FILED

DISTRICT CLERK OF
JEFFERSON CO TEXAS
7/6/2017 8:42 AM
JAMIE SMITH
DISTRICT CLERK
No. ___________ B-200332

Andrew Teel, individually and In the District Court of

as next friend of Alaya Teel, and
as representative of the estates of
Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel

Plaintiff,

v. Jefferson County, Texas

ST Partners III, Ltd. d/b/a
Sienna Apartment Homes,
MGroup Holdings, Inc., and
Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc.

Defendants. _____ Judicial District

Original Petition

Andrew Teel, individually and as next friend of Alaya Teel, and as representative

of the estates of Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel (Plaintiff) files this Original Petition

against ST Partners III, Ltd. d/b/a Sienna Apartment Homes, MGroup Holdings, Inc.,

and Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., and respectfully shows as follows:

I. Discovery Control Plan

1. Plaintiff intends, and respectfully requests, to conduct discovery under Level 3

of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4.

 II. Parties

2. Plaintiff encompasses the following persons: Andrew Teel is a resident of

Jefferson County, Texas. Minor, Alaya Teel, is a resident of Jefferson County, Texas.

Decedents Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel were residents of Jefferson County, Texas.

3. Defendant, ST Partners III, Ltd., is a limited partnership organized under

the laws of the State of Texas and doing business under the assumed name of Sienna

Apartment Homes located at its principal office 6155 Sienna Trails, Beaumont,

Texas, 77708. Service of Process may be had upon Defendant ST Partners III, Ltd.

by serving its registered agent for service, Mark Musemeche, 1013 Van Buren,

Houston, Texas 77019.

4. Defendant, MGroup Holdings, Inc., is a domestic, for-profit corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Texas and general partner of Defendant

ST Partners III, Ltd. Service of process may be had upon Defendant MGroup

Holdings, Inc. by serving its registered agent for service, Mark Musemeche, 1013 Van

Buren, Houston, Texas 77019.

5. Defendant, Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., is a for-profit corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Texas. Service of process may be had upon

Defendant Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc. by serving its registered agent for

service, Mike Gettman, 210 Barton Springs Road, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78704.

2
 III. Jurisdiction and Venue

6. Venue in this cause is proper in Jefferson County, Texas because all or a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in

Jefferson County, Texas. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 15.002(a)(1).

7. Although a matter largely within the discretion of the jury, Plaintiff seeks

monetary relief over $1,000,000 under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47.

IV. Background

8. Armed gunmen robbed and shot Kera Teel in the parking lot of the Sienna

Apartment Homes in Beaumont, Texas just before 2a.m. on June 6, 2017. She and

her husband, Andrew Teel, were tenants. When word reached Andrew at the

apartment, he ran down only to have Kera die in his arms moments later. She had

been shot in the chest. Relentlessly, Andrew performed CPR until the paramedics

took her away.

9. Kera was 19 years old and seven months pregnant. The infant, Kyndal Jae

Teel, died shortly after birth. Andrew and their two-year-old daughter, Alaya, now

live with the loss of a wife, mother, daughter, and little sister.

10. The Sienna Apartment Homes, a gated apartment complex, is owned by

ST Partners III, Ltd., MGroup Holdings, Inc., and managed by Capstone Real Estate

Services, Inc. (Defendants).

3
 11. Based solely on its website, marketing materials, and curb appeal, the

Sienna Apartment Homes appeared to be an attractive choice for apartment-seeking

tenants that value securitymuch like Andrew Teel and his wife Kera Teel sought for

their young family. But since its opening, accessibility and high-crime locality made

the Sienna Apartment Homes a frequent target of criminal activity. Residents

experienced the crime firsthand, and many voiced their complaints to management

over the lack of security to no avail. Crime thrived. And the Teels fell for the facade.

12. During the months before the shooting, the Defendants failed to repair

collapsed security fences and recurrently dysfunctional security gates. The Defendants

also failed to replace defective security lights in the parking lot and common areas.

As a result, Sienna Apartment Homes naturally attracted criminals. According to

Beaumont Police Department dispatch records, the police responded to at least

58 calls to the Sienna Apartment Homes that resulted in 11 police reports in the

mere six months prior to June 6th.1 During that time, tenant complaints were made

to management with no substantive response, answer, or action.

13. Within days after Kera Teels death, however, the Sienna Apartment

Homes fixed security gates that had been broken; fences that had been in disrepair;

1
Jacque Masse, KBMT 12 News, Residents concerned after woman, baby murdered at Beaumont apartment
complex, June 7, 2017, http://www.12newsnow.com/news/crime/residents-concerned-after-woman-baby-
murdered-at-beaumont-apartment-complex/446700827.

4
and security lights complex-wide that had been out of service. Despite its history of

criminal activity, as well as housing roughly 200 units at an average monthly rent of

$1,000, the Defendants did not provide a single security camera on the premises.

And at the time of Keras death, the Defendants did not offer any on-site security

personnel. Kera Teel, pregnant with the very anticipated Kyndal Jae Teel, became

another statistic on the Sienna Apartment Homes long record of unfettered crime.

14. On the day of Keras death, the Sienna Apartment Homes issued a

boilerplate letter to all tenants informing them of a Murder on its property,

attached as Exhibit A. Among other issues, the letter stated the following:

We are very concerned about your safety, however, we cannot

provide it or guarantee it. Please remember that your security is the
responsibility of the local law enforcement and yourself. We believe that
by taking an active role in your own security, you may avoid any
unnecessary problems.

See Exhibit A. Defendants representations shirk their responsibility and run contrary

to Texas law; and frankly, shock the conscience.

15. As a result of the Defendants failure to safeguard against this foreseeable

and unreasonable risk of harm and maintain adequate security measures, Plaintiff

suffered a loss of an unspoken magnitude. Plaintiff brings this suit individually and

as next friend of his two-year-old daughter, Alaya Teel, and on behalf of his murdered

wife, Kera Teel, and child, Kyndal Jae Teel.

5
 V. Wrongful Death and Survival

16. This wrongful death case and survival action is brought under Chapter 71

of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Andrew Teel, as surviving spouse,

and as next friend of surviving daughter, alleges that the deaths of Kera Teel and

Kyndal Jae Teel were caused in part by the wrongful acts, carelessness, and negligence

of Defendants. Further, any claims made in this Original Petition are for all intents

and purposes also made on behalf of the estates of Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel.

VI. Premises Liability

17. Defendants owned, possessed, controlled, and operated the premises on

which this tragedy occurred. Undoubtedly, Defendants had actual or constructive

knowledge of the unsafe, unsecure, and defective condition of the premises.

Defendants were repeatedly notified and informed of the inadequate security

measures and conditions that existed on the premises. The risk of harm was both

foreseeable and unreasonable. Defendants did not exercise reasonable care to reduce

or eliminate the foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to others. Such failures

by the Defendants to exercise reasonable care caused or contributed to cause

the deaths of Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel.

18. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff. Defendants breached this duty by the

following acts or omissions:

6
 a. Failure to maintain adequate and operable security gates;
b. Failure to maintain adequate and operable security entry and exit points;
c. Failure to maintain adequate and operable security pedestrian gates;
d. Failure to maintain adequate lighting in parking lots and common areas;
e. Failure to maintain and provide security cameras to parking lots and common
areas, especially those of high risk to crime;
f. Failure to maintain and provide on-site security personnel;
g. Failure to maintain and enforce adequate safety rules and guidelines;
h. Failure to repair or remedy or warn of any defective security measure;
i. Failure to exercise reasonable care to eliminate or reduce the foreseeable and
unreasonable risk of harm to invitees and licensees;
j. Failure to reduce or eliminate foreseeable and unreasonable risks of criminal
activity; and
k. Failure to ensure premises was in a safe and secure condition.

VII. Gross Negligence

19. Considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to

others, the acts or omissions of Defendants involve an extreme degree of risk.

Defendants repeatedly had actual subjective awareness of the risk involved yet

continued with conscious indifference to the safety of others, including Plaintiff.

20. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that inadequate and

inoperable security gates, fencing, lighting, and cameras would pose to the safety of

its tenants. The high level of criminal activity engaged on its premises provided

Defendants with the knowledge of such risk. Defendants acts or omissions constitute

gross negligence. As a result, Plaintiff seeks the full extent of punitive damages against

Defendants under Texas law.

7
 VIII. Damages

21. Plaintiff seeks all actual, consequential, special, and exemplary damages.

Plaintiff also seeks court costs, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Plaintiff further asks for all other relief that this Court deems appropriate.

22. All conditions precedent to these claims have been met.

IX. Request for Disclosure

23. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that

Defendants disclose the information or material described in Rule 194.2 within 50

days of the service of this request.

X. Jury Demand

24. Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury.

XI. Prayer

25. Plaintiff requests that Defendants be cited to appear and answer, and that

upon trial, the Plaintiff be awarded the following:

1. Judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for a sum within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court;
2. Past physical pain and suffering of Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel;
3. Past mental anguish of Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel;
4. Past and future mental anguish of Andrew Teel and Alaya Teel;
5. Past medical expenses of Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel;
6. Future medical expenses of Andrew Teel and Alaya Teel;
7. Past funeral costs of Kera Teel and Kyndal Jae Teel;
8. Past and future loss of consortium and companionship;

8
9. Past and future loss of earning capacity;
10. Past and future lost inheritance;
11. Past and future lost household services;
12. Past and future lost care, support, guidance, or counsel;
13. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate;
14. Costs of suit; and
15. Such other relief this Court deems appropriate, at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

ORGAIN BELL & TUCKER, LLP

470 Orleans Street
Beaumont, Texas 77704
(409) 838-6412
(409) 838-6959 fax

_________________________

Jefferson W. Fisher
Texas Bar No. 24093437
Email: jfisher@obt.com
David J. Fisher
Texas Bar No. 07049525
Email: djf@obt.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

9
Exhibit A