Ryan Fitzl v. Victoria aka Vickie Dunlap

DAMAN CANTRELL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RYAN FITZL, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA aka VICKIE DUNLAP Defendant. Case No. CJ-2024-283 Judge Lawrence Parish CJ-2025-00790 AGREED ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION This matter comes before the undersigned Judge of the District Court upon consideration for an Order to transfer this matter to Tulsa County. The Court, having reviewed the matter, finds that this matter should be transferred to Tulsa County for further action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this matter shall be transferred to Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joe Carson, OBA #19429 Harry "Jake" Kouri IV, OBA #34701 3721 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Douglas R. Scott, OBA #20323 Ashley N. Alley, OBA #34942 1515 E. 71st Street, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 970-2000 Facsimile: (918) 970-2002 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant I, Amanda VanOrsdol, Court Clerk for Creek County, Oklahoma, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct and full copy of the instrument here-with set out as appears of record in the Court Clerks office of Creek County, Oklahoma, This 21 day of Feb 20 25 By [signature] Deputy Amanda VanOrsdol Court Clerk IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA FITZL, RYAN PLAINTIFF VS. DUNLAP, VICTORIA A/K/A VICKIE DUNLAP DEFENDANT FILED IN DISTRICT COURT CREEK COUNTY SAPULPA OK JAN 24 2025 TIME: 2:57 Amanda VanOrsdel, COURT CLERK Case Number: CJ-2024-00283 COURT MINUTE Date: 1-24-25 Court Reporter: Per Judge Parish, Motion to Dismiss for improper venue Set on docket 2-20-25 @ 1:30. File Stamped Copy mailed to both parties IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RYAN FITZL, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA aka VICKIE DUNLAP Defendant. Case No. CJ-2024-283 Judge Lawrence Parish PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE COMES NOW, Plaintiff Ryan Fitzl, by and through his attorney, Joe Carson of Warhawk Legal, and submits his Response to Defendant Victoria aka Vickie Dunlap’s Special Entry of Appearance and Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, in which Defendant Dunlap asserts the case was improperly filed in this Court. In response Plaintiff advises that Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant have discussed this matter and all parties agree that this Court should enter a transfer order pursuant to Title 12 O.S. Section 140.1 transferring this matter to Tulsa County District Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ryan Fitzl respectfully requests this Court transfer this matter to Tulsa County District Court. Respectfully submitted, WARHAWK LEGAL Joe Carson, OBA#19429 Harry “Jake” Kouri IV, OBA #34701 3721 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of January, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail with postage prepaid and via electronic mail to: Douglas R. Scott Ashley N. Ailey Latham, Keele, Lehman, Ratcliff, Carter & Clarke, P.C. 1515 E. 71st Street, Suite 200 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Joe Carson IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RYAN FITZL, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA aka VICKIE DUNLAP, Defendant. SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE COMES NOW, Defendant Victoria Dunlap, by and through her attorneys, Douglas R. Scott and Ashley N. Ailey, of the law firm Latham, Keele, Lehman, Ratcliff, Carter, and Clarke, P.C., and enters their Special Entry of Appearance. Defendant specifically reserves the right to assert all available defenses, including but not limited to, all defenses specifically identified by Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2012 not raised herein. See Young v. Walton, 807 P.2d 248 (Okla. 1991). Defendant moves this Court to dismiss the present action for lack of jurisdiction by way of improper venue. In support of her Motion to Dismiss, Defendant alleges and states as follows: 1. On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action in Creek County, Oklahoma, alleging Defendant negligently caused a motor vehicle collision and personal injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Petition, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. In his Petition, in paragraphs 2 and 3, respectively, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “was a citizen and resident of Tulsa, County, State of Oklahoma” and “[t]his is an action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.” Exhibit A. 3. Under Oklahoma law, venue for civil cases arising out of an auto accidents is appropriate only in the county where the defendant is served with the summons, or where the damages or a part thereof were sustained. 12 O.S. § 141 states, in relevant part, as follows: "The venue of civil actions for damages resulting from the use or operation of motor vehicles... wherein the defendant or defendants resided in the State of Oklahoma at the time of injury, shall be, at the option of the plaintiff or plaintiffs, in either of the following: 1. In any county of Oklahoma where service of summons can be obtained upon one or more of the defendants as now provided by law. 2. In any county where the damages or a part thereof were sustained." (emphasis added). 4. On November 26, 2024, Defendant was served at her home in the city of Broken Arrow located in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Return of Service, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5. Because the motor vehicle accident occurred in Tulsa County, Plaintiff's damages were sustained in Tulsa County and Defendant was served at her home in Tulsa County, the only proper venue for this civil action is in Tulsa County. Creek County is an improper venue for Plaintiff's claims against Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order dismissing this action for the reasons outlined above and grant any other relief deemed proper, Respectfully submitted, LATHAM, KEELE, LEHMAN, RATCLIFF, CARTER & CLARKE, P.C. Douglas R. Scott, OBA #20325 Ashley N. Ailey, OBA #34942 1515 E. 71st St., Suite 200 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136 918-970-2000 918-970-2002 (Facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant Victoria Dunlap CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on the 16th day of December 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail with proper postage fully prepaid to: Dan L. Holloway Kenyatta R. Bethea Marissa T. Osenbaugh 3035 NW 63rd Street Suite 102N Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RYAN FITZL, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA aka VICKIE DUNLAP Defendant. Case No. CJ 2024-283 Judge: LAWRENCE PARISH PETITION Plaintiff Ryan Fitzl (hereinafter Plaintiff) for his cause of action against Defendant Victoria aka Vickie Dunlap, (hereinafter Defendant) alleges and states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff was a citizen and resident of Creek County, State of Oklahoma, at the time of the incident hereinafter described. 2. Defendant Victoria aka Vickie Dunlap was a citizen and resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at the time of the incident hereinafter described. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, when Defendant was negligent in causing the collision that is the subject of this action. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto, jurisdiction of the subject matter hereof, and venue is proper. CAUSE OF ACTION 5. On October 13, 2022, a motor vehicle collision occurred when Defendant negligently drove a vehicle and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. 6. The collision occurred at or near the intersection of SH-97 and County Road (57th PL S) in Sand Springs, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 7. On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff was traveling southbound on SH-97 when Defendant failed to yield to the right of way from a stop sign, pulled into the intersection heading northbound on SH-97, and collided with Plaintiff. 8. The significant impact from the collision caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff that are described below. 9. At all times Plaintiff was acting in a safe and prudent manner. **DUTIES OWED BY DEFENDANT** 10. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of keeping a proper lookout for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 11. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of keeping her vehicle under proper control for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 12. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of not driving her vehicle in such a manner as to indicate wanton disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 13. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of using ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 14. Defendant was not allowed to endanger Plaintiff or anyone else by violating one or more of the traffic safety rules listed above. **DUTIES VIOLATED BY DEFENDANT** 15. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of keeping a proper lookout, which needlessly endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 16. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of keeping her vehicle under proper control, which endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 17. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of not driving her vehicle in such a manner as to indicate wanton disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and others. 18. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of using ordinary care, which needlessly endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 19. At the time of the collision, Defendant needlessly endangered Plaintiff and others by failing to follow one or more of the traffic safety rules listed above. CAUSATION OF PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES AND DAMAGES 20. The injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff, more particularly described below, were produced in a natural and continuous sequence from Defendant's violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff. 21. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff was a probable consequence from Defendant's violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff. 22. Defendant should have foreseen and anticipated that a violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties to use ordinary care would constitute an appreciable risk of harm to others, including Plaintiff. 23. If Defendant had not violated one or more of the above-described independent duties to use ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff, then the Plaintiff's injuries and damages would not have occurred. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF 24. The injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's violations of one or more of the above-described safety rules, include but are not limited to the following: a. Plaintiff's physical pain and suffering, past and future; b. Plaintiff's mental pain and suffering, past and future; c. Plaintiff's age; d. Plaintiff's physical condition immediately before and after the accident; e. The nature and extent of Plaintiff's injuries; f. Whether the injuries are permanent; g. The physical impairment; h. The disfigurement; i. Loss of earnings/time; j. Impairment of earning capacity; k. The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment, and services, past and future. Pursuant to the provisions of 12 O.S. §3226(A)(2)(a), Plaintiff submits this preliminary computation of damages sought in this lawsuit. As this is an action for injuries suffered by an adult, Plaintiff advises that all damages recoverable by law are sought. Plaintiff advises that under item under item (I), Plaintiff suffered loss of earnings, which amount has not yet been determined. Under item (K), Plaintiff's medical bills total approximately $18,422.66 which amount is subject to increase. At this point, Plaintiff does not know the amount of future medical expense, if any. These items are among the elements for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of damages to award to Plaintiff. Other than the amounts which Plaintiff has specifically identified, and which are capable of being ascertained to some degree of certainty, Plaintiff is unable to guess or speculate as to what amount of damages a jury might award. AMOUNT OF DAMAGES 25. The Plaintiff's injuries and damages are in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (currently $75,000.00) plus interest, costs and all such other and further relief for which should be awarded as judgment against the Defendant in an amount to fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for each and every element of damages that has been suffered, including punitive damages. RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS 26. Plaintiff reserves the right to plead further upon completion of discovery to state additional claims and to name additional parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ryan Fitzl, prays for judgment against Defendant in a sum greater than the amount required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (currently $75,000.00) plus interest, costs, punitive damages, and all such other and further relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, WARHAWK LEGAL Joe Carson, OBA#19429 Harry "Jake" Kouri IV, OBA #34701 3721 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RYAN FITZL, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA aka VICKIE DUNLAP Defendant. FILED IN DISTRICT COURT CREEK COUNTY SAPULPA OK DEC 05 2024 TIME Amanda VanOrsdol, COURT CLERK Case No. CJ-2024-283 Judge: Lawrence Parish RETURN OF SERVICE I, Joe Carson, of lawful age, and after being duly sworn upon my oath, state: That on the 26th day of November, 2024, a true and correct copy of Summon, Petition and Entry of Appearance were served upon Victoria aka Vickie Dunlap, via personal service by Landon Sylvester, PSS-2023-30. (See Affidavit of Service, Exhibit 1). Further affiant sayeth naught. Respectfully submitted, WARHAWK LEGAL Joe Carson, OBA#19429 Harry "Jake" Kouri IV, OBA #34701 3721 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE <table> <tr> <th>Case:</th> <td>CJ-2024-283</td> <th>County:</th> <td>CREEK</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Plaintiff / Petitioner:</th> <td>RYAN FITZL</td> <th>Defendant / Respondent:</th> <td>VICTORIA AKA VICKIE DUNLAP</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Received by:</th> <td>THUNDER ENTERPRISES</td> <th>For:</th> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th>To be served upon:</th> <td colspan="3">VICTORIA AKA VICKIE DUNLAP</td> </tr> </table> I, Landon Sylvester, being duly sworn, depose and say: I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action, and that within the boundaries of the state where service was effected, I was authorized by law to make service of the documents and informed said person of the contents herein Recipient Name / Address: VICTORIA AKA VICKIE DUNLAP, 1604 SOUTH 2ND STREET, BROKEN ARROW, OK 74012 Manner of Service: Personal/Individual, Nov 26, 2024 Documents: SUMMONS; PETITION; ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Additional Comments: Successful Service: Nov 26, 2024 at 1604 SOUTH 2ND STREET, BROKEN ARROW, OK 74012 received by VICTORIA AKA VICKIE DUNLAP. [signature] 11/27/2024 Landon Sylvester PSS-2023-30 Subscribed and sworn to before me by the affiant who is personally known to me. [signature] Notary Public 11 27 2024 Date SEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RYAN FITZL, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA aka VICKIE DUNLAP, Defendant. RETURN OF SERVICE I, Joe Carson, of lawful age, and after being duly sworn upon my oath, state: That on the 26th day of November, 2024, a true and correct copy of Summons, Petition and Entry of Appearance were served upon Victoria aka Vickie Dunlap, via personal service by Landon Sylvester, PSS-2023-30. (See Affidavit of Service, Exhibit 1). Further affiant sayeth naught. Respectfully submitted, WARHAWK LEGAL Joe Carson, OBA#19429 Harry "Jake" Kouri IV, OBA #34701 3721 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE <table> <tr> <th>Case:</th> <td>CJ-2024-283</td> <th>County:</th> <td>CREEK</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Plaintiff / Petitioner:</th> <td>RYAN FITZL</td> <th>Defendant / Respondent:</th> <td>VICTORIA AKA VICKIE DUNLAP</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Received by:</th> <td>THUNDER ENTERPRISES</td> <th>For:</th> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th>To be served upon:</th> <td colspan="3">VICTORIA AKA VICKIE DUNLAP</td> </tr> </table> I, Landon Sylvester, being duly sworn, depose and say: I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action, and that within the boundaries of the state where service was effected, I was authorized by law to make service of the documents and informed said person of the contents herein Recipient Name / Address: VICTORIA AKA VICKIE DUNLAP, 1604 SOUTH 2ND STREET, BROKEN ARROW, OK 74012 Manner of Service: Personal/Individual, Nov 26, 2024 Documents: SUMMONS; PETITION; ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Additional Comments: Successful Service: Nov 26, 2024 at 1604 SOUTH 2ND STREET, BROKEN ARROW, OK 74012 received by VICTORIA AKA VICKIE DUNLAP. [Signature] Landon Sylvester PSS-2023-30 11/27/2024 Date Subscribed and sworn to before me by the affiant who is personally known to me. [Signature] Notary Public 11 2 7 2024 Date SEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RYAN FITZL, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA aka VICKIE DUNLAP Defendant. Case No. Judge: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: I hereby enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Plaintiff, Ryan Fitzl. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. __________________________ Joe Carson, OBA#19429 Harry “Jake” Kouri IV, OBA #34701 WARHAWK LEGAL 3721 N. Classen Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RYAN FITZL, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA aka VICKIE DUNLAP Defendant. Case No.: CJ 2024-283 Judge: LAWRENCE PARISH PETITION Plaintiff Ryan Fitzl (hereinafter Plaintiff) for his cause of action against Defendant Victoria aka Vickie Dunlap, (hereinafter Defendant) alleges and states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff was a citizen and resident of Creek County, State of Oklahoma, at the time of the incident hereinafter described. 2. Defendant Victoria aka Vickie Dunlap was a citizen and resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at the time of the incident hereinafter described. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, when Defendant was negligent in causing the collision that is the subject of this action. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto, jurisdiction of the subject matter hereof, and venue is proper. CAUSE OF ACTION 5. On October 13, 2022, a motor vehicle collision occurred when Defendant negligently drove a vehicle and struck Plaintiff's vehicle. 6. The collision occurred at or near the intersection of SH-97 and County Road (57th PL S) in Sand Springs, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 7. On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff was traveling southbound on SH-97 when Defendant failed to yield to the right of way from a stop sign, pulled into the intersection heading northbound on SH-97, and collided with Plaintiff. 8. The significant impact from the collision caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff that are described below. 9. At all times Plaintiff was acting in a safe and prudent manner. DUTIES OWED BY DEFENDANT 10. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of keeping a proper lookout for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 11. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of keeping her vehicle under proper control for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 12. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of not driving her vehicle in such a manner as to indicate wanton disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 13. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of using ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 14. Defendant was not allowed to endanger Plaintiff or anyone else by violating one or more of the traffic safety rules listed above. DUTIES VIOLATED BY DEFENDANT 15. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of keeping a proper lookout, which needlessly endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 16. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of keeping her vehicle under proper control, which endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 17. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of not driving her vehicle in such a manner as to indicate wanton disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and others. 18. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of using ordinary care, which needlessly endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 19. At the time of the collision, Defendant needlessly endangered Plaintiff and others by failing to follow one or more of the traffic safety rules listed above. CAUSATION OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES AND DAMAGES 20. The injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff, more particularly described below, were produced in a natural and continuous sequence from Defendant’s violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff. 21. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff was a probable consequence from Defendant’s violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff. 22. Defendant should have foreseen and anticipated that a violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties to use ordinary care would constitute an appreciable risk of harm to others, including Plaintiff. 23. If Defendant had not violated one or more of the above-described independent duties to use ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff, then the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages would not have occurred. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF 24. The injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s violations of one or more of the above-described safety rules, include but are not limited to the following: a. Plaintiff’s physical pain and suffering, past and future; b. Plaintiff’s mental pain and suffering, past and future; c. Plaintiff’s age; d. Plaintiff’s physical condition immediately before and after the accident; e. The nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries; f. Whether the injuries are permanent; g. The physical impairment; h. The disfigurement; i. Loss of earnings/time; j. Impairment of earning capacity; k. The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment, and services, past and future. Pursuant to the provisions of 12 O.S. §3226(A)(2)(a), Plaintiff submits this preliminary computation of damages sought in this lawsuit. As this is an action for injuries suffered by an adult, Plaintiff advises that all damages recoverable by law are sought. Plaintiff advises that under item under item (I), Plaintiff suffered loss of earnings, which amount has not yet been determined. Under item (K), Plaintiff’s medical bills total approximately $18,422.66 which amount is subject to increase. At this point, Plaintiff does not know the amount of future medical expense, if any. These items are among the elements for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of damages to award to Plaintiff. Other than the amounts which Plaintiff has specifically identified, and which are capable of being ascertained to some degree of certainty, Plaintiff is unable to guess or speculate as to what amount of damages a jury might award. AMOUNT OF DAMAGES 25. The Plaintiff’s injuries and damages are in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (currently $75,000.00) plus interest, costs and all such other and further relief for which should be awarded as judgment against the Defendant in an amount to fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for each and every element of damages that has been suffered, including punitive damages. RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS 26. Plaintiff reserves the right to plead further upon completion of discovery to state additional claims and to name additional parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ryan Fitzl, prays for judgment against Defendant in a sum greater than the amount required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (currently $75,000.00) plus interest, costs, punitive damages, and all such other and further relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, WARHAWK LEGAL Joe Carson, OBA#19429 Harry "Jake" Kouri IV, OBA #34701 3721 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED