Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 11-08-2013

Case Style: Ronald Winter v. Muntazir Mustafa Datto

Case Number: CJ-2013-149

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jeff Stites and Ronald Winter

Defendant's Attorney: Muntzir Mustafa Datto pro se

Bart A. Chancellor for GEICO

Description: Ronald Winter sued Muntazir Mustafa Datto, GEICO Indemnity Company and Enterpr4ise Leasing Company of Oklahoma on auto negligence theories claiming:

1) On NOVEMBER 9, 2012, the Defendant operated a motor vehicle that was involved in a collision with an automobile operated by the Plaintiff. (The “collision”)

2) The collision happened at or near 9TH and SHERIDAN ROAD in the city of Tulsa, OK., Tulsa County, OK.

3) Defendant caused the motor vehicle Defendant was operating to rear end the motor vehicle operated by Plaintiff.

4) Defendant’s negligence caused the collision.

5) As a result of the collision, Plaintiff has suffered negligent injury I damage to his personal property been prevented from transacting and conducting his business, suffered great pain of body and mind, incurred expenses for medical attention which may be expected to continue into the future and has otherwise incurred damages.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS for judgment against Defendant for more than $10,000.00, an amount that exceeds the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United State Code, plus intejz, of action and for such other and further relief as to which Plaintiffs (sic) are entitled.

Muntazir M. Datto appeared pro se and responded as follows:

I have received the summon on the 28th of January, 2013 regarding the above case number and have been required to file a written answer to the attached petition.

On November 9, 2012, I was involved in a collision with an automobile operated by the Plaintiff. After the accident I provided the plaintiff with the insurance information which covers his damages, copy of insurance attached.

I was not aware of any bodily injures to the plaintiff.

The insurance provided to the plaintiff covers damages.

GEICO appeared and answered as follows:


1. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of;4he kiintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter

2. Defendant admits that there was a collision of automobilesat the approximate time and location alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendant is without sufficient information, knowledge, or belief to either admit or deny the allegations of injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for third party breach of contract or under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Action against this Defendant, 5. The Defendant denies the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injures arid damages, if any.

6. The injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition are the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendant is not liable.

7. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s petition are the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by this defendant and for which this defendant is not liable,

8. Defendant, GEICO is not a proper party to this lawsuit,

9. PeacnabIenes and nQcQity of medical treatment.

10. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and reserves the right to amend it sanswer to asset additional affirmative defenses as they may be ascertained.

11. Any damages allegedly suffered by fhe Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s decedent were caused by intervening or supervening causes for which this Defendant is not responsible.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Petition be dismissed and Plaintiff take nothing thereby; further Defendant prays for the costs of this action and for such relief as may be fair and equitable.

Enterprises Leasing of Oklahoma did not appear or answer despite having be served.

Outcome: Default judgment against Enterprise Leasing of Oklahoma. Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice as to GEICO and Muntazir Mustafa Datoo.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: