Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
__________
The national food safety law firm of Ron Simon & Associates files this Original Petition
1. Pursuant to Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery in this case
II. Parties
3. The Pasha Mediterranean Grill, LLC (“Pasha”) is a Texas entity which may be
served through its registered agent, Daniel Ladere, 9339 Wurzbach Road, San Antonio, Texas
78240.
III. Jurisdiction
4. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter because the damages in controversy are
IV. Venue
5. Venue is proper in Bexar County, Texas pursuant to Section 15.002 (a)(1) and
(a)(3) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Bexar County, Texas, and because Pasha’s
V. Facts
About Salmonella
6. Salmonella is an enteric bacterium, which means that it lives in the intestinal tracts
of humans and other warm-blooded animals, including cattle. Salmonella bacteria are usually
transmitted to humans who consume foods contaminated with animal feces. Such foods usually
look and smell normal, meaning that a consumer has no warning of contamination.
7. After ingestion, Salmonella bacteria travel to the lumen of the small intestine,
where the bacteria then penetrates the epithelium, multiply, and enter the blood. This infection
process – also referred to as the incubation period – typically takes 6 to 72 hours for the onset of
symptoms, but can take longer than 10 days. As few as 15-20 cells of Salmonella bacteria can
cause infection.
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramping and/or stomach pain, dysuria, muscle pain,
physicians prescribe antibiotics. More severe cases of salmonellosis may require intravenous
setting. The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to
2
Plaintiff Samuel Manago’s Illness
10. Plaintiff is a resident of San Antonio, Texas and a U.S. Navy veteran.
11. Plaintiff consumed a Beef Shawarma lunch plate at Pasha Mediterranean Grill on
12. Plaintiff was unaware that the food was contaminated with Salmonella.
13. By that evening, Plaintiff began experiencing symptoms consistent with Salmonella
poisoning (i.e. one or more of the following: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, stomach cramps,
14. When these symptoms failed to abate, Plaintiff sought and received medical
treatment at the San Antonio Military Medical Center as a result of his illness. He presented with
a recent history of bloody diarrhea, vomiting, nausea weakness, fever, chills, sweating, and other
symptoms of Salmonella.
15. Plaintiff’s physicians ordered a stool test and determined that his infection was
16. Due to the severity of his condition, and for concerns of potential kidney failure,
Plaintiff’s physicians admitted Samuel for treatment and observation. He was hospitalized until
17. Officials from the local health department subsequently determined that Plaintiff’s
18. In late August 2018, local health agencies from Bexar County, the City of San
Antonio, and the Texas Department of Health and Human Services were made aware of a large
number of food poisoning illnesses from patrons of Pasha Mediterranean Grill. As an investigation
3
into the outbreak commenced, it immediately became clear that the food consumed from the
19. Pasha Mediterranean Grill closed for a short period of time to permit investigators
20. By Friday, September 7, 2018, the San Antonio Metro Health Department reported
over 300 illnesses from patrons who consumed food at the restaurant. At least 12 of the victims,
22. There was a manufacturing defect in the products when they left Defendant’s
possession and control. The products were defective because they contained Salmonella. The
presence of Salmonella was a condition of the products that rendered them unreasonably
dangerous.
23. There was a marketing defect in the products when they left Defendant’s
possession and control. The products were defective because they contained Salmonella and
Defendant failed to give adequate warnings of the products’ dangers that were known or by the
application of reasonably developed human skill and foresight should have been known.
Defendant also failed to give adequate warnings and instructions to avoid such dangers.
Defendant’s failure to provide such warnings and instructions rendered the products unreasonably
dangerous.
24. Defendant’s conduct was a direct, proximate, and producing cause of Plaintiff’s
25. Defendant is therefore strictly liable for manufacturing, distributing, and marketing
4
defective and unreasonably dangerous products and introducing them into the stream of commerce.
26. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of ordinary care in the manufacture, preparation,
testing, packaging, marketing, distribution, and selling of the products in question. Further,
Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty of warning or instructing Plaintiff of potentially hazardous or
27. Defendant breached its duties in one or more of at least the following ways:
b. failing to properly test the products before placing them into the stream of
commerce;
c. failing to prevent human, insect, and/or animal feces from coming into
premises;
e. failing to apply its own policies and procedures to ensure the safety and
practices;
Salmonella bacteria and related filth and adulteration from its premises;
h. failing to properly train and supervise its employees and agents to prevent
i. failing to warn Plaintiff and the general public of the dangerous propensities
5
of the products, particularly that they were contaminated with Salmonella
28. Furthermore, Defendant had a duty to comply with all applicable health regulations,
including the FDA’s Good Manufacturing Practices Regulations, 21 C.F.R. part 110, subparts (A)-
(G), and all statutory and regulatory provisions that applied to the manufacture, distribution,
storage, and/or sale of the products or their ingredients, including but not limited to, the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, § 402(a), as codified at 21 U.S.C. § 342(a), which bans the
manufacture, sale and distribution of any “adulterated” food, and the similar provision in the Texas
29. Plaintiff is a member of the classes sought to be protected by the regulations and
30. Defendant’s conduct was a direct, proximate, and producing cause of Plaintiff’s
31. All dangers associated with the products were reasonably foreseeable and/or
scientifically discoverable by Defendant at the time Defendant placed the products into the stream
of commerce.
32. All dangers associated with the contaminated products were reasonably foreseeable
and/or scientifically discoverable by Defendant at the time Defendant placed the products into the
stream of commerce.
33. Defendant’s conduct was a direct, proximate, and producing cause of Plaintiff’s
34. All dangers associated with the contaminated products were reasonably
6
foreseeable and/or scientifically discoverable by Defendant at the time Defendant placed the
35. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for
bacteria.
39. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s skill and judgment when representing that the
40. Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose because
Defendant manufactured and sold products that were not fit for human consumption - i.e. they
42. Defendant’s breach of warranty was a proximate and producing cause of Plaintiff’s
44. Defendant also violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”).
47. Section 17.50 (a)(2) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code provides that an
individual may pursue a DTPA cause of action for breach of an implied warranty. Although the
7
DTPA does not create any warranties, warranties recognized under Texas law are actionable under
the DTPA.
50. Defendant’s breach was a proximate and producing cause of Plaintiff’s damages.
X. Damages
52. Defendant’s conduct was a direct, proximate, and producing cause of Plaintiff’s
injuries and damages, including but not limited to damages in the past and future for the following:
pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, physical disfigurement, loss of
enjoyment of life, medical and pharmaceutical expenses, travel and travel-related expenses,
emotional distress, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of consortium, and other general, special,
ordinary, incidental and consequential damages as would be anticipated to arise under the
circumstances.
53. For Plaintiff’s warranty and DTPA claims, Plaintiff seeks damages for past and
future: lost earnings, property damage, medical, pharmaceutical and hospital expenses, mental
anguish, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs of court.
54. Defendant’s conduct as described above constituted acts and/or omissions which,
when viewed objectively from their standpoint at the time of the occurrence involved an extreme
degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others.
Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with
8
conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others. Accordingly, Defendant’s
actions constitute gross negligence and Plaintiff seeks an award of exemplary damages.
merchantability and fitness for particular purpose and thus violated the DTPA. Plaintiff is
therefore entitled to treble economic damages and mental anguish damages under the DTPA.
56. Because Defendant violated the DTPA, Plaintiff is entitled to recover and hereby
seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to § 17.50(c) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
57. Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury and tenders the applicable fee.
XV. Prayer
58. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to appear and answer and that
9
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Ron Simon
Bar No. 00788421
Anthony C. Coveny
Bar No. 24059616
820 Gessner Road, Suite 1455
Houston, Texas 77024
(713) 335-4900
(713) 335-4949 (fax)
10