CAUSE NO. _________
RICHARD C. KING
Plaintiff,
VS.
PATTI LABELLE a/k/a PATRICIA
EDWARDS; ZURI KYE EDWARDS;
EFREN HOLMES; JANE DOE;
SHAUQUETHA L. BOYD MAYS;
GEORGE H. W. BUSH INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff Richard C. King (“Plaintiff” or “King”) complains of the actions of
Defendants Patti LaBelle a/k/a Patricia Edwards (“LaBelle”); Zuri Kye Edwards
(“Edwards”); Efren Holmes (“Holmes”); Jane Doe (“Doe”), Shauquetha L. Boyd Mays
(“Mays”), and the George H. W. Bush International Airport (“Airport”) (collectively
“Defendants”) and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
DISCOVERY LEVEL
1.1
Discovery in this case should be conducted under Discovery Control
Plan Level 3 in accordance with Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
THE PARTIES
2.1
Plaintiff Richard C. King is a resident of the State of Texas.
2.2
Defendant LaBelle is a professional performer who employs security
personnel and engages agents to act under her direction and control. As described
more fully below, defendant La Belle’s security guards are – with her complete
consent and approval – violent, paid thugs who have no qualms about assaulting
innocent people who happen to be standing too close to Defendant LaBelle.
As a
result, Defendant LaBelle is fully responsible not only for her own actions, but for the
actions of her security force under the doctrine of respondeat superior and/or
vicarious liability. Defendant LaBelle conducts business in Texas, but has no regular place
of business or designated agent for service of process in Texas. Pursuant to Tex.Civ.Prac.&
Rem.Code § 17.044(b), Defendant LaBelle may be served with process by serving her agent, the
Texas Secretary of State, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, TX 78701. The Secretary of State, upon
being served with duplicate copies of the citation and petition in this cause, shall forward a copy
of the citation and petition to Defendant LaBelle, through her agent Pattonium, Inc., at its
physical address of 1212 Grenox Road, Wynnewood, PA 19096, and/or its mailing address of
Post Office Box 506, Wynnewood, PA 19096.
2.3
Defendant Edwards, on information and belief the son of Defendant
LaBelle, was hired by and contracted with Patti LaBelle to provide and implement security for
Patti LaBelle on March 11, 2011 in Houston, Texas. Defendant Edwards acted as Ms.
LaBelle’s employee or agent under her complete direction and control when he
brutally attacked King. Further, Edwards, under the complete direction and control of
LaBelle, worked with and supervised the violent thugs who joined with him in the
assault on King. Defendant Edwards conducts business in Texas but has no regular place
of business or designated agent for service of process in Texas. Pursuant to Tex.Civ.Prac.&
Rem.Code § 17.044(b), Defendant Edwards may be served with process by serving his agent, the
Texas Secretary of State, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, TX 78701. The Secretary of State, upon
being served with duplicate copies of the citation and petition in this cause, shall forward a copy
2
of the citation and petition to Defendant Edwards, at his residence, 916 Latimer Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19107.
2.4
Defendant Holmes was hired by and contracted with Patti LaBelle to provide and
implement security for Patti LaBelle on March 11, 2011 in Houston, Texas. Defendant Holmes
acted as Ms. LaBelle’s employee or agent under her complete direction and control
when he brutally attacked King. Defendant Holmes conducts business in Texas but has
no regular place of business or designated agent for service of process in Texas. Pursuant to
Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code § 17.044(b), Defendant Holmes may be served with process by
serving his agent, the Texas Secretary of State, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas 78701. The
Secretary of State, upon being served with duplicate copies of the citation and petition in this
cause, shall forward a copy of the citation and petition to Defendant Holmes, at his residence,
302 Monroe Drive, Harleys, PA 19438.
2.5
Defendant Doe was hired by and contracted with Patti LaBelle to provide and
implement security for Patti LaBelle on March 11, 2011 in Houston, Texas. Defendant Doe
acted as Ms. LaBelle’s employee or agent under her complete direction and control
when she brutally attacked King. Defendant Doe is unknown to King; therefore, he files this
petition against this Defendant under such fictitious name. King will ask leave of court to amend
this Petition and insert Jane Doe's true name in place of the fictitious name when the same has
become known to King.
2.6
Defendant Mays is a taxi dispatcher employed by George H.W. Bush
Intercontinental Airport. Defendant Mays is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and
may be served with process at her residence: 2302 West Tidwell #3804, Houston, TX 77091.
3
2.7
Defendant George H. W. Bush International Airport (“Airport”), a Governmental
Entity, may be served with process by serving Mario C. Diaz, Director of the City of Houston
Department of Aviation, or Mary Case, General Manager for George H.W. Bush Intercontinental
Airport, at 16930 JFK Blvd., Houston, Texas 77032.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.1
This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants because Defendants do
business in Texas, because Defendants participated in and/or share responsibility for
the brutal and vicious assault on King which occurred in Harris County Texas, and
because the damages far exceed the jurisdictional requirements of the Court.
3.2
Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas, because the violent acts and
careless omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit occurred in Harris
County, Texas.
BACKGROUND
4.0
King incorporates, by reference, the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
4.1
Richard King is a cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point
herein.
(“West Point”). Upon graduation, King will be commissioned as an officer in the United States
Army with the rank of Second Lieutenant. He is honored to serve his country.
4.2
On Friday, March 11, 2011, King completed classes, duties and drills at West
Point and was released for the Spring Break holidays. He was looking forward to spending his
Spring Break with his family in his hometown of Houston, Texas. He boarded a Continental
Airlines flight, departing from Newark, New Jersey, and arriving at George H.W. Bush
Intercontinental Airport (“IAH”) in Houston, Texas. After arriving at IAH, King proceeded to
4
the passenger pickup area to look for his father and his brother who were coming to pick him up.
He made a call on his cell phone to his brother.
4.3
Defendant LaBelle was scheduled to perform the next day (Saturday, March 12)
in Lake Charles, Louisiana, at L’auberge Du Lac hotel and casino. Defendant LaBelle arrived at
IAH shortly after King with a private security force of very large bodyguards under her
immediate control and supervision. This security force included Defendants Edwards, Holmes
and Doe, and perhaps others.
Defendants LaBelle, Edwards, and Holmes had ground
transportation including a stretch limousine and a Chevy Suburban waiting for them at the
passenger pickup area of IAH terminal C.
4.4
King stood near the passenger crosswalk of the pickup area waiting for his father
and brother. He was in a completely public area, minding his own business. Defendant LaBelle
came out of the airport with her entourage of paid thugs, walked past where King was standing,
and entered her stretch limousine. She had a substantial amount of luggage, which was rolled by
her retinue in two carts. King said nothing to her. He had his back to her vehicle much of the
time, focusing on his telephone conversation. Apparently, Defendant LaBelle believed King was
standing too close to her (no doubt expensive) luggage, even though he was oblivious to her
presence and the danger he was in. LaBelle lowered the window of her limousine and gave a
command to her body guards. They sprang into action. Defendants Edwards and Holmes, who
are much taller and heavier than King, pounced on him. First they shoved King back violently.
He still had his telephone in his hand, trying to have a conversation. They pounced forward and
swung their fists at his face. He tried but was unable to block their punches. His head snapped
back as he tried to back away from his assailants. At no time – ever – did King try to strike the
Defendants, who lunged into him again, this time accompanied by Jane Doe, swinging and
5
punching King in the face and body and knocking him backwards, eventually driving the back of
his head into a concrete-and-stone pillar. His blood splattered the concrete and his clothes, then
pooled beneath him as he lay helpless on his back with a severe concussion.
Defendant
LaBelle’s ruffians stood over him awhile, taunting him, then strutted away. At no time – ever –
did Defendant LaBelle try to stop her personally hired hoodlums from attacking King. She
watched the vicious assault, with approval, from her limousine.
4.5
There can never be any justification for the savage battery of King by Defendants
Edwards, Holmes and Doe. Defendant LaBelle is hot-tempered herself, and has a reputation for
both inciting and participating in acts of violence in public. She was a full participant in the
cruel attack on King. She ordered it, and never tried to stop it. Defendant LaBelle did not
emerge from her limousine until after King was being taken away by ambulance. By that time,
the Houston Police had arrived. Apparently deciding that a little bit of public relations was in
order, Defendant LaBelle stepped out of her limousine and smiled for photographs with Houston
Police officers, standing triumphantly over the pooled blood of King.
4.6
As a result of the actions of Defendant LaBelle, her employees and agents,
including Defendants Edwards, Holmes and Doe, King suffered a severe head injury, blood loss,
and deep lacerations and contusions over his body.
4.7
As a direct and proximate result of the intentional conduct, or in the alternative,
negligent and grossly negligent conduct, of Defendant LaBelle and those under her direct control
and supervision, including Defendants Edwards, Holmes and Doe, King was injured in and about
his body and extremities, and sustained the following damages:
(a)
Severe bodily injury;
(b)
Pain and suffering;
6
(c)
Disability;
(d)
Scarring and disfigurement;
(e)
Mental anguish; and
(f)
Medical and related expenses.
4.8
As a direct and proximate result of the intentional conduct, or, in the alternative
negligent and grossly negligent conduct, of Defendants LaBelle, Edwards, Holmes and Doe,
King was required to employ physicians and other health care professionals to provide medical
treatment and diagnostic testing for King and treat King for the injuries sustained as a result of
the assault. It will likely be necessary for King to incur additional medical expenses.
4.9
At all times relevant herein, Defendant LaBelle’s security guards and agents were
acting in furtherance of their employment, agency and servant relationship with Defendant
LaBelle, and therefore Defendant LaBelle was responsible at all relevant times for the actions of
the members of her security guards and agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior and/or
vicarious liability.
4.10
To literally add insult to injury, Defendants intentionally provided false
statements to the investigating police officers that arrived after their attack upon King. When
questioned by the Houston police officers, Defendants lied and conveyed defamatory
information about King.
They said, among other things, that King assaulted and battered
Defendants Edwards (perhaps injuring Edwards’ fists with King’s face) and that King even
assaulted Defendant LaBelle. The Houston police officers conveyed this false and defamatory
information to King’s superiors at West Point. The amount of detriment to his military career
caused by these false statements is still at issue.
7
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
ASSUALT & BATTERY
5.0
King incorporates, by reference, the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
5.1
Defendant Edwards, Holmes, and Doe intentionally, knowingly, and maliciously
herein.
attacked Richard King at George H. W. Bush Intercontinental Airport. The injuries suffered by
King were inflicted while he was presenting no threat to anyone.
5.2
Defendants Edwards, Holmes and Doe acted under the direction and control of
Defendant LaBelle, and in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency by Patti
LaBelle. Therefore, Defendant LaBelle is personally liable and vicariously liable under the
doctrines of actual authority, apparent authority, respondeat superior, ratification, and nondelegable duty.
5.3
As a direct and proximate result of the willful, wanton, malicious and intentional
actions of Defendant LaBelle and those of her employees and agents, King suffered severe
bodily injuries, mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment.
COUNT II
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
6.0
King incorporates, by reference, the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
6.1
Defendants LaBelle, Edwards, Holmes and Doe intentionally and/or recklessly
herein.
caused severe emotional distress to King by their willful, wanton, extremely reckless and
indifferent conduct, including but not limited to engaging in a senseless physical attack upon the
person of King which directly led to his severe bodily injuries.
8
6.2
Defendants Edwards, Holmes and Doe acted under the direction and control of
Defendant LaBelle, and in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency by
Defendant LaBelle.
Defendant LaBelle is vicariously liable under the doctrines of actual
authority, apparent authority, respondeat superior, ratification, and non-delegable duty.
6.3
The actions of Defendant LaBelle, Edwards, Holmes and Doe go well beyond all
bounds of decency and were done with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress and fear.
6.4
That the aforesaid actions by Defendants LaBelle, Edwards, Holmes and Doe
were so outrageous in character and were so extreme in degree that a reasonable member of the
community would regards such conduct as atrocious, going beyond all possible bounds of
decency and as being utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
6.5
As a directed and proximate result of the Defendants LaBelle, Edwards, Holmes
and Doe extremely, reckless and indifferent conduct, King suffered severe pain, emotional
distress, mental anguish and physical injuries as the result of being beaten.
COUNT III
NEGLIGENCE, AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
7.0
King incorporates, by reference, the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
7.1
Defendant LaBelle caused bodily injuries and severe emotional distress to King
herein.
by her negligent and grossly negligent actions, including but not limited to instructing and/or
allowing her employees and agents to engage in a senseless physical attack upon the person of
King which directly led to severe injuries.
7.2
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ grossly negligent, reckless
and indifferent conduct, King suffered severe pain, emotional distress, mental anguish and
serious physical injuries as the result of being savagely beaten.
9
COUNT V
DEFAMATION (LIBEL AND SLANDER)
8.0
King incorporates, by reference, the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
8.1
Following the attack upon King, Defendants, knowingly provided false and
herein.
defamatory witness statements to the investigating police officers at the scene of the attack.
8.2
The false and defamatory statements of Defendants were forwarded by the
investigating Houston police officers to Plaintiff’s supervisors at West Point.
Plaintiff’s
supervisors at West Point relied upon the false and disparaging statements of the aforesaid
Defendants to discipline Plaintiff, to the detriment of his career. To date, the full amount of
discipline is not yet fully determined.
8.3
Defendants acted with malice or extreme negligence by falsely and defamatorily
stating that King assaulted and battered them, rather than the other way around. The statements
of Defendants are per se defamatory because they falsely accused King of a crime (assault and
battery). Therefore, Defendants should be held strictly liable.
COUNT VI
PREMISES LIABILITY
9.0
King incorporates, by reference, the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
9.1
The Airport had a duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the
herein.
management of the George H.W. Bush Intercontinental Airport premises to protect King from
risks of harm or criminal acts of other persons. The Airport failed to provide a reasonably safe
environment or adequate security to protect King from the acts of defendants LaBelle, Edwards,
Holmes, and Doe. In the attack upon King, no security was available to, or, in the alternative,
10
ever attempted to stop assailants Edwards, Holmes, and Doe from brutally attacking King. The
Airport’s lack of adequate security was a proximate cause of King’s injuries.
DAMAGES
10.0
As a result of the Defendants’ acts and misconduct, King has sustained damages
far exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
11.0
All conditions precedent to King’s claims for relief have been performed or have
occurred.
JURY DEMAND
12.0
King requests a jury trial on the issues in this case, and tenders the appropriate fee
with this petition.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Richard King asks that the court issue citation for defendants to
appear and answer, and that upon final hearing in this case, he be awarded judgment against the
defendants, jointly and severally, for the following:
a.
actual damages;
b.
attorneys fees and expenses incurred by him;
c.
punitive damages;
d.
prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
e.
court costs; and
11
f.
all other relief in law or in equity to which he is entitled
Dated: June 1, 2011.
Respectfully Submitted,
RALEY & BOWICK LLP
/s/ John W. Raley
JOHN W. RALEY
Texas State Bar No. 16488400
ROBERT M. BOWICK
Texas State Bar No. 24029932
1800 Augusta Dr., Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77057
Telephone:
(713) 429 - 8050
Facsimile:
(713) 429 - 8045
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
RICHARD C. KING
12