(549-1507 FILED IN orsrillh court OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MAR 91 2023 JEFFREY ERVIN, individually, and ) RICK WARRE] XAVIER ERVIN, individually, ) COURT ARREN ) 38. Plaintiff, ) - - > CO - 1 -1527 v. ) ‘Case No. CJ-2023- ) PINK PARROT LLC, d/b/a PINK PARROT, ) an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, ) RICH TAYLOR, individually ) ) PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, Jeffrey Ervin and Xavier Ervin, (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their attorney of record, Kayla Petsch of Parrish DeVaughn, PLLC, and for his cause of action against Defendants, Pink Parrot LLC, and Richard Taylor, individually (hereinafter “Defendant Pink Parrot,” “Defendant Taylor,” or collectively, “Defendants”), alleges and states as follows PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE |. Plaintiffs are individuals who resided in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma at all times relevant hereto, 2. Defendant Pink Parrott is an Oklahoma limited liability company in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, 3. Defendant Taylor is an individual residing in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. At all herein, Taylor was a member and/or manager of Pink Parrot, 4, Allactions giving rise to this litigation occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this litigation and. is the proper forum,FACTS COMMON TO ALL ALLEGATIONS 6. On or about February 24-25, 2023, Plaintiffs were patrons at Defendant Pink Parrot’s premises located at 209 E Sheridan Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73104. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant allowed an underage individual (non- party), into the Pink Parrot bar. Upon information and belief, this individual entered the Pink Parrot with a weapon, aknife. 9. Upon information and belief, this individual began to assault patrons using a knife. 10. Plaintiffs were two of the patrons assaulted, 11, Plaintiffs were admitted to OU Medical as a result of theit injuries. FIRST THEORY OF RECOVERY - NEGLIGENCE AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS 12. Plaintiffs realleges each and every allegation in this Petition. 13. Defendants have a duty to provide adequate security to all areas of their premises, including but not limited to the door and interior of their premise. 14, Defendants have a duty to safely and effectively de-escalate dangerous situations for the protection of the patrons on their premises. 15, Defendants breached their duty by failing to provide adequate door security resulting in the admission of an underage person on or about February 24-25, 2023. 16, Defendants breached their duty by failing to provide adequate door security resulting in the admission of @ person with a weapon on o about February 24-25, 2023 17, Defendants breached their duty by failing to provide adequate interior security, allowing a stabbing to break out inside of the Pink Parrot.18. Defendants breached their duty by failing to control or deescalate the mele. 19, Defendants’ failure to provide a reasonably safe premises caused severe and life- threatening injuries to Plaintiff. 20. Plaintiffs suffered personal injuries as a result of all Defendants” negligent actions. 21. Plaintiffs suffered significant damages as a result of the Defendants’ negligence. 22. Based off of prior complaints instituted against Pink Parrot, Defendants knew or should have known of their inadequate security which had a propensity to cause injuries to patrons. SECOND THEORY OF RECOVERY - NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, AND RETENTION AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS 23. Plaintiffs realleges each and every allegation in this Petition. 24, Defendants’ were negligent in hiring, training, and supervising their security staff. 25. Plaintiffs suffered significant damages as a result of Defendants’ negligence in hiring, training, and supervising their security staff. 26. Based off of prior complaints instituted against Pink Parrot, Defendants knew or should have known of their inadequate security which had a propensity to cause injuries to patrons. 27. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ violations of one or more of the above-described safety rules include, but are not limited to the following: 28. Plaintiffs” physical pain and suffering, past and future; 29. Plaintiffs’ mental pain and suffering, past and future; 30. Plaintiffs’ age: 31. PlaintiffS’ physical condition immediately before and after the accident; 32. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs" injuries; 33. Whether the injuries are permanent;34, The physical impairment; 35. The disfigurement; 36. Loss of earnings/time; 37. Impairment of earning capacity 38, The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment, and services, past and future. 39, Pursuant to the provisions of 12 0.8. § 3226(A)(2)(a), Plaintiff's submits their s suffered isan action for injuri preliminary computation of damages sought in this lawsuit. As thi by an adult, Plaintiffs advise that all damages recoverable by law are sought, including those listed in OUSI-Civil § 4.1. Plaintiff advises that under item (K), Plaintiffs’ medical bills to date are unknown. At this point, Plaintiffs do not know the amount of future medical expense, if any. These items are among the elements for the jury to consider the damages to award to Plaintiff. Other than the amounts that Plaintiffs have specifically identified, and that are capable of being ascertained to some degree of certainty, Plaintiff is unable to guess or speculate as to what damages a jury might award. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in excess of $75,000.00, plus costs, interest, and any such other relief-as the Court deems appropriate against Defendant in an amount to fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for each and every element of damages that Plaintiff has suffered, including punitive damages.ATTORNEY’S LIEN CLAIMED Fo Kayla R. Petsch, OBA 33039 PARRISH DEVAUGHN, PLLC 3601 N. Classen Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73118 405-444-4444 405-232-0058 (f) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff