FILED

3/16/2021 6:05 PM
2 ClT/ESERVE FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Alicia Mata DEPUTY

DC-21 -03432
Cause No

ROSA LEON CHAVES & MIRIAM IN THE DISTRICT COURT

TORRES LEON, individually and as
REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE ESTATE OF LEOBARDO
TORRES SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff, 1 60th
V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL 0F
TEXAS, INC. AND ONCOR ENERGY
DELIVERY Co., LLC. OF DALLAS COUNTY,
TEXAS
Defendants.

/
PLAI TIFF' RI AL PETITI
COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, Rosa Leon Chaves and Miriam Torres Leon, Individually

and as Representative of the Estate of Leobardo Torres Sanchez (“Decedent”), les

this Original Petition against Defendants, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.

and ONCOR Energy, Inc. and, for cause of action, respectfully shows this

Honorable Court the following:

1-

Plaintiffs requests a Level 2 discovery control plan pursuant to the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure.

1- MRTIES
Plaintiffs bring this survival and wrongful death action as the surviving

spouse and representative of the estate of decedent, Leobardo Torres Sanchez.

 Defendant, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc., ("ERCOT") is a

Texas corporation doing business in this state. It can be served via its registered

agent: Bill Magness, at 7620 Metro Center Dr., Austin, TX 78744.

Defendant, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY, Inc. ("ONCOR"), is a for-

prot Texas corporation With its headquarters and principal ofces located in

this county. It can be served via its registered agent: CT Corporation System, at
1999 Bryan St, Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201.

II. RIDITI DE E

Plaintiffs seeks damages that exceed the jurisdictional limits of this

Court and monetary relief of over $ 1 ,OO0,000.00. Venue is proper in this County

because Defendant is headquartered and has its principal ofce in this County.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Leobardo Torres Sanchez was a beloved member of the community in

Deep Ellum. He was known as the “Cotton Candy Man” because he brought joy

to the latenight crowds throughout the Deep Ellum area by selling them cotton

candy. He was not just beloved merely because he sold cotton candy, he had a

warm, kind presence that made people happy to see him. He passed away during

Texas’s winter storm which caused power outages across Texas. His passing,

which was a result of Defendants’ failure to exercise a reasonable duty of care

with respect to maintaining power for Mr. Torres Sanchez, has left a hole in the
heart of the Deep Ellum community. His body was found on Tuesday February

16, 2021 . His electricity was delivered and managed by ONCOR with the overall

grid managed by ERCOT.

On oraboutthe night ofFebruary 15, 2021 , Mr. Torres Sanchez was trying to ght

the cold under a pile of blankets because he was without power. His blankets

were all he had to use in his battle with the freezing weather that night. He had

a heater, but it was useless because he was without electricity. Unbeknownst to

Plaintiffs, danger was coming because ERCOT and ONCOR were not prepared.

The "rolling blackouts" never rolled, and Mr. Torres Sanchez became exposed

to weather conditions which would threaten and ultimately take his life. With

no electricity to provide heat, temperatures in the living quarters plummeted. As

a result, Mr. Torres Sanchez would become hypothermic and he would not

survive this storm.

Previous Winter storms had exposed the danger to Defendants, but the lessons

and warnings were not heeded. Prots and salaries were put over people in

Defendants’ willful disregard of their failure to provide adequate measures to

ensure that Mr. Torres Sanchez and thousands of other Texans would survive

weather that is quite common in other parts of the United States. Defendants

knew weeks in advance, ifnot more, that this storm was coming, knew they were

not prepared, knew danger was at hand, knew lives were at risk, and instead of
warning its customers (because to do so would reveal their own incompetence and

greed) Defendants just turned the power off in the middle of the night and left people

to die.

To make matters worse, Defendants would continue to make poor and

reckless decisions during the storm. They would fail to take action to save lives.

These actions and omissions collectively, by both Defendants, ultimately cost

the Torres Sanchez family their father and the Deep Ellum community its own

source of warmth and kindness.

Defendant ERCOT, through ONCOR and others, provides 90 percent of Texas's

electricity and serves 26 million Texans. This cold weather event was entirely

foreseeable to Defendants. Recommendations to upgrade and winterize have

been made after cold weather events in 1983, 1989, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010,

and 2011 to modernize and weather-ready the Texas electrical grid.

More specically, after a severe Winter storm in 201 l, a report by the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation

demonstrated to ERCOT and all Texas electricity providers that the power

infrastructure in Texas required additional Winterizing. These reports noted that the

large units that tripped ofine or could not start during the storm “demonstrates that

the generators did not adequately anticipate the full impact of the extended cold

weather and high winds”.

 ERCOT failed to heed these warnings and decided not to weatherize the systems it

uses to provide electricity to Texans. It’s failure to do so was not because these

measures did not t into their budget, but rather because it would mean that its

ofcers would perhaps take less money from ERCOT’s private operations.

These recommendations made by North American Electric Reliability Corporation

and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission were not followed by

Defendants. Generators, transmitters, and distributors that have failed in past

winter storms failed again because reasonable precautions were not taken by

Defendants. Defendants also failed to increase electric production leading up to

the storm. Defendants also failed to weatherize and update their generation,

transmission, and distribution facilities. Defendants also failed to roll the

blackouts and instead left some homes with no power for days.

IV. EEQLIQEEQE
a. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing

electrical power during a cold weather event. This duty includes but

is not limited to exercising reasonable care in maintaining and

updating its generation, transmission, and distribution facilities.

Defendants failed to take reasonable care to prevent failure and to

maintain and update its generation, transmission, and distribution

facilities.
Defendants had a duty and failed to "make all reasonable efforts to prevent

interruptions of service" and "to make reasonable provisions to manage

emergencies resulting from failure of service" as required by 16 Tex. Admin.

Code §25.52. These violations constitute negligence per se.

b. Defendants also failed to warn customers of the upcoming power outages. Defendants

never warned Plaintiffs that they would be Without power for days in freezing weather

conditions. Instead of warning customers so they could prepare, Defendants chose to

shut off power for the Napier home at the worst possible time (2:00 am.) in the dead

of night. They left the decedent and her husband stuck at home with no way to get help.

To make matters worse, Defendants communicated to the public that the blackouts

would be "rolled." However, the blackouts were never rolled for the Plaintiffs’ home.

Further, the promise of power soon being restored, in a rolling and controlled fashion,

led many to shelter in place. In fact, warnings were made by ofcials to stay home due

to the icy conditions.

c. On the occasion in question, Defendants, by and through its ofcers,

employees, agents and representatives, committed acts of omission

and commission, which collectively and severally constituted

negligence and gross negligence.

d. There is no doubt that the Plaintiffs’ injuries leading to his death

resulted from Defendants' gross negligence, which entitles Plaintiffs

 to exemplary damages under TCPRC 41.

V. DAMA E
Defendants‘ conduct that caused decedent's death was a producing cause of

injury to Plaintiffs, which resulted in the following damages: past and future medical

expenses; past and future physical pain and mental anguish; past and future physical

impairment; past and future disgurement; past and future lost wages and loss of

earning capacity; past and future funeral expenses; past and future loss ofhousehold

services; pecuniary losses; loss of advice and counsel; loss of services; past and

future expenses for psychological treatment; mental anguish; loss of companionship

and society; and loss of inheritance.

Plaintiffs seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

Exempla damages: Decedent's death resulted from Defendants' willful act or

omission or from defendants' gross negligence, which entitles decedent's heirs to

exemplary damages under Texas Constitution article 16, section 26. Because

Defendants' actions were knowing and malicious, Plaintiffs seeks an award of

punitive damages. Plaintiffs also seeks pre-judgment and post- judgment interest

at the appropriate rate allowed by law.

VH-

Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that

Defendants disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the

information or material described in Rule 194.2.

VIII. ,1 [JRY DEMAND
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216, Plaintiffs requests a trial

byjury and would show that the appropriate fee is paid contemporaneously with

the ling of this Petition.

IX. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ right to recover herein and to

Defendants' liability have been performed or have occurred.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays that Defendants be cited to appear and

answer for its conduct, that this case be set for trial, and that Plaintiffs recover

a judgment from Defendant for damages in such amount as the evidence may

show and the trier of fact may determine to be proper, in addition to: actual

damages; exemplary damages; prejudgment and postjudgment interest; court

costs; and all other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: March l6, 2021

ELAHI LAW FIRlW PLLC

Shayan Elahi, Esquire

State Bar No. 24080485
8111 LBJ Fwy, Ste. 350
Dallas, Texas 75251
Telephone: (407)-902-5282
Facsimile: (214) 602-891 l
shayan@elahilawrm.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF