CAUSE NO 2013B-0254
GARY RAMSEY and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
SANDRA RAMSEY §
§ 392ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CATERPILLAR INC. §
§ HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:
COME NOW, Gary Ramsey and Sandra Ramsey (“Plaintiffs”), complaining of
Defendant Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”), and file this their Third Amended Original Petition,
and for their claims and causes of action would respectfully show the Court as follows:
1. Gary Ramsey and Sandy Ramsey, individuals, are residents of Scurry, Kaufman
2. Defendant Caterpillar Inc., a Delaware corporation, has already been served with
process in this matter and has appeared by and through its counsel at the law firm of Baker &
Hostetler LLP, 811 Main Street, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas 77002.
II. VENUE AND JURISDICTION
3. Venue is proper in Henderson County, Texas, pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 15.002, because it is the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case as the amount in
controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.
5. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under the Level 3 tailored Amended Agreed
Scheduling Order jointly submitted by the parties and approved by the Court.
6. Mr. Ramsey is a residential and commercial plumber by trade. During his years as
a plumber, he acquired other laborer-related skills, making him a self-proclaimed “jack-of-all
trades.” Outside of work, Gary enjoyed race car building, repairing and driving. Gary was the
breadwinner for his household, consisting of his wife, Sandra, and three grandchildren. His
income as a plumber declined sharply during the onset on the 2008 recession. In order to support
his family, he sought the help of a family friend, Jerrold Howell, for extra income. Beginning in
2009, Gary was hired as a personal assistant to Defendant Jerrold Howell. He was paid $400
cash every week by Defendant Howell to run errands, repair plumbing on various properties,
paint vehicles, deliver checks, feed Defendant Howell’s cows, build hog cages on his farm, and
perform other personal tasks at the request of Howell. Gary was not, however, an employee of
Jerrold Howell Enterprises, Inc. doing business as JC’s Tire Services.
7. On January 4, 2012, Mr. Ramsey was at JC’s Tire Services. While at the tire shop,
Howell summoned Gary to assist by inflating a flat tire on a Caterpillar 120H Motor Grader
(“Motor Grader”). This tire had a multi-piece rimmed wheel. At that time, Gary had some
general experience changing and inflating tires of passenger vehicles and trucks. However,
during the course of his career, he had never been exposed to a multi-piece rimmed wheel. Gary
balked at the task because he lacked specialized knowledge, to which Defendant Howell replied,
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 3
“The best time to learn is now.” Mr. Ramsey approached the Caterpillar and began to change the
tire himself. Neither Howell nor the tire shop employees directed, supervised, or warned Gary of
the potential dangers of improperly changing and inflating a multi-piece rim wheel tire. JC’s Tire
Services did not offer any warnings, safety equipment, or a proper air hoses extension for
servicing this equipment. Gary did not see any warning signs or posters on JC’s Tires Services
8. The Motor Grader did not contain any exterior warning label communicating
and/or depicting the potential hazard associated with changing and inflating a multi-piece
9. The Motor Grader did not contain any instructions describing the proper
procedure to change a tire on a multi-piece rimmed wheel.
10. Multi-piece rims are inherently dangerous in design for several reasons. First,
they are explosive. Unlike a single-piece rim, the components of a multi-piece rim, including a
base ring, a lock ring and a flange, must be properly seated before inflating the tire. If the
components are not properly seated, then they can explosively separate from increased pressure
of the tire inflation, resulting in serious bodily injury and death. Furthermore, adding inflation air
cannot be accomplished while remaining outside of the potential trajectory of an explosively
separating side ring.
11. Single-piece rims do not have lock rings that explosively separate. Second, they
are not commonly used or readily encountered. Instead, most people, even tire mechanics, have
experience inflating single-piece rimmed tires on passenger vehicles and bicycles.
12. The single piece rim is a safer alternative design compared to the multi-piece rim.
13. Multi-piece rims were historically called “widow makers.” “Killer rings” is
another moniker these rims have acquired. They have been largely outlawed in North America
because of the thousands of fatalities and catastrophic injuries incurred by unsuspecting users
since the 1970s. Newspapers are riddled with stories of severe injuries and tragic deaths resulting
from this rim design. The design of the wheel has been deemed “inherently dangerous.” The
Motor Grader causing Mr. Ramsey’s injuries was designed, manufactured, and equipped with a
multi-piece wheel assembly by Caterpillar Inc. in 1998. The risk of deadly explosions involving
multi-piece wheel assemblies was well-known and well-documented within the manufacturing
industry long before this Motor Grader was designed, manufactured, and delivered into the
stream of commerce by Caterpillar.
14. The multi-piece rim assembly lacks critical safety mechanisms; a tire on an
assembly can inflate even if the wheel components are loose or missing. Caterpillar has known
of this hazard at least as early as 1975. And Caterpillar has been a named defendant in multi-
piece rim explosion litigation since as early as the 1980s.
15. In 1975, in response to the danger associated with the multi-piece rim, Caterpillar
designed a modified multi-piece rim assembly and submitted it to the United States Patent Office
(Patent No. 3,882,919) as a “safety rim assembly for wheels . . . which prevents the sudden
dislodgment of rim components during tire inflation and disassembly, and eliminates the safety
hazard represented thereby.”
16. Caterpillar asserted in this 1975 patent application that, “One of the problems
encountered with such mounting arrangements is that improper seating of the lock ring . . .
usually results in a sudden dislodgment of the lock ring . . . The lock ring and bead seat are thus
liable to be catapulted off of the rim with explosive force, becoming hazardous and potentially
17. In 1984, Caterpillar submitted to the United States Patent Office (Patent No.
4,438,797) another modification of its multi-piece rim design because the “configuration has the
potential to permit partial inflation of the tire if the lock ring is not properly installed or omitted.”
Caterpillar created this rim design, called the “SUR-LOC” or “Modified Multi-Piece (MMP),” to
prevent the tire from holding “any inflation pressure” in an instance of misassembly.
18. According to the testimony of Caterpillar’s designated corporate representative,
the Motor Grader Gary Ramsey serviced was equipped with Caterpillar-designed and patented
SUR-LOC wheel/rim assemblies.
19. Witness testimony creates speculation that Mr. Ramsey attempted to inflate the
tire without the lock ring engaged. Yet according to Caterpillar’s patent application, its SUR-
LOC design should have prevented tire inflation under these circumstances.
20. Caterpillar contracted Titan International, Inc., formerly known as T.D. Holding
Company of Virginia, to manufacture the SUR-LOC wheel/rim assemblies in accordance with
Caterpillar’s patented design specifications.
21. Industry-wide safety guidelines and standards exist for servicing multi-piece
rimmed tires, which include four main components: (1) training for all tire servicing employees;
(2) the use of industry-accepted procedures that minimize the potential for employee injury; (3)
the use of proper equipment such as clip-on chucks, restraining devices or barriers to retain the
wheel components in the event of an incident during the inflation of tires; and (4) the use of
compatible components. However, a person can still be injured or killed even if these guidelines
are followed. Mr. Ramsey had no idea these guidelines and standards existed when he began to
change and inflate the Motor Grader tire.
22. This Motor Grader, a functional commercial vehicle rather than an aesthetic
consumer product, had no warning labels on its vast exterior to warn the user of its multi-piece
rims. The only warning for changing and inflating this type of tire was found in an instructional
booklet in the cab of the Caterpillar. The booklet contained graphic illustrations regarding the
hazard of standing in front of a multi-piece rim during inflation. However, Gary was not the
owner of the Caterpillar Motor Grader or its operator. Gary never saw the owner’s manual.
23. The owner’s manual and industry manual both fail to provide instructions on how
to safely re-assemble the multi-piece rimmed wheels.
24. Neither the owner’s manual or the industry manual even mention the lock ring
and the critical role it plays in avoiding explosive separations of the multi-piece rimmed wheel.
25. Caterpillar designs its own warning labels and determines where to place them on
Caterpillar machines, whether on the exterior of the machine or inside the operator’s manual.
26. Had Gary been given a graphic warning on the outside of the Motor Grader near
the tires, he would have comprehended it and heeded it.
27. Gary Ramsey was a reasonably foreseeable third-party “user” (servicing
mechanic) of the Caterpillar Motor Grader.
28. Caterpillar markets multi-piece rims to its customers as convenient and efficient
to service, without warning of the increased danger associated with this rim. Thus Caterpillar
sells Motor Grader with multi-piece rims without providing its customers of a sane appreciation
of the risk of this rim. And Caterpillar still encourages the buyers’ selection of multi-piece rim
product option over the single-piece rim despite the disparate risk of explosive separation.
29. To this day, Caterpillar continues to design, manufacture, market, and distribute
Motor Graders equipped with multi-piece rims.
30. The risk of explosive rim separations associated with the multi-piece rimmed
wheel is not communicated to distributors and end users of the product deliberately. Instead,
Caterpillar continues to promote the fiction that multi-piece rimmed wheels and single-piece
rimmed wheels are equally safe to the end user, when in reality they are not.
31. Upon information and belief, Caterpillar has a systematic practice of concealing
reports of bodily injury and death associated with the multi-piece rimmed wheels to both its
product design and safety engineers, not just customers and end users.
32. Upon information and belief, at the time and place of the injuries suffered by
Gary Ramsey, the multi-piece rim assembly, side ring and lock ring were in substantially the
same condition as when manufactured. It was being used in a manner anticipated and intended
33. An inspection of this Motor Grader revealed the wheel base weighs 135 pounds
and the flange weighs 46 pounds. The final component, a lock ring, is a thin, malleable piece of
metal that weighs approximately 6 pounds. Due to the flimsy nature of the lock ring, it is
reasonably foreseeable that the lock ring will be replaced one or more times over the lifespan of
a Motor Grader.
34. The Motor Grader has six wheels, two in the front and four in the rear. While
there is inconsistent testimony as to which rear wheel Gary Ramsey was servicing on the Motor
Grader at the time of the explosion, it appears all four rear wheels were Caterpillar-designed and
patented SUR-LOC multi-piece wheels, according to the testimony of Caterpillar’s designated
35. With no background information of his own, without an adequate and reasonable
warning and without any written instructions to explain the role of the lock ring, Gary tried to
inflate the multi-piece rimmed tire in the same manner as the other vehicle tires he had
commonly serviced in the past. While standing directly in harm’s way, Gary inflated the tire just
as he did every other tire he filled on a vehicle, standing in the center of the explosion trajectory
path of the multi-piece rim. At that moment, the multi-piece rimmed wheel separated and
exploded with life-threatening force in Gary’s face, propelling his body across the tire shop,
splitting open his face, and knocking him unconscious. Like the many other victims of multi-
piece rim explosions, he should have died in that moment. Amazingly, Gary Ramsey survived
the explosion and has been released from the hospital.
36. It was not the tire that exploded in Gary Ramsey’s face causing him to sustain a
traumatic brain injury. The tire was not damaged when the wheel/rim assembly explosively
separated; it was reused on the Motor Grader after the explosion. There is no evidence to show
that the tire was defective in design or manufacture.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the violent and unexpected explosion of the
multi-piece rim assembly, Mr. Ramsey has sustained several permanent injuries, causing
tremendous pain, anxiety, and humiliation. Gary suffered a traumatic brain injury, concussive
retinopathy and vitreous detachment; a severed bulging disk in his back causing pinched nerves
and shooting pain in his legs; vestibular disorder; loss of motor skills; significant loss of taste,
smell, and hearing; he suffers from severe mood disturbances, including depression, aggression,
anxiety, frustration; short-term memory loss; inability to cope with new or unfamiliar situations;
impaired judgment. He takes multiple medications daily; he cannot lift more than ten pounds; he
cannot drive; he cannot handle finances; he cannot provide income for his the five members of
his household; he no longer has a sexual relationship with his wife; he cannot live without the
supervision of a full-time, around the clock caretaker.
38. The former jack-of-all-trades, go-getter, and family hero now spends many of his
days confined to a recliner. Even limited to his home, Mr. Ramsey cannot cook because he has
lost his sense of smell and combined with his limited attention span, he has accidentally set
several meals on fire. He cannot clean because Gary has suffered permanent trauma to his back,
he cannot support his own weight for long periods of time without collapsing to the floor. He
cannot make minor repairs because of his neurological damage; he has lost many of fine motor
skills. He cannot run errands because of the brain damage; he cannot remember where he is and
his purpose for being there. His life will never be the same again; he will always be entirely
dependent upon another person for his care and well-being.
39. Without a sane appreciation of the dangers associated with the product, Mr.
Ramsey failed to take adequate precautions to avoid harm. Had Caterpillar used a warning label
on the exterior of the machine, Mr. Ramsey would have understood and heeded the warning
upon reading it.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1: NEGLIGENCE
40. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference all preceding sections of this Third
Amended Original Petition and would show that Mr. Ramsey’s resulting injuries and damages
were proximately caused by the negligent conduct of Defendant Caterpillar Inc. in one or more
of the following respects:
a) In designing an unreasonably dangerous 120H Motor Grader;
b) In incorporating multi-piece rimmed wheels into its product design;
c) In incorporating multi-piece rimmed wheels in its 1998 120H Motor
d) In failing to incorporate an available safer alternative design of single-
piece rims into its 1998 120H Motor Grader design. A safer alternative
design for the rim was readily available at the time of manufacture and
distribution that was economically and technologically feasible at the time
the 120H Motor Grader left Caterpillar Inc.’s control;
e) In failing to incorporate a single-piece rim wheel into its 1998 120H
Motor Grader design;
f) In placing the multi-piece rim wheel, an unreasonably dangerous design
taking into consideration its utility and inherent risk of use, into the stream
g) In placing the multi-piece rim wheel into the stream of commerce with a
marketing defect. The defect was the proximate cause of the incident
described above and the resulting injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs;
h) In failing to modify or retrofit the 120H Motor Grader wheel to eliminate
its dangerous propensities;
i) In failing to exercise the duty of reasonable care to design, manufacture,
distribute, market, sell, and otherwise supply to the general public,
including Mr. Ramsey, products which were not defective and
j) In failing to foresee that consumers would not have a sane appreciation for
the risk associated with changing and inflating a multi-piece rimmed
wheel and tire;
k) In defectively warning consumers of the lethal risk associated with
servicing and inflating multi-piece rims that have a proclivity to
explosively separate and injure and kill its users;
l) In failing to advise/inform and warn all users with a warning label on the
exterior of its equipment;
m) In failing to monitor the incident of injury and death occurring between
1998 and 2012 from multi-piece rimmed heavy equipment;
n) In failing to create, distribute, and issue post-sale warning labels to
dealers, intermediaries, and buyers with instructions to place warning
labels on the exterior of Caterpillar Motor Graders;
o) In failing to communicate the incidents of injuries and death associated
with multi-piece rimmed wheels to Caterpillar product customers;
p) In failing to communicate the incidents of injuries and death associated
with multi-piece rimmed wheels to Caterpillar product design engineers;
q) In failing to warn distributors and consumers of the injuries and deaths
associated with multi-piece rimmed wheels;
r) In marketing the multi-piece rim as more convenient to service than the
s) In marketing the convenience of servicing multi-piece rims when the
convenience of service would require tire mechanics to violate OSHA
safety standards while servicing the wheels;
t) In knowing that the convenience of servicing multi-piece rims eliminates
the use of a safety cage and puts tire mechanics in harm’s way;
t) In requiring workers in all Caterpillar plants to use safety cages to inflate
multi-piece rimmed tires, but not requiring customers and foreseeable
users to use safety cages to inflate multi-piece rimmed tires;
u) In misleading customers deliberating about the safety of the multi-piece
rim in comparison to the single-piece rim;
v) In failing to reduce the risk of explosive separation by designing a
wheel/rim assembly with inverted components requiring the entire
assembly to be removed before a tire change;
w) In designing and patenting a defective wheel/rim assembly called SUR-
LOC that allows a tire to inflate without the wheel components being
properly seated and engaged;
x) In failing to provide written instructions explaining to the user how to re-
assemble the multi-piece rimmed wheels.
41. The lack of training, education, supervision, research, cautionary practices and
indifference on the part of Defendant Caterpillar Inc. exposed Mr. Ramsey to an unnecessary and
unreasonable risk of harm which subsequently has been detrimental to his well-being and
lifestyle, and in all likelihood has diminished his years of life expectancy.
42. Caterpillar had actual knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of the
multi-piece wheel assembly and its proclivity to explosively separate causing grievous injury or
death. Notwithstanding the actual knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of the
multi-piece wheel assembly, Caterpillar continued to market the defective and dangerous multi-
piece wheel assembly without safety modification or adequate warning. Also, Caterpillar failed
to sell exclusively the single-piece wheel assembly which was available as standard equipment to
purchasers of the Motor Grader. Caterpillar’s conduct in continuing to distribute the Motor
Grader with the unmodified multi-piece wheel assembly installed rather than the available and
safe, single-piece wheel assembly and Caterpillar’s failure to warn of the dangers of the multi-
piece wheel assembly were willful, reckless and wanton acts and such conduct justifies an award
of punitive damages no less than ten times the award of compensatory damages awarded to the
Plaintiffs in this matter in order to punish Caterpillar for its wrongful conduct and to deter other
entities similarly situated from continuing to market dangerous and defective machinery where
an alternative and safe design is available.
43. Each of these acts and omissions, whether taken singularly or in combination,
constituted negligence on behalf of Defendant Caterpillar Inc. which were the proximate cause of
the incident made the basis of this lawsuit and the subsequent injuries and damages sustained by
Gary and Sandy Ramsey.
COUNT 2: GROSS NEGLIGENCE
44. The harm done by Caterpillar Inc. and/or its agents, servants, and officers was
aggravated by the kind of conduct for which the law allows the imposition of exemplary
damages, in that Caterpillar Inc.’s conduct, when viewed objectively from Defendant’s
standpoint at the time of the conduct, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 13
probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and Caterpillar Inc. was actually,
subjectively aware of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference
to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to recover and seek
exemplary damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the court.
COUNT 3: STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY DEFECTIVE DESIGN
45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all preceding sections of this
Third Amended Original Petition and would further show that at all times material hereto,
Defendant Caterpillar Inc. engaged in the business of selling, distributing, supplying,
manufacturing, marketing and promoting the Caterpillar 120H Motor Grader with multi-piece
rim wheels, which was defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers, including the
Plaintiff, at the time it was placed into commerce.
46. At the time of the design, manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sale of the
multi-piece rim assembly by Caterpillar, the rim assembly contained unreasonably dangerous
design defects and was not reasonably safe as intended to be used and was defective in one or
more of the following ways:
a) The 120H Motor Grader wheel contained unreasonably dangerous design
defects and was not reasonably safe as intended to be used, subjecting
Gary Ramsey to unreasonable risks and hazards not ordinarily
contemplated by users of wheels; and
b) The aforementioned multi-piece rim assembly was unreasonably
dangerous and defective in its design because of its proclivity to
explosively separate and injure Mr. Ramsey and others within the range of
the explosion while being put to the use intended and anticipated by Gary
Ramsey and members of the general public.
47. At the time of the violent and unexpected explosion of the multi-piece rim
assembly, the multi-piece rim assembly was being used in a manner anticipated or intended, or
reasonably expected by the Defendant Caterpillar Inc. Also, the multi-piece rim assembly was in
substantially the same condition as when manufactured by said Defendant.
48. Caterpillar Inc. had available an alternative single-piece wheel design, which was
sold as standard equipment on the Caterpillar Motor Grader. The single-piece wheel assembly
was a safe design which was available and a reasonable design which, if implemented, would
have completely eliminated the danger created by the proclivity of the multi-piece wheel
assembly to explosively separate causing serious injury or death to unknown users of the
equipment. Also, Caterpillar Inc. took no steps to modify the multi-piece wheel assembly to
diminish the danger of explosive separation of the wheel assembly.
49. Caterpillar Inc. had actual knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of
the multi-piece wheel assembly and its propensity to explosively separate causing grievous
injury or death. Notwithstanding the actual knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition
of the multi-piece wheel assembly, Caterpillar Inc. continued to market the defective and
dangerous multi-piece wheel assembly without safety modifications or adequate warning.
50. Caterpillar Inc. failed to sell exclusively the single-piece wheel assembly, which
was available as standard equipment to purchasers of the Motor Grader and was economically
and scientifically feasible. Implementing a single-piece design into this 120H Motor Grader
would not have destroyed the utility of the wheel and the overall function of the machine.
51. Both Caterpillar Inc.’s actions in continuing to sell and distribute the Motor
Grader with the unreasonably dangerous, defective, and unmodified multi-piece wheel assembly
installed rather than the available and safe single-piece wheel assembly and its failure to warn of
the dangers of the multi-piece wheel assembly were willful, reckless and wanton acts and such
conduct justifies an award of punitive damages no less than ten times the award of compensatory
damages awarded to Gary Ramsey and Sandra Ramsey in this case.
COUNT 4: STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN
52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all preceding sections of this
Third Amended Original Petition and would further show that the Caterpillar 120H Motor
Grader was defective and unreasonably dangerous when if left the possession of Defendant
Caterpillar in that it contained warnings insufficient to alert end users, including the Plaintiffs
herein, to the dangerous risks associated with the use of the Caterpillar 120H Motor Grader.
53. The aforementioned multi-piece rim assembly was unreasonably dangerous and
defective because of the Defendant Caterpillar Inc.’s failure to adequately warn and instruct
concerning the assembly, handling, dangers, and defects inherent in the use of the multi-piece
rim assembly when being used in a manner intended and anticipated by Gary Ramsey.
54. A bright, prominent label located on the side of the Motor Grader where it could
be observed by end users would have mitigated Mr. Ramsey’s injuries, along with potentially
thousands of others who have, or will, died or suffered as a result of wheel/rim explosions. As
leaders in the industry, Caterpillar should be obligated to make products safer by placing cheap,
yet effective, labels on its Motor Graders and any other machine equipped with multi-piece rims.
55. The owner’s manual and industry manual do not provide adequate instructions on
how to properly re-assemble the multi-piece rimmed wheel.
56. As a result of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs sustained the
following damages which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court for which they
a) Past and future medical expenses;
b) Past and future pain and suffering;
c) Past and future physical impairment;
d) Past and future disfigurement;
e) Past and future mental anguish;
f) Past and future lost wages and future loss of earning capacity;
g) Loss of consortium.
VII. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
39. Caterpillar Inc.’s acts or omissions described herein, when viewed from the
standpoint of the Defendant at the times(s) of their act(s) or omission(s), involved an extreme
degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiffs and
others. Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved in the above-described
acts or omissions, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or
welfare of the public in general and Plaintiffs in particular.
VIII. JURY DEMAND
40. Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial by jury. The jury fee has been paid.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Gary Ramsey and Sandra
Ramsey pray that the Defendant Caterpillar Inc. be cited to appear and answer herein, and that
upon final trial hereof, Plaintiffs have and recover from Defendant judgment for all damages
proved, including costs of court, pre-judgment interest and interest from the date of judgment
until same is paid, attorneys’ fees and costs, through trial and any appeal, and for such other and
further relief, either at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs have shown themselves justly entitled.
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 17
ROCHELLE MCCULLOUGH, L.L.P.
By: _/s/ Gregory H. Bevel______
Gregory H. Bevel
State Bar No. 02275800
M. Paige Tackett
State Bar No. 24083935
325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 4500
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 953-0182 Telephone
(214) 953-0185 Facsimile
THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES ANDREW CARTER
By: /s/ James Andrew Carter
James Andrew Carter
State Bar No. 24031801
P.O. Box 10050
Tyler, Texas 75711
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify pursuant to Rule 21a. of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that a true
and correct copy of the forgoing document was forwarded to the following counsel of record as
described below on this the 1
st day of December, 2015.
_/s/ Gregory H. Bevel___________
Gregory H. Bevel
Via Electronic Service
Via Facsimile 713.751.1717
W. Ray Whitman
Gregory C. Ulmer
James E. Phillips
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000
Houston, Texas 77002-5009
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 18
Via Electronic Service
Via Facsimile 903.675.1275
Melvin G. Bateman
BATEMAN & BATEMAN LLP
214 East College Street
Athens, Texas 75751