CJ-2026-00044 - Michelle Green v. Horacio Perez

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: an 11-year-old child did not break both legs because he tripped over a rock while running from a friendly golden retriever named Buddy. No. This kid shattered his legs fleeing for his life from a pit bull that charged him like it was auditioning for a horror movie. And somehow—somehow—the dog wasn’t even on a leash. It was just… roaming. Free as a bird. In a neighborhood. In 2025. In Tulsa. If that doesn’t make you want to scream into the void while Googling “how to build a moat around my house,” you’re made of stronger stuff than we are.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Michelle Green, a mom from Delaware County, Oklahoma, suing on behalf of her minor child, B.G.—a kid who, until February 23, 2025, probably thought the biggest danger in his life was broccoli or pop quizzes. On the other side? Horacio Perez, the man who allegedly kept a large pit bull unrestrained at his rental property, and Matthews & Associates LLC, the business that owns said property and apparently thought “landlord of the year” meant “least involved in what happens on your land.” The relationship here is simple: Perez rented from Matthews, Matthews collected rent, and somewhere in that cozy little arrangement, nobody remembered that dogs—especially ones prone to sprinting at children like they’re in a sprint to the death—should maybe, possibly, be contained.

Now, let’s walk through what went down, because the filing reads like a public service announcement narrated by Morgan Freeman during a storm. On that fateful day in February, B.G. was just… existing. He was lawfully in a public area near Perez’s residence—so not trespassing, not teasing dogs, not doing TikTok challenges involving growling canines. He was just there. Then, out of nowhere, Perez’s pit bull—no leash, no fence, no muzzle, no adult supervision—decides to charge at the kid. No provocation. No barking warning. Just full-on predator mode. Understandably, B.G. did what any rational human would do: he ran. And who could blame him? But in his panic, he tripped on uneven gravel, went down hard, and snapped both legs. Let that sink in. The dog didn’t bite him. The dog didn’t maul him. The dog scared him so badly that his body betrayed him on rocky terrain, and now he’s facing surgeries, scars, pain, and emotional trauma that might never fully go away. The hospital visit confirmed it: catastrophic injuries. And the kicker? The dog never even touched him. The fear alone did the damage. That’s how terrifying this animal was.

So why are we in court? Because two parties allegedly dropped the ball so hard it ricocheted into negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, and a request for punitive damages. Let’s break it down like we’re explaining it to a jury of confused aunts at Thanksgiving. First, negligence: Perez and Matthews both had a duty to keep the public safe. You don’t let a known aggressive dog run wild in a neighborhood and then act surprised when a kid gets hurt. That’s like leaving a bear in your front yard and saying, “I didn’t tell it to chase anyone.” Second, negligence per se: there’s a city ordinance in Jay, Oklahoma—yes, Jay, population “probably not enough lawyers”—that says you can’t let dogs run at large. Perez broke that law by letting the dog roam. Matthews? They allegedly knew about the dog and did nothing, which, under the law, might make them a “keeper” too. So both could be on the hook for violating the rules, plain and simple.

Then comes strict liability, which is basically the legal version of “you own it, you broke it.” In Oklahoma, if your dog is dangerous and causes injury—even without biting—you’re responsible. Doesn’t matter if the dog had a good day yesterday or if you fed it organic kibble. If it’s deemed “dangerous” and it harms someone lawfully present, the owner is liable. And according to the filing, Perez’s dog fits the definition: unprovoked aggression, history of being a menace (allegedly), and now, catastrophic consequences. And finally, punitive damages—the legal system’s way of saying “we’re not just compensating the victim, we’re punishing you.” The plaintiff is arguing that Perez and Matthews knew this dog was a threat and still did nothing. That’s not just careless. That’s reckless. That’s “we’re gonna ask for extra money to make sure you never do this again” territory.

And what do they want? $150,000. Split right down the middle: $75,000 in actual damages (for medical bills, pain, therapy, all the real costs), and another $75,000 in punitive damages (to slap the defendants upside the head with a financial wet noodle). Is $150,000 a lot? Well, for a kid who’s had both legs broken, will need ongoing care, and may carry emotional scars for years? It’s not excessive. It’s not a lottery win. It’s not even enough to buy a modest house in most cities. But in rural Oklahoma, it might feel like a lot to a small LLC or an individual defendant. Still, when you weigh it against the cost of a lifetime of physical and mental recovery? It’s a drop in the bucket. And let’s be real: if you can’t afford to secure a dangerous dog, you probably shouldn’t have one. It’s not a status symbol. It’s not a home security system. It’s a living creature with teeth and instincts, and when you ignore that, people get hurt.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the attack—it’s the lack of basic responsibility. We’re not asking for a gated compound with motion sensors and a dog psychologist on speed dial. We’re asking for a leash. A fence. A single thought that went, “Hmm, maybe I shouldn’t let a pit bull roam free near children.” And for Matthews & Associates? Come on. You’re a property management company. Your job is to manage property. That includes making sure tenants aren’t turning your rental into a scene from Cujo. If you knew there was a dangerous dog on the premises—and the filing says you did—then your “I didn’t see it” defense is about as convincing as “the dog ate my homework.” We’re rooting for B.G., obviously. Every kid should be able to walk near a house without fearing a canine ambush. But we’re also rooting for common sense. For landlords who actually landlord. For dog owners who remember that “man’s best friend” comes with a manual—and liability. This case isn’t just about money. It’s about sending a message: if you’re going to share space with other humans, act like one. Otherwise, the court system—and the internet—will be very happy to remind you how this story ends.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Delaware County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Donald E. Smolen, II

SmoLEN | LAW, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Michelle Green individual
Rep: SmoLEN | LAW, PLLC

Defendants

Horacio Perez individual
Matthews & Associates LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence	Negligence per se
2	Negligence per se	Violation of local ordinance
3	Strict Liability	Owner's liability for vicious dog
4	Punitive Damages	Intentional and reckless conduct

Petition Text

1,242 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR DELAWARE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MICHELLE GREEN, an Individual, o/b/o B.G., a Minor, Plaintiff, v. HORACIO PEREZ, an Individual; and MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Defendants. Case No. CJ 2026-44 ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff Michelle Green, o/b/o B.G., a minor, and for her causes of action against Defendants Horacio Perez and Matthews & Associates LLC, alleges and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff and B.G. are residents of Delaware County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Horacio Perez (Perez) is a resident of Delaware County, Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Matthews & Associates LLC (Matthews) is a Domestic Limited Liability Company, regularly conducting business in Delaware County, Oklahoma. 4. The acts and omissions described herein occurred in Delaware County, Oklahoma. 5. This Court has jurisdiction, and venue is proper in Delaware County, Oklahoma. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 6. Paragraphs 1-5 are incorporated herein by reference. 7. On or about February 23, 2025, B.G. was lawfully present in a public place near the residence that was leased by Defendant Perez, and owned by Defendant Matthews. 8. Defendant Perez kept and harbored a large pit bull at the property. 9. On or about February 23, 2025, Defendant Perez’s pit bull, unrestrained and unconfined in violation of both local ordinance and Oklahoma law, without provocation, charged at B.G., causing him to flee in fear for his safety. 10. In attempting to flee the dangerous dog, B.G. tripped and fell on the hard, uneven gravel surface, sustaining catastrophic injuries. 11. B.G. was rushed to the hospital where it was discovered that both of his legs had been broken in the fall, requiring surgical intervention. 12. As a result of the dog’s threatening behavior and B.G.’s necessary flight to try to avoid injury, B.G. has suffered, and continues to suffer, painful and permanent injuries, including but not limited to, extensive recovery, scarring, physical pain, and past and future mental and emotional trauma. 13. Upon information and belief, to be confirmed through discovery, Defendant Perez knew that his dog was dangerous and vicious, prone to aggression without provocation, and should not have been allowed to roam free. 14. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Matthews owned the property where Defendant Perez resided and harbored the dangerous animal. 15. Defendant Matthews knew, or should have known, that Defendant Perez kept a large, unrestrained, dangerous dog on its property. 16. Despite knowledge of this dangerous condition and its violation of local ordinance and state law, Defendant Matthews failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or remedy the danger, such as prohibiting or removing the animal from its property. 17. By permitting Defendant Perez to keep an unrestrained pit bull on the premises, Defendant Matthews created and maintained a foreseeable risk of harm to the public, including B.G. 18. As a direct result of the dangerous and vicious dog’s unprovoked aggression toward B.G., B.G. has suffered personal injury, including, but not limited to, past and future medical expenses, past and future mental and physical pain and suffering, permanent disfigurement, and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I. NEGLIGENCE 19. Paragraphs 1-18 are incorporated herein by reference. 20. Defendants owed a duty to B.G., and to the public at large, to exercise ordinary care to protect against dangerous animals. 21. Defendants breached their duty to B.G. by allowing a vicious dog to roam the neighborhood untethered and unsupervised. 22. Defendants’ breach of duty was the actual and proximate cause of B.G.’s injuries. 23. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, B.G. has suffered personal injury including, but not limited to, past and future medical expenses, past and future mental and physical pain and suffering, permanent disfigurement, and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00. COUNT II. NEGLIGENCE PER SE 24. Paragraphs 1-23 are incorporated herein by reference. 25. Defendant Perez, as owner of the dog who aggressively charged at B.G. without provocation, is liable for B.G.’s damages pursuant to Jay, Okla., Ordinances ch. 3, art. 5, §§ 2, 18 under the doctrine of negligence per se. 26. Defendant Matthews, by knowingly permitting Defendant Perez to harbor and keep a dangerous dog in violation of city ordinance, acted as a "keeper" of the animal within the meaning of the ordinance, constituting negligence per se. Jay, Okla., Ordinances ch. 3, art. 5, §§ 2(E)-(F), 11. 27. Pursuant to Jay, Okla., Ordinances ch. 3, art. 5, § 18, "No owner, keeper, or other person shall permit any . . . dog . . . harbored or kept by him or her, to be at large." 28. At the time the dangerous dog aggressively charged toward B.G. without provocation, the dog was outside any proper enclosure and was not muzzled or restrained and was therefore at large. 29. B.G.'s injuries were caused by Defendants' violation of Jay, Okla., Ordinances ch. 3, art. 5, §§ 2, 18, as the dangerous dog was at large when it aggressively approached B.G. without provocation. 30. B.G.'s injuries were the type of injuries intended to be prevented by Jay, Okla., Ordinances ch. 3, art. 5, §§ 2, 18, and B.G. was within the class of persons that ordinance was designed to protect. 31. As a result of Defendants' violation of Jay, Okla., Ordinances ch. 3, art. 5, §§ 2, 18, B.G. has suffered personal injury including, but not limited to, past and future medical expenses, past and future mental and physical pain and suffering, permanent disfigurement, and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00. COUNT III. STRICT LIABILITY (AS TO DEFENDANT PEREZ) 32. Paragraphs 1-31 are incorporated herein by reference. 33. B.G. was lawfully near Defendants' premises pursuant to 4 O.S. § 42.2. 34. Defendant Perez, as owner of the dog who attempted to attack B.G. without provocation, causing him to flee for his safety on rocky terrain, is liable for B.G.’s damages pursuant to 4 O.S. §§ 42.1, 44(7). 35. Defendant Perez’s dog, which caused severe injury to B.G. without provocation, is a “dangerous dog” as defined by 4 O.S. § 44(2). 36. Defendant Perez is strictly liable for his vicious and dangerous dog’s unprovoked aggression toward B.G. and the resulting damages. 37. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, B.G. has suffered personal injury including, but not limited to, past and future medical expenses, past and future mental and physical pain and suffering, permanent disfigurement, and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00. COUNT IV. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 38. Paragraphs 1-37 are incorporated herein by reference. 39. Defendants knew the dog was dangerous, but intentionally and recklessly failed and refused to take any precautions to protect B.G. and the general public from the dangerous dog. 40. The intentional, wanton, and reckless conduct of Defendants, in disregard of B.G. and his rights, was conducted with full knowledge in that Defendants knew the at-large dog would become aggressive and attack without provocation, and Defendants knew of the severe adverse consequences of their actions and/or inactions upon B.G. and others. These acts and/or omissions were detrimental to B.G. and all others near Defendants’ house and warrant the imposition of punitive damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant her the relief sought, including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of $75,000.00, with interest accruing from the date of filing this suit, punitive damages in excess of $75,000.00, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and all other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Respectfully submitted, SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC ______________________________ Donald E. Smolen, II, OBA #19944 Kimberly A. Arland, OBA # 36571 611 S. Detroit Ave. Tulsa, OK 74120 P: (918) 777-4LAW (4529) F: (918) 890-4529 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff