FILED DALLAS COUNTY 12/5/2017 9:08 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK 1 CIT ES / JURY DEMAND DC-17-16588 Manuel Rodriguez CAUSE NO. _________________ P AULA B ECKER and B ARRON B ROWN , Individually and on behalf of the ESTATE OF HUNTER BROWN, Plaintiffs, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT GREYHOUND LINES, INC., Defendant. P LAINTIFFS ’ O RIGINAL P ETITION , R EQUEST FOR D ISCLOSURE AND J URY D EMAND Plaintiffs Paula Becker and Barron Brown, Individually and on behalf of The Estate of Hunter Brown, file this Original Petition and assert the following allegations and claims against Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. and pray for their damages as follows: I. P ARTIES 1. Plaintiffs Paula Becker and Barron Brown are residents of Washington and the natural parents of Hunter Brown, who is deceased. 2. Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Greyhound”) is a Delaware company authorized to do business in Texas with its principle place of business in Dallas County, Texas. Greyhound may be served through its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201. Greyhound is a motor carrier as defined by Federal and Texas law and is engaged in both intrastate and interstate travel. II. D ISCOVERY P LAN 3. Pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 190, Plaintiffs request that this action be conducted pursuant to Level 3 of TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 190.4. Upon answering, Plaintiffs will submit a proposed scheduling order to Defendant and present it to the Court for entry. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 1 of 13 III. V ENUE AND J URISDICTION 4. Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE §15.002(a)(3) because Dallas County is the county of Defendant Greyhound’s principal office in this state. Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE §15.002(a)(1) because Dallas County is a county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, including but not limited to corporate decision making and dispatching. 5. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it maintains its headquarters in the State and conducts business on a regular and systematic basis in the State of Texas. Further, Defendant Greyhound has its principal place of business in the State of Texas. 6. This Court has jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amounts of the Court. IV. F ACTUAL B ACKGROUND 7. This lawsuit involves the death of a young man, Hunter Brown, who trusted Dallas-based Greyhound Lines to provide him with a safe bus ride. Sadly, Greyhound violated Hunter’s trust when it failed to provide him with the safe, rested, and responsible bus driver that he reasonably expected, and as a result, Hunter lost his life at age twenty-five. Had Greyhound acted responsibly as a good corporate citizen and common carrier to enforce safe driver practices, Hunter would not have died. This lawsuit seeks accountability of this corporation and a change in how it does business to protect our communities and so that other passengers do not have to endure what Hunter suffered. 8. Greyhound is in the business of transportation. The primary purpose of its business is carrying passengers over the road in exchange for a fare. Every year, Greyhound buses travel 5.4 billion miles sharing the road with the motoring public and carrying nearly 18 million people that pay Greyhound as passengers.1 Greyhound knows the safety of passengers, the motoring public, and its own employees should be the company’s number one priority. And it knows that Greyhound bus drivers play a critical role in the safety of its transportation business. 9. To ensure safe transport of passengers, Greyhound not only has to make sure its drivers are qualified and experienced, it has to make sure those drivers are not fatigued, follow federal law, and comply with Greyhound’s policies. 1 “About Greyhound” available at https://www.greyhound.com/en/about/facts-and-figures (last visited Oct. 28, 2017). PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 2 of 13 10. Greyhound knows unqualified and inexperienced bus drivers can be dangerous to passengers, the public, and themselves. Greyhound knows drivers that violate federal laws and Greyhound policies can cause harm when they drive. And Greyhound knows driver fatigue is dangerous. Fatigued drivers put Greyhound’s passengers, the public, and themselves at risk of serious harm. 11. In its “Customer Bill of Rights,” Greyhound pledges that every passenger who purchases tickets from Greyhound will experience a safe and reliable bus ride with a professional and courteous driver:2 Intercity Motorcuach Customer Bill of Rights We at Greyhound Lines. Inn, pledge that as an intercity bus rider, you should experience a safe and reliable bus ride with professional and cnurteous sewice. This includes having a clean and cumfumhle bus with clear rules for haw tn ride and he fife onboartl HIE bus and in m5: of emergency. II. 1P Fullytramed drivers. 5* Vehicles tlml meet 1P Safe and orderly loading all applicable safety requirements. and unloading 0f passengers. Courteous. clean and accessible service and weJl-majntained vehicles and terminals. Ji- Clean, comfortable 3* Professions] IP Assistance fm- disahled murteous drivers. persons at terminals, street side lncations and on board. IV 12. No discriminafian with respect to primes or carriage. Greyhound did not honor its pledge to Hunter Brown or the other passengers on his bus when it assigned its employee Arthur Coley, Sr. to be their driver from Portland, Oregon to Los Angeles, California on June 28, 2016. Instead of arriving on time, rested, and calm for the driving assignment, Coley was late, fatigued, and hostile to the passengers he was supposed to keep safe. His behaviors throughout the trip were erratic, unsafe, and eventually proved deadly to Hunter. 13. As a Greyhound driver, Coley was issued a “Drivers Rule Book” and instructed to consider the Rule Book his“Bible” on company policies. On the trip at issue, Coley ignored those rules repeatedly according to Greyhound customers aboard the bus with Hunter. 14. Hunter was a passenger on a Greyhound bus which left Seattle, Washington on June 28, 2017. On June 28, 2017, the bus made a scheduled stop in Portland, Oregon. The bus was supposed to leave the station at approximately 6:00 p.m., but Coley arrived to take over as the bus driver approximately 2 https://www.greyhound.com/-/media/greyhound/pdf/legal/intercity-motorcoach-customer-bill-of-rights-10-30-15.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2017). PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 3 of 13 90 minutes late. His exhaustion and agitated demeanor were immediately apparent to the Greyhound passengers. 15. Before passengers boarded, Coley got into a shouting match with a passenger over an unopened beer, and Coley refused to let the customer continue on his trip. Witnesses to the exchange found Coley’s reaction disproportional and hostile. Greyhound’s Rule Book prohibits hostile conduct but Coley was either not trained or not supervised to ensure that he complied with the policy: wWMmhmflhwuflnp-fl. “Hostile or aggressive actions, whether verbal, physical, by gesture, or otherwise, towards the Company, its employees, patrons, or agents are cause for discipline, up to and including termination.” 16. Once the continuing passengers were seated, Coley began his pre-trip announcements. Those announcements started with Coley informing the entire bus that he was so exhausted that he might fall asleep and warning them not to do anything that would further agitate him. The bus finally left Portland around 8:00 p.m. It was approximately two hours behind schedule. 17. Greyhound’s Rule Book requires drivers to take safety stops every 150 miles, but Greyhound did not ensure that Coley complied with this standard : “Wmmm huhmw'sm tn “Drivers are to stop approximately every 150 miles to check tires and walk around the bus for a safety stop at roadside rests.” 18. Greyhound’s central dispatch in Dallas is responsible for assigning driver routes nationwide. The dispatchers have access to driver route histories and they would have known that Coley had already driven 9.5 hours on June 28 when they assigned him the route from Portland that evening. Greyhound’s executives have testified under oath in previous matters that Greyhound relies on its drivers to police their own fatigue. Greyhound’s custom and practice is for dispatchers to accept a driver’s word that he/she is rested and can complete the route assignment without violating federal hours of operation laws. 19. Not long after leaving the station, Coley shocked his passengers by putting the bus in park on the road to take a bathroom break prior to entering a highway. The bus remained in park in its lane near PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 4 of 13 the light before the highway entrance until Coley finished using the bathroom. Greyhound’s Rule Book prohibits drivers from making unplanned stops of that nature. 20. Later in the trip, at a scheduled stop, Coley engaged in another altercation with passengers. The altercation ended with Coley leaving three teenage Greyhound customers at the stop and continuing on the route with their baggage aboard. Passengers on the bus worried for the teens being left at the remote location well after dark without their belongings. Coley continued on driving. 21. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 29, 2017, the bus pulled into a Pilot truck stop in Central Point, Oregon. Coley told the passengers the bus would be leaving at 1:30 a.m. and if the passengers weren’t on the bus at that time, he would leave them behind. 22. Hunter and many of the other passengers got off the bus to go into the truck stop to get something to eat. At some point prior to 1:30 a.m., Coley got back on the bus and honked the horn. Several passengers complained that it wasn’t 1:30 yet and that many passengers were still inside the truck stop. The driver responded that he would “go by his time, not theirs” and proceeded to pull out of the parking lot. 23. As Coley was making a wide right turn onto the adjoining roadway, Hunter ran up to the side of the bus, banging on the door and begging Coley to stop the bus to let him on. Coley looked out the door at Hunter, but instead of stopping, he kept turning to the right, directly towards Hunter. 24. The bus knocked Hunter off balance, he fell to the ground and was run over by the front right side bus tires. 25. When everyone heard a “thump thump,” Coley finally stopped the bus and opened the door. He walked down to the bottom step, looked out the door and said “where the hell did he go?” One of the passengers screamed that Coley had run Hunter over. 26. Several of the passengers who had medical training offered to get off the bus to assist Hunter, but Coley instructed them to stay on the bus. Coley called 911 and the police and ambulance arrived. They found Hunter dead behind the wheels of the bus near the door. Blunt force trauma was the cause of his death. 27. Greyhound has safety rules about meal stops and boarding passengers. Coley ignored those rules. Had he followed them, Hunter would not have died. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 5 of 13 MMWWMMwnhthh-um bhaflfluflhufimwu, wwum nyhmhnfirme MhhmflwwuflEMHflumnmm Drivmstflflnlfll waWuhMMHUu-flm Em: ..._—.... “Drivers are responsible to make certain all passengers are accounted for prior to departure from meal or rest stops.” 28. The other passengers warned Coley that a passenger was not on board before he put the bus in motion. Had he followed the rules, he would not have departed before accounting for Hunter and Hunter would not have been run over. He also violated Greyhound’s safety rule: Dflmflflufimwiaufluduwmduflwh mmflfimmwmmmfinwfll.mmh mm! mmflwflgm “M LEWWMiIiInu-mukMMM'Ifl 2 Onumumumumwfidhwbmmwwuhi “BOARDING AND ALIGHTING PASSENGERS: Drivers will bring their bus to a complete stop before allowing passengers to board or alight.... Drivers must not place their bus in motion until the safety of passengers is assured...” 29. As a result of the actions of Greyhound and its driver, Hunter Brown was killed. His parents are seeking damages for his wrongful death. V. C AUSES OF A CTION AND C LAIMS FOR R ELIEF A. Count One: Negligence Under the Highest Degree of Care Because Greyhound Lines, Inc. is a Common Carrier 30. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior paragraphs in support of this cause. 31. At all relevant times, Greyhound and its agents and employees, including Coley, were acting as a common carrier as Greyhound was in the business of carrying passengers and held itself out for hire by the public. Greyhound solicits and operates a public transportation service. The business of Greyhound is the transport for hire of paying public passengers, and that transportation is not incidental PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 6 of 13 to any other purpose for Greyhound but rather is the primary mode of making money. If the public did not seek transportation for pay from Greyhound, Greyhound would have no business and would not exist. 32. As a common carrier, Greyhound owed the highest degree of care in the operation of the conveyance of its passengers and in the boarding and alighting of passengers. That degree of care is that which would be exercised by a very cautious and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. 33. Greyhound publicly solicited and operated a vehicle for hire transportation service to and for members of the public, including Hunter Brown and his fellow Greyhound passengers. Hunter Brown purchased a ticket from Greyhound for bus transportation. Greyhound agreed and dispatched its driver Coley. At all relevant times Greyhound controlled Coley as an employee, statutory employee, agent, or joint venturer. Greyhound owed Hunter Brown the highest degree of care as a common carrier. 34. Greyhound violated that highest degree of care in the following particulars: a. Failing to act as a very cautious or prudent company would under the same or similar circumstances; b. Failing to exercise a high degree of care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to Hunter; c. Failing to exercise a high degree of care in the hiring of Coley to drive passengers; d. Failing to exercise a high degree of care in the supervising, retaining, monitoring, or training of Coley as an employee to drive passengers; e. Failing to exercise a high degree of care in selecting Coley as a driver as Coley was incompetent or unfit to be a driver for hire; f. Failing to exercise a high degree of care in exercising whatever control Greyhound retained over Coley; g. Failing to exercise a high degree of care in dispatching Coley to Hunter’s bus as a driver to provide transportation; h. Failing to exercise a high degree of care in adopting, implementing, and enforcing safety policies; i. Failing to exercise a high degree of care in adopting, implementing, and enforcing safe dispatch/driver scheduling policies and procedures; j. Failing to exercise a high degree of care in adopting, implementing, and enforcing safety policies to prevent drivers providing transportation while fatigued; k. Through its employed driver transporting Hunter, failing to assure passengers were accounted for at all stops; PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 7 of 13 the light before the highway entrance until Coley finished using the bathroom. Greyhound’s Rule Book prohibits drivers from making unplanned stops of that nature. 20. Later in the trip, at a scheduled stop, Coley engaged in another altercation with passengers. The altercation ended with Coley leaving three teenage Greyhound customers at the stop and continuing on the route with their baggage aboard. Passengers on the bus worried for the teens being left at the remote location well after dark without their belongings. Coley continued on driving. 21. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 29, 2017, the bus pulled into a Pilot truck stop in Central Point, Oregon. Coley told the passengers the bus would be leaving at 1:30 a.m. and if the passengers weren’t on the bus at that time, he would leave them behind. 22. Hunter and many of the other passengers got off the bus to go into the truck stop to get something to eat. At some point prior to 1:30 a.m., Coley got back on the bus and honked the horn. Several passengers complained that it wasn’t 1:30 yet and that many passengers were still inside the truck stop. The driver responded that he would “go by his time, not theirs” and proceeded to pull out of the parking lot. 23. As Coley was making a wide right turn onto the adjoining roadway, Hunter ran up to the side of the bus, banging on the door and begging Coley to stop the bus to let him on. Coley looked out the door at Hunter, but instead of stopping, he kept turning to the right, directly towards Hunter. 24. The bus knocked Hunter off balance, he fell to the ground and was run over by the front right side bus tires. 25. When everyone heard a “thump thump,” Coley finally stopped the bus and opened the door. He walked down to the bottom step, looked out the door and said “where the hell did he go?” One of the passengers screamed that Coley had run Hunter over. 26. Several of the passengers who had medical training offered to get off the bus to assist Hunter, but Coley instructed them to stay on the bus. Coley called 911 and the police and ambulance arrived. They found Hunter dead behind the wheels of the bus near the door. Blunt force trauma was the cause of his death. 27. Greyhound has safety rules about meal stops and boarding passengers. Coley ignored those rules. Had he followed them, Hunter would not have died. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 5 of 13 MMWWMMwnhthh-um bhaflfluflhufimwu, wwum nyhmhnfirme MhhmflwwuflEMHflumnmm Drivmstflflnlfll waWuhMMHUu-flm Em: ..._—.... “Drivers are responsible to make certain all passengers are accounted for prior to departure from meal or rest stops.” 28. The other passengers warned Coley that a passenger was not on board before he put the bus in motion. Had he followed the rules, he would not have departed before accounting for Hunter and Hunter would not have been run over. He also violated Greyhound’s safety rule: Dflmflflufimwiaufluduwmduflwh mmflfimmwmmmfinwfll.mmh mm! mmflwflgm “M LEWWMiIiInu-mukMMM'Ifl 2 Onumumumumwfidhwbmmwwuhi “BOARDING AND ALIGHTING PASSENGERS: Drivers will bring their bus to a complete stop before allowing passengers to board or alight.... Drivers must not place their bus in motion until the safety of passengers is assured...” 29. As a result of the actions of Greyhound and its driver, Hunter Brown was killed. His parents are seeking damages for his wrongful death. V. C AUSES OF A CTION AND C LAIMS FOR R ELIEF A. Count One: Negligence Under the Highest Degree of Care Because Greyhound Lines, Inc. is a Common Carrier 30. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior paragraphs in support of this cause. 31. At all relevant times, Greyhound and its agents and employees, including Coley, were acting as a common carrier as Greyhound was in the business of carrying passengers and held itself out for hire by the public. Greyhound solicits and operates a public transportation service. The business of Greyhound is the transport for hire of paying public passengers, and that transportation is not incidental PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 6 of 13 C. Count Three: Gross Negligence of Greyhound. 40. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs by reference. 41. The conduct of Greyhound and its employee set forth above was substantially more than ordinary carelessness or inadvertence. Rather, the conduct rises to the level of gross negligence and malice, as those terms are defined by law. The failure to stop and/or turning to avoid running over Hunter Brown was such an entire want of care as to indicate that the acts or omissions in question were the result of conscious indifference to the rights, welfare or safety of Hunter Brown. Moreover, those acts and omissions of Defendant involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Hunter Brown when Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, such that the conduct amounts to conscious indifference to the rights, safety and/or welfare of Hunter Brown. 42. Defendant Greyhound acted recklessly in its employment and supervision of Arthur Coley who was unfit for the job, and Greyhound’s continued employment of Coley was ratification of his conduct. As such Greyhound is liable for exemplary damages attributable to the conduct of Coley. 43. For this gross negligence, Plaintiffs specifically plead for the recovery of exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the jury sufficient to deter future conduct. VI. A GENCY 44. At all relevant times, Arthur Coley was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Greyhound Lines, Inc. and in furtherance of his employer’s business. At all relevant times Arthur Coley was a statutory employee of Greyhound acting in the course and scope of the same. Therefore, Greyhound is responsible for the actions of Coley under the doctrine of respondeat superior. VII. D AMAGES A. Survival Damages of the Estate of Hunter Brown 45. Pursuant to TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE § 71.021, the Estate of Hunter Brown is entitled to and seeks damages to Hunter Brown for the following elements from the time of the incident complained of until the time of his death: 46. a. Physical pain and mental anguish; b. Medical Expenses; and c. Funeral expenses. As a result of the foregoing, Hunter Brown incurred injury and damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court, and Plaintiffs plead for such damages as authorized PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 10 of 13 in this case. Plaintiffs further request that this case be tried to a jury and that the Estate of Hunter Brown be awarded fair and reasonable damages as determined by the jury. B. Wrongful Death Damages of Paula Becker and Barron Brown 47. Pursuant to TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE § 71.021, Paula Becker and Barron Brown are wrongful death beneficiaries as the surviving parents of Hunter Brown and in that capacity seek damages including, but not limited to the following: a. Mental anguish sustained in the past; b. Mental anguish that will be sustained in the future; c. Loss of the care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value, excluding loss of inheritance, in the past; d. Loss of the care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value, excluding loss of inheritance, that will be sustained in the future; 48. e. Loss of companionship and society sustained in the past; and f. Loss of companionship and society that will be sustained in the future. All of the above have resulted in damages which are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, for which Plaintiffs now plead against Defendant. VIII. E XEMPLARY D AMAGES 49. The negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant, as set out above, constitute an entire want of care so as to indicate that the acts and/or omissions in question were the result of conscious indifference to the rights, welfare, and safety of Plaintiffs, such that they constitute gross negligence, as that term is defined by TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE § 41.001(11) , so as to give rise to an award of exemplary damages. 50. Plaintiffs would show that the negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant, which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of Defendant at the time of the occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; of which Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, welfare and safety of others. Plaintiffs would show that the negligent acts and/or omissions of the Defendant, as set out above, constitute gross negligence, as that term is defined by law, so as to give rise to an award of exemplary damages against Defendant. Considering the nature of the wrong, the character of the conduct involved, the degree of culpability of the Defendant, the situation and sensibilities of the Defendant, and the extent to which Defendant’s PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 11 of 13 conduct offends a public sense of justice and propriety, Plaintiffs hereby plead for exemplary damages. Additionally, by reason of such conduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to and therefore assert a claim for punitive and exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish and deter Defendant, and others like it, from such conduct in the future. The Court should assess exemplary damages against Defendant in an amount that will punish Defendant and deter others from engaging in similar conduct. IX. P RE -J UDGMENT AND P OST J UDGMENT I NTEREST 51. Plaintiffs request pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the maximum legal interest rates allowable as interpreted under the laws of the State of Texas. X. R EQUEST FOR A J URY T RIAL 52. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable and contemporaneously with the filing of this Petition submit the applicable fee. XI. R EQUEST FOR D ISCLOSURE 53. Pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 194, Defendant is requested to disclose the information and material described in Rule 194.2. The written responses to the above requests for disclosure should conform to Rule 194.3 and the materials, documents, and/or copies of the same should be produced in compliance with Rule 194.4. The written responses, materials and/or documents are to be delivered to ALDOUS \ WALKER LLP, 2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas 75201, as required following receipt of this request. XII. P RAYER 54. Plaintiffs pray that Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final determination of these causes of action, Plaintiffs receive a judgment against Defendant awarding the Plaintiffs relief as follows: a. Actual, compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages, in an amount in excess of the minimal limits of the Court; b. Costs of Court; c. Prejudgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law from the earliest time allowed by law; d. Interest on judgment at the highest legal rate from the date of judgment until collected; and PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 12 of 13 e. All such other and further relief at law and in equity to which the Plaintiffs may show themselves to be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charla G. Aldous CHARLA G. ALDOUS State Bar. No. 20545235 caldous@aldouslaw.com BRENT R. WALKER State Bar No. 24047053 bwalker@aldouslaw.com HEATHER L. LONG State Bar No. 24055865 hlong@aldouslaw.com ALDOUS\WALKER LLP 2311 Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 526-5595 Fax: (214) 526-5525 Jane Paulson Oregon Bar No: 911804 Pro hac vice application forthcoming jane@paulsoncoletti.com PAULSON COLETTI TRIAL ATTORNEYS P.C. 1022 NW Marshall #450 Portland, OR 97209 Phone: (503) 226-6361 Fax: (503) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND JURY DEMAND Page 13 of 13