Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 11
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`BRENDA LOPEZ DE LEON,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`
`JURY REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Brenda Lopez De Leon now files this Original Complaint against Defendant
`
`Sanderson Farms, Inc. Ms. Lopez De Leon would respectfully show the Court the following:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Ms. Brenda Lopez De Leon, is an individual who resides in Brazos County,
`
`Texas. She may be served through her attorneys of record, Brent S. Phelps and Tej R. Paranjpe, of
`
`Paranjpe Mahadass Ruemke LLP, 3701 Kirby Dr., Suite 530, Houston, Texas 77098.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Sanderson Farms, Inc. is a Mississippi corporation transacting business in
`
`Texas, with its headquarters and principal place of business in Laurel, Mississippi, and may be
`
`served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 1999 Bryan
`
`St, Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas, 75201 or wherever it may be found.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1) and (a)(3) because
`
`the Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different U.S. states, a citizen of a foreign state, and
`
`the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, excluding interest and costs.
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 1 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 11
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the
`
`events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.
`
`CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
`
`5.
`
`All conditions precedent have been performed or occurred.
`
`RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
`
`6.
`
`Defendant is legally responsible to the Plaintiff for the acts and omissions of their
`
`employees, agents, servants, and representatives under the legal doctrines of respondeat superior,
`
`agency, and/or ostensible agency. As a result thereof, the Defendant is vicariously liable for all
`
`wrongful and illegal acts, omissions, and conduct of their employees, agents, servants and
`
`representatives.
`
`MISNOMER AND ALTER EGO
`
`7.
`
`In the event any parties are misnamed or are not included herein, it is Plaintiff’s contention
`
`that such was a “misidentification,” “misnomer,” and/or such parties were or are “alter egos” of
`
`parties named in this complaint. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that such “corporate veils” should
`
`be pierced to hold such parties properly included in the interest of justice.
`
`8.
`
`The “alter ego doctrine permits the imposition of liability upon the parent company for
`
`torts and contractual obligations of its subsidiary…” Miles v. Am. Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
`
`703 F.2d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1983). The theory “provides a vehicle for bringing a subsidiary within
`
`the reach of the Texas long-arm statute because a close relationship between a parent and its
`
`subsidiary may justify a finding that the parent does business in a jurisdiction through the local
`
`activities of its subsidiaries, or vice versa.” Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp., 710 F.2d 1154, 1159
`
`(5th Circ. 1983); Walker v. Newgent 583 F.2d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 1978).
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 2 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 11
`
`9.
`
`“Where a parent establishes a subsidiary… and dominates it…that the subsidiary is a mere
`
`conduit for the parent’s business, the parent should not be able to shift the risk of loss.” United
`
`States v. Jon-T Chemicals, Inc. 768 F.2d 686, 693 (5th Cir. 1985); Nelson v. Int’l. Paint Co. 734
`
`F.2d 1084, 1093 (5th Cir. 1984); Edwards Co. v. Monogram Indus. 730 F.2d 977, 982 (5th Cir.
`
`1984); Miles v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. 703 F.2d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1983).
`
`10.
`
`Sanderson Farms, Inc. has several branches and subsidiaries that operate as Sanderson
`
`Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), and Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production
`
`Division). As such, for the purposes of this litigation, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and the various
`
`divisions are alter-egos of each other and are referred herein and throughout this Complaint as
`
`“Sanderson Farms, Inc.” or “Sanderson Farms”.
`
`FACTS
`
`11.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. At all times during her
`
`employment with Defendant, Defendant had and consistently exercised a right to control over the
`
`work performed by Plaintiff.
`
`12.
`
`In the course and scope of her employment on or about September 30, 2020, Plaintiff was
`
`working at Defendant Sanderson Farms’ premises located at 2000 Shiloh Ave., Bryan, TX 77803.
`
`13.
`
`Sanderson Farms is a poultry processing company. The Sanderson Farms facility in Bryan,
`
`Texas is responsible for processing and packaging chicken to sell. Plaintiff worked the night shift
`
`to clean the pots, hooks, and some machines once production came to a stop.
`
`14.
`
`A Sanderson Farms supervisor, Adelita Rios, instructed Plaintiff to work in a different area
`
`of the facility. Even after Plaintiff conveyed her discomfort and uneasiness of the new facility area,
`
`lack of any knowledge of the specific machines she was being ordered to work, Sanderson Farms
`
`refused to permit Plaintiff to work in the area she was accustomed to. Brenda attempted to escalate
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 3 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 11
`
`the issue to Sanderson Farms manager, Adelfino Maldonado, describing she was unfamiliar with
`
`the different machines and new area of the facility she was now being assigned to. Once again,
`
`Sanderson Farms disregarded Plaintiff’s concerns and instructed her to work where she had been
`
`newly assigned.
`
`15.
`
`During her scheduled shift, Plaintiff entered the poorly lit, strange area of the facility and
`
`began cleaning the chicken processing machines when she came to a peculiar machine with a
`
`conveyor belt and electronic code lock. These processing machines remove the skin from the
`
`chickens. Plaintiff looked for Mr. Maldonado to ask him about the machine, but he was not around
`
`in the area. Plaintiff then began cleaning the machine when suddenly the conveyor belt started up
`
`which shoved her left hand into the chicken processor machine. The abrupt incident also shifted
`
`Plaintiff’s body in a swift, jerking motion. Plaintiff screamed for help, but the area was so loud
`
`that no one heard her crying out. Plaintiff’s left hand was lodged in the machine and the machine
`
`came to a stop.
`
`16. Manager Adelfino Maldonado and another supervisor, Santiago Zamora were eventually
`
`called to see if there was a way to pull Plaintiff’s hand from the machine. Then, Timothy Tatum
`
`the mechanics supervisor, arrived in the area and tried to cut Plaintiff’s hand out of her gloves.
`
`When her hand was finally released, Plaintiff took off the gloves and realized that her left hand
`
`and arm were swollen and in terrible pain, weirdly numb, and she was unable to close her hand
`
`into a fist.
`
`17.
`
`After the incident, Defendant failed to take any responsibility for their negligence and fired
`
`Plaintiff. Since then, Plaintiff has not been able to work because of her severe injuries.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with any training on common safety guidelines and
`
`failed to provide a safe work environment to accomplish the hazardous task. Due to the negligence
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 4 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 11
`
`of the Defendant, Plaintiff suffered serious, life-changing bodily injuries, including, but not limited
`
`to, low back pain, finger lacerations, and permanent nerve damage to her left hand. These injuries
`
`caused Plaintiff to sustain damages as pled herein.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTIONS
`
`COUNT I:
`NEGLIGENCE
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated by reference. On the occasions in question, the
`
`19.
`
`Defendant committed acts of omission and commission, which collectively and separately constituted
`
`negligence. The Defendant had a duty to exercise ordinary care, meaning that degree of care that would
`
`be used by any employer of ordinary prudence under the same of similar circumstances. The Defendant
`
`breached that duty and are negligent, negligent per se, and grossly negligent for the following reasons:
`
`a. Failing to properly supervise Plaintiff at the work site;
`
`b. Failing to provide and require the use of proper safety equipment;
`
`c. Failing to adequately instruct Plaintiff;
`
`d. failing to adequately train Plaintiff/and or its employees;
`
`e. Failing to ensure a safe system of work is implemented, all foreseeable risks are
`
`identified, and control measures are implemented to eliminate or mitigate the risks;
`
`f. Failing to ensure that the work operation had the necessary resources to carry out work
`
`tasks safely;
`
`g. Failing to properly train Plaintiff on how to work safely;
`
`h. Failing to follow OSHA regulations including, but not limited to: 29 C.F.R. §§
`
`1910.132, 1910.138, and 1910.212;
`
`i. Failing to have an accident prevention policy;
`
`j. Failing to properly train, supervise, and educate its employees, temporary help,
`
`contractors, subcontractors, and third parties retained for performance of work;
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 5 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 11
`
`k. Failing to take affirmative action to control or avoid increasing the danger from a
`
`condition that was at least partially created by the Defendant; and
`
`l. Other acts deemed negligent.
`
`20.
`
`The Defendant’s breaches were the proximate case of the occurrence in question and the
`
`injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff herein.
`
`COUNT 2:
`PREMISES LIABILITY
`
`Defendant had a duty to keep the premises safe for employees and invitees, including
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`22.
`
`The unsafe instructions, work conditions, and omissions of safety equipment and
`
`precautionary measures of Defendant resulted in severe injuries to Plaintiff.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`The Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known of the danger.
`
`The Defendant breached its duty of ordinary care to Plaintiff by failing to warn her of the
`
`dangerous condition, or in the alternative, failing to make the location reasonably safe for work.
`
`25.
`
`The Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care proximately caused the incident in
`
`question and Plaintiff’s injuries.
`
`COUNT 3:
`NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING,
`SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION
`
`Sanderson Farms negligently hired, trained, supervised, or retained Adelita Rios, Adelfino
`
`26.
`
`Maldonado, Santiago Zamora, and others. As an employer, Sanderson Farms owed a duty to
`
`Plaintiff and the general public to hire, train, supervise, and retain competent managers and
`
`supervisors for the furtherance of Sanderson Farms’ business. Sanderson Farms owed said duty to
`
`train and supervise their management staff on proper safety procedures and how the managers and
`
`supervisors should effectively train and supervise other employees to clean the extremely
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 6 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 11
`
`dangerous chicken processing equipment. Sanderson Farms breached their duty and negligently
`
`allowed incompetent supervisors to shift around employees to unfamiliar areas of the facility
`
`without proper training and safety equipment. Given the type of equipment in the facility, there is
`
`great likelihood of severe injury from the breach of said duty. Sanderson Farm’s breach of their
`
`duty to Plaintiff was the proximate cause of the incident and Plaintiff’s damages pled herein.
`
`COUNT 4:
`GROSS NEGLIGENCE
`
`In addition and in the alternative, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for gross negligence.
`
`Defendant owed legal duties to Plaintiff, as alleged above.
`
`Defendant breached the duties they owed to Plaintiff, as alleged above.
`
`Defendant’s acts or omissions when it did not keep safe premises and ensure the dangerous
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`equipment was safe for use, when viewed objectively from their standpoint at the time it occurred,
`
`involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential
`
`harm to others. That is, there was a likelihood of serious injury to Plaintiff.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant’s acts or omissions when it did not maintain or otherwise make its equipment
`
`safe, when viewed objectively from their standpoint at the time it occurred, involved an extreme
`
`degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. That is,
`
`there was a likelihood of serious injury to Plaintiff.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant’s acts or omissions when it did not properly train, supervise, or provide proper
`
`safety equipment when viewed objectively from their standpoint at the time it occurred, involved
`
`an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to
`
`others. That is, there was a likelihood of serious injury to Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 7 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 11
`
`33.
`
`Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk but proceeded with conscious
`
`indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. That is, Defendant knew about the risk but
`
`acted anyway.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant consciously engaged in intentional, malicious and reckless conduct through
`
`Defendant’s actions and inactions, which entitles Plaintiff to punitive and exemplary damages
`
`under Texas law. Defendant is liable for exemplary damages for their own acts and Defendant is
`
`liable for exemplary damages for an agent’s noncriminal act because:
`
`a. The act or omission was committed by a person employed in a management
`capacity for the Defendant while that person was acting within the scope of
`employment;
`
`b. The Defendant was reckless in hiring, retaining, supervising, or training the agent
`or employee and that recklessness was the proximate cause of the act or omission
`that caused the loss or injury; and/or
`
`c. The Defendant authorized, ratified, or approved the act or omission with knowledge
`or conscious disregard that the act or omission may result in the loss or injury.
`
`Defendant’s intentional, malicious, or reckless acts individually and collectively were a
`
`
`35.
`
`cause in fact, producing cause, legal cause, direct cause, and proximate cause in causing Plaintiff’s
`
`injuries and damages.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries as set forth more fully below.
`
`Plaintiff seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
`
`RES IPSA LOQUITOR
`
`38.
`
`The conditions and/or instrumentalities involved in the incident(s) complained of herein
`
`were under the management and control of the Defendant, and/or their agents, servants, and
`
`employees. The character of the events and circumstances causing the Plaintiff’s injuries would
`
`not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence and, under these circumstances, the Defendant’s
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 8 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 11
`
`negligence must be inferred under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor as the doctrine is understood
`
`by law.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`39.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions outlined above, Plaintiff has
`
`been severely injured. Defendant’s conduct caused physical pain, economic losses, loss of
`
`consortium, as well as emotional distress, mental anguish, and trauma. Plaintiff seeks
`
`compensatory damages in an amount deemed sufficient by the tier of fact to compensate them for
`
`the following damages:
`
`a. Medical, hospital, and pharmaceutical charges and expenses in the past;
`
`b. Medical, hospital, and pharmaceutical charges and expenses that, in reasonable
`
`medical probability, will be incurred in the future;
`
`c. Past, present, and future mental anguish;
`
`d. Pain and suffering in the past;
`
`e. Pain and suffering that, in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future;
`
`f. Loss of consortium;
`
`g. Disability and impairment in the past;
`
`h. Disability and impairment that, in reasonable probability, will occur in the future;
`
`i. Loss of use;
`
`j. Past, present, and future disfigurement;
`
`k. Past and future loss earnings or loss of wage-earning capacity;
`
`l. Costs of suit;
`
`m. Exemplary damages; and
`
`n. Any and all other damages to which she may show herself entitled.
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 9 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 11
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered damages from the Defendant’s wrongful conduct described herein.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is seeking damages over $1,000,000.00.
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury.
`
`PRAYER
`
`
`
`For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue citations for the Defendant to appear and
`
`answer, and that Plaintiff be awarded a judgment against the Defendant for the following:
`
`a. Compensatory and actual damages in an amount deemed sufficient by the trier of fact;
`
`b. Costs of Court;
`
`c. Incidental damages;
`
`d. Exemplary damages;
`
`e. Costs of court;
`
`f. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate per annum until paid;
`
`and
`
`g. Such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which
`
`Plaintiff may show herself justly entitled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 10 of 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02730 Document 1 Filed on 08/20/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 11
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Paranjpe Mahadass Ruemke LLP
`
`/s/Brent S. Phelps________
`Brent S. Phelps
`
`Attorney-in-charge
`Texas State Bar: 24096148
`Federal Bar Number: 3600494
`Tej Paranjpe
`State Bar Number: 24071829
`Federal Bar Number: 1682215
`3701 Kirby, Suite 530
`Houston, Texas 77098
`BPhelps@pmrlaw.com
`TParanjpe@pmrlaw.com
`(832) 667.7700 Telephone
`(832) 202.2018 Facsimile
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`Page 11 of 11
`
`
`