MELTABARGER for their individual use of deadly force and

assault resulting in the wrongful death of GERARDO PINEDO, JR under the color of law in

violation of his individual rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution and in violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C.

1985(3). Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover individually and as representative for the

ESTATE OF GERARDO PINEDO, JR. to the full extent applicable by law under the Texas

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 1 of 18 PLED Pitf Ong Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1

Wrongful Death Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.001, et seq., the Texas Survival

Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.021, and all other applicable laws complaining

of the various acts listed below and for their wrongful death and survival cause of action.

2. Plaintiff alleges that the CITY OF DALLAS had a duty, but failed to implement policies,

practices and procedures that respected GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s constitutional rights to

assistance, protection, and equal treatment under the law. Defendant's failure to implement the

necessary policies and the implementation of unconstitutional policies deprived GERARDO

PINEDO, JR. of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and caused

his unwarranted and excruciating physical and mental anguish and death. For these civil rights

violations, and other causes of action discussed herein, Plaintiff seeks answers and compensation

for his damages and the death of GERARDO PINEDO, JR ..

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, GERARDO PINEDO, SR. is the father of GERARDO PINEDO, JR., decedent,

and brings this wrongful death action pursuant to the Texas Survival Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code 71.021, and as the parent of GERARDO PINEDO, JR. who, at the time of his

death, was a resident of Dallas County, Texas.

4. Defendant, the CITY OF DALLAS, is a municipality located in Dallas County, Texas.

The CITY OF DALLAS operates the Dallas Police Department ("DPD"). The CITY OF

DALLAS may be served with citation herein by and through its agent for service of process,

Warren Ernst, City Attorney, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.

Additional service is being made on Mayor Mike Rawlings, 1500 Marilla Street, Room SEN,

Dallas, Texas 75201.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 2 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig Complaint


5. Defendant JAMAL ROBINSON, upon information and belief, is a resident of Dallas

County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police officer acting in the course and

scope of his employment for the CITY OF DALLAS and DPD. Defendant JAMAL ROBINSON

may be served with citation at the Dallas Police Department, 1400 S. Lamar, Dallas, Texas

75215 or wherever he may be found.

6. Defendant MARK. MELTABARGER, upon information and belief, is a resident of

Dallas County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police officer acting in the course

and scope of his employment for the CITY OF DALLAS and DPD. Defendant MARK.

MELTABARGER may be served with citation at the Dallas Police Department, 1400 S. Lamar,

Dallas, Texas 75215 or wherever he may be found.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 as this action is

brought under, inter alia, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), to redress the deprivation of rights,

privileges and immunities guaranteed to decedent, GERARDO PINEDO, JR., by constitutional

and statutory provisions. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 to adjudicate pendent claims arising under the laws of the State of

Texas.

8. Venue is proper in this Court because events made the basis of Plaintiffs' causes of action

occurred within the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.



STATE ACTION

9. To the extent applicable, Defendants were acting under color of state law when they

subjected GERARDO PINEDO, JR. to the wrongs and injuries hereinafter set forth.

FACTS

10. On or about July 17, 2013, GERARDO PINEDO, JR., a 19 year old unarmed Hispanic

male, upon information and belief, was confronted by Dallas Police Officers identified as

JAMAL ROBINSON and MARK MELTABARGER for no lawful reason while GERARDO

PINEDO, JR. was lawfully within a home located at 1639 Conner Dr., Dallas, Texas 75217 (the

"Home"). GERARDO PINEDO, JR. had been with friends in the area close to the Home earlier

that evening. After leaving his friends, GERARDO PINEDO, JR. returned to the Home.

11. At or around 10:00 pm, somebody called 911, and upon the arrival of Defendants

ROBINSON and MELTABARGER, a neighbor informed Defendants that the neighbor had

heard noises coming from the Home and believed an intruder was inside.

12. Upon information and belief, a gunshot was heard at or around 10:00 pm. Shortly

thereafter, GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was seen lying on the ground in the backyard of the Home,

writhing and moaning in pain, with one of the Defendants standing over GERARDO PINEDO,

JR. shining a flashlight on him. Further, while GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was writhing and

moaning in pain on the ground, one of the Defendants proceeded to prod GERARDO PINEDO,

JR. with a black object. In addition to prodding GERARDO PINEDO, JR. while he was on the

ground, one of the Defendants was also seen grabbing and dragging GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s

body.

13. There was no indication that GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was armed with a weapon at the

time of the occurrence of the events made the basis ofthis lawsuit.



14. Upon infonnation and belief, it was not until approximately 20 to 30 minutes after the

gunshot that emergency medical personnel arrived and took GERARDO PINEDO, JR. away.

15. The Dallas Medical Examiner determined that GERARDO PINEDO, JR. had one

gunshot wound to his hand, another gunshot wound to his chest, and two punctate abrasions on

his back consistent with Taser injuries.

16. As indicated above, Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABARGER attacked

GERARDO PINEDO, JR., using excessive and deadly force for no lawful reasons. During this

time, either Defendant ROBINSON or Defendant MELTABARGER tased GERARDO

PINEDO, JR. in the back, and the other continued the assault upon 19 year old GERARDO

PINEDO, JR. by delivering at least one fatal gunshot wound to the chest.

17. There is no evidence that Defendants were in imminent danger. Upon infonnation and

belief, there were no signs of any visible injuries or bruising to either Defendant ROBINSON or

Defendant MELTABARGER'S bodies that would indicate that the use of deadly force was

justified.

18. Drawing or displaying firearms requires that a threat or reasonable belief that there is a

threat to life or they have reasonable fear for their own safety and/or the safety of others, exist in

order to authorize an officer to draw or display herlhis firearm.

19. A taser is an intennediate weapon, and is only justified for situations when the officer

believes empty hand control will be ineffective. Empty hand control techniques include joint

locks, pressure points, Oleoresin Capsicum Spray, hand held aerosols, and pepper ball saturation,

none of which occurred before the drawing of Defendants' weapons.

20. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's unlawful and unwarranted acts caused

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s wrongful death.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 5 of 18 PLED PltfOrig Complaint


21. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendants ROBINSON and

METLABERGER were acting within the scope of their employment as agents, servants, and

employees of Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS within its executive branch and were

performing a governmental function.

22. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and l\1ELTABERGER's

actions were the result of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless customs, policies,

practices and/or procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS knew or should have

known but never provided the requisite and proper training.

23. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was nineteen (19) years old when he was killed by

Defendants.

24. Moreover, no reasonably competent official would have concluded that the actions of the

Defendants described herein would not violate GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights. In other

words, no reasonably prudent police officer under similar circumstances, could have believed

that their conduct was justified.

25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has sustained

substantial damages and pecuniary loss.

EXCESSIVE FORCE COUNT A: 42 U.S.C. 1983

26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 25 as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff would further show that Defendants' actions on the occasion in question were wrongful

and constituted gross negligence in depriving GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of his constitutional

rights, as alleged more fully below.

27. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendants ROBINSON and

MELTABERGER had a duty to avoid infliction of unjustified bodily injury to GERARDO

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 6 of 18 PLED Pltf Qrig Complaint


PINEDO, JR., to protect GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s bodily integrity and to not trample on

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s constitutional rights.

28. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER failed

to act as reasonable police officers would have acted in the same or similar circumstances. That

is, DefendantsROBINSON and MELTABERGER, without justification and the need to do so,

tased, disabled, shot and used excessive and deadly force as described above, and killed

GERARDO PINEDO, JR. without probable cause.

29. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER tased

and shot GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in his own backyard causing punctate abrasions to

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s body. Defendants utilized deadly force in attacking GERARDO

PINEDO, JR. for no lawful reason. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. died as a result of the gunshot

wound to his chest fired by either Defendant ROBINSON or MELTABERGER. The excessive

and deadly force used by Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was not reasonable nor

was it necessary under the circumstances.

30. Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER's actions were not objectively reasonable

because they failed to follow reasonable procedures and used excessive force and deadly force in

restraining GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in a non-life threatening situation. GERARDO PINEDO,

JR. was tased and suffered two gunshot wounds while he was subdued.

31. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER denied

GERARDO PINEDO, JR. his right to be free from cruel, unusual and excessive punishment, and

to be free from deprivation of his rights without due process of law, in violation of the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth

Amendment. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were



acting within custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS at

the time of the incident. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of these violations of

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights, Plaintiff have suffered damages within the jurisdictional

limits of this Court.

32. The force used by Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was unnecessary and

unreasonable under the circumstances, as GERARDO PINEDO, JR. did not require the use of

such excessive and deadly force. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER had no

probable cause to suspect that a crime was being committed or that their conduct was reasonable

so as to justify Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER tasing GERARDO PINEDO, JR.

in the back, shooting him in the hand and chest, prodding him while he was on the ground

writhing in pain, and dragging his body while he was on the ground.

RACIAL PROFILING COUNT B: CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION

33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-32 as iffully set forth herein.

34. Racial Profiling: Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and

MELTABERGER clearly and wrongfully used race as a factor, a proxy, for reasonable suspicion

and using excessive force on GERARDO PINEDO, JR .. Additionally, Plaintiff would show that

it is the policy of the Dallas Police Department to treat Hispanics in a cruel manner regardless of

the circumstances or the need to. The facts show that there was no probable cause for

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s arrest and that no citations were ever issued. In fact, Plaintiff would

show that the excessive force used by Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was not

reasonable nor was it necessary as GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was lawfully in the Home.

Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER treated GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in the manner

they did because he was Hispanic. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and



MELTABERGER's actions were in violation of TEX. CODE CRIM PROC. ANN. Art. 2.131-

137 (Vernon Supp. 2004) and are therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

35. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER denied

GERARDO PINEDO, JR. his rights to be free from cruel, unusual and excessive punishment,

right 01 equal protection, and deprived him of due process of law, in violation of the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth

Amendment. Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER, under the color of law, deprived

GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of his civil rights, privileges or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3).

36. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were acting

within established wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures of the

CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS at the time of the incident, and further that the Defendant the CITY

OF DALLAS, TEXAS knew or should have known of said malicious customs, policies, practices

and/or procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS knew or should have known but

never provided the requisite and proper training.

37. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of these violations of GERARDO PINEDO,

JR.' s rights, Plaintiff has suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

FAILURE TO TRAIN COUNT C: 42 U.S.C. 1983

38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-37 as if fully set forth herein.

39. Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS developed and maintained a policy of

deficient training of its police force in the use of force, including the use of deadly force in the

apprehension of individuals. The CITY OF DALLAS' failure to provide adequate training to its

police officers regarding the use of deadly force reflects deliberate indifference and reckless and

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 9 of 18 PLED PltfOrig Complaint


conscious disregard for the obvious risk that officers would use excessive or deadly force on

citizens and made the violations of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s constitutional rights, including

his death, a reasonable probability.

40. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's actions were

the result of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or

procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS knew or should have known but never provided

the requisite and proper training.

FALSE ARREST COUNT D: 42 U.S.C. 1983


42. Additionally, and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON

and MELTABERGER's actions were objectively uureasonable and done in bad faith in that

Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER attempted to arrest GERARDO PINEDO, JR.

without probable cause. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. did not commit a crime by being in the

Home.

43. Plaintiff would further show that they have suffered damages within the jurisdictional

limits of this Court as a result of the wrongful arrest and that such arrest was done under color of

law.


within the custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the CITY OF DALLAS at the time of the

incident.

45. Plaintiff would additionally show that such wrongful arrest was done in violation of

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States

Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Plaintiff has



suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court as a result of the violations of

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights.

46. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were acting under the color oflaw when

they deprived GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of his constitutional right to be free from false arrest.

47. Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON

and MELTABERGER's actions were objectively unreasonable and done in bad faith because

Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were without probable cause to think that

GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was unlawfully in the Home.

48. Plaintiff would further show that they have suffered damages within the jurisdictional

limits of this Court from the wrongful shooting of GERARDO PINEDO, JR., and said shooting

was under the color of law.


within the custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS at the

time of the incident.

50. Plaintiff would additionally show that such wrongful shooting was done in violation of

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States

Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Plaintiffs have

suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court as a result of these violations.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY COUNTE


52. Defendants ROBINSON and MELT ABERGER intentionally and without consent placed

GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in apprehension of imminent harmful contact and caused harful bodily

contact to GERARDO PINEDO, JR..

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Poge 11 of 18 PLED Pltf Drig Complaint


53. As a proximate result of the foregoing, GERARDO PINEDO, JR. suffered grievous

bodily harm, substantial physical and emotional pain, and loss of his life.

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN AND DISCIPLINE COUNTF


55. Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto,

Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS's Police Department lacked guidelines both to restrict the use

of force, including the use of tasers, and to monitor the use of tasers, or, if such guidelines

existed, they were grossly inadequate to ensure the proper and restrained use of force including

tasers by police personnel.

56. Plaintiff would show that Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS endorsed the unfettered use

of deadly force, including a taser, even in situations where no crime was committed. Plaintiff

would show that Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS' failure to properly train, supervise, test,

regulate, discipline or otherwise control its employees and the failure to promulgate proper

guidelines for the use of force including fire arms and tasers constitutes a custom, policy,

practice andlor procedure of condoning unjustified use of deadly force in violation of the

constitutional rights of GERARDO PINEDO, JR..

57. As a result of this failure to train and discipline, Plaintiff has suffered damages within the

jurisdictional limits of this Court. As described above, Defendants ROBINSON and

MELTABERGER shot GERARDO PINEDO, JR. with a taser in the back and used deadly force

when it was unnecessary.



INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

COUNTG


59. Plaintiff would further show that if Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were

acting in their individual capacity, the they committed the following intentional torts against

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.:

a. Assault and Battery; and

b. False Imprisonment.

60. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants ROBINSON and

MELT ABERGER, Plaintiff suffered pain and suffering, mental anguish, and severe emotional

distress, loss of support and companionship damages within the jurisdictional limits of this

Court.

61. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's conduct was of a willful, malicious,

reckless and outrageous nature, and was intended to cause, and did in fact cause GERARDO

PINEDO, JR. to suffer extreme and severe mental and emotional distress, agony and anxiety.

Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's conduct offends the generally accepted

standards of decency and morality.

GROSS NEGLIGENCE COUNTH


63. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER had a duty to employ only reasonable

measures in the treatment of the decedent.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 13 of 18 PLED PUf Orig Complaint


64. Notwithstanding said duties, Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER acted in a

wanton and willful manner, exhibiting such carelessness and recklessness as to evidence a

conscious disregard for the life and safety of GERARDO PINEDO, JR..

65. Defendants ROBINSON and MELT ABERGER were aware that they were not facing any

imminent or serious threat of bodily harm, and they knew or should have known that they had no

right to use any force whatsoever with respect to GERARDO PINEDO, JR., who was merely

lawfully present inside the Home owned by his father. Defendants ROBINSON and

MELTABERGER nonetheless illegally apprehended GERARDO PINEDO, JR. through the use

of deadly force by shooting him in the chest and tasing him in the back.

66. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER knew or should have known that their

course of action of drawing a lethal weapon and firing it at GERARDO PINEDO, JR. would

place GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in grave danger of serious injury.

67. As a direct and proximate cause of the gross negligence of Defendants ROBINSON and

MELTABERGER, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

TEXAS SURVIVAL ACTION COUNT I


69. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.021, the decedent's right of action

for wrongful and negligent conduct against Defendants survives in favor of his heirs, legal

representatives, and the estate of the deceased.

70. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the loss of GERARDO PINEDO, JR. 's life, pain and

suffering, and the violation of his civil rights.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 14 of 18 PLED PUf Orig Complaint


TEXAS WRONGFUL DEATH ACT COUNTJ


72. Plaintiff GERARDO PINEDO, SR. is the legal administrator for the estate of GERARDO

PINEDO, JR.

73. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. died as a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct.

74. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. would have been entitle to bring this action against Defendants

if he had lived.

75. By reason of Defendants' wrongful conduct of shooting to death an unarmed individual

without the imminent threat of serious bodily harm, Defendants are liable for damages.

76. Defendants' conduct that caused GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s death was a producing

cause of injury to GERARDO PINEDO, JR., which resulted in damages including loss of a

family relationship, love, support, services, emotional pain and suffering, and for Defendants'

intentional and reckless acts and infliction of emotional distress caused by the wrongful killing of

GERARDO PINEDO, JR.

77. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

78. GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s death resulted from Defendants' willful act or omission, or

from Defendants' gross negligence, which entitles GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s heirs to

exemplary damages under the Texas Constitution article 16, section 26.

DAMAGES ALL DEFENDANTS


80. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants' acts and/or omissions were a proximate

cause of the following injuries suffered by Plaintiff and decedent:

a. Actual damages;



b. Loss of affection, consortium, comfort, financial assistance, protection, affection

and care;

c. Pain and suffering and mental anguish suffered by GERARDO PINEDO, JR., JR.

prior to his death;

d. Mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff;

e. Loss of quality oflife;

f. Funeral and burial expenses;

g. Loss of service;

h. Loss of earnings and contributions to Plaintiff;

i. Exemplary and punitive damages; J. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of court;

k. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and other applicable laws, Plaintiff should be awarded reasonable attorney's fees for the preparation and trial of this cause of

action, and for its appeal, if required;

1. Pre-judgment interest; and m. Post-judgment interest.

81. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages in an amount that is within the jurisdictional limits

of this Court.

PUNITIVEIEXEMPLARY DAMAGES


83. Additionally and in the alternative, the conduct of Defendants ROBINSON and

MELT ABERGER was done with malice. As such, Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary

damages to deter this type of conduct in the future.

84. In the alternative, such heedless and reckless disregard of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s

rights, safety, and welfare is more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or

misjudgment. Such unconscionable conduct goes beyond ordinary negligence, and as such,



Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary damages be awarded against Defendants ROBINSON

and MELTABERGER in a sum which is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES


86. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1 988(b).

87. As such, Plaintiff requests that the Court award Plaintiff his costs and attorney fees

incurred in Plaintiff's prosecution ofthis matter.

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY


89. Plaintiff would show that Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the negligence

and gross negligence, which was the proximate cause of Plaintiff s injuries.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

90. Plaintiff reserves his right to plead and prove the damages to which they are entitled to at

the time of trial. All conditions to Plaintiff s recovery have been performed or have occurred.

JURY DEMAND

91. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to

appear and answer herein, and that upon final trial hereof Plaintiff have and recover judgment

from Defendants for:

a. Actual damages;

b. Exemplary and punitive damages;

c. Pre-judgment interest; d. Post-judgment interest;

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 17 of 18 PLED PHf Orig Complaint


e. Interest on said Judgment; and

f. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs of court.

Additionally, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant Plaintiff any other and further relief to which he

may be entitled, both at law and in equity.

Respectfully submitted, c:-;>

EVAN LANE (VAN) SHAW Bar Card No. 18140500 COLLEN R. MEYER Bar Card No. 24074709 LAW OFFICES OF V AN SHAW 2723 Fairmount Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 754-7110 FAX NO. (214) 754-7115 [email protected] [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 18 of 18 PLED Pitf Orig Complaint
