CAUSE NO. · 5/12/2017 · 7.2 First, one of the two owners of the Haverstock Hills Apartments, where the mass shooting occurred, is a Harris County, Texas corporate resident. ,

CAUSE NO. ___________________

TAMMY LARKIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER BEATTY, DECEASED, LAWANDA RUSHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WAYNE RUSHER, DECEASED, DANICA FULLER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF S.R., L.R., AND A.R. (MINORS), JASMINE BALLET, AS NEXT FRIEND OF W.R. (MINOR), ARTHUR LARKIN, JR., BRANDY RUSHER, AND ISAIAH RUSHER,

§ § § § § § § § § §

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

§ Plaintiffs, § § V. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § EQUALITY-LAKELINE, LLC, EQUALITY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, AND J ALLEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.

§ § §

§ Defendants. § ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, TAMMY LARKIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER BEATTY, DECEASED, LAWANDA RUSHER,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WAYNE RUSHER,

DECEASED, DANICA FULLER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF S.R., L.R., and A.R. (MINORS),

JASMINE BALLET, AS NEXT FRIEND OF W.R. (MINOR), ARTHUR LARKIN, JR.,

BRANDY RUSHER, and ISAIAH RUSHER (hereinafter, collectively referred to as

“Plaintiffs”), and file this their Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and Request for Disclosure Page 2 of 35

complaining of EQUALITY-LAKELINE, LLC, EQUALITY COMMUNITY HOUSING

CORPORATION, and J ALLEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., (hereinafter, collectively

referred to as “Defendants”), and would respectfully show this Honorable Court as follows:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1.1 Pursuant to Rule 190.3 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiffs allege

that discovery in this case should be conducted under Level 2.

II. REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

2.1 Pursuant to Rule 194 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, each Defendant

is hereby requested to disclose the information and material described in TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2

within fifty (50) days of the service of this request.

III. RULE 47 DISCLOSURE

3.1 As required by Rule 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiffs plead

for monetary relief aggregating over $1,000,000.00, at this time.

3.2 Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to amend this damage calculation as

discovery progresses and their treatment continues. Plaintiffs make this damage calculation at

this time pursuant to Rule 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

IV. PARTIES

4.1 Plaintiff TAMMY LARKIN is an individual and a resident of Harris County,

Texas. Plaintiff TAMMY LARKIN is the natural mother of Christopher Beatty, Deceased.

4.2 Plaintiff LAWANDA RUSHER is an individual and a resident of Harris County,

Texas. Plaintiff LAWANDA RUSHER is the natural mother of Wayne Rusher, Deceased.


4.3 Plaintiff DANICA FULLER, as next friend of S.R., L.R., and A.R. (MINORS), is

an individual and a resident of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff DANICA FULLER is the natural

mother of S.R., L.R., and A.R. (MINORS), who are the natural children of Wayne Rusher,

Deceased.

4.4 Plaintiff JASMINE BALLET, as next friend of W.R. (MINOR), is an individual

and a resident of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff JASMINE BALLET is the natural mother of

W.R. (MINOR), who is the natural child of Wayne Rusher, Deceased.

4.5 Plaintiff ARTHUR LARKIN, JR. is an individual and a resident of Harris County,

Texas.

4.6 Plaintiff BRANDY RUSHER is an individual and a resident of Harris County,

Texas.

4.7 Plaintiff ISAIAH RUSHER is an individual and a resident of Harris County,

Texas.

4.8 Defendant EQUALITY-LAKELINE, LLC is a Texas for-profit company.

Defendant EQUALITY-LAKELINE, LLC may be served with process by serving its registered

agent, Corporate Creations Network Inc., 2425 West Loop South, Suite 200, Houston, Texas

77027.

4.9 Defendant EQUALITY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION is a foreign

corporation doing business in Texas as defined in TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.042;

specifically, this Defendant contracts with Texas residents and has committed a tort in Texas.

Defendant EQUALITY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION may be served with

process by serving its registered agent, Corporate Creations Network Inc., 2425 West Loop

South, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77027.


4.10 Defendant J ALLEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. is a Texas for-profit

corporation. Defendant J ALLEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. may be served with

process by serving its registered agent, President and Director Joshua W. Allen, Sr., 1390

Broadway, Beaumont, Texas.

4.11 Plaintiffs hereby expressly invoke the right under Rule 28 of the TEXAS RULES OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE to have the true name(s) of the parties substituted at a later time upon the

motion of any party or of this Court.

V. MISNOMER/ALTER EGO

5.1 In the event any parties are misnamed or are not included herein, it is Plaintiffs’

contention that such was a “misidentification”, “misnomer” and/or such parties are/were “alter

egos” of the parties named herein. Alternatively, Plaintiffs contend that such “corporate veils”

should be pierced to hold such parties properly included in the interest of justice.

VI. JURISDICTION

6.1 The subject matter and amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of

this Court. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and amount of the

controversy in this case, because Plaintiffs assert causes of action which are based upon actions

for damages under Texas law, and the damages are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional

limits of this Court.

6.2 There is no 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because

Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Texas. Defendants, Equality-Lakeline, LLC and J Allen

Management Company, Inc., are Texas corporate citizens. These Defendants are not improperly

joined as Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint states a plausible cause of action against each, and


Defendants cannot demonstrate that there is no possibility of recovery by Plaintiffs against these

Defendants.

6.3 The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Equality Community Housing

Corporation because Defendant Equality Community Housing Corporation conducts a

substantial amount of business in Texas, committed a tort in whole or in part in Texas, and is

amenable to service by a Texas Court.

6.4 There is no removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) inasmuch as the

properly joined Defendants, Equality-Lakeline, LLC and J Allen Management Company, Inc.,

are corporate citizens of Texas, in which this instant action is brought.

6.5 Finally, there is no 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’

claims raise no federal question, nor do Plaintiffs seek relief under federal law, statute,

regulation, treaty, or the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ rights to relief do not depend

on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

6.6 The Court has personal jurisdiction over all other parties to this cause.

VII. VENUE

7.1 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas, pursuant to the general venue rule TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.002.

7.2 First, one of the two owners of the Haverstock Hills Apartments, where the mass

shooting occurred, is a Harris County, Texas corporate resident. Specifically, Defendant

Equality-Lakeline, LLC maintains its principal place of office for the State of Texas in Harris

County. Furthermore, Defendant Equality-Lakeline, LLC has a Harris County, Texas office in

which its decision makers conduct the daily real estate affairs (including the operations of


apartment buildings) of the corporation, in Harris County, Texas. As such, venue is proper in

Harris County, Texas, pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.002(a)(3).

7.3 Venue is also proper in Harris County, Texas because the other owner of the

Haverstock Hills Apartments, where the mass shooting occurred, maintains its principal place of

office for the State of Texas in Harris County. Specifically, Defendant Equality Community

Housing Corporation has a Harris County, Texas office in which its decision makers conduct the

daily real estate affairs (including the operations of apartment buildings) of the corporation, in

Harris County, Texas. As such, venue is proper in Harris County, Texas, pursuant to TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.002(a)(3).

7.4 Finally, venue of this lawsuit is also proper in Harris County, Texas pursuant to

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. §15.002(a)(2) in that all or a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Harris County, Texas. More specifically, all of the

claims in this action arise out of the same occurrence; that is, the March 2017 mass shooting in

which three assailants entered the premises of the Haverstock Hills Apartments located at 5619

Aldine Bender Road, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77032, with an assault rifle and opened

fire at the residents, resulting in the death of Christopher Beatty and Wayne Rusher, and severe,

life-threatening injuries to Anthony Larkin, Jr., Brandy Rusher, Isaiah Rusher, and a minor child.

At the time of the filing of this lawsuit, Anthony Larkin, Jr., Brandy Rusher, Isaiah Rusher, and

the minor child, remain in critical but stable condition.

7.5 Because venue is proper in Harris County, Texas as to Defendants Equality-

Lakeline, LLC and Equality Community Housing Corporation, and because the cause of action

accrued in Harris County, Texas, venue is proper as to all claims and parties pursuant to TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.005.


VIII. FACTS

8.1 On or about March 26, 2017, suddenly and without warning to the residents, three

assailants entered the premises of the Haverstock Hills Apartments located at 5619 Aldine

Bender Road, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77032, with an assault rifle and opened fire at the

residents. Two victims died, while four others, including a former America’s Next Top Model

contestant and her brother, a soon-to-be professional basketball player, were rushed to the

hospital with severe, life-threatening injuries.

8.2 More specifically, on information and belief, an argument between neighbors

erupted. The arguments spanned more than thirty minutes, however, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs,

three men, unannounced, drove into the apartment complex in a white vehicle. The suspects did

not live at the Haverstock Hills Apartments, but were able to enter through the wide-open, front

entrance gate. The men exited the vehicle and began arguing with the victims, escalating the

argument. One of the suspects walked to the trunk of the vehicle and pulled out a semi-

automatic assault rifle. Multiple rounds were fired into the crowd. A 31-year old man, Wayne

Rusher, was shot in the head and killed. A 33-year old man, Christopher Beatty, was rushed to

the hospital and later pronounced dead. The four other individuals, a 47-year old man, Arthur

Larkin, Jr., a 32-year old woman, Brandy Rusher, a 28-year old man, Isaiah Rusher, and a 16-

year old girl, were also rushed to the hospital in critical condition. Wayne Rusher, Brandy

Rusher, and Isaiah Rusher were all siblings; Christopher Beatty and Brandy Rusher were in a

relationship. Arthur Larkin, Jr. is Christopher Beatty’s older brother. The surviving victims

have undergone numerous surgeries to-date, and continue medical treatment daily, with

extensive treatment into the future.


8.3 Many say the Haverstock Hills Apartments near Highway 59 and Aldine Bender

Road, was the most crime ridden complex in all of Harris County, Texas. Defendants’ Executive

Director Flynann Janisse, in an interview with Houston public media, had a vivid memory of her

first day on the job. “As we walked the grounds in taking over our ownership, there was a point

where we all hit the ground, because shots were fired within the community. It was that bad.”

The Haverstock Hills Apartments have been the horrific and tragic scene of extreme violence for

many years. For example, the complex was the target of a gang injunction in 2010 which

became permanent in 2014 by the Harris County Civil District Court. The injunction signed in

2010 was to clean what was then, the city’s most dangerous apartment complex. The 2010 gang

injunction at the Haverstock Hills Apartments was the first ever in Harris County, Texas. "The

members of these street gangs regularly engage in criminal activity in this community, putting

residents in danger and harming their quality of life," Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan said in

a statement, adding that "[t]his type of injunction is a proven way to remove dangerous criminals

from a community."

8.4 Over the past several years, thousands of calls have been placed for the help and

service of law enforcement at the Haverstock Hills Apartments. What is even more horrifying is

that residents have been killed on the property over the years, and even so within this past year.

On information and belief, almost all, if not all, of the tragic and untimely deaths of these

residents have been caused by individuals who did not live at the Haverstock Hills Apartments

but were able to enter the premises due to the lack of security.

8.5 Although there is a security station at the property’s entrance, it remains empty

with no security guard. The front entrance and exit security gates have not functioned for the

past nine years and remains wide-open. There are no gate-access cards to prohibit non-residents


from freely entering the premises, there is a shortage of working security cameras, and

inadequate outdoor lighting. See Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Photograph of the Haverstock Hills Apartments depicting an unmanned security station, and both driveway gates left in open positions.

8.6 The Haverstock Hills Apartments located at 5619 Aldine Bender Road, Houston,

Texas, and built in 1972, comprises of approximately 700 units. The Haverstock Hills

Apartments, a massive complex of about thirty three-story low-rise apartment buildings houses

over 2,000 residents, including approximately 800 children. In or about 2002, Commonwealth

Housing Corporation purchased the Haverstock Hills Apartments for approximately $24.36

million. The current owners of the complex are Equality-Lakeline, LLC and Equality

Community Housing Corporation.

8.7 Equality-Lakeline, LLC is a Texas limited liability company formed in 2011. The

sole member of Equality-Lakeline, LLC, is Equality Community Housing Corporation. Equality


Community Housing Corporation, formed in 2003, is registered as a corporation in the State of

Texas. Interestingly, Equality Community Housing Corporation’s mission as stated in federal

and state filings is, “to facilitate the provision of safe, decent, and sanitary affordable housing to

lower income individuals and families” (emphasis added).

8.8 J Allen Management Company, Inc. is a Texas corporation formed in 1982.

Under a Management Agreement with Equality-Lakeline, LLC and Equality Community

Housing Corporation, J Allen Management Company, Inc. is authorized to at all times to act on

behalf of Equality-Lakeline, LLC and Equality Community Housing Corporation in regards to

the subject property. This includes, but is not limited to, operating, managing, and maintaining

the Haverstock Hills Apartments. Further, J Allen Management Company, Inc.’s website states

that the company, “provides professional service with a staff of highly trained personal with

many years of construction, maintenance and management experience.” On information and

belief, in acknowledgement for the services provided, Equality-Lakeline, LLC and Equality

Community Housing Corporation paid J Allen Management Company, Inc. more than $8 million

in compensation to manage its properties in Texas, including the Haverstock Hills Apartments.

8.9 Defendants knew or should have known at the time of the shooting, the complex

and its vicinity was the site of frequent criminal activity, including violent assaults, robberies,

and even murders. Defendants had both actual and constructive knowledge of the danger to the

complex’s residents, because at the very least, at the time of the shootings, the complex was

declared an area in which gang members were permanently banned. "Crime happens so

frequently that I got used to it," a resident at the apartment complex said to the media, "there

have been killings, stabbings, shootings, break-ins." According to the Harris County Attorney's

Office Gang Specialists for the Harris County Sheriff's Office and the Houston Police


Department, apartment staff and management have testified at previous gang injunction hearings,

about the crime among Bloods and Crips gangs at the Haverstock Hills Apartments.

8.10 Gang-related and other violent crimes frequently occurred at the Haverstock Hills

Apartments in the time leading up to the date of the subject incident. For example, shortly after

the incident made the basis of this suit, a resident pregnant woman, was robbed in her home, at

gun point. Furthermore, approximately eight months prior to this incident, a small child was

violently attacked. Over a year ago, a woman was shot and killed at the complex while still in

her vehicle. In 2014, a man was shot six times in the parking lot as he was walking from his

vehicle to his apartment. In 2013, a man who was performing his duties as a cab driver by

dropping off a resident to her apartment, was brutally assaulted by three assailants. While these

are just some of the examples of the violent crimes that have occurred at the Haverstock Hills

Apartments, the horrifying evidence in this case will reveal that the list of crimes is far, far

greater. Despite having knowledge of the alarming rate of crime that took place at Defendants’

property, Defendants still failed to provide even basic security measures and protection for its

residents and their guests, much less warn the community of the danger present on the premises

and in the area.

8.11 Defendants as owners, occupiers, controllers, and managers of the premises had

exclusive control and the right to control the Haverstock Hills Apartments, and its security.

Defendants undertook the duty to provide for the safety and security of residents and their

invited guests upon the premises and/or common areas, including without limitation those

common areas in which the incident occurred.

8.12 As of March 26, 2017, Defendants knew about the numerous violent and gang-

related crimes in the past, as well as the ongoing criminal activity in the proximity and occurring


on the premises, as documented by the numerous incident reports provided by the Houston

Police Department and the Harris County Sherriff’s Office, prior to the subject incident.

Notably, Defendants knew that the Haverstock Hills Apartments was located in a high crime

area. Therefore, Defendants knew or should have known there was foreseeable danger of a

shooting related crime on the premises. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to provide

adequate security on the premises thereby creating and/or abetting a dangerous condition on the

property Defendants.

8.13 In addition to the underlying crimes being foreseeable, the duty Defendants had to

make the property safe from the foreseeable crimes was reasonable. “Unreasonableness turns on

the risk and likelihood of injury to the plaintiff…as well as the magnitude and consequences of

placing a duty on the defendant.”1 A risk is, therefore, unreasonable only when “the risk of a

foreseeable crime outweighs the burden placed on property owners—and society at large—to

prevent the risk.”2

8.14 In this case, Defendants’ duty to make its property safe for residents was

reasonable, but unfortunately, ignored. Not only did Defendants have such a duty, Defendants

made promises to its residents such as: to maintain its premises in a safe condition, maintain all

equipment in a safe and working order, make necessary repairs with reasonable promptness,

maintain exterior lighting in good working order, and maintain its grounds. However,

Defendants failed to keep such promises in direct violation of the lease agreement Defendants

entered into with its residents. See Figure 2 below:

1 See UDR Texas Properties, L.P. v. Petrie, No. 15-0197, 2017 WL 382426, at *3 (Tex. Jan. 27, 2017) (citing Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762, 770 (Tex. 2010) (citing Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990)). 2 See UDR Texas Properties, L.P., 2017 WL 382426, at *3.


Figure 2: Section 10. Maintenance from the Lease Agreement.

8.15 Defendants already had certain security at its fingertips, but failed to use it. For

example, a security guard station was built at the property’s entrance for just that purpose—for a

security guard. However, it remained unmanned. The property was equipped with vehicle

entrance and exit gates, however, the gates have remained wide-open, and have not worked for

nine years. Further, the residents have never been provided with a gate-access card to prohibit

non-residents from entering. The property is equipped with cameras, but not all of the cameras

work. The property has minimal outdoor lighting, but a majority of the complex remains dark,

and unlit during evening hours. Accordingly, Defendants’ duty was reasonable, and could have

been mostly fulfilled by utilizing the pre-existing security infrastructure located on the property,

and implementing additional reasonable security measures to prevent a certain type of harm,

such as the harm made the basis of this lawsuit.


IX. CAUSE OF ACTION –

PREMISES LIABILITY DEFENDANT EQUALITY-LAKELINE, LLC

9.1 Equality-Lakeline, LLC was one of the owners, controllers, operators, and

managers in possession of the premises located at 5619 Aldine Bender Road, Houston, Harris

County, Texas 77032.

9.2 Plaintiffs were invitees of Equality-Lakeline, LLC’s premises with Equality-

Lakeline, LLC’s knowledge and for Equality-Lakeline, LLC’s mutual benefit. Plaintiffs were

tenants and residents of the complex, and as such, provided a monetary benefit to the owners,

controllers, operators, and managers of the Haverstock Hills Apartments by entering into a lease

agreement and paying rent.

9.3 Equality-Lakeline, LLC had a duty to use ordinary care to protect Plaintiffs from

the criminal acts of third parties on its premises at the Haverstock Hills Apartments because

Equality-Lakeline, LLC knew of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiffs at

those apartments. Specifically, the criminal conduct on Equality-Lakeline, LLC’s premises was

foreseeable and foreseen by Equality-Lakeline, LLC as outlined above. Criminal activity

described above, which is similar to the criminal activity that harmed Plaintiffs, occurred at the

Haverstock Hills Apartments recently and frequently. Equality-Lakeline, LLC was aware of the

specific type of criminal activity occurring at the Haverstock Hills Apartments not only publicly,

but also by Court filings. Moreover, the acts and/or omissions of Equality-Lakeline, LLC

exposing Plaintiffs to the consequences of this foreseeable risk of harm was unreasonable when

considering the very slight burden on Equality-Lakeline, LLC to protect its tenants such as

Plaintiffs. Specifically, the following conditions at the Haverstock Hills Apartments could have


been economically remedied: 1) the security station at the property’s entrance that remained

unmanned; 2) the front entrance and exit security gates that have not functioned for the past nine

years and remained wide-open; 3) the lack of resident gate-access cards to prohibit non-residents

from freely entering the premises; 4) the shortage of working security cameras which failed to

provide property-wide surveillance; and 5) inadequate outdoor lighting that failed to illuminate

parking and outdoor community spaces. All of these conditions, singularly and cumulatively,

posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs, given the long history of violence and crime

that plagues the specific property. Had Equality-Lakeline, LLC remedied one or more of these

unreasonable, foreseen risks on the premises, Plaintiffs more likely than not would not have been

harmed.

9.4 Equality-Lakeline, LLC knew or reasonably should have known of the criminal

danger that was eminent on the premises. Furthermore, Equality-Lakeline, LLC’s Executive

Director and employees, have even spoken out about the violence that has burdened the property

over the years.

9.5 Equality-Lakeline, LLC had a duty to use ordinary care to ensure that the

premises did not present a danger to Plaintiffs. Equality-Lakeline, LLC failed to use ordinary

care by various acts and/or omissions, including but not limited to the following, each of which

singularly or in combination, was a proximate cause of the incident in question:

1) Failure to exercise reasonable care to deter a known unsafe condition of numerous crimes occurring on the premises in a reasonable, effective manner;

2) Failure to provide adequate and reasonable deterrence to access the premises by unauthorized individuals;

3) Failure to provide a safe and secure premises for tenant and their invited guests;


4) Failure to use adequately trained security personal on the premises;

5) Failure to lock the gates at the entry and exit points of the complex;

6) Failure to designate adequate hours of duty of security personnel on the premises;

7) Failure to hire and employ utilize any security personnel on the premises;

8) Failure to formulate, implement or conform security measures to the probable risk of crimes of violence occurring on and around the premises;

9) Failure to adequately hire and train security or other personnel;

10) Failure to adequately warn tenants and their invited guests of other crimes occurring on or about the premises;

11) Failure to warn of the potential and likelihood of other crimes of violence on the premises;

12) Failure to adequately manage, direct, or supervise the premises;

13) Failure to manage, direct, supervise, or implement adequate security measures for the premises;

14) Failure to conduct a crime survey or adequately assess the crime demographics of the premises and surrounding vicinity;

15) Failure to provide adequate perimeter deterrence such as perimeter fencing and access control gates;

16) Failure to provide adequate and sufficient lighting;

17) Failure to engage off-duty police officers; and

18) Failure to timely implement security measures recommended by Houston Police Department, Harris County Sherriff’s office and even its residents.

9.6 Nothing Plaintiffs did or failed to do was a proximate or contributing cause of the

incident made the basis of this suit.


DEFENDANT EQUALITY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION

9.7 Equality Community Housing Corporation was one of the owners, controllers,

operators, and managers in possession of the premises located at 5619 Aldine Bender Road,

Houston, Harris County, Texas 77032.

9.8 Plaintiffs were invitees of Equality Community Housing Corporation’s premises

with Equality Community Housing Corporation’s knowledge and for Equality Community

Housing Corporation’s mutual benefit. Plaintiffs were tenants and residents of the complex, and

as such, provided a monetary benefit to the owners, controllers, operators, and managers of the

Haverstock Hills Apartments by entering into a lease agreement and paying rent.

9.9 Equality Community Housing Corporation had a duty to use ordinary care to

protect Plaintiffs from the criminal acts of third parties on its premises at the Haverstock Hills

Apartments because Equality Community Housing Corporation knew of an unreasonable and

foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiffs at those apartments. Specifically, the criminal conduct on

Equality Community Housing Corporation’s premises was foreseeable and foreseen by Equality

Community Housing Corporation as outlined above. Criminal activity described above, which is

similar to the criminal activity that harmed Plaintiffs, occurred at the Haverstock Hills

Apartments recently and frequently. Equality Community Housing Corporation was aware of

the specific type of criminal activity occurring at the Haverstock Hills Apartments not only

publicly, but also by Court filings. Moreover, the acts and/or omissions of Equality Community

Housing Corporation exposing Plaintiffs to the consequences of this foreseeable risk of harm

was unreasonable when considering the very slight burden on Equality Community Housing

Corporation to protect its tenants such as Plaintiffs. Specifically, the following conditions at the

Haverstock Hills Apartments could have been economically remedied: 1) the security station at


the property’s entrance that remained unmanned; 2) the front entrance and exit security gates that

have not functioned for the past nine years and remained wide-open; 3) the lack of resident gate-

access cards to prohibit non-residents from freely entering the premises; 4) the shortage of

working security cameras which failed to provide property-wide surveillance; and 5) inadequate

outdoor lighting that failed to illuminate parking and outdoor community spaces. All of these

conditions, singularly and cumulatively, posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs, given

the long history of violence and crime that plagues the specific property. Had Equality

Community Housing Corporation remedied one or more of these unreasonable, foreseen risks on

the premises, Plaintiffs more likely than not would not have been harmed.

9.10 Equality Community Housing Corporation knew or reasonably should have

known of the criminal danger that is eminent on the premises. Furthermore, Equality

Community Housing Corporation’s Executive Director and employees, have even spoken out

about the violence that has burdened the property over the years.

9.11 Equality Community Housing Corporation had a duty to use ordinary care to

ensure that the premises did not present a danger to Plaintiffs. Equality Community Housing

Corporation failed to use ordinary care by various acts and/or omissions, including but not

limited to the following, each of which singularly or in combination, was a proximate cause of

the incident in question:








7) Failure to hire and employ any security personnel on the premises;



10) Failure to adequately warn tenants and their invited guests of other crimes occurring on or about the premises;








18) Failure to timely implement security measures recommended by Houston

Police Department, Harris County Sherriff’s office and even its residents. 9.12 Nothing Plaintiffs did or failed to do was a proximate or contributing cause of the



DEFENDANT J ALLEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.

9.13 J Allen Management Company, Inc. was one of the occupiers, controllers,

operators, and managers in possession of the premises located at 5619 Aldine Bender Road,

Houston, Harris County, Texas 77032.

9.14 Plaintiffs were invitees of J Allen Management Company, Inc.’s premises with J

Allen Management Company, Inc.’s knowledge and for J Allen Management Company, Inc.’s

mutual benefit. Plaintiffs were tenants and residents of the complex, and as such, provided a

monetary benefit to the occupiers, controllers, operators, and managers of the Haverstock Hills

Apartments by entering into a lease agreement and paying rent.

9.15 J Allen Management Company, Inc. had a duty to use ordinary care to protect

Plaintiffs from the criminal acts of third parties on its premises at the Haverstock Hills

Apartments because J Allen Management Company, Inc. knew of an unreasonable and

foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiffs at those apartments. Specifically, the criminal conduct on J

Allen Management Company, Inc.’s premises was foreseeable and foreseen by J Allen

Management Company, Inc. as outlined above. Criminal activity described above, which is

similar to the criminal activity that harmed Plaintiffs, occurred at the Haverstock Hills

Apartments recently and frequently. J Allen Management Company, Inc. was aware of the

specific type of criminal activity occurring at the Haverstock Hills Apartments not only publicly,

but also by Court filings. Moreover, the acts and/or omissions of J Allen Management

Company, Inc. exposing Plaintiffs to the consequences of this foreseeable risk of harm was

unreasonable when considering the very slight burden on J Allen Management Company, Inc. to

protect its tenants such as Plaintiffs. Specifically, the following conditions at the Haverstock

Hills Apartments could have been economically remedied: 1) the security station at the


property’s entrance that remained unmanned; 2) the front entrance and exit security gates that

have not functioned for the past nine years and remained wide-open; 3) the lack of resident gate-

access cards to prohibit non-residents from freely entering the premises; 4) the shortage of

working security cameras which failed to provide property-wide surveillance; and 5) inadequate

outdoor lighting that failed to illuminate parking and outdoor community spaces. All of these

conditions, singularly and cumulatively, posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs, given

the long history of violence and crime that plagues the specific property. Had J Allen

Management Company, Inc. remedied one or more of these unreasonable, foreseen risks on the

premises, Plaintiffs more likely than not would not have been harmed.

9.16 J Allen Management Company, Inc. knew or reasonably should have known of

the criminal danger that is eminent on the premises. Furthermore, J Allen Management

Company, Inc.’s employees have even spoken out about the violence that has burdened the

property over the years.

9.17 J Allen Management Company, Inc. had a duty to use ordinary care to ensure that

the premises did not present a danger to Plaintiffs. J Allen Management Company, Inc. failed to

use ordinary care by various acts and/or omissions, including but not limited to the following,

each of which singularly or in combination, was a proximate cause of the incident in question:








7) Failure to hire and employ any security personnel on the premises;



10) Failure to adequately warn tenants and their invited guests of other crimes occurring on our about the premises;








18) Failure to timely implement security measures recommended by Houston

Police Department, Harris County Sherriff’s office and even its residents. 9.18 Nothing Plaintiffs did or failed to do was a proximate or contributing cause of the



X. GROSS NEGLIGENCE

10.1 Plaintiffs complain that Equality-Lakeline, LLC’s acts and omissions were

committed with complete and reckless disregard for and with willful, wanton, and actual

conscious indifference to, the rights, safety, and welfare of Plaintiffs. The nature of Equality-

Lakeline, LLC’s acts and omissions were of such a nature as to constitute gross negligence and

malice. Specifically, Equality-Lakeline, LLC undertook a continuous course of action in the

form of conscious decisions, with subjective knowledge and awareness of the risks and hazards

presented by each decision as discussed above and incorporated herein. When viewed

objectively from the standpoint of Equality-Lakeline, LLC at the time of their occurrence, said

omissions involved an extreme degree of physical risk and danger, considering the probability

and magnitude of potential harm to others of which Equality-Lakeline, LLC had actual,

subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious

indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Such gross negligence was a proximate

cause of the occurrence, and the Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.

10.2 Plaintiffs complain that Equality Community Housing Corporation’s acts and

omissions were committed with complete and reckless disregard for and with willful, wanton,

and actual conscious indifference to, the rights, safety, and welfare of Plaintiffs. The nature of

Equality Community Housing Corporation’s acts and omissions were of such a nature as to

constitute gross negligence and malice. Specifically, Equality Community Housing Corporation

undertook a continuous course of action in the form of conscious decisions, with subjective

knowledge and awareness of the risks and hazards presented by each decision as discussed above

and incorporated herein. When viewed objectively from the standpoint of Equality Community

Housing Corporation at the time of their occurrence, said omissions involved an extreme degree


of physical risk and danger, considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to

others of which Equality Community Housing Corporation had actual, subjective awareness of

the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or

welfare of others. Such gross negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence, and the

Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.

10.3 Plaintiffs complain that J Allen Management Company, Inc.’s acts and omissions

were committed with complete and reckless disregard for and with willful, wanton, and actual

conscious indifference to, the rights, safety, and welfare of Plaintiffs. The nature of J Allen

Management Company, Inc.’s acts and omissions were of such a nature as to constitute gross

negligence and malice. Specifically, J Allen Management Company, Inc. undertook a continuous

course of action in the form of conscious decisions, with subjective knowledge and awareness of

the risks and hazards presented by each decision as discussed above and incorporated herein.

When viewed objectively from the standpoint of J Allen Management Company, Inc. at the time

of their occurrence, said omissions involved an extreme degree of physical risk and danger,

considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to others of which J Allen

Management Company, Inc. had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved, but

nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

Such gross negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence, and the Plaintiffs’ injuries and

damages.

10.4 Nothing Plaintiffs did or failed to do was a proximate or contributing cause of the



XI. THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT

11.1 This cause of action is brought pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§§ 71.001, et. seq. (“THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT”). Plaintiff Tammy Larkin is the living heir of

Decedent Christopher Beatty. Hence, Plaintiff Tammy Larkin is the proper beneficiary. There are

no debts owing to the estates and administration of the estates is not necessary. As such, Plaintiff

Tammy Larkin is the proper party to bring this action, and bring suit for all allowable damages

under THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT.

11.2 Plaintiffs, Lawanda Rusher, Danica Fuller, as next friend of S.R., L.R., and A.R.

(Minors), and Jasmine Ballet, as next friend of W.R. (Minor), are the living heirs of Decedent

Wayne Rusher. Hence, Plaintiffs are the proper beneficiaries. There are no debts owing to the

estates and administration of the estates is not necessary. As such, Plaintiffs are the proper parties to

bring this action, and bring suit for all allowable damages under THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT.

XII. TEXAS SURVIVAL ACTION


§§71.021, et. seq. (“TEXAS SURVIVAL ACTION”). Plaintiff Tammy Larkin is the natural mother of

Christopher Beatty, and is the proper party to represent Christopher Beatty’s Estate in his claim for

medical and funeral expenses, and for the physical pain and mental anguish suffered by the

Decedent prior to his death. There are no debts owing to the estate and no administration of this

estate is necessary. As such, Plaintiff Tammy Larkin brings suit on Christopher Beatty’s behalf

for all allowable damages as a TEXAS SURVIVAL ACTION under the TEXAS SURVIVAL STATUTE.


§§71.021, et. seq. (“TEXAS SURVIVAL ACTION”). Plaintiff Lawanda Rusher is the natural mother


of Wayne Rusher, and is the proper party to represent Wayne Rusher’s Estate in his claim for

medical and funeral expenses, and for the physical pain and mental anguish suffered by the

Decedent prior to his death. There are no debts owing to the estate and no administration of this

estate is necessary. As such, Plaintiff Lawanda Rusher brings suit on Wayne Rusher’s behalf for

all allowable damages as a TEXAS SURVIVAL ACTION under the TEXAS SURVIVAL STATUTE.

XIII. BYSTANDER CLAIM

13.1 In addition to the personal injuries Christopher Beatty and Wayne Rusher,

Deceased, sustained in the incident made the basis of this suit that led to their unfortunate and

untimely death, Plaintiffs Arthur Larkin, Jr., Brandy Rusher, and Isaiah Rusher had a

contemporaneous perception of the event that caused the serious injuries to their loved ones.

Plaintiff Arthur Larkin, Jr. was Christopher Beatty’s older brother. Wayne Rusher, Brandy

Rusher, and Isaiah Rusher were all siblings. Christopher Beatty and Brandy Rusher were in a

relationship.

13.2 In addition to the serious personal injuries Plaintiff Arthur Larkin, Jr. sustained in

the incident made the basis of this suit, Plaintiff Arthur Larkin, Jr. had a contemporaneous

perception of the event that caused the severe, fatal injuries to his family member, Christopher

Beatty, Deceased. Plaintiff Arthur Larkin, Jr. was a victim present at the time of the senseless

mass shooting. The contemporaneous perception of the fatal injuries to his younger brother,

Christopher Beatty, Deceased, caused Plaintiff Arthur Larkin, Jr. to suffer extreme shock, panic

and trauma at the scene.

13.3 In addition to the serious personal injuries Plaintiff Brandy Rusher sustained in

the incident made the basis of this suit, Plaintiff Brandy Rusher had a contemporaneous

perception of the event that caused the severe, fatal injuries to her brother, Wayne Rusher,


Deceased, and boyfriend, Christopher Beatty, Deceased, and serious injuries to her brother,

Isaiah Rusher. Plaintiff Brandy Rusher was a victim present at the time of the senseless mass

shooting. The contemporaneous perception of the fatal injuries to her brother, Wayne Rusher,

Deceased, and boyfriend, Christopher Beatty, Deceased, and serious injuries to her brother,

Isaiah Rusher, caused Plaintiff Brandy Rusher to suffer extreme shock, panic and trauma at the

scene.

13.4 In addition to the serious personal injuries Plaintiff Isaiah Rusher sustained in the

incident made the basis of this suit, Plaintiff Isaiah Rusher had a contemporaneous perception of

the event that caused the severe, fatal injuries to his brother, Wayne Rusher, Deceased, and

serious injuries to his sister, Brandy Rusher. Plaintiff Isaiah Rusher was a victim present at the

time of the senseless mass shooting. The contemporaneous perception of the fatal injuries to his

brother, Wayne Rusher, Deceased, and serious injuries to his sister, Brandy Rusher, caused

Plaintiff Isaiah Rusher to suffer extreme shock, panic and trauma at the scene.

XIV. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

14.1 Plaintiff Tammy Larkin also suffered past and future, a loss of love, affection,

companionship, and society from the death of her child, Christopher Beatty, Deceased. Because

the unfortunate and untimely death of Christopher Beatty, Deceased, was caused by the acts and

omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff Tammy Larkin bring this past and future claim for loss of

children consortium as allowed by Texas law.

14.2 Plaintiff Lawanda Rusher also suffered past and future, a loss of love, affection,

companionship, and society from the death of her child, Wayne Rusher, Deceased. Because the

unfortunate and untimely death of Wayne Rusher, Deceased, was caused by the acts and


omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff Lawanda Rusher bring this past and future claim for loss

of children consortium as allowed by Texas law.

14.3 Plaintiff Danica Fuller, as next friend of S.R., L.R., and A.R. (Minors), has also

suffered past and future, a loss of love, affection, protection, emotional support, services,

companionship, care, and society from the death of their father, Wayne Rusher, Deceased.

Because the unfortunate and untimely death of Wayne Rusher, Deceased, was caused by the acts

and omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff Danica Fuller, as next friend of S.R., L.R., and A.R.

(Minors), bring this past and future claim for loss of parental consortium as allowed by Texas

law.

14.4 Plaintiff Jasmine Ballet, as next friend of W.R. (Minor), has also suffered past and

future, a loss of love, affection, protection, emotional support, services, companionship, care, and

society from the death of his father, Wayne Rusher, Deceased. Because the unfortunate and

untimely death of Wayne Rusher, Deceased, was caused by the acts and omissions of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Jasmine Ballet, as next friend of W.R. (Minor), bring this past and future

claim for loss of parental consortium as allowed by Texas law.

XV. DAMAGES

15.1 Plaintiff Tammy Larkin, as Representative of the Estate of Christopher Beatty,

Deceased, seeks to recover the following damages, both past and future damages, as a result of

the negligence of Defendants:

a) Damages for Christopher Beatty’s conscious pain and suffering prior to his death;

b) Funeral and burial expenses;

c) Costs of medical care; and


d) Loss of wages and wage-earning capacity. 15.2 Plaintiff Lawanda Rusher, as Representative of the Estate of Wayne Rusher,

Deceased, seeks to recover the following damages, both past and future damages, as a result of


a) Damages for Wayne Rusher’s conscious pain and suffering prior to his death;

b) Funeral and burial expenses;

c) Costs of medical care; and

d) Loss of wages and wage-earning capacity.

15.3 Plaintiffs Tammy Larkin, Lawanda Rusher, Danica Fuller, as next friend of S.R.

L.R. and A.R. (Minors), Jasmine Ballet, as next friend of W.R. (Minor), Arthur Larkin, Jr.,

Brandy Rusher, and Isaiah Rusher seek to recover the following damages, both past and future

damages, as a result of the negligence of Defendants:

a) Pecuniary losses;

b) Physical pain and mental anguish;

c) Funeral and burial expenses;

d) Loss of consortium;

e) Damages for the termination of the parent/child relationships, including loss of affection, of solace, of comfort, of companionship, and society as Plaintiff Tammy Larkin, would have, in reasonable probability, received from her son, Christopher Beatty, had he lived;

f) Damages for the termination of the parent/child relationships, including loss of affection, of solace, of comfort, of companionship, and society as Plaintiff Lawanda Rusher, would have, in reasonable probability, received from her son, Wayne Rusher, had he lived;

g) Damages for the termination of the parent/child relationships, including loss of affection, of solace, of comfort, of companionship, of society, of inheritance, of services, of advice and counsel and of assistance as


Plaintiff Danica Fuller, as next friend of S.R. L.R. and A.R. (Minors), would have, in reasonable probability, received from their father, Wayne Rusher, had he lived;

h) Damages for the termination of the parent/child relationships, including loss of affection, of solace, of comfort, of companionship, of society, of inheritance, of services, of advice and counsel and of assistance as Plaintiff Jasmine Ballet, as next friend of W.R. (Minor), would have, in reasonable probability, received from their father, Wayne Rusher, had he lived;

i) Expenses of psychological treatment;

j) Loss of wages and wage-earning capacity;

k) Costs of the Court; and

l) Pre-and post-judgment interest allowed by law.

15.4 As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs Arthur Larkin,

Jr., Brandy Rusher, and Isaiah Rusher have suffered catastrophic, life-threating injuries,

including but not limited to, multiple gunshot wounds, and further the following damages, which

are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to recover the

following damages, both past and future damages, as a result of their personal injuries caused by


a) Pecuniary losses;

b) Medical, hospital, pharmaceutical and psychological charges and expenses in the past;

c) Medical, hospital, pharmaceutical and psychological charges and expenses

that, in reasonable medical probability, will be incurred in the future; d) Physical pain and suffering in the past;

e) Physical pain and suffering that, in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future;

f) Mental anguish suffered in the past;


g) Mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future;

h) Disability and impairment in the past;

i) Disability and impairment that, in reasonable probability, will occur in the future;

j) Disfigurement in the past;

k) Disfigurement that, in reasonable probability, will occur in the future;

l) Loss of earnings in the past;

m) Loss of earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, will occur in the future; and

n) Furthermore, Plaintiffs seek damages for the emotional shock, emotional and mental trauma, and anguish suffered as a result of witnessing or having an experiential perception of the incident in which their loved ones were injured or killed; and all other remedies allowable under the law.

15.5 The damages sought are within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. Plaintiffs

seek monetary relief in an amount exceeding $1,000,000.00. The foregoing allegation of

monetary relief sought is made at this time pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 47, and is based upon

information and belief; Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Petition, including the foregoing

allegation of the monetary relief sought, as further information becomes available.

XVI. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

16.1 Plaintiffs are also entitled to and seek exemplary damages because the

aforementioned independent actions of Defendants were grossly negligent. Defendants

independently acted with flagrant and malicious disregard of Plaintiffs health and safety.

Defendants independently were subjectively aware of the extreme risks posed by the conditions

which caused Plaintiffs injuries or death, but did nothing to rectify them. Defendants’

independent acts and/or omissions involved an extreme degree of risk considering the probability


and magnitude of potential harm to Plaintiffs and others. Defendants independently had actual,

subjective awareness of the risks, and consciously disregarded such risks.

XVII. JURY DEMAND

17.1 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury and will promptly tender the appropriate

jury fee with the filing of this Original Petition and Request for Disclosure.

XVIII. CONDITION PRECEDENT

18.1 Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 54, Plaintiffs aver that all conditions precedent have

been performed or have occurred, and that every notice required by law to be given has been

properly and timely given.

XIX. PRESERVING EVIDENCE

19.1 Plaintiffs hereby request and demand that Defendants preserve and maintain all

evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit

or the damages resulting therefrom, including, but not limited to:

a) photographs;

b) videotapes;

c) audiotapes;

d) recordings;

e) statements;

f) medical records;

g) bills;

h) estimates;

i) invoices;


j) checks;

k) measurements;

l) equipment;

m) correspondence;

n) certificates;

o) memoranda;

p) inspection records;

q) apartment plans, designs, or drawings;

r) construction, repair, and maintenance records;

s) equipment testing records;

t) lease agreements;

u) files;

v) facsimiles;

w) emails;

x) 911 communications;

y) any records related to the rescue or treatment of Plaintiffs; z) voice mails;

aa) text messages;

bb) investigation;

cc) cellular telephone records;

dd) calendar entries;

ee) diary entries;

ff) log books;


gg) any incident reports;

hh) all records indicating the personnel who inspected, repaired, maintained, or tested the security systems;

ii) all fixtures, tools, equipment, weapons involved in the incident; jj) insurance policies;

kk) witness statements; and

ll) any electronic image, data, or information related to the referenced incident, or Plaintiffs.

19.2 Failure to maintain such items will constitute “spoliation” of the evidence.

XX. NOTICE OF AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS

20.1 Plaintiffs hereby provide actual notice to Defendants and other parties that

Plaintiffs will use any or every document produced by any and all other parties in response to

written discovery in a pretrial proceeding or at trial. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the TEXAS RULES

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendants’ production of a document in response to written discovery

authenticates the document for use against defendants unless—within ten (10) days or a longer or

shorter time ordered by the Court—Defendants object to the authenticity of the document, or any

part of it, stating the specific basis for his objection. An objection must be either on the record or

in writing and must have a good faith factual and legal basis. An objection made to the

authenticity of only part of a document does not affect the authenticity of the remainder.


PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that Defendants be

cited to appear and answer herein, that upon final trial and other hearing of this cause, Plaintiffs

have and recover from Defendants, jointly and severally: damages in accordance with the

evidence and as the jury deem them deserving; that Plaintiffs recover costs of court herein

expended, that Plaintiffs recover interest to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled under the law, both

pre-judgment and post-judgment, that the jury find the punitive damages to which Plaintiffs may

be entitled, and for such other and further relief, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be

justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & AZIZ By: /s/ Benny Agosto, Jr.________________ Benny Agosto, Jr. State Bar No. 00794981 Jonathan D. Sneed State Bar No. 24085594 800 Commerce Street Houston Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-7211 Facsimile: (713) 225-0827 [email protected] [email protected] – and – ROY & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. Brandon J. Roy State Bar No. 24085248 1001 West Loop South, Suite 809 Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: (210) 355-8819 Facsimile: (713) 623-2833 @roytrialattorneys. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

CAUSE NO. · 5/12/2017 · 7.2 First, one of the two owners of the Haverstock Hills Apartments, where the mass shooting occurred, is a Harris County, Texas corporate resident. ,