1/19/2022 4:37 PM

D-1-GN-22-000334 Velva L. Price

District Clerk
CAUSE NO: _____________ Travis County
D-1-GN-22-000334
ANTHONY WESLEY, DEBRA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Ruben Tamez
RICHARDSON, WILFORD WHITTEN, §
and NATASHA NASIM, Individually and §
on Behalf of Her Minor Child B.R., § 126TH, DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiffs, § _____JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
v. §
§
RAP QUAIL CREEK, LLC d/b/a THE §
VENTURA APARTMENTS, AUSTIN MF § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LP, AUSTIN §
MF PORTFOLIO GP, LLC, AUSTIN §
CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC d/b/a ACA §
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, and CLEAR §
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, §
§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants. §

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, AND EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND

Plaintiffs Anthony Wesley, Debra Richardson, Wilford Whitten, Natasha Nasim and B.R. file

this Original Petition against Defendants RAP Quail Creek, LLC d/b/a The Ventura Apartments,

Austin MF Portfolio Holdings, LP, Austin MF Portfolio GP, LLC, Austin Capital Advisors LLC d/b/a

ACA Property Management, and Clear Property Management, LLC along with a request for

injunctive relief and an emergency inspection, and in support of their claims, respectfully show this

Honorable Court the following:

I.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE

This lawsuit seeks to hold a wealthy real estate mogul and his investment empire responsible

for a raging fire at their low-income apartment complex in Austin that burned, injured, and almost

killed five Plaintiffs on the night of January 7, 2022. But this was no accident.

The apartment had no working alarms, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, or sprinklers.

Copy from re:SearchTX

 Defendants knew their complex was unsafe and unprepared to warn tenants of a fire in the middle of

the night. It is not surprising that when the fire broke at night unbeknownst to the sleeping Plaintiffs,

it spread so quickly that Plaintiffs were forced to leap from their burning, second story windows.

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover damages from their injuries and to prevent Defendants

from continuing to place profits over the safety of their tenants.

II.
PARTIES

Plaintiff Anthony Wesley is an individual residing in Travis County, Texas.

Plaintiff Debra Richardson is an individual residing in Travis County, Texas.

Plaintiff Wilford Glen Whitten is an individual residing in Travis County, Texas.

Plaintiff Natasha Nasim is an individual residing in Travis County, Texas. She brings this

lawsuit on behalf of herself and her minor child, B.R.

Defendant Rap Quail Creek, LLC d/b/a The Ventura Apartments is a limited liability

company formed under Delaware law with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. Defendant

may be served via its registered agent, Mr. James R. Gatlin at 3215 Steck Avenue, Suite 203, Austin,

Texas 78757 or wherever he may be found.

Defendant Austin MF Portfolio Holdings, LP is a limited liability company formed under

Delaware law with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Defendant may be served

via its registered agent, C T Corporation System at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-

3136 or wherever it may be found.

Defendant Austin MF Portfolio GP, LLC is a limited liability company formed under

Delaware law with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. Defendant may be served via its

registered agent, Mr. James Gatlin at 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540, Austin, Texas 7870 or

wherever he may be found.

Copy from re:SearchTX

 Defendant Austin Capital Advisors LLC d/b/a ACA Property Management is a limited

liability company formed under Texas law with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas.

Defendant may be served via its registered agent, Mr. James R. Gatlin at 3215 Steck Avenue, Suite

203, Austin, Texas 78757 or wherever he may be found.

Defendant Clear Property Management, LLC is a limited liability company formed under

Texas law with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. Defendant may be served via its

registered agent, The PPA Group, LLC at 11149 Research Boulevard, Suite 375, Austin, Texas 78759

or wherever he may be found.

III.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

This case is intended to be governed by Discovery Level 3.

IV.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF

The damages sought are within the jurisdictional limits of this court. Plaintiffs currently seek

monetary relief in excess of $1,000,000, including damages of any kind, penalty, costs, expenses,

punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees.

V.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action because it involves an

amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. This case is not removable

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(b).

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants who are Texas residents because they

maintain a principal office in Texas. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants

because each of these Defendants maintain systematic contacts with this forum state, including but

not limited to owning, operating, and managing the Ventura Apartments where the fire occurred

and where Plaintiffs were injured. Each of these Defendants actively managed and control this

Copy from re:SearchTX

 apartment complex in Texas and made specific decisions about the management of this complex

in Texas. Therefore, personal jurisdiction exists because the causes of action herein arose from all

of the Defendants’ systematic contacts with this forum state, including the systematic contacts

described in detail below.

Venue is proper in Travis County, Texas under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §

15.002(a)(1) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred

in Travis County, Texas, specifically the fire at the Ventura Apartments occurred in Travis County,

the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs occurred in Travis County, and Defendants’ controlled and

managed the Ventura Apartments in Travis County, Texas. Venue is also proper in Travis County,

Texas under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(2) because at least one Defendant who is

a natural person resides in Travis County, Texas. Venue is also proper in Travis County, Texas

under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(3) because at least one corporate entity who is a

defendant in this matter maintains its principal office in Travis County, Texas.

VI.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Introduction to the Parties.

The Ventura Apartments and Related Entities

The Ventura Apartments is an apartment complex located at 9133 Northgate Boulevard in

Austin, Texas. Until a few months ago, it was known as the Quail Creek Apartments. The Ventura

Apartments is a two-story apartment complex consisting of over forty units. Prior to the January

7, 2022 fire described below, the Ventura Apartments looked like the following:

Copy from re:SearchTX

 The apartment complex is owned by a close-held limited liability company called RAP

Quail Creek, LLC. RAP Quail Creek, LLC is owned and controlled by two closely-held entities:

Austin MF Portfolio Holdings, LP and Austin MF Portfolio GP, LLC. Both of these entities vote

the controlling shares of RAP Quail Creek, LLC, and in turn, make all of the decisions relating to

the Ventura Apartments.

Both Austin MF Portfolio Holdings, LP and Austin MF Portfolio GP, LLC and their parent

companies are owned and controlled by James R. Gatlin, a wealthy real estate mogul who boasts

that he owns more than 30,000 units with multifamily assets totaling more than $1 billion. 1 James

R. Gatlin also owns and controls ACA Capital Management, the entity that managed the day-to-

day operations for the Ventura Apartments for years.

Mr. Gatlin, therefore, votes the controlling shares and makes virtually all of the decisions

for RAP Quail Creek, LLC by controlling the two entities (Austin MF Portfolio Holdings, LP and

Austin MF Portfolio GP, LLC) and their parent companies, who in turn own and control RAP

Quail Creek, LLC.

1
www.austincapitaladvisors.com/james-gatlin

Copy from re:SearchTX

 RAP Quail Creek, LLC and its controlling entities owed a duty to their residents to ensure

that the apartment complex was reasonably safe from foreseeable dangers, including fires, and

complied with industry safety standards related to fire-readiness. But RAP Quail Creek, LLC and

its parent companies failed as owners to protect their tenants and ensure reasonable steps were

taken to protect their residents from the reasonably foreseeable risk that a fire could break out at

the complex.

These entities utterly failed to take reasonable steps to ensure their complex and its

management company in charge of the complex were prepared to prevent injuries from fires,

including installing sprinkler systems and maintaining working fire alarms and smoke and carbon

monoxide detectors. In fact, these entities had inspected the property and conducted due diligence

on the Ventura Apartment’s fire-readiness and either knew the community was ill-equipped to

respond to fires or willfully neglected their responsibility to determine the complex’s fire-readiness

status and take reasonable steps to address deficiencies.

These entities also owed a duty to ensure they hired a management company who would

prioritize the safe management of this complex. Instead, these entities hired ACA—an entity they

exclusively controlled and an entity who by its own admission is designed to increase profits for

these companies. ACA is not a third-party company with a track record of protecting tenants and

safely managing the communities it is hired to oversee. In fact, ACA has an inherent conflict of

interest because it is tasked with managing a complex and doing so only for the benefit of the

complex’s owners and not for the betterment of the tenants who call this community home.

But these entities are all about profit-generation, and placed profits over safety. This

resulted in a complex that was completely unprepared to protect tenants in the case of a wide-

spread, disastrous fire, such as the one in this case. This is gross negligence, and Defendants know

it.

Copy from re:SearchTX

 ACA Property Management

Austin Capital Advisors LLC d/b/a ACA Property Management (“ACA”) is a property

management company based in Austin, Texas. ACA was founded by James R. Gatlin and his

colleague Timothy J. Young, 2 but ACA’s corporate filings identify only James Gatlin as the managing

member. ACA claims it manages seventeen commercial apartment complexes in just the greater-

Austin-area, alone, including the property at issue here. 3

ACA claims its purpose is to “preserve investor capital and enhance the value of ACA’s

investments via pro-active and innovative asset management protocols.”4 Likewise, Gatlin and

Young boast that the purpose of their management company is not to protect and care for tenants that

pay their rents at ACA’s various complexes, but rather to “preserve capital” and “produce consistently

attractive returns.”5 Noticeably missing from their self-promotion is any reference to the efforts

undertaken and concern for the safety of their tenants. In other words, the purpose of Gatlin’s

management company, ACA, is to ensure it generates profits for the entities Mr. Gatlin owns and

controls, which includes the Ventura Apartments.

ACA managed the Ventura Apartments until roughly two months ago. ACA was responsible

for taking reasonable measures to make the property safe from foreseeable risks of harm to tenants,

which included undertaking reasonable and minimal steps to ensure residents were protected from

fires. This included installing and equipment the complex with fire-readiness equipment, such as

working fire alarms and smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and installing sprinkler systems in

compliance with industry standards. This also included notifying residents of the complex’s lack of

2
www.austincapitaladvisors.com/our-team
3
www.austincapitaladvisors.com/our-portfolio
4
www.austincapitaladvisors.com/asset-management
5
www.austincapitaladvisors.com/our-team

Copy from re:SearchTX

 fire-readiness, which would include notifying residents that the alarm system in the complex was for

“show” and was not actually operational.

But in this case, ACA took no such steps to notify residents and utterly failed to implement

reasonable accommodation to warn and protect tenants in the event of a fire while it was in control of

this property directly before the fire. Instead, it transferred control over the day-to-day operations of

this complex to CMP, as described below, knowing its property was unsafe and posed a serious risk

to tenants. As expected, within two months of transferring management to CPM, a fire broke out and

injured Plaintiffs as result, in-part of ACA’s failures. Its failures to manage this property and take the

steps outlined above immediately prior to the management chain directly contributed to the injuries

sustained by Plaintiffs and led to the events described below.

Clear Property Management, LLC

Clear Property Management, LLC (“CPM”) currently manages the Ventura Apartments and

has done so for approximately two months. CPM is responsible for taking reasonable measures to

make the property safe from foreseeable risks of harm to tenants, which included undertaking

reasonable and minimal steps to ensure residents were protected from fires. This included installing

and equipment the complex with fire-readiness equipment, such as working fire alarms and smoke

and carbon monoxide detectors and installing sprinkler systems in compliance with industry

standards. This also included notifying residents of the complex’s lack of fire-readiness, which would

include notifying residents that the alarm system in the complex was for “show” and was not actually

operational.

But in this case, CPM took no such steps to notify residents of foreseeable harms and utterly

failed to implement reasonable accommodation to warn and protect tenants in the event of a fire.

CPM, prior to assuming control of the property, should have inspected the property and notified

ownership of immediate changes that it required ownership to implement to protect tenants.

Copy from re:SearchTX

 Immediately upon assuming control of the property, CMP should have immediately identified

and remedied hazards related to the complex’s fire-readiness failures. This would include notifying

ownership and tenants of the dangerous conditions on the property and immediately recommending

and working with ownership to implement the steps outlined above. Its’ failures to do so directly

contributed to the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs and led to the events described below.

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Wesley and Plaintiff Richardson are married. Mrs. Richardson is fifty-eight-years-

old and Mr. Wesley is sixty-years-old. Plaintiffs lived at the Ventura Apartments on the second

floor, for the last four to five years. All of their possessions were in this apartment and were

destroyed by the fire, and Mr. Wesley and Mrs. Richardson survived on a fixed income.

Mrs. Richardson sustained injuries after she was forced to jump out of her second-floor

bedroom to avoid the flames. Mr. Wesley currently resides at Seton Medical Center. He was rushed

to the hospital and placed on life support as a result of the fire described below. He almost died.

He has undergone numerous surgeries to save his life, including painful skin grafts. He sustained

burns to his back, arms and legs. He has also undergone at least two surgeries to his shoulder, in

addition to numerous other injuries.

Mr. Wilford Glen Whitten also resided at the Ventura Apartments. He also suffered serious

injuries as a result of the fire, but despite his injuries, he risked his life repeatedly to wake residents

and help them safely evacuate. Numerous residents credit Mr. Whitten with saving their lives.

Natasha Nasim also resided on the second floor of the Ventura Apartments with her infant

son, B.R. Both her and her son were injured as a result of the fire. Her infant son was rushed to the

emergency room at Dale Seton Hospital by ambulance where he was placed on a ventilator for days

and hospitalized for over a week with severe smoke inhalation and other related injuries. She brings

this lawsuit on behalf of her self and her minor son, B.R.

Copy from re:SearchTX

 B. On January 7, 2022, a fire breaks out without warning forcing some Plaintiffs to jump
from their second story windows, sustaining terrible injuries in the process.

On the morning of January 7, 2022, at approximately 3:58 a.m., a massive fire broke out at

the Ventura Apartments. Plaintiffs were asleep and had no idea a fire was raging in their complex

as they slept.

The fire alarms in the complex never went off and were not working. No smoke or carbon

monoxide detectors were working and warned Plaintiffs of the deadly approaching fire, even as

their unit filled with smoke and flames. The complex had no sprinkler system to contain a fire

outbreak, and the fire spread quickly. Additionally, no management or security was on-duty to

warn residents so they could safely escape.

When the Austin Fire Department arrived on scene a few minutes after the fire began, the

fire had engulfed the entire complex as depicted below:

When Plaintiffs were awakened by the fire, their apartments were already engulfed in smoke

and flames. Mr. Wesley and Mrs. Richardson were unable to escape through their door due to the

engulfing smoke and flames. Mr. Wesley broke the window in their apartment and called for help

10

Copy from re:SearchTX

 but no one assisted them, forcing them to leap out of the window of their second-floor apartment

causing serious injuries.

Austin Fire Department deployed over 100 firefighters to combat the blaze in an attempt to

save the complex unsuccessfully. The Austin Fire Department concluded that the cause of the

blaze would remain undetermined due to the “massive destruction” depicted here: 6

What is important is that this fire broke out because Defendants failed to implement

reasonable steps to protect their tenants in the event of a fire so they could escape unharmed.

Defendants’ failures almost killed Plaintiffs.

While undoubtedly Defendants’ investment is insured, the consequences for Defendants’

tenants, like Plaintiffs, are enormous. In addition to the terrible injuries they suffered, Plaintiffs

lost all of their possessions and are unable to replace belongings. They have been left destitute and

homeless. Mr. Wesley resides in the hospital bed in the burn unit where he continues to receive

around-the-clock medical care and has undergone numerous surgeries.

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover damages caused by Defendants’ reckless conduct and

to ensure this avoidable event never happens again. A life is more important than a company.

6
www.fox7austin.com/news/cause-of-fire-at-north-austin-apartment-complex-still-
undetermined?taid=61dd3c89ed344f0001a594be&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_sou
rce=twitter

11

Copy from re:SearchTX

 VII.
CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Negligence/Gross Negligence

Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if set forth in full below.

Plaintiffs sue Defendants for negligence and gross negligence. At all relevant times, the

Defendants owned and/or controlled the Ventura Apartments. The Defendant-owners had actual

or constructive knowledge of the condition of their property, which included knowledge of the

complex’s readiness and ability to prevent, warn, and mitigate a fire at the complex.

The Defendant-owners owed Plaintiffs a heightened duty of care as an invitee because

Plaintiffs entered the property with Defendants’ consent and permission and for the mutual benefit

of both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant-owners.

Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs by failing to maintain their premises in a safe

and reliable manner. Specifically, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or

eliminate numerous risks, either by warning Plaintiffs of the unsafe conditions, so they could be

avoided or guarded against, or by implementing training, policies and procedures to avoid the

unsafe conditions altogether.

These actions, when viewed objectively from the Defendants’ standpoint at the time of the

incident, involved an extreme degree of risk, of which the Defendant-owners had actual, subjective

awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the

rights, safety, and welfare of Plaintiffs.

On the occasion in question, the aforementioned Defendants, by and through their officers,

employees, agents, officers, and representatives, committed acts of omission and commission,

breached their duty of care owed to Plaintiffs, which collectively and severally constituted

negligence and gross negligence. this includes but is not limited to:

12

Copy from re:SearchTX

 • Failing to manage and supervise employees, servants and agents to ensure the
complex was prepared for a fire;

• Failing to install a sprinkler system;

• Failing to install and maintain an adequate alarm and warning system;

• Failing to install and maintain working smoke detectors and carbon monoxide
detectors;

• Failing to employ personnel to manage the property at night and protect tenants in
the event of a fire;

• Failing to employ personnel to manage the property at night and warn Plaintiffs in
the event of a fire so Plaintiffs could safely evacuate;

• Failing to implement safety measures to avoid the events described in this lawsuit;

• Ignoring dangerous conditions that contributed to the fire;

• Ignoring inspection reports relating to fire-readiness;

• Ignoring industry safety standards related to fire-readiness;

• Failing to supervise employees;

• Failing to warn tenants that the property was unsafe;

• Failing to warn tenants that the property was unprepared to respond to a fire;

• Failing to warn tenants that the property was unsafe in the event of a fire;

• Failing to fix the alarm system;

• Failing to comply with the City of Austin’s building ordinances and building codes
relating to the installation of a fire-protection system;

• Failing to comply with the 2015 International Building Code as adopted and
amended by City of Austin in Section 903;

• Failing to enact or enforce policies and procedures relating to protecting tenants

from fires;

• Misrepresenting that the property was safe when it was unsafe;

• Failing to act after Defendants were warned that the complex was unprepared for a
fire;

Failing to take any and all reasonable steps to ensure the safe well-being of the
public;

13

Copy from re:SearchTX

 • Failing to protect Plaintiffs from reasonably foreseeable dangers;

• Failing to recognize and remediate hazards;

• Placing profits above safety;

• Participating in and contributing to the acts that cause the incident in question; and

• Failing to enact and enforce policies and procedures to monitor and avoid unsafe
conditions.

Each of these acts and omissions, singularly or in combination with others, constitute

negligence on the part of Defendants, which was the direct and proximate cause of this incident

and the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs. Defendants’ actions were knowing, reckless, and willfully

indifferent or malicious. Plaintiffs thus seek punitive damages.

B. Respondeat Superior/Agency

Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if set forth in full below.

At all times, Defendants’ employees, servants, agents, and officers were agents and/or

servants working on behalf of Defendants. These Defendants exercised control over their

employees, servants, agents, and officers, and at all relevant times such persons were operating

within the scope of his employment for Defendants at the time of the events and misconduct

described above.

As such, Defendants are responsible for the misconduct and damages caused by their

employees, agents, servants, and officers that contributed to the damages identified in this suit.

VIII.
DAMAGES

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing events, Plaintiffs suffered damages in the

past and, in reasonable probability, will continue to suffer damages in the future, including physical

pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of earning capacity, past, present, and future medical

expenses, disfigurement, loss of consortium, all for which Plaintiffs seek recovery herein.

Plaintiffs also seeks punitive damages, interest, and cost of court as allowed by law.

14

Copy from re:SearchTX

 IX.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee with this petition.

X.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ right to recover have been fully performed or have

been waived by Defendants.

XI.
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiffs believe that unless this Court enters a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”)

restraining Defendants from changing, altering or destroying, critical evidence, it is reasonable and

likely that the condition of the property owned and controlled by Defendant in addition to

electronically stored evidence will not be in the same or similar condition as when the fire

occurred.

Without a TRO it is reasonable that electronically stored emails, text messages, electronic

records, surveillance film, photographs and the scene itself may be altered, lost, tampered with, or

destroyed altogether. In fact, it is reasonable that insurance adjusters and/or restoration contractors

may alter the scene without immediate relief from this Court.

Therefore, Plaintiffs request this Court to restrain Defendants from altering, modifying,

destroying, moving, or allowing for the routine destruction of the scene or any physical evidence,

including correspondence, documentation, photographs, surveillance footage, that is reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a Temporary Restraining Order preserving the status

quo by restraining Defendants from changing, altering, destroying or modifying the scene or any

of its internal correspondence and documentation relating to the January 7, 2022 fire at 9133

Northgate Boulevard in Austin or the condition of the property at any time, as well as moving,

15

Copy from re:SearchTX

 removing or altering any documents relating to the decisions and internal communication

involving the Ventura Apartment Complex and its safety conditions, including but not limited to:

1. Any and all photographs and videotapes of the scene of the fire;
2. The complex and scene itself;
3. Any communications, reports or documents relating to safety at the complex, including
inspection reports, safety reports, or documents relating to fire-readiness or preparation, or
compliance with building codes or governmental or industry ordinances or standards;
4. Any and all documents/communications relating to the incident, including but not limited
to any OSHA records;
5. Any and all maintenance logs, repair records, financial cost records, policies and
procedures, or any other documents relating to measures involving fire-readiness at the
complex prior to and after the fire on January 7, 2022.

The foregoing evidence is relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the cause of the

fire that injured Plaintiffs, the loss of which would irreparably harm Plaintiffs. Therefore, in order

for Plaintiffs to properly investigate and pursue their claims and recover their damages and see

that justice is done, the Court should restrain Defendants, including their agents, corporate parents,

executives, officers, servants, contractors, employees, insurers, contractors, adjusters, and the like

including those acting in concert with the foregoing Defendants from changing, moving, operating,

altering or destroying evidence of any kind, as described above.

XI.
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs request this Court set their application for temporary injunction for a hearing after

entering a TRO, and, after the hearing, issue a temporary injunction against Defendants preserving

the information described herein through the conclusion of litigation.

Plaintiffs have a serious, significant, and valid cause of action for negligence and gross

negligence and would suffer irreparable harm by the failure to preserve the premises and evidence

described herein, and such evidence is necessary for Plaintiffs to investigate their potential claims.

16

Copy from re:SearchTX

 Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if the evidence, including the scene, correspondence, and

documentation is destroyed, moved or altered. Due to the immediate timing and necessity of

preserving the evidence from being destroyed or altered, this temporary restraining order should be

granted without notice or delay and a hearing should be promptly held thereafter to extend such an

order through the time of trial. Such relief is further requested given that the fire occurred almost two

weeks ago, and the passage of time and inability of Plaintiffs to obtain assurances that this evidence

has been preserved warrants immediate relief.

XII.
EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO ENTER PREMISES TO INSPECT, FILM AND PHOTOGRAPH

Plaintiffs further request that this Court issue an order permitting Plaintiffs’ attorneys and

investigators, including but not limited to, consulting experts to immediately access and inspect,

operate, photograph, and film the scene of the incident and the entire complex, located at 9133

Northgate Boulevard in Austin, Texas immediately. Such access for the purpose of inspection,

photographing and filming is essential in order for Plaintiffs to prepare their case and to see that justice

is done.

Plaintiff requests an inspection within ten (10) calendar days of any order of this Court.

XIII.
DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

Plaintiffs hereby request and demand that Defendants preserve and maintain all evidence

pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident which made the basis of this lawsuit or

the damages resulting therefrom, including the entire scene of the fire, to include Apartment 203

and every unit at the complex, including its interior and exterior constructures, secondary

structures, appurtenances, parking lot, fencing, signage, in addition to any statements,

photographs, videotapes concerning the events described herein, audiotapes, surveillance or

security tapes, business or medical records, incident reports, bills, telephone call slips or records,

17

Copy from re:SearchTX

 correspondence, facsimiles, emails, voicemails, text messages, policies, contracts, agreements of

any kind, procedures, bylaws, drive-cameras, surveillance, reports and investigative materials, and

any evidence involving any facts stated described in this petition and the incident in question, and

any electronic image or information related to the referenced incident or damages. Failure to

maintain such items may constitute “spoliation” of evidence.

PRAYER

Plaintiffs Anthony Wesley, Debra Richardson, Wilford Whitten, Natasha Nasim and B.R.

pray for judgment against Defendants in the amount of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000)

for actual damages for pecuniary losses, pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of consortium,

mental anguish, and past, present, and future medical expenses; economic damages, and ten

million dollars ($10,000,000) in exemplary damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as

allowed by law; costs of Court; and all further relief to which they may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM

By: /s/ Anthony G. Buzbee
Anthony G. Buzbee
State Bar No. 24001820
[email protected]
David L. Bergen
State Bar No. 24097371
[email protected]
Brittany Ifejika
State Bar No. 24111011
[email protected]
Thomas C. Holler
Texas Bar No. 24126898
[email protected]
J.P. Morgan Chase Tower
600 Travis, Suite 7300
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 223-5393
Facsimile: (713) 223-5909
www.txattorneys.com

18

Copy from re:SearchTX

 - And -

BUSH & BUSH LAW GROUP

By: Charles J. Bush

State Bar No. 24096028
[email protected]
3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1420
Dallas, Texas 75219
Telephone: (214)615-6394
www.bushlawgrp.com

Attorneys For Plaintiffs Anthony

Wesley, Debra Richardson, Wilford
Whitten, Natasha Nasim and B.R.

19

Copy from re:SearchTX