FILED

DALLAS COUNTY
5/17/2019 1:44 PM
5 CIT/ESERVE FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK

Alicia Mata
DC-19-07132
CAUSE NO. ____________

ROGELIO SANTANDER SR., and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

JULIA GARCIA Individually, and as §
Co-Administrators of the ESTATE OF §
ROGELIO SANTANDER JR., and §
CRYSTAL ALMEIDA, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§ K-192ND
____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
vs. §
§
THE HOME DEPOT, INC., §
ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY §
SERVICES, LLC., CHRIS SEWARD §
ELIJAH LATEEF, and §
ARMANDO LUIS JUAREZ, §
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, ROGELIO SANTANDER SR., and JULIA GARCIA

Individually and as Co-Administrators of the ESTATE OF ROGELIO SANTANDER JR., and

CRYSTAL ALMEIDA complaining of and about THE HOME DEPOT, INC. (hereinafter referred

to as “HOME DEPOT”), ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, LLC (hereinafter

referred to as “ALLIED”), CHRIS SEWARD, ELIJAH LATEEF, and ARMANDO LUIS

JUAREZ, and for cause of action would show the following:

I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL

1.1 It is Plaintiffs’ intent that Discovery be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190 of the

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |1
 II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to §15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code, as the incident forming the basis of this lawsuit occurred in Dallas

County, Texas.

2.2 Subject matter jurisdiction for this cause rests with this Court as the amount in

controversy exceeds its minimum jurisdictional requirements.

2.3 Plaintiffs seek monetary relief in accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(5).

III.
PARTIES AND SERVICE

3.1 Plaintiff ROGELIO SANTANDER, SR. is an individual residing in Dallas, Texas.

Partial identification, pursuant to the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code is as follows: the

last three numbers of Plaintiff’s Social Security number are 092 and the last three numbers of his

Texas Driver’s license are 409.

3.2 Plaintiff JULIA GARCIA is an individual residing in Dallas, Texas. Partial

identification, pursuant to the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code is as follows: the last three

numbers of Plaintiff’s Social Security number are 361 and the last three numbers of her Texas

Driver’s license are 460.

3.3 Plaintiff CRYSTAL ALMEIDA (“Officer Almeida”) is an individual residing in

Dallas, Texas. Partial identification, pursuant to the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code is

as follows: the last three numbers of Plaintiff’s Social Security number are 581 and the last three

numbers of her Texas Driver’s license are 025.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |2
 3.4 Defendant HOME DEPOT is a corporate entity duly licensed to, and conducting

business in the State of Texas, and can be served by serving its registered agent CT Corporation System

at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.

3.5 Defendant ALLIED UNIVERSAL is a corporate entity duly licensed to, and

conducting business in the State of Texas, and can be served by serving its registered agent CT

Corporation System at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.

3.6 Defendant ELIJAH LATEEF is an individual who is a citizen of Texas and resides

in Plano, Texas. He may be served with process at 7100 Chase Oaks Blvd #1214 Plano, TX 75025.

3.7 Defendant CHRIS SEWARD is an individual who is a citizen of Texas and resides

in Dallas, Texas. He may be served with process by serving him at his place of employment at the

City of Dallas.

3.8 Defendant ARMANDO LUIS JUAREZ is a citizen of Texas and resides in The

Dallas County Jail. He may be served with process at the Dallas County Jail, 300 Commerce Road,

Dallas, Texas 75201.

IV.
FACTS

INTRODUCTION

4.1 This case arises from the shocking, tragic, yet preventable shooting of two Dallas

police officers. Officer Rogelio Santander Jr. was shot in the head and suffered while fighting for

his life before passing away the following morning. Officer Crystal Almeida was shot twice in the

face and survived, albeit with the loss of her left eye, loss of hearing in her left ear, a traumatic

brain injury, and post-traumatic stress from the horrors she witnessed and experienced.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |3
 DEFENDANTS SET THE STAGE FOR CONFLICT

4.2 Prior to the shootings, the Home Depot store located at 11682 Forest Central Drive

in Dallas, Texas became a frequent location for criminal activity. This resulted in danger to Home

Depot’s customers and employees as well as destruction and loss of Home Depot’s property.

4.3 Home Depot became aware of the security risks at its 11682 Forest Central Drive

location and addressed those risks by hiring Defendant Allied to provide security guards for the

property. Home Depot also hired off-duty police officers to work part-time and to act as additional

security personnel. Home Depot’s personnel coordinated with Allied and retained control over

some aspects of the work Allied performed. For example, Home Depot did not allow Allied

security personnel to carry firearms while working for Home Depot.

4.4 Prior to the shootings, Defendants Home Depot and Allied resolved to “clean up”

the store and engaged in a pattern of activity in which they profiled “suspicious” customers and

detained them regardless of whether the customer had committed any crime. During these

detentions they would frisk the customers, hold them within the loss prevention office under the

justification of a shopkeeper’s privilege, then call the Dallas police to run the detainees for

warrants, remove them from the property, and make an arrest if necessary. This pattern was in

contravention of the standard retail industry practice of waiting until a suspected shoplifter

attempted to exit the store or passed by a point of sale before they are confronted by security and

detained if necessary.

4.5 When a private business detains a suspected criminal and calls in the police, it is a

standard industry practice for the private security personnel to search and disarm a suspect before

the suspect is detained and before the police arrive. It is also a standard practice to handcuff a

detained individual until they are released. These practices mimic well-known police practices that

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |4
have been implemented across the country due to the foreseeable risk that a person may violently

resist through any means available to them when faced with the prospect of arrest or imprisonment.

DEFENDANTS DETAIN JUAREZ AND FAIL TO REMOVE HIS FIREARM

4.6 On April 24, 2018 Defendant Juarez entered the Home Depot store located at 11682

Forest Central Drive. At this time, Scott Painter was present and working for Home Depot as a

loss prevention employee, Defendant Seward was an off-duty police officer working in the

capacity of a part-time security guard for Home Depot, and Defendant Lateef was working as a

security guard for Defendant Allied as part of the detail sent to Home Depot that day.

4.7 As Defendant Juarez was walking through the store, Scott Painter, who was

monitoring the store, alerted Defendant Seward that he believed Juarez was “acting suspiciously.”

Defendant Juarez was inside of the store at the time and had not committed any crime at that point,

nor had he concealed any retail items sold at Home Depot from plain sight. Upon information and

belief, Juarez was near the back of the store carrying a Home Depot plastic bucket, which he was

using to hold items he had gathered from within the store, presumably to purchase.

4.8 After being notified of Juarez by Scott Painter, Defendants Seward and Lateef

approached Juarez and began the process of detaining him under shopkeeper’s privilege.

Defendant Seward started performing a pat down to check Juarez for weapons. As Defendant

Seward frisked Juarez he found a small can of mace attached to Juarez’s belt loop on the outside

of his shorts. Defendant Seward removed the can of mace and seized Juarez’s wallet, but failed to

finish his search of Juarez. Had either of the security personnel performed a proper search, they

would have easily discovered that Juarez had a loaded firearm in the front right pocket of his shorts.

4.9 After seizing Juarez’s wallet, Defendants Seward and Lateef escorted Juarez to the

loss prevention office within Home Depot where he was also attended to by Scott Painter. Juarez

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |5
was asked to take a seat on a chair where he sat unrestrained, while Seward placed a non-

emergency call to the Dallas Police Department. The call was labelled as a low priority call from

an off-duty police officer without any information regarding any alleged offense or purpose for

the call.

4.10 Due to the non-emergency nature of the call and the low priority assigned to it, the

Dallas Police Department was unable to respond for several hours. Defendants kept Juarez

detained during the entire waiting time, continued to leave him unrestrained, and continued to have

possession of the contents of his wallet.

OFFICERS RESPOND TO THE SCENE AND JUAREZ OPENS FIRE

4.11 After several hours passed following Juarez’s detention, Officers Rogelio

Santander Jr. and Crystal Almeida were taken off special assignment and dispatched to respond to

the call. The officers immediately proceeded to Home Depot and walked to the loss prevention

office when they arrived.

4.12 When Officers Santander and Almeida arrived at the loss prevention office, they

found Juarez sitting in a chair unrestrained while Seward, Lateef, and Painter were all nearby.

Officer Almeida proceeded to ask Seward why they were called. Seward did not describe an

offense that Juarez was alleged to have committed and told Officer Almeida that he was going to

run out to their car quick to run Juarez for warrants. At that time Officers Santander and Almeida

were under the belief that Juarez had been appropriately detained, searched, and pat-down for

weapons in accordance with Defendant Seward’s training as a peace officer.

4.13 When Defendant Seward ran Juarez’s information, he discovered that Juarez had

an active arrest warrant issued against him. Upon discovering the warrant, Seward called Scott

Painter on his cell phone to relay to Santander and Almeida that he “had a hit” and for the officers

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |6
to arrest Juarez for the warrant.

4.14 As the officers approached Juarez to take him into custody, Juarez reached for the

gun in his front right pocket, drew his firearm, and opened fire.

OFFICERS DOWN

4.15 Officers Santander and Almeida did not know that Juarez had not been disarmed

and were unable to react in time to stop him. Officer Santander was shot in the head, Officer

Almeida was shot twice in the face, and Scott Painter was shot three times across his body. Both

Officers collapsed to the ground after being shot. In the chaos of the scene, Scott Painter used a

police radio to report that Officers were down. After the shootings, Juarez fled the scene and was

captured by the Dallas Police after a subsequent chase.

4.16 Officer Rogelio Santander Jr. was left grievously wounded and was rushed to

receive emergency care. Despite the best efforts of emergency personnel, Officer Santander passed

away from his wounds on the morning of April 25, 2018. He is survived by his parents, Rogelio

Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, his brother Chris Santander, his girlfriend Jennifer Rivera, as well

as other loving members of his extended family and his police family.

Rogelio Santander Jr. in Uniform Dallas Officers Present a Flag to the Family
In Honor of Their Fallen Brother

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |7
 4.17 Officer Crystal Almeida sustained near fatal wounds to her face and head but her

life was saved through the efforts of emergency responders. She sustained a traumatic brain injury,

loss of hearing in her left ear, and lost her left eye which has been replaced with an artificial

substitute. She has returned to service within the Dallas Police Department and stands as an

exemplar of the strength, courage, and resiliency of the officers serving on the force. However,

she continues to suffer from the lingering effects of her physical injuries and from the emotional

and psychological trauma of the event that caused her injury and claimed the life of her friend and

fellow officer.

Officer Almeida Prior to the Shootings Officer Almeida Honored for Her
Service after Her Injuries

V.
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HOME DEPOT AND ALLIED

NEGLIGENCE

5.1 Defendants Home Depo and Allied owed a duty to perform security services in a

reasonably prudent manner to minimize foreseeable risks of harm caused by third party criminal

actors to individuals upon Home Depot’s property.

5.2 Defendants Home Depo and Allied owed an additional duty to Officers Santander

and Almeida to detain individuals in a reasonably prudent manner should the decision be made to
____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |8
exercise shopkeeper’s privilege. This included taking reasonable steps to search, disarm, and

restrain detainees to minimize the risk of violent resistance from the detainee.

5.3 It was foreseeable that an individual may be carrying a firearm in public within the

State of Texas at the time of the shootings, and it was foreseeable that an individual may violently

resist when faced with the prospect of arrest or imprisonment.

5.4 Because Home Depot is a corporate retail Defendant that benefits from the

detention and arrest of criminals who may cause harm to its business, and because Home Depot is

familiar with the exercise of shopkeeper’s privilege, reasonable security measures, and the

processes involved in arrests originating with a detention by a retailer, the public utility of

imposing these duties upon Home Depot outweighs the burdens placed upon it by imposition of

these duties.

5.5 Because Allied is a corporate Defendant that is in the business of providing security

services to clients, including retailers, for its own profit, and because Allied is familiar with

standard practices within the industry of providing security as well as the foreseeable risks

involved with detaining individuals without disarming them, the public utility of imposing these

duties upon Allied outweighs the burdens placed upon it by the imposition of these duties.

5.6 Home Depot and Allied breached its duties to Officers Santander and Almeida by

failing to use ordinary care in some or all of the following ways:

a. Failed to exercise reasonable discretion in the use of shopkeeper’s privilege

given the facts and circumstances known and existing at the time;

b. Detained an individual under shopkeeper’s privilege when it was not

reasonable to do so;

c. Failed to adequately search and disarm Juarez at the time of detention;

d. Failed to adequately restrain Juarez after he was detained;

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page |9
 e. Increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by seizing property
from Juarez;

f. Increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by detaining Juarez

for an unreasonable period of time given the facts and circumstances under
which Juarez was detained;

g. Increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by searching Juarez

for outstanding warrants;

h. Failed to provide adequate supervision of Juarez while he was detained;

i. Failed to provide security personnel with instrumentalities needed to protect

individuals from foreseeable physical violence;

j. Failed to warn Officers Santander and Almeida that Juarez had not been
adequately searched and disarmed prior to being detained;

k. Failed to follow standard industry practices and procedures in the provision

of security services and in the detention/arrest of an individual; and

l. Failed to act as a reasonably prudent operator of a business and as a

reasonably prudent provider of security services would have under the same
or similar circumstances.

5.7 Home Depot’s and Allied’s negligence proximately caused the occurrence in

question and the damages sustained by Plaintiffs.

NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING

5.8 Defendants Home Depot and Allied undertook to perform and provide security

services that they knew or should have known were necessary for the protection of individuals on

Home Depot’s premises, including Officers Santander and Almeida who were invited to the

premises.

5.9 Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in performing those services.

Specifically they set standards that allowed for the profiling and detention of a person who had not

yet committed any crime, detained a person who had not committed a crime, exercised

shopkeeper’s privilege when they should not have, failed to perform an adequate search of a

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 10
detainee’s person to discover and remove any firearms from the detainee, failed to adequately

restrain a detainee, increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by seizing property from

a detainee, increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by keeping a detainee for an

unreasonable period of time given the facts and circumstances of the detention, failed to warn

Officers Santander and Almeida that the detainee had not been properly searched and disarmed,

failed to provide adequate supervision of the detainee during detention, increased the likelihood

and risk of violent resistance by searching the detainee for warrants, and failed to provide or to

allow their own security personnel to carry weapons needed to defend themselves and others

including Plaintiffs.

5.10 Officers Santander and Almeida relied upon Home Depot’s and Allied’s

performance of its services, and, or in the alternative, Home Depot and Allied’s failure to use

ordinary care in performing those services increased the risk of harm to Officers Santander and

Almeida.

5.11 The negligence of Home Depot and Allied proximately caused the occurrence in

question and the injuries to all Plaintiffs.

NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION

5.12 Home Depot and Allied owed a duty to train and supervise competent employees.

5.13 Home Depot and Allied failed to exercise ordinary care in training their employees

to perform competent security services including setting reasonable practices and procedures and

training employees how to search, disarm, and restrain detainees to minimize the risks posed by

an individual when shopkeeper’s privilege is used. Additionally, Home Depot and Allied failed to

properly supervise its employees to ensure that reasonable practices and procedures regarding the

detention of individuals were being followed.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 11
 5.14 Home Depot’s and Allied’s negligent training and supervision proximately caused

the occurrence in question and Plaintiffs’ injuries.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, JOINT VENTURE, AND AGENCY

5.15 Defendant Seward and Scott Painter were acting within the course and scope of

their employment with Home Depot for the benefit of Home Depot during the occurrence in

question and the events leading up to it.

5.16 Defendant Lateef was acting within the course and scope of his employment with

Allied for the mutual benefit of Allied and Home Depot during the occurrence in question and the

events leading up to it. Allied was contracted by Home Depot to provide security services.

Defendant Home Depot exercised some control over Defendant Lateef as he coordinated with

Home Depot’s employees, used Home Depot’s facilities, and followed Home Depot’s policies

which included his inability to carry his firearm while working for Home Depot.

5.17 Defendants Seward and Lateef and Scott Painter coordinated and acted together in

the events leading to and involving the detention of Defendant Juarez. This venture was engaged

in for the purposes of protecting the property and persons located upon the premises for the mutual

benefit of Home Depot and Allied.

5.18 The negligence of Chris Seward, Elijah Lateef, and/or Scott Painter proximately

caused the occurrence in question and Plaintiffs’ damages.

VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST CHRIS SEWARD AND ELIJAH LATEEF

NEGLIGENCE

6.1 Defendants Chris Seward and Elijah Lateef owed a duty to perform their roles in

providing security services in a reasonably prudent manner.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 12
 6.2 Defendants Chris Seward and Elijah Lateef owed an additional duty to Officers

Santander and Almeida to detain individuals in a reasonably prudent manner should the decision

to exercise shopkeeper’s privilege be made during the course and scope of their employment. This

included taking reasonable measures to search, disarm, and restrain any detainees to minimize the

risk of violent resistance from the detainee.

6.3 It was foreseeable that an individual may be carrying a firearm in public within the

State of Texas at the time of the shootings, and it was foreseeable that an individual may violently

resist when faced with the prospect of arrest, imprisonment, or continued confinement.

6.4 Because Home Depot is a corporate retail Defendant that benefits from the

detention and arrest of criminals who may cause harm to its business, and because Home Depot is

familiar with the exercise of shopkeeper’s privilege, reasonable security measures, and the

processes involved in arrests originating with a detention by a retailer, the public utility of

imposing these duties upon Home Depot outweighs the burdens placed upon it by imposition of

these duties. Defendant Chris Seward was and employee of Home Depot at the time of the

occurrence and was hired and expected to perform these duties.

6.5 Because Allied is a corporate Defendant that is in the business of providing security

services to clients, including retailers, for its own profit, and because Allied is familiar with

standard practices within the industry of providing security as well as the foreseeable risks

involved with detaining individuals without disarming them, the public utility of imposing these

duties upon Allied outweighs the burdens placed upon it by the imposition of these duties.

Defendant Elijah Lateef was an employee of Allied at the time of the occurrence and was hired

and expected to perform these duties.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 13
 6.6 Defendants Seward and Lateef breached their duties to Officers Santander and

Almeida by failing to use ordinary care in some or all of the following ways:

a. Failed to exercise reasonable discretion in the use of shopkeeper’s privilege

given the facts and circumstances known and existing at the time;

b. Detained an individual under shopkeeper’s privilege when it was not

reasonable to do so;

c. Failed to adequately search and disarm Juarez at the time of detention;

d. Failed to adequately restrain Juarez after he was detained;

e. Increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by seizing property

from Juarez;

f. Increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by detaining Juarez

for an unreasonable period of time given the facts and circumstances under
which Juarez was detained;

g. Increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by searching Juarez

for outstanding warrants;

h. Failed to provide adequate supervision of Juarez while he was detained;

i. Failed to warn Officers Santander and Almeida that Juarez had not been
adequately searched and disarmed prior to being detained;

j. Failed to follow standard industry practices and procedures in the provision

of security services and in the detention/arrest of an individual; and

k. Failed to act as reasonably prudent providers of security services would

have under the same or similar circumstances.

6.7 The negligence of Defendants Seward and Lateef proximately caused the

occurrence in question and the damages sustained by Plaintiffs.

NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING

6.8 Defendants Seward and Lateef were hired to perform security services upon the

premises; therefore, they undertook to perform and provide security services that they knew or

should have known were necessary for the protection of individuals on Home Depot’s premises,

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 14
including Officers Santander and Almeida who were invited to the premises.

6.9 Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in performing those services.

Specifically they failed to follow standard industry practices by profiling and detaining a person

who had not yet committed any crime, exercised shopkeeper’s privilege when they should not

have, failed to perform an adequate search of a detainee’s person to discover and remove any

firearms from the detainee, failed to adequately restrain a detainee, increased the likelihood and

risk of violent resistance by seizing property from a detainee, increased the likelihood and risk of

violent resistance by keeping a detainee for an unreasonable period of time given the facts and

circumstances of his detention, failed to warn Officers Santander and Almeida that the detainee

had not been properly searched and disarmed, failed to provide adequate supervision of the

detainee during detention, and increased the likelihood and risk of violent resistance by searching

the detainee for warrants.

6.10 Officers Santander and Almeida relied upon Seward’s and Lateef’s performance of

their services, and, or in the alternative, Seward’s and Lateef’s failure to use ordinary care in

performing those services increased the risk of harm to Officers Santander and Almeida.

6.11 The negligence of Defendants Seward and Lateef proximately caused the

occurrence in question and the injuries to Plaintiffs

VII.
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ARMANDO LUIS JUAREZ

ASSAULT/MURDER

7.1 Defendant Juarez assaulted Officers Santander and Almeida by shooting them both

in the head and making harmful physical contact with their bodies through use of a firearm.

7.2 Defendant Juarez intentionally shot both officers which resulted in the death of

Officer Santander and severe bodily injury to Officer Almeida.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 15
 7.3 Plaintiffs’ damages were proximately caused by the intentional actions of

Defendant Juarez.

VIII.
WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS FOR ROGELIO SANTANDER SR.
AND JULIA GARCIA

8.1 Rogelio Santander Sr., and Julia Garcia are the surviving parents of Officer Rogelio

Santander Jr. and are statutorily authorized to bring wrongful death claims under Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 71.

8.2 As a result of the occurrence causing the death of Officer Santander, Plaintiffs

suffered loss of consortium, including the loss of love, service, society, comfort, affection, moral

support, companionship, and support of Officer Santander in the past and will continue to suffer

from these losses in the future.

8.3 As a result of the occurrence causing the death of Officer Santander, Plaintiffs have

incurred mental anguish and emotional distress in the past and in reasonable probability will

continue to suffer from mental anguish and emotional distress in the future.

8.4 As a result of the occurrence causing the death of Officer Santander, Plaintiffs have

lost future financial support, inheritance, gifts, benefits and value from household services that

Officer Santander would have provided.

IX.
DAMAGES FOR THE ESTATE OF ROGELIO SANTANDER JR.

9.1 Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia are the sole heirs of the estate of Officer

Rogelio Santander Jr., and have obtained letters to act as Co-Administrators of his Estate. The

assets of the estate include personal injury claims that Officer Santander would have been entitled

to make had he survived the occurrence in question. Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of

Officer Santander’s estate under Chapter 71 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 16
 9.2 Prior to Officer Santander’s passing, he experienced conscious pain and suffering

that was proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

9.3 Prior to Officer Santander’s passing, he experienced mental anguish and emotional

distress that was proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

9.4 Prior to Officer Santander’s passing, he experienced physical impairment that was

proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

9.5 Prior to and as a result of Officer Santander’s passing, he and his estate incurred

debts as the result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. These debts include bills for reasonable and

necessary medical services that were rendered to Officer Santander prior to his passing, fees for

the handling of his body after passing, and funeral and burial expenses incurred following his

passing.

X.
DAMAGES FOR CRYSTAL ALMEIDA

10.1 As a result of the incident described herein, Officer Almeida has incurred

reasonable and necessary medical expenses in the past and, in reasonable probability, such medical

expenses will continue in the future.

10.2 Officer Almeida has experienced mental anguish and emotional distress in the past,

and in reasonable probability, such mental anguish and emotional distress will continue in the

future.

10.3 Officer Almeida has experienced physical pain and suffering in the past and, in

reasonable probability, such physical pain and suffering will continue in the future.

10.4 Officer Almeida has experienced physical impairment in the past and, in reasonable

probability, such physical pain and suffering will continue in the future.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 17
 10.5 Officer Almeida has experienced disfigurement in the past and, in reasonable

probability, such disfigurement will continue in the future.

10.6 Officer Almeida has lost wages in the past and, in reasonable probability, will suffer

from a loss of earning capacity in the future.

XI.
CLAIM FOR PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

11.1 Plaintiffs herein claim interest in accordance with Texas Finance Code § 304.001

et seq. and any other applicable law.

XII.
REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

12.1 Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that THE HOME

DEPOT, INC.; ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, LLC; CHRIS SEWARD;

ELIJAH LATEEF; and ARMANDO LUIS JUAREZ disclose, within fifty (50) days of the service

of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2 (a) – (l).

XIII.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants be cited to

appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered in favor

of the Plaintiffs for:

a. damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court;

b. pre-judgment interest (from the date of injury through the date of judgment)
at the maximum rate allowed by law;

c. post-judgment interest at the legal rate;

d. costs of the Court; and

e. such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or
equity.

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 18
 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT H. PALMER, P.C.

/s/ Scott H. Palmer

SCOTT H. PALMER
State Bar No. 00797196
GRANT K. GERLEMAN
State Bar No. 24083065
JAMES P. ROBERTS
State Bar No. 24105721
NILES ILLICH
State Bar No. 24069969

15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 540

Addison, Texas 75001
Telephone: 214.987.4100
Facsimile: 214.922.9900
scott@scottpalmerlaw.com
grant@scottpalmerlaw.com
james@scottpalmerlaw.com
niles@scottpalmerlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

____________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION P a g e | 19