full julie mott lawsuit

7/25/2019 Full Julie Mott lawsuit

1/4

Plaintiffs Original PetitionMott v. Mission Park

1

CAUSE NO. _____________________

TIMOTHY MOTT, SHARLOTTE

MOTT, and JONATHAN MOTT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs,

V. _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MPII, INC. d/b/a MISSION PARK

FUNERAL CHAPELS AND

CEMETERIES

Defendant. BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES TIMOTHY TIM MOTT, SHARLOTTE MOTT, and

JONATHAN MOTT, hereinafter called Plaintiffs complaining of MPII, INC. d/b/a

MISSION PARK FUNERAL CHAPELS AND CEMETERIES (MISSION) hereinafter

called Defendant and for cause of action show unto the Court the following:

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL

1. Plaintiffs intend that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 3. The

damages in this case are more than $1,000,000.00.

PARTIES AND SERVICE

2. Plaintiffs, TIMOTHY MOTT, SHARLOTTE MOTT, and JONATHAN

MOTTare each natural persons residing in Bexar County, Texas.

3. Defendant MPII, INC. d/b/a MISSION PARK FUNERAL CHAPELS AND

CEMETERIES is a Texas corporation headquartered and doing business in Bexar County,

288TH

J/D CIT PPS SAC3

ED

3/2016 1:36:45 PM

nna Kay McKinneyxar County District Clerkcepted By: Lisa Morales

2016CI00572


2/4

______________________________________________________________________________


2

Texas at all material times. Service may be effected upon its registered agentRichard D. Tips

at 1700 S.E. Military Dr., San Antonio, Texas 78214 or wherever he may he found via

private process.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

Plaintiffs rely solely on Texas state law to the exclusion of any federal law. In the case of

misnomer or misidentification, Plaintiffs sue the Defendant pursuant to TRCP 28.

5. This court has jurisdiction over Defendant MISSION, because said Defendant is a

Texas corporation headquartered and doing business in Bexar County, Texas.

6. Venue in Bexar County is proper in this cause pursuant to Section 15.002(a)(1) of

the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Bexar county.

JURY DEMAND

7. Plaintiffs hereby makes demand for trial by jury and tenders herewith the

statutory jury fee.

FACTS

8. Julie Mott, daughter of Tim and Sharlotte Mott, and brother of Jonathan Mott,

died on August 8, 2015 of natural causes. Julie Mott was twenty-five years old. Julies father,

Tim Mott, arranged for the funeral memorial to be followed by cremation with Defendant

Mission. In connection with the funeral, on or about August 8, 2015, Mission took possession of

the body of Julie Mott. On August 15, 2015 the memorial service was held at the Mission Cherry


3/4


3

Park location. Sometime later that day, after the memorial service but before the body was

transferred to the crematorium, Mission lost possession of Julie Motts body and to this day has

been unable to explain how they lost the body. To this day, Julie Motts body has not been

located.

NEGLIGENCE

9. Said conduct by Mission, listed in paragraph 7 above, constitutes a want of

ordinary care. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Missions negligent conduct.

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

10. Said conduct by Mission, listed in paragraph 7 above, constitutes gross

negligence. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Missions grossly negligent conduct.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

11. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs make Request for

Disclosure, and requests Disclosure required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194 (a) - (k).

Responses to this request must be served upon the undersigned counsel within fifty-one (51) days

after service of process.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the

Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause,

judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs against Defendant for the economic and actual damages

requested hereinabove in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court,

but within the jurisdictional limits of this court, together with punitive and exemplary damages,


4/4

______________________________________________________________________________


4

prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, costs of court, and

such other and further relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity, general or

specific, whether pled or unpled.

Respectfully submitted,

Katzman & KatzmanA T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

21022 Gathering OakSan Antonio, Texas 78260(210) 979-7300 tel(210) 979-7357 [email protected]

_____s/alex katzman________ALEX KATZMANSBN: 00786939

and

Mark Louis GreenwaldGREENWALD & GREENWALD, PLLC.11911 Orsinger LaneSan Antonio, Texas 78230(210) 789-6100 tel(210) 568-6877 [email protected]

___s/mark louis greenwald____MARK LOUIS GREENWALDSBN: 0487050

full julie mott lawsuit

Documents