CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
OKLAHOMA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1817

Yessenia Corrales v. Pike Pennington

Filed: Mar 10, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: three members of the same family are suing a man for over $75,000 because he allegedly drove between shrub-covered medians in a shopping center parking lot and T-boned their car like he was auditioning for a low-budget action movie. Not on a highway. Not during a storm. In the parking lot of the Springdale Shopping Center in Oklahoma City — home, presumably, to discount sneakers, overpriced smoothies, and now, a full-blown civil war over who has the right of way around a circle of bushes.

Meet the Corrales family: Yessenia, Yaretsi, and Juan. They were out and about on December 18, 2024, doing what Oklahomans do — probably running errands, maybe picking up snacks, possibly debating whether to get the large fry — when Yaretsi, behind the wheel, cautiously entered the northbound side of the Springdale Shopping Center parking lot. According to the lawsuit, she was driving legally, responsibly, and in a straight line, navigating the western side of a series of four circular medians — you know, those little landscaped islands that exist solely to confuse drivers and harbor forgotten shopping carts. They had shrubs. They had purpose. They were, tragically, not enough of a barrier to stop what came next.

Enter Pike Pennington. We don’t know if he was late for a dentist appointment, distracted by a text from his mom, or just really committed to cutting corners — literally — but according to the Corrales crew, Mr. Pennington did not take the designated driving path. Instead, he allegedly drove through the gap between the medians, like a man who saw a shortcut and decided the laws of traffic geometry simply did not apply to him. And in that moment of questionable navigation, he slammed the front of his vehicle into the passenger side of the Corrales’ car. The impact, we’re told, was not gentle. It was the kind of collision that doesn’t just dent metal — it rattles bones, triggers whiplash, and kicks off a chain reaction of doctor visits, X-rays, and one very expensive legal demand.

Now, let’s be clear: no one is claiming Pennington was drag racing or driving drunk. The lawsuit doesn’t accuse him of pulling a Fast & Furious stunt. But it does accuse him of something almost as irritating in the eyes of the law: not paying attention. The Corrales’ legal team argues that Pennington failed to observe their vehicle, failed to stop in time, and failed to yield — all classic signs of what lawyers call “negligence,” which is legalese for “you should’ve seen that coming, buddy.” They’re also throwing in “negligence per se,” which sounds fancy but basically means he broke a traffic safety rule so badly that the law assumes he was negligent — no extra proof needed. Think of it like the legal equivalent of getting caught running a red light: you don’t get to argue you felt it was safe. You just broke the rule. Game over.

So what, exactly, are the Corrales family walking away with? Or, more accurately, what are they suing to get? Over $75,000 — and not just for dented metal and rental car fees. This is about bodies, people. The filing lists a whole buffet of suffering: physical pain (past and future), mental anguish (also past and future — because trauma doesn’t clock out at 5 PM), medical bills already racked up, and potential future treatments they can’t even put a price on yet. They want compensation for lost wages, reduced earning ability, permanent injuries, disfigurement, and yes — the ever-popular “physical impairment,” which could mean anything from chronic back pain to an inability to do the Macarena without wincing. Oh, and Yaretsi also wants to be reimbursed for damage to her car, because apparently, emotional trauma isn’t enough — someone’s gotta pay for the paint job.

Now, is $75,000 a lot for a parking lot fender bender? Well, it depends. If this was a tap-and-go at a gas station, sure — that’s highway robbery. But if the injuries are serious? If someone needs surgery, physical therapy, or can’t work for months? Suddenly, $75,000 doesn’t look so outrageous. Medical bills in America being what they are, that number could evaporate after a single MRI. The Corrales aren’t asking for millions. They’re not demanding a private island. They’re asking for what the law considers fair compensation — and they want a jury to decide, because apparently, they don’t trust a judge to fully appreciate the agony of being T-boned by a man who treated a parking lot like an off-road course.

Here’s the thing that makes this case deliciously absurd: the setting. This wasn’t a high-speed chase. It wasn’t icy roads or sudden blackouts. It was a shopping center parking lot, with shrubs, medians, and clearly marked driving lanes. The kind of place where people drive five miles an hour while arguing with their GPS. And yet, someone managed to treat it like the Autobahn. Did Pike Pennington think he was James Bond? Did he misjudge the gap like a driver trying to beat a yellow light? Or did he just decide, in the moment, that nature — and traffic design — were suggestions?

We’re not saying the Corrales don’t deserve justice. If Pennington was reckless, he should pay. But come on — you don’t just plow through landscaped medians unless you’re either extremely lost, extremely distracted, or extremely confident in your off-pavement driving skills. And now, three people are dealing with pain, medical appointments, and emotional distress — all because someone couldn’t follow the most basic rule of parking lot etiquette: stay in the lane, Karen.

We’re rooting for accountability — but also for common sense. If this case goes to trial, we’re picturing the jury being shown a diagram of the medians, the shrubs, the driving paths — and someone slowly turning to Pennington’s lawyer and asking, “Wait… you’re telling me he drove between the bushes?” And the answer will be yes. Yes, he did. And now, he might owe three people more than most people make in a year.

This isn’t just a lawsuit. It’s a cautionary tale. The next time you’re tempted to cut across a median because “it’s faster,” remember: someone, somewhere, is drafting a petition that could cost you tens of thousands of dollars — and immortalize your bad decision in the public record. The shrubs were there for a reason, Pike. The shrubs were there for all of us.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$75,000 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Negligence/Negligence Per Se Defendant's negligence in driving resulted in a collision with the plaintiffs' vehicle.

Petition Text

613 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA YESSENIA CORRALES, and ) YARETSI CORRALES, and ) JUAN CORRALES ) Plaintiff(s), .) v. ) PIKE PENNINGTON, ) Defendant. ) FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA March 10, 2026 11:33 AM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case No. Case Number CJ-2026-1817 PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Yessenia Corrales, Yaretsi Corrales, and Juan Corrales, for their cause of action against the Defendant, Pike Pennington, alleges and states as follows: 1. That Defendant, Pike Pennington is a resident of Oklahoma. 2. That this Court has jurisdiction of the parties hereto and venue is proper in Oklahoma County with the accident occurring within this county. OBJECT AND NATURE OF ACTION 3. This is an action by Plaintiffs to individually recover actual damages for the negligence of the Defendant. Such negligence resulted in Defendant’s vehicle striking the Plaintiffs’ vehicle causing injuries to Plaintiffs on or about 12/18/2024. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4. On or about 12/18/2024, Plaintiff Yaretsi Corrales was driving their vehicle with the other plaintiffs as passengers northbound into the parking lot of the Springdale Shopping Center located at 4475 NW 50th St, Oklahoma City, OK 73112, driving on the western side of four circular medians with planted shrubbery dividing the parking lot with spaces in between each median. 5. As Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding forward in a straight direction, Defendant Pennington failing to observe Plaintiff’s vehicle, drove through in between these medians and impacted the passenger side of Plaintiff’s vehicle with the front of Defendant’s vehicle. 6. Defendant Pike Pennington failed to pay proper attention to the road and observe Plaintiff’s vehicle traveling within its lane of travel and properly stop in time or yield to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. 7. As a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful and negligent conduct, Plaintiffs sustained serious and painful injuries. Plaintiffs also incurred significant medical expenses. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE/NEGLIGENCE PER SE 8. Defendant Pennington violated the above-referenced safety rules and was negligent in their driving on the date in question. 9. Defendant Pennington’s negligence were a direct cause of this collision and Plaintiff’s resulting injuries and damages. DAMAGES 10. Pursuant to the provisions of 12 O.S. §3226, Plaintiffs submit this preliminary computation of damages sought in this lawsuit. Plaintiff advises that all damages recoverable by law are sought, including, but not limited to, those listed in OUJI 4.1. The amount of future medical expenses is presently unknown. These items are among the elements for the jury to consider. Other than the amount which Plaintiff has specifically identified, Plaintiff is unable to guess or speculate as to what amount of damages a jury might award. The elements for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of Plaintiffs’ damages include 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; j. Impairment of earning capacity; k. The reasonable expenses of Plaintiff’s necessary medical care, treatment and services, past and future. 11. In addition to the personal injuries suffered, Plaintiff Yaretsi Corrales seeks all damages recoverable by law to their personal property caused by Defendant’s negligence. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgement against the Defendant for the acts and omissions referenced above in an amount to be deemed fair and proper in excess of $75,000.00. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Davis, OBA #34574 James Thompson, OBA #36276 Avishan Saroukhani, OBA #36779 Law Offices of Daniel M. Davis 300 N. Walnut Ave Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104 Telephone: (405) 602-6321 Facsimile: (405) 235-4954 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.