Van Os Vs. The City of Austin; Joshua Muchnikoff

Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
Maya Van Os,
§
Plaintiff
§
vs.
§
§
Joshua Muchnikoff
§
and the City of Austin,
§
Defendants
§
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Maya Van Os, Plaintiff herein, by and through counsel, and complains of
Austin police officer Joshua Muchnikoff and the City of Austin for the excessive force
inflicted against her during a large protest demonstration that occurred in Austin, Texas
on May 30, 2020.
A. Introduction
1. This suit is brought to redress injuries resulting from the violent use of excessive
force by an Austin police officer against the Plaintiff and by the City of Austin through
its unconstitutional policies or customs in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. $1983.
A. Parties
2. Plaintiff Maya Van Os currently resides in the city of Olympia, Washington. At the
time of the actions and events giving rise to this lawsuit she resided in Austin, Travis
County, Texas.
3. Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff is a police officer of the Austin, Texas police
Page 1 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 2 of 11
department. He is being sued in his individual and official capacities herein for actual
and punitive damages over his excessive and unconstitutional infliction of excessive
force against Plaintiff on May 30, 2020 in Austin, Texas as she was demonstrating
against police violence after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in
Minneapolis, Minnesota and the killing of Mike Ramos by a police officer in Austin,
Texas. Defendant Muchnikoff may be served with process at his business address, the
Austin Police Department, 715 East 8th Street, Austin, TX 78701.
4. Defendant City of Austin is being sued in its municipal capacity because of its
unconstitutional policies or customs that Defendant Muchnikoff was implementing in the
commission of his unconstitutional actions against Plaintiff. Defendant City of Austin
may be served by serving the Austin City Clerk at Austin City Hall, 301 West 2nd Street,
Austin, Texas 78701.
B. Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's U.S. Constitutional claims brought
under 42 U.S.C. $1983 lies in this Court under 28 U.S.C. $$1331 and 1343(a)(3).
6. Venue properly lies in this Court under 28 U.S.C. $1391(b)(1) because all
Defendants reside in this judicial district and division and under 28 U.S.C. $1391(b)(2)
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred
in this judicial district and division.
C. Pertinent facts
7. On May 30, 2020, Plaintiff decided to lend her voice to the nationwide protests
Page 2 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 3 of 11
against police violence triggered by the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, in conjunction with the killing of local resident Mike Ramos by
an Austin police officer. Accordingly she participated in a large demonstration taking
place in Austin, Texas over these matters of public concern.
8. At the time of the violations of the Constitution complained of herein, Plaintiff
had been demonstrating on public property on the grass between the northbound
frontage road of Interstate 35 and the highway, near the intersection of Interstate 35
and East 8th Street, close to the Austin Police Department.
9. Immediately prior to her victimization by the unconstitutional excessive force
complained of herein, Plaintiff was standing in a rough line of demonstrators in the
grass adjacent to the edge of the frontage road.
10. Police officers of the Austin Police Department were standing in a line roughly
parallel to and facing the line of demonstrators. The two lines were separated by
several feet of grass.
11. Plaintiff observed Austin police officers firing rifles that shot what she had
good reason to believe were harmful rubber and/or "beanbag" projectiles at
demonstrators. Video confirms that officers were shooting at demonstrators and others
whom Plaintiff believed to be innocent bystanders on a hill behind the line of
demonstrators where Plaintiff was situated.
12. Plaintiff vocally implored officers not to shoot, exclaiming phrases such as
"Stop, stop" while other demonstrators cried phrases such as "don't shoot, don't shoot".
13. Plaintiff carried and waved a soft posterboard poster on which she had written
Page 3 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 4 of 11
statistics about police violence.
14. Plaintiff is of slight body. At the time of the events that are the subject of this
action, she was five feet three inches tall and weighed between 105 and 110 pounds.
She was 23 years old.
15. Immediately prior to the actions of Defendant Muchnikoff complained of herein,
an unidentified police officer told Plaintiff to step back. She did SO with no resistance.
16. After Plaintiff stepped backward in obedience to the police order she assumed
a position of standing still and watching events. Any officer who witnessed Plaintiff
committing a criminal offense could have easily informed her that she was under arrest.
Plaintiff observed a police officer speak with Defendant Muchnikoff and point at her.
Plaintiff has been able to identify the officer who pointed at her as Sgt. Joshua Blake.
Seeing Sgt. Blake point at her made Plaintiff afraid that she was in physical danger.
Suddenly and abruptly Defendant Muchnikoff bolted from behind the line of officers and
charged several feet across the grassy space between the officers and demonstrators
directly and specifically at Plaintiff in a use of force clearly unnecessary and excessive
for the circumstances. Defendant Muchnikoff in an extremely aggressive and
excessively forceful unnecessary manner lunged into Plaintiff. At the time that
Defendant Muchnikoff charged at Plaintiff, other officers did not similarly rush across
the several feet of grassy space to grab similarly situated demonstrators near Plaintiff,
indicating that Plaintiff apparently was singled out. Before Defendant Muchnikoff
abruptly charged at and violently grabbed her, neither Defendant Muchnikoff nor any
other officer advised Plaintiff that she was under arrest or ordered her to submit to
Page 4 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 5 of 11
arrest or detainment or gave her any warning of the possibility of arrest. Video shows
Defendant Muchnikoff's unprovoked charging at and forceful grabbing of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was shocked by the sudden and aggressive running assault on her person
without warning or provocation; in her instantaneous shock she may have instinctively
recoiled but did not actively resist arrest. Defendant Muchnikoff's use of force against
Plaintiff after she had obeyed the order to step back and while she was standing still
were entirely unnecessary and clearly excessive for the circumstances.
17. Despite the absence of any necessity to use force against her, Defendant
Muchnikoff violently assaulted Plaintiff's body, starting with viciously yanking her arms
towards him as he grabbed her. Included in his rough handling of her, Defendant
Muchnikoff gripped Plaintiff's neck with his arm in a manner that suppressed her ability
to breathe. Defendant Muchnikoff roughly carried her to a spot of ground at the rear of
the police line with a use of unreasonable excessive force and without informing her
she was under arrest or otherwise offering an opportunity to submit to arrest.
Defendant Muchnikoff then brutally and injuriously tackled Plaintiff onto the ground,
slamming his much larger body on top of hers. Throughout the traumatic attack Plaintiff
felt as if she was being tossed around like a rag doll. Plaintiff was in fear for her life.
Plaintiff had never before in her life personally experienced such a violent physical
encounter, much less carried out by a man of Defendant Muchnikoff's stature.
18. Plaintiff did not actively resist arrest or attempt to flee from arrest.
19. Plaintiff did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of Defendant Muchnikoff
or any other officer.
Page 5 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 6 of 11
20. While getting handcuffed on the ground Plaintiff still did not pose a threat to the
safety of Defendant Muchnikoff or any other officer. Nevertheless an unidentified officer
sprayed mace or pepper spray onto the side of Plaintiff's face while she was being
pinned to the ground.
21. When Defendant Muchnikoff and another officer were preparing to place the
handcuffed Plaintiff into a police van, she told them that they were pulling her arms so
high behind her back that it hurt badly. Defendant Muchnikoff responded by cruelly and
unnecessarily pulling her arms higher behind her back, causing intense pain.
22. Plaintiff was taken to jail, where she was informed that she was being charged
with the offense of obstructing highway passageway, a class B misdemeanor.
23. After approximately 10 hours in jail, Plaintiff was released around 1:00 a.m. and
informed that the criminal charge was dropped.
24. Friends took Plaintiff to an emergency room on the following morning of May
31, 2020.
25. As a result of the complained of actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered
physical and mental injuries, from which the physical and mental trauma have persisted
to the present. These include but are not limited to the following, which are intended to
be representative rather than exhaustive. Contusions and/or possible hairline fractures
lined Plaintiff's spine and ribs. Plaintiff suffered such pain in her back that she had
difficulty standing up or sitting down without assistance for a number of days after the
incident, and is still affected by this pain. A large scar developed on her right thigh from
Defendant Muchnikoff violently slamming her to the ground. Plaintiff had a large bump
Page 6 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 7 of 11
on her forehead immediately thereafter, which slowly receded over a matter of days.
She suffered whiplash of her neck. Plaintiff had bruises and scrapes all over her arms
and the rest of her body, including a bruise near her left eye. When Plaintiff washed her
face her eyes burned painfully, indicating that a part of her face had received pepper
spray or mace that had been reactivated by the water. Both of Plaintiff's knees were
swollen, causing difficulty in walking. Plaintiff's right arm is still weak from the incident
and sometimes shakes. An emergency room doctor told Plaintiff she may have suffered
a concussion, which was soon after affirmed by her primary care physician and her
psychotherapist; and later her neurologist reported this as well. Plaintiff suffered
intense nightmares about the incident for months. On the first anniversary of the
incident Plaintiff suffered a panic attack in which she felt she was reliving being tossed
around like a rag doll and as a result she screamed in panic in her house. Plaintiff
continues to suffer anxiety triggered by memory of the incident.
26. At the time of Defendant Muchnikoff's infliction of excessive force against
Plaintiff, Defendant City of Austin had in place through the Austin Police Department
policies or customs of using, authorizing, encouraging, and/or tolerating excessive force
against non-violent demonstrators and protestors. Defendant Muchnikoff in his herein
complained of usages of excessive force against Plaintiff was implementing or executing
such policies or customs.
27. Each of the policies, practices, or customs delineated in paragraph 26 above
was actually known, constructively known, and/or ratified by Defendant City of Austin
and its Chief of Police at the time, Brian Manley (the policymaker), and was
Page 7 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 8 of 11
promulgated with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Moreover, the known and
obvious consequence of these policies, practices, or customs was that Austin Police
Department officers would be placed in recurring situations in which the constitutional
violations described within this complaint would result. Accordingly, these policies also
made it foreseeable that the particular violations alleged here, all of which were under
color of law, would result. Moreover, upon information and belief, Chief Manley (who is
no longer the Austin police chief) was also aware of multiple similar incidents in which
excessive force was used but he did not remedy the misconduct. Consequently, the
policies delineated in paragraph 26 above were a moving force of Plaintiff's
constitutional deprivations and injuries.
28. After Defendant Muchnikoff charged at Plaintiff a person who at the time
was unknown to Plaintiff entered into the scene and apparently attempted to extricate
Plaintiff from Defendant Muchnikoff's grasp. Plaintiff did not expect, request, or invite
the attempted intervention. At that moment Plaintiff was under severe restraint and
being tossed about at the hands of Defendant Muchnikoff. The would-be intervener was
rebuffed by Defendant Muchnikoff and other officers. The would-be intervener did not
impair nor amplify Defendant Muchnikoff's ability to exercise unnecessary and excessive
force against Plaintiff. Defendant Muchnikoff had already committed and was continuing
to commit his use of excessive force against Plaintiff before the other individual
attempted to intervene.
D. Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
Page 8 of 11
Case 1:22-CV-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 9 of 11
29. Defendant Muchnikoff violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, as applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, by
injuring her through the use of excessive force that was objectively unreasonable.
30. Defendant City of Austin violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments through the polices or customs described in paragraph 26
above, as actually or constructively ratified as described in paragraph 27 above.
31. Defendants acted under color of law.
32. Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants Muchnikoff and Defendant City of
Austin under 42 U.S.C. $1983 for redress of injuries resulting from the violations of her
Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights committed under the color of law.
33. As shown by the facts set forth above, the brutal and unnecessary force
used against Plaintiff was clearly excessive and objectively unreasonable. The
unreasonableness is shown by the factors of the relatively low severity of the alleged
crime at issue, a misdemeanor charge that was dropped within less than a day; that the
Plaintiff, of slight body and unarmed, posed no immediate threat to the safety of
officers or others; and that Plaintiff was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to
evade arrest by flight.
E. Damages
34. Defendant Muchnikoff's conduct toward Plaintiff was malicious, oppressive,
and in reckless disregard or gross indifference for her civil rights.
35. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages against both Defendants for her
Page 9 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 10 of 11
injuries and losses, including but not limited to past and future medical expenses, past
and present impairment, past disfigurement, past and future physical pain and
suffering, and past and future mental anguish.
36. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendant Muchnikoff.
37. Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest at the
maximum interest rates and in the maximum amounts allowed by law.
F. Jury Trial
38. Plaintiff hereby invokes her right to jury trial pursuant to the Seventh
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
G. Attorney Fees
39. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $1988, Plaintiff is justly entitled to reasonable
attorney fees as costs of court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that Defendant Muchnikoff be
summoned to appear and answer herein, and that upon trial of the case Plaintiff be
awarded actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs
of court including reasonable attorney fees, and all such further relief to which the
Court may deem her justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David Van Os
David Van Os
Texas Bar No. 20450700
Email dvo@vanoslaw.com
Tel. 210-332-7070
Page 10 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 11 of 11
DAVID VAN os & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
8620 North New Braunfels Ave. #101
San Antonio, TX 78217
Counsel for Plaintiff
Page 11 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 1 of 1
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Maya Van Os
Joshua Muchnikoff and City of Austin
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Thurston (WA)
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address. and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)
David Van Os, ,David Van Os & Associates, 8620 N. New
Braunfels Ave.#101, San Antonio, TX 78217 2103327070
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
and One Box for Defendant)
1
U.S. Government
3 Federal Question
PTF
DEF
PTF
DEF
Plaintiff
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Citizen of This State
1
1 Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
2
U.S. Government
4 Diversity
Citizen of Another State
2
2 Incorporated and Principal Place
5
5
Defendant
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
3
3 Foreign Nation
6
6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT
TORTS
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance
PERSONAL INJURY
PERSONAL INJURY
625 Drug Related Seizure
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
375 False Claims Act
120 Marine
310 Airplane
365 Personal Injury -
of Property 21 USC 881
423 Withdrawal
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act
315 Airplane Product
Product Liability
690 Other
28 USC 157
3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument
Liability
367 Health Care/
400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment
320 Assault, Libel &
Pharmaceutical
PROPERTY RIGHTS
410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment
Slander
Personal Injury
820 Copyrights
430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act
330 Federal Employers
Product Liability
830 Patent
450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
835 Patent Abbreviated
460 Deportation
Student Loans
340 Marine
Injury Product
New Drug Application
470 Racketeen Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans)
345 Marine Product
Liability
840 Trademark
Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
LABOR
880 Defend Trade Secrets
480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran's Benefits
350 Motor Vehicle
370 Other Fraud
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act of 2016
(15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders' Suits
355 Motor Vehicle
371 Truth in Lending
Act
485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract
Product Liability
380 Other Personal
720 Labor/Management
SOCIAL SECURITY
Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Property Damage
Relations
861 HIA (1395ff)
490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise
Injury
385 Property Damage
740 Railway Labor Act
862 Black Lung (923)
850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury
Product Liability
751 Family and Medical
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Exchange
Medical Malpractice
Leave Act
864 SSID Title XVI
890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS
PRISONER PETITIONS
790 Other Labor Litigation
865 RSI (405(g))
891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation
440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
791 Employee Retirement
893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure
441 Voting
463 Alien Detainee
Income Security Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
442 Employment
510 Motions to Vacate
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
Act
240 Torts to Land
443 Housing/
Sentence
or Defendant)
896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability
Accommodations
530 General
871 IRS-Third Party
899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
535 Death Penalty
IMMIGRATION
26 USC 7609
Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment
Other:
462 Naturalization Application
Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
540 Mandamus & Other
465 Other Immigration
950 Constitutionality of
Other
550 Civil Rights
Actions
State Statutes
448 Education
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
1 Original
2 Removed from
3
Remanded from
4 Reinstated or
5 Transferred from
6 Multidistrict
8 Multidistrict
Proceeding
State Court
Appellate Court
Reopened
Another District
Litigation
Litigation
(specify)
Transfer
Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Brief description of cause:
police misconduct-excessive force-4th Amenndment
VII. REQUESTED IN
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT:
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
unliquidated
JURY DEMAND:
Yes
No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
SEE Attachment
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
May 30, 2022
Due
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 1-2 Filed 05/30/22 Page 1 of 1
Maya Van Os VS. Joshua Muchnikoff and City of Austin
ATTACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET - RELATED CASES
To the best of Plaintiff's information and belief the following are or may be related
cases pending before Hon. U.S. District Judge Robert Pittman:
1:20-cv-01113-RP
1:20-cv-01057-RP
1:20-cv-01118-RP
1:20-cv-01134-RP
1:20-cv-01174-RP
1:20-cv-00956-RP
1:20-cv-00901-RP
1:20-cv-01258-RP
1:22-cv-00316-RP
1:21-cv-00739-RP
1:21-cv-00749-RP
1:22-cv-00314-RP
1:22-cv-00315-RP
1:22-cv-00316-RP
To the best of Plaintiff's information and belief the following is or may be a related case
pending before Hon. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel:
1:22-cv-00015-LY
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
MAYA VAN os
§
§
Plaintiff
§
§
V.
§
Case No. 1:22-cv-00522-RP
§
JOSHUAH MUCHNIKOFF AND THE
§
CITY OF AUSTIN
§
§
Defendants
§
DEFENDANT CITY OF AUSTIN'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE PITMAN:
COMES NOW, Defendant the City of Austin (the "City") and files its Answer to Plaintiff's
Original Complaint, and respectfully shows as follows:
1.
Answer to Paragraph 1: The City admits that Plaintiff brings her case pursuant to the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments and 28 U.S.C. $1983. The City denies the remainder of paragraph 1.
2.
Answer to Paragraph 2: The City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 2.
3.
Answer to Paragraph 3: The City admits that Joshua Muchnikoff is an officer with the
Austin Police Department ("APD"), that he may be served as stated in Paragraph 3, and that
Plaintiff is suing for events that occurred on May 30, 2020. Otherwise, the City denies the
allegations of paragraph 3.
4.
Answer to Paragraph 4: The City admits it may be served at the listed address and that
Plaintiff is suing the City. Otherwise, the City denies the allegations of paragraph 4.
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 7
5.
Answer to Paragraph 5: The City admits that Plaintiff alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, therefore Plaintiff has invoked this Court's subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1343(a)(3).
6.
Answer to Paragraph 6: The City admits that venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas.
7.
Answer to Paragraph 7: The City admits that on May 30, 2020, Plaintiff was at the scene
of a protest in Austin. Otherwise, the City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the
remainder of the allegations of paragraph 7.
8.
Answer to Paragraph 8: The City admits that Plaintiff was arrested near 800 N. IH 35 SB,
which is close to the Austin Police Department headquarters. The City denies Plaintiff's
constitutional rights were violated. The City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the
remainder of the allegations of paragraph 8.
9.
Answer to Paragraph 9: The City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the exact
location of the events as alleged in paragraph 9. Otherwise, the City denies the allegations of
Paragraph 9.
10.
Answer to Paragraph 10: The City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the exact
location of APD officers or other persons as alleged in paragraph 10.
11.
Answer to Paragraph 11: The City admits that police officers used beanbag shotguns and
other interventions to respond to persons throwing objects at police officers and third parties. The
City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations of paragraph
11.
12.
Answer to Paragraph 12: The City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 12.
2
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 7
13.
Answer to Paragraph 13: The City admits that Plaintiff was carrying a poster. The City
lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 13.
14.
Answer to Paragraph 14: The City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 14.
15.
Answer to Paragraph 15: The City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 15.
16.
Answer to Paragraph 16: The City admits that sergeant Blake identified Plaintiff and that
officer Muchnikoff approached and restrained Plaintiff. The City lacks sufficient information to
admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 16 regarding Plaintiff's state of mind. Otherwise, the
City denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 16.
17.
Answer to Paragraph 17: The City admits that officer Muchnikoff restrained Plaintiff. The
City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 17 regarding
Plaintiff's state of mind. The City denies that officer Muchnikoff used excessive force, denies
Plaintiff's characterization of officer Muchnikoff's actions, and otherwise denies the allegations
of paragraph 17.
18.
Answer to Paragraph 18: The City denies that Plaintiff did not resist arrest. The City admits
that Plaintiff did not attempt to flee.
19.
Answer to Paragraph 19: The City admits that Plaintiff did not pose an immediate threat to
the safety of officer Muchnikoff. The City responds that Plaintiff interfered with officers
intervening to prevent others from throwing objects at police officers and third parties and
therefore denies that Plaintiff did not pose a threat to the safety of others.
3
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 4 of 7
20.
Answer to Paragraph 20: The admits that while being handcuffed Plaintiff did not pose a
threat to the safety of officer Muchnikoff or any other officer. Otherwise, the City lacks sufficient
information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 20.
21.
Answer to Paragraph 21: The City denies that Plaintiff was treated cruelly or was caused
unnecessary pain. Otherwise, the City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder
of the allegations of paragraph 21.
22.
Answer to Paragraph 22: The City admits that Plaintiff was arrested for obstructing a
highway, a class B misdemeanor, and that she was taken to jail. The City lacks sufficient
information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 22.
23.
Answer to Paragraph 23: The City admits that Plaintiff was released from custody and that
formal charges were not filed. Otherwise, the City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny
the allegations of paragraph 23.
24.
Answer to Paragraph 24: The City lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 24.
25.
Answer to Paragraph 25: The City denies Plaintiff's characterizations of the actions of
APD officers as alleged in paragraph 25. Otherwise, the City lacks sufficient information to admit
or deny the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 25.
26.
Answer to Paragraph 26: The City denies the allegations in paragraph 26.
27.
Answer to Paragraph 27: The City denies the allegations of paragraph 27.
28.
Answer to Paragraph 28: The City admits that at least one individual attempted to interfere
with Muchnikoff's restraint of the Plaintiff. The City denies the remainder of the allegations of
paragraph 28.
29.
Answer to Paragraph 29: The City denies the allegations of paragraph 29.
4
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 5 of 7
30.
Answer to Paragraph 30: The City denies the allegations of paragraph 30.
31.
Answer to Paragraph 31: The City admits the allegations of paragraph 31.
32.
Answer to Paragraph 32: The City admits that Plaintiff brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, the City denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph
32.
33.
Answer to Paragraph 33: In response to paragraph 33, the City denies that Plaintiff did not
resist arrest. The City admits that Plaintiff did not attempt to flee. The City admits that Plaintiff
did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of officer Muchnikoff however Plaintiff interfered
with officers intervening to prevent others from throwing objects at police officers and third parties
and therefore denies that Plaintiff did not pose a threat to the safety of others. Otherwise, the City
denies the allegations of paragraph 33.
34.
Answer to Paragraph 34: The City denies the allegations in paragraph 34.
35.
Answer to Paragraph 35: The City admits that Plaintiff seeks damages. Otherwise, the City
denies the allegations of paragraph 35.
36.
Answer to Paragraph 36: The City admits that Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against
officer Muchnikoff. Otherwise, the City denies the allegations of paragraph 36.
37.
Answer to Paragraph 37: The City admits Plaintiff seeks interest. Otherwise, the City
denies the allegations of paragraph 37.
38.
Answer to Paragraph 38: The City admits Plaintiff demands a jury.
39.
Answer to Paragraph 39: The City admits Plaintiff seeks fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Otherwise, the City denies the allegations of paragraph 39.
5
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 6 of 7
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
40.
The City asserts the affirmative defense of qualified/official immunity for employee
actions taken in the course and scope of employment with the City of Austin.
41.
The City asserts the affirmative defense of governmental immunity for the City of Austin.
42.
The City asserts that Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, if any.
43.
The City reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as they become
apparent.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendant the City of Austin prays that all relief requested by Plaintiff be
denied and all claims against the City of Austin be dismissed, and for costs, attorney's fees, and
any additional relief to which it is entitled at law or equity.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel R. Richards
Daniel R. Richards
State Bar No. 00791520
drichards@rrsfirm.com
Clark Richards
State Bar No. 90001613
crichards@rrsfirm.com
RICHARDS RODRIGUEZ & SKEITH, LLP
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 476-0005
Facsimile: (512) 476-1513
ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN
6
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 7 of
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 23, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served by CM/ECF to the following:
David Van Os
Blair J. Leake
DAVID VAN os & ASSOCIATES AVE. #101
Stephen B. Barron
8620 North New Braunfels Ave. #101
Wright & Greenhill, PC
San Antonio, Texas 78717
900 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
dvo@vanoslaw.com
Austin, Texas 78701
bleake@w-g.com
sbarron@w-g.com
/s/ Daniel R. Richards
DANIEL R. RICHARDS
7
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
MAYA VAN os,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
V.
§
Case No. 1:22-cv-00522-RP
§
JOSHUA MUCHNIKOFF and
§
CITY OF AUSTIN,
§
Defendants.
§
DEFENDANT JOSHUA MUCHNIKOFF'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
COMES NOW Defendant, Joshua Muchnikoff, by and through his attorneys of record, and
files this his Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint and in support thereof would
respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Between May 25 and July 31 of 2020, approximately 2,037 law enforcement officers were
injured during protests related to the in-custody death of George Floyd in Minnesota. 1 During those
protests, approximately 62% of major U.S. cities experienced looting.2 56% of major U.S. cities
experienced arson incidents-a statistic which does not include the 97 police vehicles set on fire
during that time period, which was an act of violence reported by over 26% of major city law
1
Report on the 2020 Protests & Civil Unrest, Major Cities Chiefs Association 9-12 (October
2020), ,https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MCCA-Report-on-the-2020-
Protest-and-Civil-Unrest.pdf.
2 Id.
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 11
enforcement agencies nationwide. 3 Approximately 72% of major city law enforcement agencies
reported officer injuries. 4
2.
State and local governments in 21 different U.S. states were forced to call up the U.S.
National Guard to defend persons and property from violent rioters 5 Property Claims Services
designated the riots as a "multi-state catastrophe event," which is the first such designation for a
civil disorder event since 1992. 6 Conservative insurance estimates of property damage caused
during the riots exceeds $1 billion dollars-the "costliest civil disorder in U.S. history."
3.
The weapons used by the "protest" rioters nationwide varied. The most common weapons
used "were improvised or weapons of opportunity such as rocks, bricks, pieces of landscape, and
bottles (including frozen and glass bottles). ",8 Over three quarters of major city law enforcement
agencies reported rioters using such weapons. 9 "Another common violent tactic used by protestors
involved throwing 'Molotov cocktails' at officers," which was reported by a staggering 46% of
major city law enforcement agencies nationwide. 10 "Another common tactic was to use peaceful
protesters as human shields while violent individuals attacked officers and attempted to incite
violence by throwing objects from deep within crowds."
4.
63% of agencies reported incendiary fireworks thrown or launched at officers. 12 51% of
agencies reported officers being confronted by protestors wielding firearms-including "AR-15s,
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Facts + Statistics: Civil Disorders, Insurance Information Institute, https://www.iii.org/fact-
statistic/facts-statistics-civil-disorders.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8
Report on the 2020 Protests & Civil Unrest at 11.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 11 - 12.
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 2
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 3 of 11
shotguns, and handguns.' "13 Other weapons wielded by protestors commonly included bats,
hammers, metal poles, and shields. 14 Five different agencies reported "police officers being shot
or critically injured" during the riots, one agency reported rioters discharging their firearms from
moving vehicles, and at least two agencies "reported protestors being shot and killed by other
protestors." 5
5.
It is undisputed that many protestors committed no violence whatsoever during the protests.
It is equally undisputed that a significant number of protestors did commit violent acts during the
protests. When a previously peaceful protest suddenly includes persons who are carrying deadly
weapons, injuring police officers, throwing Molotov cocktails, looting buildings, and setting cars
on fire, the protest is no longer a protest. It is a riot.
6.
Austin was by no means immune to the violence. Rioters looted buildings and businesses;
shattered windows-including buildings with important historical significance; set cars and other
property on fire; broke open an ATM; and defaced the Capitol grounds and numerous other
properties. 16 Rioters in Austin also launched or threw items that included-but were not limited
to "rocks, bricks, eggs, water bottles, and Molotov cocktails" at Austin Police Department
officers.17 Agitators spray painted messages around downtown Austin literally encouraging the
killing
of
police officers. 18 Starting on May 30, the Austin Police Department was forced to issue
13 Id.
14 Id.
15
Id.
16 See e.g. Ken Herman, Herman: A sad Sunday morning on Sixth Street, AUSTIN AMERICAN
STATESMAN (May 31, 2020, 1:38 PM), https://www.statesman.com/news/20200531/herman-sad-
sunday-morning-on-sixth-street,
17 Heather Osborne, Ariana Garcia & Katie Hall, Fires set as Austin protests against police
violence spread, scatter, AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN (May 30, 2020, 11:07 AM),
//www.statesman.com/news/20200530/fires-set-as-austin-protests-against-police-violence-
spread-scatter.
18
See Ex. 1 and Ex. 2, photos of graffiti outside Austin Police Department headquarters.
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 3
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 4 of 11
a "citywide request for assistance, which means all Austin officers [were] asked to report to
duty."19 DPS sent "more than 1,500 officers to assist local police departments" statewide, and the
governor ultimately "activated the Texas National Guard. "20 By the time of the incident underlying
this lawsuit, the Austin protests were no longer protests-they were riots. It is thus within the
context of an ongoing riot that the force used by APD officers must be analyzed.
7.
On May 30, APD Sergeant Muchnikoff was one of the APD officers on the Special
Response Team tasked with policing the protests and riots to protect the citizens of Austin and the
city itself on the day in question. He personally observed rioters throwing projectiles at APD
officers that included but were not limited to rocks, paint, glass bottles and jars with unknown
chemicals, fluid-filled water bottles, human waste, and large fireworks. Officers on the scene had
reason to believe that the protests would turn violent or even deadly-including the knowledge
that rioters had burned a police precinct to the ground in a related "protest" two days earlier. 21
8.
Plaintiff Maya Van Os was far from an innocent bystander. Van Os planted herself directly
in front of APD officers tasked with protecting themselves and others from rioters throwing
dangerous projectiles. Van Os then proceeded to use her sign to purposely block the officers' view
of nearby projectile-throwing rioters, and thus intentionally facilitated the continuance of attacks
on police officers. Van Os even went SO far as to strike at the aforementioned officers' less lethal
weapons with the sign she held in her hands.
9.
APD officers on the scene were left with no choice. The decision was made to arrest Van
Os to remove her from the protest and consequently neutralize her continuing interference and
19 Osborne, supra fn 17.
20 Id.
21
See e.g. Sarah Kerr, Mike Shum, Katie G. Nelson, Dmitry Khavin & Haley Willis,
Minneapolis Precinct Fire: How a Night of Chaos Unfolded, N.Y. TIMES (May 29, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007162707/minneapolis-police-protest-
burn.html?searchResultPosition=1.
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 4
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 5 of 11
shielding of violent rioters. Sergeant Muchnikoff entered the crowd and performed a textbook
arrest within the context of the dangerous riot occurring around him. As he did so, one or more
nearby rioters violently grabbed Sergeant Muchnikoff and Van Os, and attempted to drag them
both back into the crowd of rioters. Nearby officers had to step in and physically intervene to stop
them-serving to highlight the dangerous conditions and corresponding need to utilize quick and
decisive arrest techniques.
10.
Plaintiff Van Os's conduct on May 30, 2020 crossed the line of peaceful protest-including
acts that threatened the health and safety of both officers and other protestors. Plaintiff's aiding
and abetting of rioters throwing rocks and other projectiles far exceeded anything that would be
protected by the First Amendment.
11.
At all times, Sergeant Muchnikoff acted pursuant to his training and accepted police
procedures. At no time did Sergeant Muchnikoff use more force than was reasonably necessary
to effect the arrest of Plaintiff. Sergeant Muchnikoff's conduct as a law enforcement officer was
reasonable, especially when the requisite consideration is given to his surrounding circumstances
that were "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. 22 He is entitled to the protections of Qualified
Immunity as a result.
II.
ORIGINAL ANSWER
A. Introduction.
12.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff is seeking relief under the First and Fourth Amendments of
the Constitution contained within Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint. Otherwise,
denied.
22 See Graham V. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989).
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 5
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 6 of 11
B. Parties.
13.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained within Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint.
14.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Original Complaint,
Defendant denies that an APD officer may be validly served at 715 E. 8th Street, Austin Texas
78701 through means other than personal service of process. Defendant otherwise admits the
remaining allegations therein.
15.
Defendant admits the City of Austin may be served at the listed address and that Plaintiff
is suing the City. Otherwise, Defendant denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 4 of
Plaintiff's Original Complaint.
C. Jurisdiction and Venue.
16.
Defendant admits the allegations contained within Paragraphs 5 - 6 of Plaintiff's Original
Complaint.
D. Pertinent Facts, Causes of Action, and Damages.
17.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraph 7, Defendant admits that on May 30, 2020
Plaintiff was at the scene of a protest-turned-riot in Austin. Otherwise, Defendant lacks sufficient
information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations therein.
18.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraph 8, Defendant admits that Plaintiff was
arrested near 800 N. IH 35 SB, which is close to the Austin Police Department headquarters.
Defendant denies Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated. Defendant denies Plaintiff was
standing on grass when she was aggressively blocking the view of APD officers. For her safety,
Van Os was taken to a grassy area before she was handcuffed.
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 6
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 7 of 11
19.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraph 9, Defendant denies that Plaintiff Van Os
was victimized, that her constitutional rights were violated, and that any excessive force was used
against her. Defendant admits that Van Os was standing near other rioters. Otherwise, denied.
20.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 10 - 12, Defendant admits that many
officers were standing in a line facing a group of rioters, but denies that Plaintiff had several feet
between her and the sign she was using to strike at an APD officer's less lethal shotgun. Defendant
admits that certain APD officers had fired less lethal kinetic bean bag rounds at specific rioters
who were throwing dangerous projectiles at officers and protestors. Defendant denies that APD
officers intentionally discharged any such rounds at peaceful protestors. Defendant lacks sufficient
knowledge to be able to know the truth of what Plaintiff herself observed or believed. Defendant
admits that Plaintiff attempted to interfere with officers' use of less lethal rounds, but lacks
sufficient knowledge to be able to know the truth of what Plaintiff or any other parties said
verbatim.
21.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 13 - 15, Defendant admits that Plaintiff
was holding a sign in the air blocking certain officers' view of rioters throwing projectiles, but
lacks sufficient knowledge to be able to verify what was written on such sign, nor how large or old
Plaintiff was at the time of the riots. Defendant denies that Plaintiff ever retreated from the officers
she was confronting in any meaningful way.
22.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraph 16, Defendant denies that in the dangerous
backdrop of the riots any police officer would think it was safe or reasonable to inform Plaintiff
she was under arrest before seizing her, as highlighted by the immediate aftermath of her struggling
to get away, and other rioters trying to physically pull her and Sergeant Muchnikoff into the crowd.
Defendant admits another officer spoke with Sergeant Muchnikoff and pointed at Plaintiff.
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 7
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 8 of 11
Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to be able to know the truth of what Plaintiff herself
observed or believed. Defendant admits he quickly approached Plaintiff but denies she was
standing on grass at the time. Defendant denies that he used any force that was unnecessary, or
that he was "extremely" aggressive or forceful. Defendant denies that other officers did not seize
other rioters, as another officer next to Sergeant Muchnikoff intervened to confront and arrest the
rioter who was attempting to drag Muchnikoff and Plaintiff back into the crowd. Otherwise,
denied.
23.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 17 - 21, Defendant admits that he seized
Plaintiff to effect an arrest, but denies Plaintiff's characterization of his actions while doing the
same. Defendant admits that he carried Plaintiff to a grassy area behind other police officers SO
that Plaintiff could be handcuffed on the ground. Defendant denies that he used excessive force or
otherwise did anything unreasonable during the arrest of Van Os, and denies that Van Os's actions
in blocking officers' views of projectile-throwing rioters did not pose a threat to others. Defendant
lacks sufficient knowledge to be able to know the truth of what Plaintiff herself observed, believed,
or felt, nor what Plaintiff had ever experienced or not experienced previously. Defendant denies
that he ever intentionally caused Plaintiff unnecessary pain or otherwise treated her cruelly.
Otherwise, denied.
24.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 22 - 25, Defendant denies that he
violently slammed Plaintiff to the ground in any unreasonable or excessive manner. Defendant did
not personally perceive that Plaintiff suffered any material injuries from the incident. Otherwise,
Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to be able to know the truth of the remaining allegations
therein, and therefore denies the same.
25.
Defendant denies the allegations contained within Paragraphs 26 - 27.
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 8
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 9 of 11
26.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 28 - 31, Defendant admits that another
rioter attempted to drag her and Sergeant Muchnikoff back into the crowd while he was trying to
effect the arrest of Plaintiff. Defendant further admits that he was acting under the color of law.
Otherwise, denied.
27.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraph 32, Defendant admits that Plaintiff brings
suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, denied.
28.
Defendant denies the allegations contained within Paragraphs 33 - 34.
29.
As to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 35 - 39, no answer is necessary from
this Defendant. To the extent any answer is deemed necessary, Defendant admits that Plaintiff
seeks the relief requested therein. Otherwise, denied.
III.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES & IMMUNITIES
30.
Defendant denies any deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, custom, or abuses of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured to the decedent by the United States Constitution,
state law, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et seq.
31.
Defendant hereby invokes the doctrine of Qualified Immunity and Official Immunity.
Defendant discharged his obligations and public duties in good faith and would show that his
actions were objectively reasonable in light of the law and the information possessed at that time,
and that no clearly established law exists prohibiting him from arresting Plaintiff Van Os in the
manner in which he did.
32.
Further and in the alternative, the incident in question and the resulting harm to Plaintiff
were caused or contributed to by another persons' own illegal and/or violent or reckless conduct,
including but not limited to the conduct of Plaintiff herself, and other rioters. To the extent legally
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 9
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 10 of 11
applicable herein, Defendant invokes the comparative responsibility provisions of the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code. 23
33.
Defendant further pleads that, in the unlikely event he is found to be liable, such liability
be reduced by the percentage of the causation found to have resulted from the acts or omissions of
other persons.
34.
Defendant pleads that he had legal justification for each and every action taken by him
relating to this incident.
35.
Defendant asserts the limitations and protections of Chapters 41 & 101 of the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code, and the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
36.
Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses throughout the
development of this case.
37.
To the extent Defendant did not address a specific averment made by Plaintiff in her
Original Complaint, Defendant expressly denies all such averments.
IV.
JURY DEMAND
38.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48, Defendant hereby requests a jury trial.
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff prays that
upon a final hearing of this cause, the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice, that
all costs of court be assessed against Plaintiff, that he be awarded attorney fees incurred in the
defense of this suit, and for all further relief to which he may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
23 See TEX. CIV. PRAC & REM. CODE ANN. § 33.001.
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 10
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8 Filed 07/07/22 Page 11 of 11
WRIGHT & GREENHILL, P.C.
4700 Mueller Blvd., Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78723
(512) 476-4600
(512) 476-5382 - Fax
By:
/s/ Blair J. Leake
Blair J. Leake
State Bar No. 24081630
bleake@w-g.com
Stephen B. Barron
State Bar No. 24109619
sbarron@w-g.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JOSHUA MUCHNIKOFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 7th day of July, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was caused to be served upon all counsel of record via E-File/E-Service/E-Mail and/or
Regular U.S. Mail, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:
David Van Os
dvo@vanoslaw.com
Matt G. Holder
matt@vanoslaw.com
DAVID VAN os & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
8620 N. New Braunfels Ave. #101
San Antonio, TX 78217
Daniel R. Richards
drichards@rrsfirm.com
Clark Richards
crichards@rrsfirm.com
RICHARDS RODRIGUEZ & SKEITH, LLP
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200
Austin, Texas 78701
/s/ Blair J. Leake
Blair J. Leake
Defendant Joshua Muchnikoff's Original Answer
Page 11
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8-1 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit
1
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8-1 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 2
uck
BLACK
12ACAR
COPC
RESERVED
PARKING
ACAB
Case 1:22-cv-00522-RP Document 8-2 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit
2