Case Style: Thomas Shaw v. Seth Michael Korey Marquette a/k/a Seth M.K. Marquette, a/k/a Seth Marquette
Case Number: CJ-2013-5579
Judge: Daman H. Cantrell
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: John Truskett
Defendant's Attorney: Scott Ryan
Description: Tulsa, OK - Thomas Shaw sued Seth Michael Korey Marquette a/k/a Seth M.K. Marquette, a/k/a Seth Marquette on an auto negligence theory claiming:
I. Plaintiff was at all material times a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant was at all material times upon information and belief a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
3. Defendant John Doe, a business entity, is a business whose identity is unknown now, but may be revealed through the course of discovery. Defendant John Doe is an entity that transacts business/engages in commerce on a regular basis in Oklahoma, and the claims alleged here arise out of the Defendant John Doe's actions and/or inactions in Oklahoma.
4. Defendant .lane Doe, an individual, is a person residing in Oklahoma whose identity is unknown at this time, but may be revealed through the course of discovery.
5. This motor vehicle incident occurred in Tulsa County, OK on about 11/20/13.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter.
7. Defendant failed to yield, directly causing this incident.
8. Defendant made an improper act and/or movement with Defendant's vehicle,,-_:::: <--'
9. Defendant hit and damaged Plaintiff s property and/or vehicle, causing diunages [.':; including but not limited to diminished value, negligent injury to property, loss of use, etc5 :?-: , I 0. This impact directly caused personal injuries and property damages. .-'- ?'. c;;r.
11. Defendant was the unsafe and/or unlawful factor directly causing this incident; ,-; ']
12. Defendant directly caused this crash. : - -
13. Defendant failed to yield to Plaintiff s right of way.
14. Defendant directly caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
15. Defendant breached duties owed to Plaintiff.
16. Defendant was negligent, negligent per se and/or committed res ipsa because Defendant violated and/or breached applicable statute(s), law(s), and/or ordinance(s), which directly caused injury to Plaintiff s person and property.
17. Defendant had the responsibility to drive as a reasonably prudent driver at the date and time of this incident.
18. Defendant violated that responsibility.
19. Defendant was negligent.
20. As a direct result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured
and suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of
$10,000, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, costs, expenses, and any and/or all other relief which this Court deems just and proper.
Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.