FILED

DALLAS COUNTY
3/22/2017 3:16:11 PM
FELICIA PITRE
2 CT-CERT-MAIL DISTRICT CLERK
Freeney Anita

DC-17-03444
CAUSE NO. __________________

ANTONIO SEGURA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§
Plaintiff §
§
v. §
D-95TH
§ _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
WRH SAGE POINTE, LLLP, and §
WRH REALTY SERVICES, INC., §
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES

Plaintiff Antonio Segura (“Plaintiff”) files this Original Petition complaining of Defendants

WRH Sage Pointe, LLLP and WRH Realty Services, Inc. (“Defendants”) and would respectfully

show:

I. DISCOVERY LEVEL

It is intended that discovery will be conducted under a Level 3 discovery control plan, as set

forth in Rule 190 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

II. PARTIES

Plaintiff Antonio Segura was, at all times relevant to the claims in this suit, a resident of

Dallas County, Texas.

Defendant WRH Sage Pointe, LLLP is a Florida Limited Liability Partnership doing

business in Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent: Corporation

Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Ave., Austin, TX 78701.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 1 of 10

 Defendant WRH Realty Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation doing business in Texas

and may be served with process by serving its registered agent: Corporation Service Company,

at 211 E. 7th Ave., Austin, TX 78701.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction is proper because the damages sought by Plaintiff are within the jurisdictional

limits of the Court. Venue is proper in this Court because the events or omissions giving rise to

Plaintiffs' claims occurred in Dallas County, Texas. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.002(a)(1).

IV. FACTS GIVING RISE TO SUIT

Defendant WRH Sage Pointe, LLLP ("WRH Sage Pointe") owns the property in Dallas

located at 9900 Adleta Boulevard formerly known as the "Sage Pointe Apartments." Defendant

WRH Realty Services, Inc. ("WRH Realty Services") was serving as the property manager of the

Sage Pointe Apartments at the time of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims.

On April 12, 2016 at approximately 12:30 a.m., Plaintiff Antonio Segura, who is a roofer,

drove to the Sage Pointe Apartments where he lived. The vehicle access gate was open when he

arrived and remained open after he entered. Plaintiff drove his truck to a parking space near his

unit. After pulling into his parking space, he noticed another vehicle drive slowly past where he

was parked and then come to a stop. Plaintiff got out of his truck and walked on the sidewalk

toward his unit. As he did so, he made eye contact with a man who had gotten out of the vehicle

that had stopped, and who appeared to be attempting to break into another car. Plaintiff ran toward

his upstairs apartment. After reaching his unit and beginning to put his key in the door, Plaintiff

heard someone running up the stairs behind him. Plaintiff turned around and was shot. Plaintiff fell

forward. The man who had shot him came up to him and took his cell phone and his money from

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 2 of 10

his pocket, then left. Plaintiff, who was bleeding profusely, knocked on the door of his apartment

until his girlfriend opened it and found him. Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to the hospital.

Plaintiff Antonio Segura sustained severe physical injuries. The bullet that hit him went

through his left arm above the elbow and then entered his chest on the left side, traveled through his

abdomen and damaged, among other things, his esophagus and his liver. At the hospital, surgeons

performed extensive surgery requiring a midline incision from Plaintiff's navel to his xiphoid

process to provide full access to the abdomen to locate and repair the internal injuries. Plaintiff was

placed on a feeding tube, had a catheter placed inside his abdomen for fluid drainage, and remained

hospitalized for approximately 12 days.

Following his discharge from the hospital, Plaintiff continued to suffer from his injuries and

continued receiving medical care. He will likely have on-going medical issues due to his injuries,

which may last for the remainder of his life. Due to nerve damage in his arm, Plaintiff underwent

physical therapy but still has frequent numbness and weakness in his left hand and arm. Due to the

injuries to his abdomen as well as to his left arm, Plaintiff is unable to lift heavy objects or climb on

a roof and has been unable to continue working as a roofer. He has scarring and disfigurement from

both the surgery and the bullet wounds to his left arm and abdomen. Additionally, he suffered and

continues to suffer mental anguish due to the incident, which includes severe anxiety and sleep loss,

and has required psychological treatment. Further, he has suffered substantial lost wages as a direct

result of the incident and will continue to suffer such loss of wages in the future. Further, Plaintiff

experienced extreme pain and suffering and physical impairment as a result of this incident.

The shooting of Plaintiff at the Sage Pointe Apartments was an incident that was avoidable

and would have been prevented if Defendants had taken reasonable and prudent steps to prevent the

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 3 of 10

occurrence of criminal acts at the property they owned and managed. Prior to the incident: (1)

Defendants knew of the criminal activity on the premises and in the surrounding area, including but

not limited to shootings, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries and drug dealing; (2) Defendants

knew there was a lack of adequate security on the premises; (3) Defendants knew that the lack of

security created a dangerous condition on the premises and posed a substantial and unreasonable

safety hazard; and (4) Defendants failed to take steps necessary to reduce or eliminate the risk of

harm.

Defendants knew or should have known at all times that the Sage Pointe Apartments

required security measures to prevent persons from entering the property for the purpose of

committing crimes against residents and guests. Defendants knew or should have known that such

security measures included: (1) functioning vehicle and pedestrian access gates to prevent

unauthorized persons from entering the premises for the purpose of committing crimes; (2)

sufficient armed security on the premises to deter and prevent crime; and (3) increased lighting.

Prior to the shooting of Plaintiff, Defendants knew that the vehicle access gate at the

complex was non-functioning. Such a gate serves the purpose of preventing unauthorized persons

from entering the premises. However, the gate at the Sage Pointe Apartments was non-functioning

and left in an open position. Thus, unauthorized persons could walk or drive into the complex at

any time of the day. Persons did in fact enter the premises and commit crimes, but Defendants did

not take appropriate steps to remedy the situation. On the night of the incident in question, the

person who shot Plaintiff was able to access the property in a vehicle to commit the crime, knowing

that he could make an easy and rapid getaway by driving out through the open vehicle access gate.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 4 of 10

 By failing to provide needed security, Defendants knowingly allowed an unreasonably

dangerous condition to develop, which posed a serious risk to the safety of Plaintiff and other guests

and tenants at the Sage Pointe Apartments. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure

to take appropriate action to remove the dangerous condition by properly safeguarding the premises,

Plaintiff suffered the extreme physical and emotional injuries described herein.

Furthermore, Defendants were aware at all relevant times that there was a high rate of

crime and violent crime in the area, so that the lack of adequate security measures created an

unreasonable risk of harm to residents and guests of the property. Although aware of this risk,

Defendants did not take steps to lessen the crime to protect residents and guests. Further, on

information and belief, Defendants attempted to avoid their duty to residents and guests by

pretending that they were unaware of the criminal acts at the property. Defendants’ pattern and

practice in this regard has resulted in a complete failure to provide adequate security to residents

and guests, including but not limited to Plaintiff Antonio Segura.

V. CAUSE OF ACTION: PREMISES LIABILITY

In the context of a premises liability case, one who controls the premises has a duty to use

ordinary care to protect invitees from criminal acts of third parties if he or she knows or has

reason to know of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm to the invitees. Timberwalk

Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749, 756 (Tex.1998).

Under Texas law, a plaintiff in a premises liability claim who is an invitee must prove

that: (1) a condition of the premises created an unreasonable risk of harm; (2) the defendant

knew or reasonably should have known of the condition; (3) the defendant failed to exercise

ordinary care to protect the invitee from danger; and (4) the defendant’s failure was a proximate

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 5 of 10

cause of injury to the invitee. Dallas Mkt. Ctr. Dev. Co. v. Liedeker, 958 S.W.2d 382, 385

(Tex.1997), overruled on other grounds by Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829

(Tex.2000).

In this case, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under a premises liability theory because, as a

preliminary matter, Defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions on the

premises that created an unreasonable risk of harm and danger to Defendants’ invitees, including

Plaintiff Antonio Segura. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the dangerous

condition on the premises based, at least in part, on previous crimes that were committed on the

premises and in the surrounding area. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care to protect the

Plaintiff from danger when Defendants failed to implement reasonably prudent and necessary

security measures to properly safeguard the premises. Defendants’ failure to use ordinary care in a

variety of respects was a direct and proximate cause of the incident and resulting injuries and

damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

VI. DAMAGES

As a direct and proximate result of the incident in question, Plaintiff sustained injuries and

damages, and seeks an award of the following from Defendants in an amount to be determined by

the Judge and jury:

1. past and future pain and suffering;

2. past and future mental anguish;

3. past and future physical impairment;

4. past and future disfigurement;

5. past and future medical expenses; and

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 6 of 10

 6. past and future lost wages and earning capacity.

VII. GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE; REQUEST FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all preceding sections of this Petition and

would further show that Defendants’ actions and inactions set forth above occurred in such a

manner as to constitute gross negligence.

Defendants’ actions, inactions and omissions, when viewed objectively from Defendants’

standpoint at the time at issue, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and

magnitude of the potential harm to others, including Plaintiffs. Further, Defendants had actual

subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference

to the rights, safety, and/or welfare of others.

The probability of injury was great to the Plaintiff because the Defendants could have

eliminated the risk of harm to the Plaintiff and others by making reasonably prudent and necessary

safety modifications to the premises.

The burden on the Defendants to eliminate the risk was therefore extremely slight as

compared to the likelihood of grave injury or death to invitees, including the Plaintiff. Plaintiff

suffered severe injuries and damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ gross

negligence.

Plaintiff further pleads that exemplary damages may be awarded against Defendants

pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.005 because the criminal act

occurred at a location where, at the time of the criminal act, the Defendants were maintaining a

common nuisance under the provisions of Chapter 125 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code,

and had not made reasonable attempts to abate the nuisance. Plaintiff further pleads that persons

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 7 of 10

habitually went to the Sage Pointe Apartments to engage in criminal acts listed in Civil Practice and

Remedies Code section 125.0015, and that Defendants knowingly tolerated the activity and did not

make reasonable attempts to abate the acts.

VIII. PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all preceding sections of this Petition

and would further show that many of the damages may be determined by known standards of value

and accepted rules of interest as damages during the period beginning on the 180th day after the

date Defendants received notice of the claim or on the day suit was filed, whichever occurred first,

and ending on the day preceding the date judgment is rendered, or as the Court otherwise directs,

calculated at the legal rate, or as otherwise set by the TEXAS FINANCE CODE, any statute or the

common law.

IX. ALTERNATIVE PLEADING

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all preceding sections of this Petition and

would further show that all pleadings herein, if deemed inconsistent, are made and should be

construed in accordance with Rule 48 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

X. AGENCY/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all preceding sections of this Petition and

would further show that, at all times relevant, Defendants acted by and through their authorized

agents and representatives. The employees, agents, and representatives of Defendants who

provided services at or affecting the Sage Pointe Apartments were at all times agents of Defendants;

therefore, Defendants are liable for all acts and failures to act by such persons.

XI. STATEMENT OF AMOUNT OF RECOVERY SOUGHT

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 8 of 10

 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Plaintiff pleads that they seek monetary

relief over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000.

XII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and have paid the appropriate jury fee.

XIII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES

Plaintiff hereby requests pursuant to Rule 194.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

that Defendants provide the information and/or material described in each item of Texas Rule of

Civil Procedure 194.2(a) – (l).

XIV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer and that

Plaintiff have judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following:

(1) Actual damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the
Court;
(2) Exemplary damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of
the Court;
(3) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal amount allowed by
law;
(4) Court costs; and
(5) All other relief to which Plaintiff may show himself entitled.

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 9 of 10

 Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF MARSHALL MAY, LLC

_______________________________
MARSHALL S. MAY
Texas Bar No. 24002551

One Energy Square

4925 Greenville Ave., Ste. 200
Dallas, Texas 75206
(214) 282-1340
(469) 718-0539 (FAX)
email: mmay@marshallmay.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 10 of 10