Johnson v. Walmart, Inc et al, No. 2:2022cv00464 - Document 13 (D. Nev. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 12 Stipulation to Allow Plaintiff to File Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be permitted to file the Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Amended Complaint deadline: 7/21/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 7/14/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LOE)

Download PDF

Johnson v. Walmart, Inc et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doc. 13 CHARLES S. JACKSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13158 HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC 2630 S. Jones Blvd Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 Phone: (702) 628-9888 Fax: (702) 960-4118 E-Mail: cjackson@lvattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 11 CANDACE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. 12 13 14 15 16 WALMART, INC., a Foreign Corporation; WALMART APOLLO, LLC., a Foreign Corporation; CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., a Foreign Corporation; DOE MANUFACTURER; DOES 1-20 and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-00464-JCM-VCF STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff CANDACE JOHNSON, by and through his attorneys of record, and Defendants WALMART, INC., WALMART APOLLO, LLC and CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate as follows: x That Plaintiff shall be permitted to file her Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1; x That the parties agree that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint meets the requirements of FRCP 10(d) to substitute newly identified defendants in place of DOE I; and /// /// 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 x That the parties agree that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint meets the 2 requirements of FRCP 15(a) and 15(c), such that the Amended Complaint shall 3 relate back to the date of the filing of the original Complaint. 4 5 DATED this 12th day of July, 2022 DATED this 12th day of July, 2022 HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP /s/ Charles S. Jackson, Esq. CHARLES S. JACKSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13158 2630 S. Jones Blvd Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ Michael R. Smith, Esq. Darrell D. Dennis, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6618 Michael R. Smith, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12641 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd, Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89118 Attorneys for Defendant Conagra Brands, Inc. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DATED this 12th day of July, 2022 GRANT & ASSOCIATES 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ Annalisa Grant, Esq. Annalisa N. Grant, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11807 7455 Arroyo Crossing Parkway, Suite 220 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Facsimile: (855) 429-3413 Attorneys for Defendants Walmart, Inc. & Walmart Apollo, LLC Case Name: Candace Johnson vs. Conagra Brands, et. al. Case No.: 2:22-cv-00464-JCM-VCF 1 2 ORDER 3 4 5 Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties, and for good cause showing, IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be permitted to file the Amended Complaint attached hereto as 6 7 8 9 Exhibit 1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must file the Amended Complaint on or before July 21, 2022. 10 11 12 Dated this 14th day of July 2022. Submitted by: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC /s/ Charles S. Jackson, Esq. CHARLES S. JACKSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13158 2630 S. Jones Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 ________________________________________ U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE From: To: Subject: Date: Grant, Annalisa N Mary Eagar RE: Johnson v Walmart / Case No. 2:22-cv-00464-JCM-VCF Tuesday, July 12, 2022 8:15:37 AM Hi Mary, You may add my e-signature. Thank you! Sincerely, Annalisa N. Grant Annalisa N. Grant Managing Attorney, Grant & Associates Staff Counsel American International Group, Inc. (AIG) 7455 Arroyo Crossing Pkwy, Suite 220, Las Vegas, NV 89113 T (+1) 702.940.3567 | C (+1) 702.715.9522 annalisa.grant@aig.com | www.aig.com This email message and any attachments are confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. In addition, please immediately delete or destroy all copies or versions you have of this message and notify the sender at (702) 940-3567 or Annalisa.Grant@aig.com in order that we may take steps to prevent any further inadvertent disclosures. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. Thank you. From: Mary Eagar <mary@lvattorneys.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 3:48 PM To: Grant, Annalisa N <Annalisa.Grant@aig.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Johnson v Walmart / Case No. 2:22-cv-00464-JCM-VCF This message is from an external sender; be cautious with links and attachments. Good afternoon: Sorry to bother you about this again, but the deadline to Amend Complaints is coming up on Wednesday, so we want to make sure to get this submitted. Could you let me know if we can e-sign on your behalf? Thanks, From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Smith, Michael R. (LV) Mary Eagar; Dennis, Darrell; Grant, Annalisa N Charles Jackson RE: Johnson v Walmart / Case No. 2:22-cv-00464-JCM-VCF Monday, July 11, 2022 12:14:15 PM Logo_e6253148-26a1-47a9-b861-6ac0ff0bc3c4.png You can use my e-signature on the stipulation. -Michael Michael R. Smith Partner Michael.R.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com T: 702.830.9017 F: 702.366.9563 6385 South Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600, Las Vegas, NV 89118 | LewisBrisbois.com Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored. From: Mary Eagar <mary@lvattorneys.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 11:58 AM To: Dennis, Darrell <Darrell.Dennis@lewisbrisbois.com>; Smith, Michael R. (LV) <Michael.R.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com>; Grant, Annalisa N <annalisa.grant@aig.com> Cc: Charles Jackson <cjackson@lvattorneys.com> Subject: [EXT] Johnson v Walmart / Case No. 2:22-cv-00464-JCM-VCF Good morning: Attached please find the Stipulation and Order to Allow Plaintiff to file Amended Complaint and the Amended Complaint for your review. Please let us know if you have any changes. If you have no changes, please let us know if we can e-sign on your behalf. We would also like to extend discovery by 90 days given the name of the new entity. Please let us know if you are agreeable with the extension and we will prepare the Stipulation and Order. Thanks, Mary Eagar Paralegal 2630 S. Jones Blvd. | Las Vegas, NV 89146 direct (725) 201-9129 tel (702) 628-9888 | fax (702) 960-4118 Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments are for the named person's use only. The message and any attachment may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT “1” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ACOMP CHARLES S. JACKSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13158 HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC 2630 S Jones Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 T: (702) 628-9888 F: (702) 960-4118 E-Mail: cjackson@lvattorneys.com Attorney for Plaintiff 8 DISTRICT COURT 9 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA 10 CANDACE JOHNSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 WALMART, INC., a Foreign Corporation; WALMART APOLLO, LLC., a Foreign Corporation; HIGH LINER FOODS USA, INC., a Foreign Corporation; DOE MANUFACTURER; DOES 1-20 and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-20, inclusive, 14 15 16 17 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: DEPT. NO.: PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 18 19 20 21 22 CANDACE JOHNSON (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through his attorney of record, CHARLES S. JACKSON, ESQ., of HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC, complains and alleges against WALMART, INC and WALMART APOLLO, LLC. (collectively “Defendants”), as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. That Plaintiff CANDACE JOHNSON (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a resident of the County of Clark, State of Nevada. 2. That Defendant WALMART, INC (hereinafter referred to as “WALMART”), was and is a Foreign Corporation operating in the County of Clark, State of Nevada. 3. That Defendant WALMART APOLLO, LLC (hereinafter referred to as 1 1 “APOLLO”), was and is a Foreign Limited Liability Company operating in the County of Clark, 2 State of Nevada. 3 4. That Defendant HIGH LINER FOODS USA, INC.. (hereinafter referred to as 4 “HIGH LINER”), was and is a Foreign Limited Liability Company operating in the County of 5 Clark, State of Nevada. 6 7 8 5. That DOE MANUFACTURER is another farmer, manufacturer, or producer of the Boneless Fish Fillets which are the subject of this action. 6. That the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as DOE or 9 ROE Business Entities are presently unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said 10 Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of these defendants are 11 ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint accordingly. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7. All of the acts and occurrences giving rise to this action took place in Clark County, Nevada. 8. Nevada courts hold personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to its purposeful contacts with the State of Nevada. 9. Venue in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for the County of Clark, State of Nevada, is proper pursuant to NRS 13.040. 10. That on, or about, January 11, 2020, Plaintiff purchased a box of Boneless Fish 19 Fillets of the Great Value brand from Defendant WALMART at 5200 S. Fort Apache Road, Las 20 Vegas, Nevada 89148. 21 22 23 24 25 11. The Great Value brand is owned, operated, and marketed by Defendant APOLLO, and produced by Defendant HIGH LINER. 12. These Fish Fillets were manufactured, produced and/or farmed by Defendant DOE MANUFACTURER. 13. That Defendants designated herein as DOE or ROE Business Entities are other 26 owners, operators, managers, controllers, designers, maintenance providers, and/or otherwise 27 responsible for building and/or maintaining the subject Property. 28 14. That, at all times pertinent, Defendants were agents, servants, employees, or joint 2 1 venturers of every other Defendant herein, and at all times mentioned herein were acting within 2 the scope and course of said agency, employment, or joint venture, with knowledge and 3 permission and consent of all other named Defendants. 4 15. On, or about, January 11, 2020, Plaintiff ate the Boneless Fish Fillets, but there 5 was still a fish bone in the Boneless Fish Fillet (hereinafter referred to as the “Dangerous 6 Condition”). 7 16. The fish bone became lodged in Plaintiff’s esophagus. 8 17. Defendant had notice that the subject Boneless Fish Fillets were likely defective 9 10 prior to the subject incident. 18. Despite having notice that notice that the subject Boneless Fish Fillets were likely 11 defective Defendants continued to place the subject Boneless Fish Fillets into the stream of 12 commerce. 13 19. 14 15 Defendants represented to consumers including Plaintiff that the subject Boneless Fish Fillets and similar products was a safe product free of fish bones which could cause injury 20. The subject Boneless Fish Fillets were purchased with the reasonable expectation 16 that they were properly manufactured, free from defects of any kind and that they were safe for 17 their intended, foreseeable use of eating. 18 21. As a result of the improper manufacturing of the Boneless Fish Fillets, Plaintiff 19 sustained injuries. 20 22. At all materials times, Defendants by and through their agents, servants, workers, 21 and/or employees, designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, modified, and/or assembled the 22 subject Boneless Fish Fillets, and these Defendants distributed, advertised, and sold these Boneless 23 Fish Fillets for general use by the public, including the Plaintiff. 24 25 26 23. When Defendants sold and/or distributed the Boneless Fish Fillets, they were expected to and did reach their eventual consumer, without substantial change in their condition. 24. At the time of the sale and distribution of the Boneless Fish Fillets by Defendants, 27 they were in a defective condition, which defect was the proximate cause of the injuries and 28 damages sustained by Plaintiff, and for which Defendants are strictly liable. 3 1 2 3 25. Plaintiff did not change or alter the condition of the Boneless Fish Fillets from the time of their purchase until the incident occurred on or about January 10, 2020. 26. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, Plaintiff 4 sustained serious injuries and suffered great pain of body and mind, some of which conditions are 5 permanent and disabling, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount in excess of Fifteen 6 Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00). 7 27. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, Plaintiff 8 received medical and other treatment for the aforementioned injuries, and that said services, care, 9 and treatment are continuing and shall continue in the future, all to the damage of Plaintiff damage 10 11 in an amount in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00). 28. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, Plaintiff has 12 been required to, and has limited, occupational and recreational activities, which have caused, and 13 shall continue to cause, Plaintiff a loss of earning capacity, lost wages, physical impairment, 14 mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, in a presently unascertainable amount. 15 29. That as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned actions of of all 16 Defendants, Plaintiff has been required to engage the services of an attorney, incurring attorney’s 17 fees and costs to bring this action. 18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 19 (Negligence) 20 21 22 23 24 30. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint as though said paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 31. That Defendants were negligent in designing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, inspecting, labeling, distributing, marketing, and/or selling the Boneless Fish Fillets. 32. Defendants owed a duty to design, manufacture, assemble, test, inspect, label, 25 distribute, market and sell a product free from defects in material and workmanship that is safe 26 and functional for consumer use. 27 28 33. Defendants failed to take reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, inspecting, labeling, distributing, marketing, and/or selling the Boneless Fish Fillets at a 4 1 time when there were safer alternative designs available to Defendants. These acts and omissions, 2 taken simultaneously or in combination, were a legal cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 3 34. The Boneless Fish Fillets were defective in that they failed to conform to safe 4 product design and specifications of such boneless fish fillets, and their defective design failed to 5 prevent the sudden and unexpected consumption of fish bones when used by the consumer 6 according to the product’s instructions. 7 35. The Boneless Fish Fillets were defective and unreasonably dangerous because there 8 was a lack of adequate warnings, notices, and/or instructions that the product could contain fish 9 bones. The Boneless Fish Fillets were also defective and unreasonably dangerous because they 10 was manufactured from materials that were not suitable for this type of product and operation/use 11 of the product under the reasonably anticipated conditions of consumer use. Each of these defects 12 are independent proximate causes of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 13 36. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in determining the accuracy of 14 information to Plaintiff and failed to exercise reasonable care in communicating untrue 15 information regarding the safety and functionality of the Boneless Fish Fillets, upon which 16 Plaintiff relied. 17 37. The specific negligent manufacturing or design on the part of Defendants rests in 18 facts that are within the knowledge of Defendants. Plaintiff further relied on the doctrine of Res 19 Ipsa Loquitor. Plaintiff will show that the character of the occurrence giving rise to this litigation 20 is such that it would not happen in the absence of Defendants’ negligence and that the design and 21 manufacture of the Boneless Fish Fillets was within the exclusive control of Defendants at the 22 time the negligence occurred. 23 38. Plaintiff had no control over the method or manner in which the product was 24 designed, manufactured, or cautioned and it came to Plaintiff’s possession in the same condition 25 it was in when it left the control of Defendants. 26 39. Defendants were negligent in the design or manufacturing of the Boneless Fish 27 Fillets, which negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by 28 Plaintiff. 5 1 2 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00). 3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Breach of Warranty Against Defendants) 5 6 7 40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 41. The defect in the Boneless Fish Fillets does not conform to the merchantable 8 condition impliedly represented by Defendants at the time that the Boneless Fish Fillets were sold 9 and received by Plaintiff. 10 42. Defendants impliedly warranted to the public generally and to Plaintiff specifically 11 that the Boneless Fish Fillets was of merchantable quality. Defendants were merchants with 12 respect to the Boneless Fish Fillets and the Boneless Fish Fillets were not merchantable as 13 warranted. 14 43. Defendants impliedly warranted to the public generally and to Plaintiff specifically 15 that the Boneless Fish Fillets was safe and fit for the purpose intended when used under ordinary 16 circumstances and in an ordinary manner. Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, of 17 the purpose for which Plaintiff purchased the Boneless Fish Fillets, that Plaintiff was relying on 18 Defendants’ skill and judgment to select and furnish a suitable product, and that the Boneless Fish 19 Fillets was unfit for the purpose for which it was intended to be used. Defendants’ respective 20 breaches of warranty, taken singularly or in combination, were a legal cause of the Plaintiff’s 21 injuries and damages. 22 44. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned breaches of warranty, 23 Plaintiff suffered permanent, catastrophic bodily injuries, and resulting pain and suffering, 24 disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, the expense 25 of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn 26 money, and aggravation of a previously existing condition, if any. The losses are either permanent 27 or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. 28 6 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Strict Products Liability Against Defendants) 3 4 5 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 46. Defendants designed, researched, developed, manufactured, tested, advertised, 6 promoted, marketed, labeled, sold, and/or distributed the Boneless Fish Fillets. The Boneless Fish 7 Fillets, as designed, researched, developed, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, labeled, 8 marketed, sold, and/or distributed by Defendants was in an unsafe, defective, and unreasonably 9 dangerous condition which was hazardous to users. The Boneless Fish Fillets was in this unsafe 10 11 condition at the time it left Defendants’ possession. 47. The Boneless Fish Fillets was expected to, and did, reach the usual consumers 12 (including Plaintiff), handlers, and persons coming into contact with the Boneless Fish Fillets 13 without substantial change in the condition in which it was designed, produced, manufactured, 14 sold, distributed, and marketed by Defendants. 15 16 17 48. The Boneless Fish Fillets was defective and unreasonably dangerous because there was a lack of adequate warnings, notices, and/or instructions. 49. Plaintiff was injured while using the Boneless Fish Fillets for their intended 18 purpose, in accordance with the instructions that accompanied the product, and in a manner 19 foreseeable to Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 50. However, the Boneless Fish Fillets failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect. 51. Defendants’ failure to design, manufacture, market, label, and sell safe Boneless Fish Fillets was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 52. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ placement of the 25 defective Boneless Fish Fillets into the stream of commerce, Plaintiff suffered permanent, 26 catastrophic bodily injuries, and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental 27 anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, the expense of hospitalization, medical and 28 7 1 nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and aggravation of a 2 previously existing condition, if any. 3 53. Defendants knew or should have known that the Boneless Fish Fillets were 4 defective and unsafe, especially when used in the form and manner they intended and 5 demonstrated. 6 7 8 54. Defendants had a duty to design, manufacture, label, market, and sell a product that was not unreasonably dangerous for its normal, intended use. 55. Defendants knew or should have known that the Boneless Fish Fillets were 9 defective and unsafe, and with this knowledge, Defendants voluntarily designed, manufactured, 10 marketed, and sold their products in a defective condition for use by the public. Because 11 Defendants designed, researched, developed, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, 12 marketed, labeled, sold and distributed a defective product, which when used in its intended or 13 reasonably foreseeable manner, created an unreasonable risk to consumers and to Plaintiff, 14 Defendants are strictly liable for the injuries Plaintiff sustained. 15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 16 (Violation of Nevada Consumer Protection Laws) 17 18 19 40. Plaintiffs incorporate the factual allegations set forth in the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows. 41. Pursuant to Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, codified at N.R.S., Chapter 20 598, specifically, N.R.S. 598.0915(5)(7) and (15), by reason of the conduct as alleged herein, and 21 by inducing consumers of the Pressure Cooker including Plaintiff, through deception, fraud, false 22 advertising, false pretenses, misrepresentations, unfair or deceptive practices, or a combination of 23 these acts, and the concealment and suppression of material facts, including, but not limited to, 24 fraudulent statements, concealments and misrepresentations identified herein and above. 25 26 27 28 42. Under N.R.S. 41.600(1), Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides for a private cause of action may be brought by any person who is a victim of consumer fraud. 43. Defendant had notice that the Boneless Fish Fillets was likely defective with respect to the “lid safety interlock system” prior to the subject incident. 8 44. 1 Despite having notice that notice that the subject Boneless Fish Fillets were likely 2 defective Defendants continued to place the subject Boneless Fish Fillets into the stream of 3 commerce. 4 45. 5 that the Boneless Fish Fillets and similar models were safe and boneless. 46. 6 7 47. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s material misrepresentation that the Boneless Fish Fillets were actually boneless when used for their intended purpose and/or foreseeably misused. 48. 10 11 The subject Boneless Fish Fillets were purchased with the reasonable expectation that it was properly designed and manufactured, free from defects. 8 9 Defendants made deceptive misrepresentations to consumers including Plaintiff Without Defendant’s above-mentioned material misrepresentation, Plaintiff would not have used the Boneless Fish Fillets, which caused her injuries. 49. 12 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ statutory violations, Plaintiff was 13 damaged by Defendant, which would not have occurred had Defendant not used deception, fraud, 14 false advertising, false pretenses, misrepresentations, unfair or deceptive practices, and the 15 concealment and suppression of material facts to induce Plaintiff to use this product. 16 50. By reason of such violations, Plaintiff suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and 17 suffering, disability, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of medical 18 care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money and other economic losses, and 19 aggravation of previously existing conditions. The losses are either permanent or continuing, and 20 Plaintiffs will suffer the losses in the future. 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, expressly reserving the right to amend this complaint prior to or 22 at the time of trial of this action to insert those items of damage not yet fully ascertainable, prays 23 judgment against all Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. 24 For general and special damages sustained by Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $15,000.00; 25 26 2. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; 27 3. For interest at the statutory rate; and 28 /// 9 1 4. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 2 DATED THIS 12th day of July, 2022. 3 HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC 4 _____________________________ CHARLES S. JACKSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13158 2630 S Jones Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.