NO.: and VS.

Similar documents
Sri McCam ri Q. August 16, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure.

Information or instructions: Motion Consent of Client & Order to substitute counsel PREVIEW

Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)

Case 3:01-cv AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : :

Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form

DC PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION COME NOW, PLAINTIFFS DEE VOIGT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

SAMPLE CAUSE NO. IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDREN COUNTY, TEXAS CHILDREN JUDICIAL DISTRICT PETITIONER S MOTION IN LIMINE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER (JURY TRIAL) for Plaintiff.

Case 2:15-cr SVW Document 173 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:2023

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/ :53 AM INDEX NO /2017

JURY SELECTION AFTER CORTEZ

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI

USCA No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, SANTANA DRAPEAU, Appellant.

PlainSite. Legal Document. Texas Northern District Court Case No. 3:11-cv Greene et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al.

CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff

Auto accident Motion for Summary Judgment complete package

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NO. Defendants. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES. To:, Defendant, by and through its attorney of record,,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

PlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 6:18-cr RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Case 5:17-cv Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 01/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION

Information or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

Defendant's Motion in Limine re Inadmissible Hearsay and Regarding Certain Irrelevant Testimony

CAUSE NO. DC DAWN NETTLES RESPONSE TO GTECH S FIRST AMENDED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COMPLAINT

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

Plaintiffs LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), HERLINDA S. GARCIA, JUAN GARCIA, AGUSTIN PINEDA, BERTA URTEAGA,

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

LegalFormsForTexas.Com

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

PLAINTIFF S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

EVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS. Laurie Vahey, Esq.

NO. FIELD(MAT_Cause No) STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. VS. FIELD(MAT_Court) JUDICIAL. TOUPPER(FIELD(MAT_Client Name)) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-cv-774

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. Plaintiffs JAMES MCGIBNEY and VIA VIEW, INC., (Plaintiffs), brings this

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. (CPSC Docket No. 11-C0005) Viking Range Corporation, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:14-cr JB Document 51 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (St. Louis City)

Case 1:11-cv NLH -AMD Document 61 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 211 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

/ Court: 055

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANT FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S OMNIBUS MOTION

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/26/ :17 PM INDEX NO /2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2018

The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series

The Intersection of Product Liability and Regulatory Compliance by Kenneth Ross

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

RAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor. v. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v. COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

IV. The State hereby gives notice to the Court and to counsel for the Respondent that the State moves for disclosure of the name, address and curricul

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/03/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2016

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

The Middleby Corporation and Viking Range LLC, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH : : : : : : : : : : : :

ER 904 is Scary - Five Practice Tips for Using and Opposing ER 904 Submissions Robert Dawson

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY. CASE No CR

Case 7:15-cv Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 12/02/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION (JUDGE HAYES)

CAUSE NO. V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION NOW COMES SHERRY REYNOLDS, BRANDON REYNOLDS, KATY

Case5:08-cv PSG Document498 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-00702

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. A-1-CA-35235

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC

UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [INSERT PROPERTY] JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

MOTION. responsible for Intervenor s lost silver holdings with the now defunct Old Glory Minting

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 79 TH Annual Convention & Exhibits

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA MOTION TO ALTER, VACATE OR AMEND AND NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO RULE 59 ALABAMA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

UNOPOSSED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT S AMENDED MOTION FOR COURT S APPROVAL TO ELECTRONIC FILE CASE DOCUMENTS VIA CM/ECF SYSTEM 1

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU

CAUSE NO. MELANIE MENDOZA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, VS. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

Case 1:10-cr LMB Document 192 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 1711

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Transcription:

NO.: 2011-11182 NORMA L. HINOJOSA, Individually, as IN THE DISTRICT COURT Next Friend of RAMIRO HINOJOSA, Jr., Minor, and as Representative of the Estate of RAMIRO HINOJOSA, Deceased; CINTHYA HINOJOSA, Individually; BRENDA HINOJOSA, Individually; RAMIRO GARZA HINOJOSA, Individually; MARIA ELENA MUNOZ HINOJOSA, Individually and ROBERTO CARLOS GUERRA, Individually, and as Next Friend of NATHAN ALEXANDER GUERRA, Minor; ARTURO RAMOS and MARIO RAMOS, Individually, and as Representatives of the Estate of LORENA YVONNE RAMOS, Deceased 61 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT And LAWRENCE HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LAISHA BROOKE HERNANDEZ, DECEASED AND LAILA ELIANA HERNANDEZ, DECEASED VS. UNITY 3 4 3, LTD.; WALNUT CREEK APARTMENTS; ALOHA HOUSEWARES, INC.; ALOHA WORLDWIDE; H.S.T. MANUFACTURING, INC.; WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, L.L.C.; AND WAL-MART STORES, INC.; W H I MFG INC.; NINGBO WINNER ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE GENERAL FACTORY; NINGBO WINNER ELECTRIC APPLIANCE GENERAL FACTORY; NINGBO WINNER ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., LTD.; XIANGXUEHAI GROUP NINGBO WINNER ELECTRIC

APPLIANCE CO., LTD.; NINGBO BESTT ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., LTD.; NINGBO BEST ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., LTD., W.H.I. MANUFACTURING, INC.; and NINGBO BESTT ELECTRIC CO., LTD. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT S MOTION IN LIMINE Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC (incorrectly named as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) (hereinafter Defendant or Wal-Mart ) in the above styled and numbered cause, and before any proceedings have been conducted in the presence of the jury, before voir dire examination of the jury panel, and before the introduction of any evidence, files this Motion in Limine. Defendant respectfully moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs, Intervenors, their respective attorneys, witnesses, and experts to refrain from mentioning within the hearing of any member of the jury panel during voir dire examinations, opening statements, while examining witnesses, during final arguments, or while making objections in the presence of the jury or otherwise any of the following matters, until such matters have been called to the Court s attention, out of the presence and hearing of the jury, and until the Court has ruled that such matters can be told to the jury. It is further moved that Plaintiff s counsel and Intervenors counsel be ordered to warn their client and each of their respective witnesses and experts and to instruct them not to disclose or speak about any of these matters in the jury s presence. The matters subject to this motion are as follows: 1. Any mention, comment or inference of the financial status or net worth of the Defendant and any of its subsidiaries, including but not limited to, remarks or references regarding the disparity in wealth or financial condition between the Plaintiffs, Intervenors and the Defendant. Such collateral financial matters are not relevant to any material issue in this lawsuit and would be solely for the purpose of prejudice and inflammation of the jury.

2. That the Plaintiffs and Intervenors are entitled to any monetary damages based on future income or money received from the decedent, Lorena Ramos. There has been no evidence that Ms. Ramos was working in the year prior to the fire, there is no evidence she provided financial support to any family member, and the only testimony regarding loans and payments involve those made TO Lorena Ramos. 3. Any testimony, photographs, or physical and tangible item(s) which mention or make reference to any subsequent remedial measures which may have been taken by Defendants. Such testimony, photographs, or physical and tangible item(s) which mention or make reference to any subsequent remedial measure is prohibited by the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL EVIDENCE. When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. 4. Any testimony from any of Plaintiffs or Intervenors experts that is outside the scope of their expertise and outside the scope of the matters on which each has been designated to testify, and includes testimony that is not based on reliable principles or that incorrectly applies reliable principles to the facts and evidence in this case. 5. Any mention, comment or reference to the recall of milk house heaters by the CPSC in December of 2010. The recall was a subsequent remedial measure as it occurred 10 months after the incident made the basis of this suit. Further, the recall failed to identify a particular defect in the heater or its cord and thus, should not be used as proof of a defect in the cord plug connection of the subject heater. Therefore, any mention of this is irrelevant, prejudicial and will confuse and mislead the jury. 6. Any mention, comment or reference to any documents involving correspondence with the CPSC. Any and all correspondence with the CPSC is privileged under the following federal statutes: Section 6(a)(2) of the CPSA, incorporating Exemption 4 of FOIA 5 USC section 552(b)(4) 15 USC section 2005(a)(2) 15 USC section 255(b)(5) 7. Any mention, comment or reference to the exemplar heaters examined by Plaintiffs and Intervenor s expert Erik Anderson. Mr. Anderson examined two heaters manufactured one year prior to the subject Comfort Essentials milk house heater, from an undetermined Chinese manufacturer, created in an undetermined Chinese factory, and having a different brand name (Aloha Breeze) to the Comfort Essentials brand heater made the basis of this lawsuit. Any reference to the heaters or to results from the 3

examination of these heaters is irrelevant, prejudicial and will confuse and mislead the jury. 8. Any mention, comment or reference to the notion that Chinese manufacturers of electrical products are inferior, perform improper work, and are more likely to produce a defective product. Plaintiffs and Intervenor s expert has relied on the idea that China manufactures inferior products to form the basis of his opinion without providing any of the data, information, publications, or documentation to support these assertions as required under the relevant legal principles and case law. Any reference to manufacturers or factories in China creating inferior or defective products is prejudicial, and would confuse and mislead the jury. 9. Any mention, comment or reference of any prior incident involving a milk house space heater sold by Wal-Mart, unless such incident involves a Comfort Essentials brand heater. Any incident or claim involving a milk house heater sold by Wal-Mart that was likely manufactured by a different company at a different factory, using different component parts, is irrelevant to the issues in this case and would confuse and mislead the jury. 10. Any mention, comment or reference of any prior incident involving a milk house space heater sold by Wal-Mart that involved an alleged fire or heat incident arising from the body of the heater. The allegations in this case are specifically as to the plug and cord connection, and testing of the heater, when attached to a power source, showed it still worked after the fire. Any incident or prior claim involving a milk house heater due to issues related to the main body of the heater is prejudicial, and would confuse and mislead the jury. 11. Any mention, comment or reference of any prior incident involving a milk house space heater sold by Wal-Mart that involved the plug or cord of the heater, unless it can be shown that the incident arose out of resistive heating due a defective crimp and solder at the plug and cord connection. Prior incidents, including claims involving fires allegedly occurring at the cord and plug, wherein no defect was found to have occurred, are irrelevant, and would confuse and mislead the jury. 12. Any testimony, comments, references, photographs, or physical and tangible item(s) which mention or make reference to any wrongful death damages which Plaintiffs and Intervenor have pled, but for which there is no evidence. This includes, but is not limited to, any testimony, comments, references, photographs, or physical and tangible item(s) which mention or make reference to the following: A. Pecuniary loss in the past or future by Plaintiffs or Intervenor as a result of this incident; B. Loss of inheritance by Plaintiffs or Intervenor as a result of this incident; and C. Loss of community estate by Plaintiffs or Intervenor as a result of this incident 4

Respectfully submitted, DAW & RAY, LLP WILLIE BEN DAW, III State Bar No. 05594050 BENJAMIN S. CARPENTER State Bar No. 24056960 5718 Westheimer, Ste. 1750 Houston, Texas 77057 Telephone: (713) 266-3121 Fax: (713) 266-3188 E-mail: wbdaw@dawray.com E-mail: bcarpenter@dawray.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC (INCORRECTLY NAMED AS WAL-MART STORES, INC.) 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been served upon all known counsel of record by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Facsimile, E-Filing Notification and/or Hand Delivery on this the 31 st day of October, 2014. Mikal C. Watts WATTS/GUERRA/CRAFT, LLP 2314 West University Drive, Suite 220 Edinburg, Texas 78539 Joe Cone JOE J. CONE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1380 Houston, Texas 77002 Via Email Via Email Willie Ben Daw, III/Benjamin S. Carpenter 6

NO.: 2011-11182 NORMA L. HINOJOSA, Individually, as IN THE DISTRICT COURT Next Friend of RAMIRO HINOJOSA, Jr., Minor, and as Representative of the Estate of RAMIRO HINOJOSA, Deceased; CINTHYA HINOJOSA, Individually; BRENDA HINOJOSA, Individually; RAMIRO GARZA HINOJOSA, Individually; MARIA ELENA MUNOZ HINOJOSA, Individually and ROBERTO CARLOS GUERRA, Individually, and as Next Friend of NATHAN ALEXANDER GUERRA, Minor; ARTURO RAMOS and MARIO RAMOS, Individually, and as Representatives of the Estate of LORENA YVONNE RAMOS, Deceased 61 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT And LAWRENCE HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LAISHA BROOKE HERNANDEZ, DECEASED AND LAILA ELIANA HERNANDEZ, DECEASED VS. UNITY 3 4 3, LTD.; WALNUT CREEK APARTMENTS; ALOHA HOUSEWARES, INC.; ALOHA WORLDWIDE; H.S.T. MANUFACTURING, INC.; WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, L.L.C.; AND WAL-MART STORES, INC.; W H I MFG INC.; NINGBO WINNER ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE 7

GENERAL FACTORY; NINGBO WINNER ELECTRIC APPLIANCE GENERAL FACTORY; NINGBO WINNER ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., LTD.; XIANGXUEHAI GROUP NINGBO WINNER ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., LTD.; NINGBO BESTT ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., LTD.; NINGBO BEST ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., LTD., W.H.I. MANUFACTURING, INC.; and NINGBO BESTT ELECTRIC CO., LTD. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER IN LIMINE The Court, having considered Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC s (incorrectly named as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) Motion in Limine and having heard the arguments of counsel, hereby orders Plaintiffs and their counsel and witnesses, to refrain from any mention or interrogation, directly or indirectly, including offering documentary evidence, about any of the following matters without first requesting and obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence and hearing of all prospective jurors and jurors ultimately selected in this cause concerning any alleged theory of admissibility of the matters: No. 1: No. 2: No. 3: No. 4: No. 5: 2

No. 6: No. 7: No. 8: No. 9: No. 10: No. 11: No. 12: SIGNED this day of, 2014. PRESIDING JUDGE 3

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ENTRY REQUESTED: DAW & RAY, LLP By: Willie Ben Daw, III State Bar No. 05594050 Benjamin S. Carpenter State Bar No. 24056960 5718 Westheimer, Suite 1750 Houston, Texas 77057 Telephone No. (713) 266-3121 Facsimile No. (713) 266-3188 E-mail: wbdaw@dawray.com E-mail: bcarpenter@dawray.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC (INCORRECTLY NAMED AS WAL-MART STORES, INC.) 4