Date: 07-15-2013

Case Style: Richard Kibler v. Ray McMillion

Case Number: CJ-2010-2308

Judge: Tracy Schumacher

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Richard Pizzo

Defendant's Attorney: William Suttle Leach and Jessica Dickerson

Description: Richard Kibler and Judy Kibler, individually and as husband and wife sued Ray McMillion and Dodexo Management, Inc. and Norman Public Schools on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. That the Plaintiff’s are residents of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That the Defendant Norman Public Schools is a government entity doing business in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

3. That the Defendant Sodexo Management, Inc. is a foreign corporation and was an agent of Norman Public Schools doing business in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

4. That the Defendant Ray McMi I Ion is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma and was an employee of Sodexo Management, Inc., who was an agent of Norman Public Schools.

5. That all the acts and occurrences that arose out of an automobile accident occurred on the 3Pt day of December, 2009 at SW l9thSt. and Broadway Ave. in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

6. That this Court has jurisdiction and venue over this subject matter and parties involved.

7. That as a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs were injured and continue to suffer from physical injuries as a direct result of the negligence of the Defendants. That Plaintiffs’ inj uries are the direct and proximate resu It of the negligence of the Defendants.

8. That as a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred medical costs.

9. That as a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants for damages in an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), together with interest, costs, attorney’s fees and any and all other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Ray McMillion appeared and answered as follows:

1. Mr. MeMillon is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraphs 1-3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies same.

2. Mr. MeMillon admits he was an employee of Sodexo, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

3. Mr. McMillon is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies same.

4. The allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Mr. McMillon denies the allegations.

5. Mr. MeMillon denies the allegations in Paragraphs 7-9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

6. Mr. MeMillon denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in the unnumbered paragraph beginning “WHEREFORE.”

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by waiver and estoppel.

3. Plaintiffs’ injuries are not of the nature or extent alleged.

4. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any.

5. Mr. MeMillon was not negligent.

6. Mr. McMillon exercised due care at all times.

7. Mr. McMillon reserves the right to amend his Answer at the close of discovery to include any factual or legal defenses not included herein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Ray McMillon respectfully requests that Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Petition; that this action be dismissed with prejudice; that Mr. McMillon recover his attorney fees and costs; and that Mr. McMillon be awarded such further relief the Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: Dismissed without prejudice as to Norman Public Schools. COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Richard and Judy Kibler, by and through their attorney of record, Richard A. Pizzo and dismisses the above-entitled cause with prejudice to the refiling thereof.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: