FILED
`11/21/2024 9:22 AM
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`DALLAS CO., TEXAS
`Kryshawna Charleston DEPUTY
`
`CAUSE NO. DC-22-16297
`
`§
`HOA T. NGUYEN, Individually
`And As Next Friend of K.T., A Minor, §
`And As Heir to The ESTATE OF
`THAI THANH TRAN, Deceased,
`NHON TRAN, and THUYLE,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`FRANCIS HUMPHREY NYAMOR,
`Individually And D/B/A
`JD AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE & SALES §
`and MONEY TALK L.L.C., BABY §
`DOLLS FT. WORTH F/K/A CABARET §
`EAST, RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, §
`INC., AND JOHN/JANE DOE(S)
`§
`Defendants.
`§
`
`
`
`CO?(O)GO?WO?LO)6)WO)GO)
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`10157 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK
`L.L.C.’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
`AND MOTION FOR LEAVE
`
`COME NOW, Plaintiffs, HOA T. NGUYEN, Individually and As Next Friend of K.T.,
`
`a Minor and as Heir to the Estate of THA] THANH TRAN, Deceased, NHON TRAN, and
`
`THUYLE (“Plaintiffs”), in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and subject to their
`
`Motion for Continuance and Objection to the Sufficiency of Defendants’ No-
`
`Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment,
`
`file this Response to Defendants JD
`
`Automotive and Money Talk L.L.C.’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, and
`
`Motion for Leave, asking that Defendants’ Motion be denied, and in support thereof,
`
`respectfully shows the Court as follows:
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE -- PAGE 1 of 13
`
`

`

`This case arises from a tragic fatal crash on September 7, 2022 wherein Decedent
`
`THAI THANH TRAN’s vehicle became disabled on SH 183 Airport Freewayin Irving,
`
`Texas, and Decedentpulled off the roadway and onto the right shoulder, turned his hazard
`
`lights on, and exited his vehicle, when he wasstruck and killed by Defendant FRANCIS
`
`HUMPHREY NYAMOR (hereafter, “Defendant Nyamor” and/or “Nyamor”), operating a
`
`2020 red Nissan Altima, under the influence of alcohol, while in the course and scope of
`
`his employment with JD AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE & SALES(hereafter, “JD Automotive”)
`
`and/or MONEYTALK,L.L.C. (hereafter, “Money Talk”), in order to evade the provision of
`
`his probation for a prior conviction of driving under the influence that mandated he blow
`
`into a breathalyzerin order to operate his primary vehicle (not the vehicle involved in this
`
`fatality).
`
`Defendant Nyamorwasacting as a managing member and employeeof both
`
`JD Automotive and MoneyTalk, and was driving a 2020 Nissan Altima registered to
`
`the business address of Defendants JD Automotive and Money Talk. Despite
`
`Nyamor’s knownrecord of impaired and reckless driving, Defendants continued to allow
`
`him access to company vehicles, failing to impose any restrictions on him or monitoring
`
`him, even after he caused multiple incidents, including a separate crash in 2024. Plaintiffs
`
`contend that Defendants JD Automotive and Money Talk are liable for Defendant
`
`Nyamor’s actions under theories of respondeat superior, negligent hiring,
`
`training,
`
`supervision, and retention, as well as negligent entrustment, given their failure to restrict
`
`vehicle access or take corrective measures to prevent foreseeable harm, in addition to
`
`joint enterprise/venture, and under the theories of aiding and abetting of 1) assisting or
`
`encouraging, 2) assisting and participating, 3) concert of action, and 4) civil conspiracy.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 2 of13
`
`

`

`ll.
`
`As a Matter of Law, The Court Cannot Grant Defendants’ No-Evidence
`
`Summary Judgment When Fifth AmendmentPrivilege is Being Used as
`
`a Sword and Shield.
`
`As further discussed in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance, Defendant Nyamor’s
`
`assertion of his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination instead of providing
`
`discovery responses or submitting to a deposition, has prevented and continues to
`
`prevent meaningful discovery not only in relation to himself, but to Defendants JD
`
`Automotive and Money Talk, because he owns and works at both companies.
`
`Defendant Nyamor is the president of, and owns the business, filed under his
`
`name, d/b/a JD AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE, registered at the address 2125 E Lancaster
`
`Ave, Fort Worth, Texas, and 5730 Craig Street, Fort Worth, Texas, as well as an
`
`employee that automotive repair business. 1
`
`Defendant Nyamor is the director of, and owns the business, MONEY TALK, LLC,
`
`registered at the address 2125 E Lancaster Ave, Fort Worth, Texas, as well as an
`
`employee thereof.” Along with the 2020 Altima involvedin this fatality, Nyamor hasat least
`
`an additional ten vehicles registered in the State of Texas under his name.® Plaintiffshave
`
`been informed on good authority, that Nyamor was on probation for a previous DWlat the
`
`time, and a term of that probation was that a breathalyzer interlock device wasinstalled
`
`in his personal vehicle that required a blow of 0.00% in order to start his vehicle.
`
`1See, Exhibit 1 — Def.’s Objections and Answersto Pit’s 1* Set of Interrog.; See, Exhibit 2 — Def’s Objections and
`Responses to Pit’f 15t Request for Admissions; See, Exhibit 3 — Certified Crash Report for this Fatality; Exhibit 4 -
`Indep. (GDN) Motor Vehicle Dealers List & Violations; Exhibit 5 — Def. Nyamor’s LinkedIn profile.
`2 See, Exhibit 2; See Exhibit 6 —- Texas Sec. of State page for MoneyTalk, LLC.
`3 See, Exhibit 7 — Public Data Vehicle Registration Search Results for Francis Nyamor.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 3 of 13
`
`

`

`The vehicle involvedin this fatality that Nyamor was operating did not have a breathalyzer
`
`interlock device installed.
`
`Defendant Nyamor, who for discovery purposes, is the same as Defendants JD
`
`Automotive and Money Talk, has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-
`
`incrimination due to the pending criminal suit
`
`in connection with this fatality. Yet
`
`Defendants JD Automotive and Money Talk now attempt to bring a No-Evidence Motion
`
`for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion’), despite Nyamor being the reason no
`
`evidence has been able to be discovered.
`
`However, Defendant Nyamor (and Defendants JD Automotive and Money
`
`Talk) cannot use Defendant Nyamor’s assertion of his Fifth Amendmentrights as
`
`both a shield and a sword.‘ Thereis an exception to the prohibition of inferences being
`
`drawnfrom an assertion of Fifth Amendmentright against self-incrimination for civil cases,
`
`and a factfinder is allowed to draw negative inferences from a party’s invocation of the
`
`Fifth Amendmentprivilege.®
`
`The idea behind that exception is that party in a civil case who usesthe privilege
`
`to protect
`
`relevant
`
`information,
`
`instead of to avoid subjecting himself to criminal
`
`responsibility, converts the privilege from shield to sword, which without the exception,
`
`would unfairly prejudice the other party.® And while ordinarily the adverse interest goes
`
`into effect when a partyin a civil action refusesto testify in responseto probative evidence
`
`4 See, e.g., Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety Officers Ass’n v. Denton, 897 S.W.2d 757, 761 (holding that “[a]
`plaintiff who uses the privilege to protect relevant information from a defendant useshis Fifth
`Amendmentshield as a sword”).
`5P.C.v. E.C.,, 594 $.W.3d 459, 462(citing, Wilz v. Flournoy, 228 S.W.3d 674, 677 (Tex. 2007); Webb v. Maldonado, 331
`S.W.3d 879, 883 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied)).
`6 fd., 594 S.W.3d at 462.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 4 of 13
`
`

`

`offered against him,’ a negative inference can also be drawn against a party using the
`
`privilege to refuse discovery requests and answering questions during depositions.®
`
`Moreover, when a deponentacting as an agent of a party to a civil suit asserts his right
`
`against self-incrimination in avoiding discovery,
`
`the party who is the principle he
`
`represents would gain an unfair advantage, and negative inferences against
`
`the
`
`principle.?
`
`Therefore, for this reason, Plaintiffs request the Court to continue the hearing on
`
`Defendants’ no-evidence motion for summary judgment until Plaintiffs are afforded the
`
`opportunity to fully develop facts to support their causes of action against Defendants or,
`
`alternatively, deny Defendants’ motion outright.
`
`Subject to this argument, as well as Plaintiffs’ motion for continuance and objection
`
`to the sufficiency of Defendants’ Motion, should the Court reach the merits of Defendants’
`
`Motion, the Court should draw a negative inference against Nyamor’s refusal to answer
`
`discovery or sit for deposition, against JD Automotive and MoneyTalk as well.
`
`lll.
`
`©SUMMARY-JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
`
`In support of Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ No-Evidence Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment, Plaintiffs rely upon and hereby incorporate by reference all the pleadingsin
`
`this cause, of which Plaintiffs request the Court to take judicial notice. Plaintiffs further
`
`rely on and incorporate the following summary-judgment evidence in support of this
`
`response. These documentsare the originals or true and correct copies ofthe originals:
`
`7 Id.
`8 fd, at 463 (citing Wil-Roye InvestmentCo.If v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA, 142 $.W.3d 393, 403-407 (Tex. App.—
`El Paso 2004, no pet.)).
`° See,Id.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 5 of 13
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Nyamor’s Objections and Answersto Plaintiffs’ First
`Interrogatories;
`
`Defendant Nyamor’s Objections and Responsesto Plaintiffs’ First Request
`for Admission;
`
`Texas DMV Independent (GDN) Motor Vehicle Dealers List & Violations
`Search Results;
`
`Certified Crash Report for this Fatality;
`
`Defendant Nyamor’s LinkedIn Profile;
`
`Texas Secretary of State Search Results for Money Talk, LLC;
`
`Public Data Vehicle Registration Search Results for Francis Nyamor;
`
`Tarrant County Docket Search Results for prior DWI Conviction;
`
`Relevant Excerpts from Irving Police Department Open Records Request
`Documents;
`
`10.
`
`Certified Crash Report_01/22/2024;
`
`11.|Vehicle Registration Information_Lexis Search_ 2020 Altima;
`
`IV.
`
`DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A NO-EVIDENCE
`SUMMARY-JUDGMENT
`
`There is more than a scintilla of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ claims against
`
`Defendants for negligent hiring and respondeat superior.
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment Standard
`
`After an adequatetime for discovery, a party without the burden of proof may movefor a no-
`
`evidence summary judgment onthe basis that there is no evidence to support anessential
`
`elementof the non-moving party’s claim." In response, a non-movingpartyis “not required
`
`to marshal its proof; its response need only point out evidencethat raises a fact issue on
`
`' Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 6 of13
`
`

`

`the challenged elements.”"! To determine whether there is a fact issue, the evidenceis
`
`reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, crediting favorable evidence if
`
`reasonable jurors could do so, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable
`
`jurors could not.'* Every reasonable inference is indulged in favor of the non-movant; and
`
`any doubts are resolved in the non-movant's favor."?
`
`A trial court cannot grant a no-evidence summary judgmentif the non-movant
`
`presents some evidence on the disputed element.'4 “Some evidence” means more than
`
`a scintilla.!® If the evidence supporting a finding rises to a level that would enable
`
`reasonable, fair-minded persons to differ in their conclusions, then more than a scintilla
`
`of evidence exists. '®
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ motion is insufficient as a matter of law to allege no-
`evidence of negligent training, supervision, and retention.
`
`As an initial matter, the entirety of Defendants’ no-evidence allegations in Section
`
`IVB(2) of their motion are as follows:
`
`2.
`
`NEGLIGENCE [SIC] HIRING, SUPERVISION, RETENTION
`
`a. Plaintiff Has Failed to Present Evidence of Negligent Hiring,
`Supervision, and Retention
`
`Plaintiffs have produced zero evidence that Defendant JD Automotive
`negligently hired Defendant Nyamor. The elements of a negligent hiring,
`supervision, and retention claim are stated as:
`(1)
`the duty to hire,
`supervise, and retain competent employees; (2) the employer breachesthat
`duty; and (3)
`the employer's breach of that duty proximately causes
`damagesthe plaintiff. TH/ of Tex. at Lubbock I, LLC v. Perea, 329 S.W.3d
`548, 573 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, pet. denied); LaBella v. Charlie
`
`11 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (Notes & Comments 1997).
`2 Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. 2009)(citing City of
`Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005)).
`13 Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002).
`4 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).
`15 Cianci v. M.Till, inc., 34 S.W.3d 327, 329 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2000, no pet.).
`16 Jackson v. Fiesta Mart, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 7 of13
`
`

`

`Thomas,Inc., 942 S.W.2d 127, 137 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1997, writ denied).
`To imposeliability for negligent hiring, there must be evidence that the
`plaintiff's injuries were brought about by reason of the employment of the
`incompetent servant. Dieter v. Baker Service Tools, 739 S.W.2d 405, 408
`(Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1987, writ denied). Plaintiffs lack sufficient
`evidence to succeed on a claim for negligent hiring. Plaintiffs present mere
`allegations but no evidence to corroborate each element of their claim.
`Thus, Defendantis entitled to a motion for summary judgment.
`
`Defendants’ motion, p. 4—5 (emphasis in original).
`
`At best, Defendants allege that there is no evidence of the elements of negligent
`
`hiring. However, their motion is legally insufficient as to allegations of no evidence of
`
`negligent
`
`training, supervision, and retention, and makes no mention, much less
`
`challenge to, whatsoever,of Plaintiffs’ claims against JD Automotive and MoneyTalk for
`
`Negligent Entrustment.
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully refer the Court
`
`to their objection to the sufficiency of
`
`Defendants’ motion, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Continuance and
`
`Objection to Sufficiency of Defendants’ Motion,
`
`filed November 15, 2024. Plaintiffs
`
`reiterate that objection here.”
`
`C.
`
`There is more than a scintilla of evidence to support each challenged
`elementof Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants for negligenthiring.
`
`Subject to and without waving the foregoing objection, there is more thanascintilla
`
`of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ allegations of negligenthiring.
`
`It
`
`is well-established that an employer owes a duty to the general public to
`
`determine the qualifications and competence of the employees it hires.1® To prove
`
`17 See Jose Fuentes Co.v. Alfaro, 418 S.W.3d 280, 282 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied) (holding
`that a no-evidence motion for summary judgment does not meet the requirements of the rule whenit “fails
`to identify what element of elements are being challenged” and “there is no ‘fair notice’ exception to the
`rule that would force a non-movant to present evidence in support of an elementthat is not specifically
`identified as a challenged element”) (emphasis added).
`18 Dangertield v. Ormsby, 264 S.W.3d 904, 912 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 8 of13
`
`

`

`negligenthiring, a plaintiff must prove that an employer'sfailure to investigate, screen, or
`
`supervise its employees proximately caused theplaintiff's injuries.1? Under Texas law,
`
`employers have a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, supervising, and retaining
`
`employees to prevent foreseeable harm. Liability arises if an employer knew or should
`
`have known of an employee's unfit or dangerous tendencies.7°
`
`There is more than a scintilla of evidence that Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to
`
`ascertain the qualifications of Defendant Nyamor. Specifically, 1) Defendant Nyamor was
`
`wearing a uniform for JD Automotive; 2) Nyamor was on probation from a previous DWI
`
`when hekilled Mr. Tran;2' and 2) told police that he had been drinking at work prior to the
`
`killing Mr. Tran.24
`
`Likewise, evidence shows that JD Automotive and Money Talk were aware, or
`
`should have been aware, of Nyamor’s dangerous tendencies, including his 2021 DWI
`
`conviction. Despite this, Defendants continued to allow Nyamor vehicle access without
`
`any corrective actions, training, or supervision. Entrusting a known reckless driver with
`
`accessto businessvehicles in a vehicle-related business constitutes a foreseeable risk,
`
`and Defendants’ inaction in addressing this risk raises material fact issues regarding
`
`negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention. Moreover, in 2024, Nyamor wasin
`
`another wreck where he hit a rail and ran off before the police arrived leaving his 2020
`
`19 Black v. Smith Protective Servs., No. 01-14-00969-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 10475, 2016 WL
`5400565, at *10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 23, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Fifth Club, Inc.
`v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788, 796 (Tex. 2006)).
`20 See Wanseyv. Hole, 379 S.W.3d 246, 247-48 (Tex. 2012).
`21 See, Exhibit 8 — Tarrant County Docket Search Results for prior DWI Conviction.
`22 See, Exhibit 9 - Relevant Excerpts from Open Records Request Documents from Irving Police
`Department.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 9 of13
`
`

`

`Nissan behind.2? Despite the September 2022 fatal accident, which should have
`
`prompted corrective action, Defendants allowed Nyamor to continue driving company
`
`vehicles. This decision demonstrates a gross failure in supervision and retention, as
`
`Defendants took no effective action to prevent Nyamor from engaging in behavior that
`
`posed a foreseeable risk to the public.
`
`In this case, Plaintiff has provided more thana scintilla of evidence to raise genuine
`
`issues of material fact across each claim addressed in Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiff
`
`respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’ no-evidence motion for summary
`
`judgment and grantPlaintiff additional time to complete necessary discovery.
`
`D.
`
`There is more than a scintilla of evidence to support each challenged
`elementofPlaintiffs’ claim for negligence under respondeat superior.
`
`An employer may be held liable for tortious acts committed by an employee or
`
`ostensible employee within the scope of the employment, under the doctrine of
`
`respondeat superior.“ Defendants argue that Defendant Nyamor's actions were outside
`
`the scope of his employment with Defendants JD Automotive and MoneyTalk, precluding
`
`vicarious liability.
`
`Texas law holds an employer vicariously liable for an employee’s actions if those
`
`actions were within the course and scope of employment.2°
`
`Here, evidence directly connects Defendant Nyamor’s conduct to his employment
`
`with Defendant JD Automotive and Money Talk. Prior to driving a company vehicle,
`
`Defendant Nyamor was consuming alcohol while on the job, and at the time of the crash,
`
`23See,Exhibit10—CertifiedCrashReport_01/22/2024.
`
`
`4 Virlar v. Puente, 664 S.W.3d 53, 64 (Tex. 2023).
`25 See Painter v. Amerimex Drilling |, Lid., 561 S.\W.3d 125, 132 (Tex. 2018).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 10 of 13
`
`

`

`Defendant Nyamor was wearing a Defendant JD Automotive uniform, and the 2020
`
`Nissan Altima he drove wasregistered to Defendant JD Automotive’s business address.”6
`
`These facts amount to a more than a scintilla of evidence that create genuine
`
`issues of material fact regarding whether Defendant Nyamor wasacting within the scope
`
`of his employment, thereby precluding a no-evidence summary judgment on respondeat
`
`superior grounds.
`
`Thus, the Court cannot grant Defendant’s No-Evidence Summary Judgment, as
`
`more than a scintilla of evidence that create genuine issues of material fact as to Plaintiffs’
`
`Negligent Hiring and Respondeat Superior claims against JD Automotive and MoneyTalk,
`
`and Defendants failed to challenge Plaintiffs’ claims against them for Negligent Training,
`
`Supervision, Retention, and Negligent Entrustment.
`
`E.
`
`Public Policy and Equitable Considerations
`
`Further, allowing Defendants to avoid liability here would undermine Texas public
`
`policy, which aims to protect public safety by holding companies accountable for
`
`foreseeable risks. Additionally, equitable considerations favor Plaintiff, who has been
`
`constrained by procedural delays, health-related issues, and limited discovery. Plaintiff
`
`requests that the Court provide time for full discovery, allowing justice to be served in this
`
`wrongful death case.
`
`V.
`
`Prayer for Relief
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the
`
`Court deny Defendants JD Automotive and Money Talk’s No-Evidence Motion for
`
`26 See, Exhibit 11 - Vehicle Registration Information_Lexis Search_ 2020 Altima; See, Exhibit 9.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 11 of 13
`
`

`

`Summary Judgment, allowing this case to proceed and granting Plaintiffs sufficient time
`
`for complete discovery. Plaintiffs pray for any other available relief.
`
`VI.©MOTION FOR LEAVE
`
`Should the Court deem it necessary, Plaintiffs would respectfully move for leave to
`
`file this Response, as good causetherefore exists, being that it is the understanding of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel that in this Court, the local procedure for motions being heard via
`
`submission is that responsive documents and evidence can befiled until the time that
`
`the submission hearingis set.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KASTL LAW,P.C.
`
`
`/s/ Madison Speer
`Kristina N. Kastl
`State Bar No. 24025467
`Email: eservice@kastllaw.com
`Email: kkasti@kastllaw.com
`
`Madison Speer
`State Bar No. 24128226
`Email: rvarughese@kastllaw.com
`
`4144 North Central Expressway, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75204
`Phone: (214) 821-0230
`Fax: (214) 821-0231
`
`ATTORNEYFOR PLAINTIFF
`
`*Please note and document Kastl Law, P.C’s. new
`e-serve address. All future e-serve notifications
`must be served at: eservice@kastllaw.com.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 12 of 13
`
`

`

`Serviceis only effectuated if it is served through
`our eservice@kastllaw.com email. Any other
`Kastl Law, P.C. email
`is considered ineffective
`service.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`| hereby certify that on November 21, 2024, a true and correct copy of the above
`and foregoing documenthas been served upon all counsel of record pursuant to TRCP
`21a, via E-service:
`
`/s/ Madison Speer
`Madison Speer
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JD AUTOMOTIVE AND MONEY TALK L.L.C.’S NO-
`EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE-- PAGE 13 of 13
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`HOA T. NGUYEN,Individually
`And As Next Friend of K.T., A Minor,
`And As Heir To The ESTATE OF
`THAI THANH TRAN, Deceased,
`NHONTRAN,and THUY LE,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`FRANCIS HUMPHREY NYAMOR,
`Individually And D/B/A
`JD AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE & SALES
`and MONEYTALKL.L.C.,
`Defendants.
`
`CO?COD0G?LGR60260D602YON0GDUG08078076?uD
`
`CAUSE NO. DC-22-16297
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`1018? JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`DEFENDANT FRANCIS HUMPHREY NYAMOR, INDIVIDUALLY’S OBJECTIONS
`AND ANSWERSTO PLAINTIFF HOA T. NGUYN, INDIVIDUALLY’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`TO:
`
`Plaintiff, Hoa T. Nguyen, Individually, by and through the attorney of record, Kristina N.
`Kastl at Kastl Law, PC, 4144 North Central Expressway Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75204.
`
`COMES NOW,Defendant, FRANCIS HUMPHREY NYAMOR,INDIVIDUALLY,and
`
`serves his Objections and Answers to Plaintiff Hoa T. Nguyen, Individually’s, First Set of
`
`Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`EKVALL & BYRNE, LLP
`
`Rolacr Re
`
`Charlene R. Echols
`State Bar No. 17339100
`4450 Sigma Road, Suite 100
`Dallas, TX 75244
`(972) 239-0839
`(972) 960-9517 Fax
`cechols@ekvallbyrne.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`
`DEFENDANT FRANCIS HUMPHREY NYAMOR, INDIVIDUALLY’S ANSWERSTO PLAINTIFF HOAT.
`NGUYN,INDIVIDUALLY’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`PAGE1
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served on
`
`counsel of record, via E-Service, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on April 5, 2024.
`
`RelaRe,
`
`
`
`Charlene R. Echols
`
`DEFENDANT FRANCIS HUMPHREY NYAMOR, INDIVIDUALLY’S ANSWERSTO PLAINTIFF HOAT.
`NGUYN,INDIVIDUALLY’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`PAGE 2
`
`

`

`INTERROGATORY ANSWERS
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.1; Pleasestate your full legal name, date of birth, place ofbirth, address
`at the time of the Crash, driver’s license number, and identify the state that issued such license.
`(‘““Name” is intended to be all namesor aliases you may have used at any time during yourlifetime.)
`
`ANSWER:
`Francis Nyamor
`2125 E. Lancaster Ave,
`Fort Worth, TX 76103
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.2: Please describe in detail the addresses where you have lived for the
`past ten (10) years, including the specific dates when you lived at each address and the names of
`any other persons whoresided with you at each address.
`
`ANSWER:
`Francis Nyamor
`2125 E, Lancaster Ave,
`Fort Worth, TX 76103
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.3: If you have been involvedin litigation of any kind either prior to or
`subsequentto this lawsuit, please state the style, cause number, court, county, and state of such suit,
`and identify your attorney(s).
`
`ANSWER:
`Defendantrespectfully refuses to respond to this interrogatory and hereby asserts the 5th
`Amendmentprivilege right under the United States Constitution to refuse to answer any
`interrogatory that might tend to incriminate the Defendant in any way. Defendant further
`objects to and refuses to respond to this interrogatory and herebyasserts the right under
`the Texas State Constitution Article I Section 10 to refuse to answer any Interrogatory on
`the groundsthat a response maytend to incriminate the Defendantin a criminal
`proceeding. Defendant is under chargeof criminal offense for conduct arising out of the
`events that are the basis of this lawsuit. Texas Courts have long recognized that the Fifth
`Amendmentprivilege against self-incrimination applies in civil case, as well as criminal
`cases. See Tex. Dept. ofPub. Safety Officers Ass’n v. Denton, 897 S.W. 2d 757, 760 (Tex.
`1995); In re Espinoza, No. 04-07-00598-CV, 2007 Tex. App. Lexis 9239, 2007 WL 4180216, at
`* 5-6 (Tex. App. — San Antonio Nov. 28, 2007).”
`
`Defendant objects to this interrogatory for the reason thatit is irrelevant to any issue in this
`litigation and accordingly is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory overbroad and it is not properly limited in
`scope or time and seeks information thatis irrelevant to any issuein this litigation.
`
`DEFENDANT FRANCIS HUMPHREY NYAMOR, INDIVIDUALLY’S ANSWERSTO PLAINTIFF HOAT.
`NGUYN,INDIVIDUALLY’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`PAGE3
`
`

`

`INTERROGATORYNO.4; Please identify each crime with which you have ever been charged,
`including the date, state and county, cause number of each charge and disposition.
`
`ANSWER:
`Defendantrespectfully refuses to respond to this interrogatory and hereby asserts the 5th
`Amendmentprivilege right under the United States Constitution to refuse to answer any
`interrogatory that might tend to incriminate the Defendant in any way. Defendant further
`objects to and refuses to respond to this interrogatory and herebyasserts the right under
`the Texas State Constitution Article I Section 10 to refuse to answer any Interrogatory on
`the groundsthat a response maytendto incriminate the Defendantin a criminal
`proceeding. Defendant is under chargeof criminal offense for conductarising out of the
`events that are the basis of this lawsuit. Texas Courts have long recognized that the Fifth
`Amendmentprivilege against self-incrimination applies in civil case, as well as criminal
`cases. See Tex. Dept. ofPub. Safety Officers Ass’n v. Denton, 897 S.W. 2d 757, 760 (Tex.
`1995); In re Espinoza, No. 04-07-00598-CV, 2007 Tex. App. Lexis 9239, 2007 WL 4180216, at
`* 5-6 (Tex. App. — San Antonio Nov. 28, 2007).”
`
`Defendant objects to this interrogatory for the reason thatit is irrelevant to any issue in this
`litigation and accordingly is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory overbroad and it is not properly limited in
`scope or time and seeks information that is irrelevant to any issuein this litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.5: Please identify each insurance policy in effect at the time of the
`accident which offered coverage with regard to any damages or losses suffered by you or any
`individuals who werein the vehicles at the time of the accident, giving in your answer the name
`and address of each company issuing each such policy, the name of the policyholder, the policy
`number, the policy limits, and the amounts and recipient ofbenefits paid. (Note: this includes health,
`life, disability and third-party liability insurance that have paid benefits of any kind).
`
`ANSWER:
`See Defendant’s Disclosure Responses.
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.6: For any account you have opened, maintained, operated, managed,
`administered or closed/deleted with a social networking website, fundraising website and/or
`blogging website (including, but not limited to, Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, Friendster, Tumblr,
`Wordpress, Blogger, Blogspot, Twitter, gofundme, etc.) within the last five years, please provide
`the following information:
`a.
`A list of each and every website, forum, blog, or other social media platform with which
`you have an account, your username and/or html for each website, and the date youfirst signed-up
`for an account with the website;
`
`State whether you have uploaded photographs and/or videos of Plaintiffs or Decedent on
`b,
`your account (a) six months prior to the date of the subject incident; (b) on the date the subject
`
`DEFENDANT FRANCIS HUMPHREY NYAMOR, INDIVIDUALLY’S ANSWERSTO PLAINTIFF HOAT.
`NGUYN,INDIVIDUALLY’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`PAGE 4
`
`

`

`incident; and (c) after the date of the subject incident;
`
`C.
`
`The username and passwordyouutilize to gain access to your profiles and/or accounts; and
`
`Describe any changes on these accounts with respect to information, photographs and/or
`d.
`videos regarding plaintiffs that existed between six months before the accident to the present time
`on your account(s) and state how, why and when that information changed (specific additions,
`deletions, corrections, modifications,etc.).
`
`OBJECTION:
`Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad, vague, and ambiguous,
`harassing and unduly burdensome. Defendantalso objects to as this interrogatory amounts
`to an impermissible fishing expedition. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431
`(Tex. 1996). Defendant further objects for the reason it seeks information not relevant or
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`ANSWER:
`Subject to the foregoing objection and without waiving same, Defendantstates: None.
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.7: Please identify (by website address) any blogs, message boards,
`crowdfunding websites or other forums that have been created by you or anyoneelse that pertain
`to, mention or discuss Plaintiffs or Decedent in connection with the subject Crash and/or any
`resulting medical treatment, medical condition, recovery and/or injuries. If these blogs, message
`boards, crowdfunding websites and/or other forums were not created by you, please identify the
`person(s) whocreated suchsites and their relation to you.
`
`OBJECTION:
`Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad, vague, and ambiguous,
`harassing and unduly burdensome. Defendantalso objects to as this interrogatory amounts
`to an impermissible fishing expedition. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431
`(Tex. 1996). Defendant further objects for the reason it seeks information not relevant or
`reasonably calculated to lead t