Samantha Camacho v. Dante Eugene Boykin

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SAMANTHA CAMACHO, ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. ) ) DANTE EUGENE BOYKIN, individually, JOHN DOE, individually, JANE DOE, individually, and LMC ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a FRIENDLY TAVERN, FRIENDLY TAVERN, INC., FRIENDLY SALES, INC., ) ) Defendants. FILED DISTRICT COURT TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Case No. March 11, 2026 1:38 PM DON NEWBERRY, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1120 PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Samantha Camacho, and for her Petition against the Defendants, Dante Eugene Boykin (hereinafter Boykin), John Doe, individually, Jane Doe, individually, (hereinafter “Car Owner”) and LMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Friendly Tavern, Friendly Tavern, Inc., and Friendly Sales, Inc., (collectively hereinafter “Friendly”), collectively referred to herein as “Defendants,” and would allege and state as follows: PRIOR PROCEDURE 1. Plaintiff filed her original action for negligence on or about August 28, 2025, styled Samantha Camacho, v. Dante Eugene Boykin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Friendly Tavern, Case Number CJ-2025-3923 pending in the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiffs’ original action was timely filed within two years of the date of the collision. 3. After filing, Plaintiff attempted to effectuate service against Defendants without success. 4. Pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 2004(I), the original action was dismissed other than on the merits, by law, on or about February 27, 2026. 5. Pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 100, this action is refiled within one (1) year of the dismissal, are within the savings statute, and is therefore timely. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 7. Defendant Boykin, upon information and belief, is a citizen and resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 8. Defendant, John Doe or Jane Doe, Car Owner, upon information and belief, is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 9. Defendant, LMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Friendly Tavern, is a domestic, for-profit limited liability company operating under the trade name “Friendly Tavern” with its principal headquarters and place of business located at 12630 East 31st Street, Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, who may be served by and through its Registered Agent, Russell Dale Cook, 8700 180th St, Lexington, Oklahoma 73051. 10. Defendant, Friendly Tavern, Inc., upon information and belief, is a domestic, for-profit corporation who may be served in accordance with Oklahoma law by and through its Registered Agent, Judy C. Back, 120 S. Main, Noble, Oklahoma 73068. 11. Defendant, Friendly Sales, Inc., upon information and belief, is a domestic, for-profit corporation who may be served in accordance with Oklahoma law by and through its Registered Agent, W. Kirk Clausing, 5330 E. 31st 409 City Plaza E., Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. JURSIDICTION and VENUE 12. Venue in this Honorable Court is appropriate pursuant to 12 O.S. §141 because the subject collision occurred in Tulsa County. 13. The amount in controversy exceeds $1,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, thus giving this Honorable Court jurisdiction. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT BOYKIN COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for her First Cause of Action against the Defendant Boykin, would allege and state as follows: 14. Plaintiff was severely, catastrophically, and permanently injured on or about March 22, 2025, as the result of a motor vehicle collision that occurred in the parking lot of Defendant, Friendly Tavern, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 15. At the time of the subject collision, Plaintiff was an invitee to Friendly Tavern attending a gathering for a friend’s birthday. 16. Upon information and belief, an argument broke out between other invitees of Friendly Tavern instigated and initiated by unknown employees or agents to Defendants, LMC Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Friendly Tavern, Friendly Tavern, Inc., and/or Friendly Sales, Inc. 17. Despite the argument and the tensions, Defendant Friendly Tavern continued serving intoxicating beverages to invitees, including Defendant Boykin. 18. In the early morning hours of March 22, 2025, Defendant Friendly Tavern closed early due to violence which erupted in its tavern. All invitees were ordered to leave. 19. Plaintiff, along with her group of friends, left. As Plaintiff walked through the parking lot to her vehicle, a vehicle operated by Defendant Boykin, without warning ran into Plaintiff pinning her between her vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle. 20. The defendant fled the scene immediately after the incident. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Boykin was intoxicated at the time of the subject collision. 22. As a result of the subject collision, Plaintiff sustained severe and possibly permanent bodily injuries. Said bodily injuries were caused by the negligence of Defendant and without any negligence on the part of Plaintiff. Said bodily injuries were a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, and reckless disregard for rights and safety of Plaintiff by Defendant; and by virtue of the following facts and circumstances, each individually, and in combination, constituting negligence and negligence per se, which includes the following acts and omissions. a. Defendant failed to use reasonable and proper care in the operation of his vehicle which resulted in the subject collision occurring; b. Defendant failed to devote full time and attention in the operation of his vehicle, thereby causing the subject collision; c. Defendant was negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout; d. Defendant was negligent per se by operating his vehicle in violation of 47 O.S. § 11-901 (A); (reckless driving); e. Defendant was negligent per se by operating his vehicle in violation of 47 O.S. § 11-901 (b); (failure to devote full time and attention to such driving); f. The collision that is the subject of this lawsuit was preventable and avoidable. 23. By clear and convincing evidence, and as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries resulting in the following elements of actual damage, past, present, and future, in a combined amount in excess of $1,000,000.00: a. Pain in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; b. Suffering in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; c. Permanent disability in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; d. Disfigurement in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; e. Mental anguish in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; f. Medical expenses incurred to date and yet to be determined by the trier of fact; g. Loss of enjoyment and quality of life in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; h. Loss of wage and impairment of future earning capacity in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; and i. Other damages to be set forth after discovery. 24. Because the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendant were at a minimum reckless, and more likely grossly negligent, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages as a result of the subject collision. The acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendant constitute intentional, careless, wanton, reckless disregard, and conscious indifference to the rights, welfare, and safety of Plaintiff, and the public at large, beyond a reasonable doubt. The acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendant therefore warrant an award to Plaintiff of exemplary or punitive damages well in excess of $1,000,000.00 from Defendant. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE ENTRUSTMENT 25. Plaintiff adopts, realleges and restates the assertions set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 26. At the time of the subject collision, upon information and belief, Car Owner was the owner of the vehicle operated by Defendant Boykin. 27. Preceding the subject collision, upon information and belief, Car Owner entrusted said vehicle to Defendant Boykin. 28. Prior to the collision, Car Owner knew or should have known Defendant Boykin is and was reckless, careless, and prone to consuming alcohol before operating a motor vehicle. 29. As a result of Defendant Car Owner’s breach of their duty to ensure their vehicle was entrusted to a safe and responsible driver, Plaintiff suffered severe, permanent and catastrophic injuries. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DRAM SHOP LIABILITY OF FRIENDLY DEFENDANTS 30. Plaintiff adopts, realleges, and restates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 31. Defendant Friendly Tavern is a for profit company which owns and operates an establishment, the primary purpose of which is to serve alcohol and provide a location for people to socialize, consume alcohol, and hang out. 32. Defendant Friendly Sales, Inc., holds a license issued through the ABLE Commission, License Number 55610. 33. Defendants, LMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Friendly Tavern, Friendly Tavern, Inc., and/or Friendly Sales, Inc., on or about March 22, 2025, owed a duty to Plaintiff, and others, to use ordinary care not to serve alcohol to a person Defendants knew or should have known from the circumstances was intoxicated. 34. The Friendly Defendants are commercial vendors of alcohol/liquor, licensed to engage in such activity in Oklahoma. 35. As licensed commercial vendors for alcohol/liquor, the Friendly Defendants owed duties to others arising therefrom, including but not limited to the following: a. Defendants owed a duty to use ordinary care not to serve, furnish or otherwise provide alcohol to a person that it knows, or reasonably should know from the circumstances, is already intoxicated. b. Defendants owed a duty to not direct an intoxicated person into a motor vehicle for purposes of driving the motor vehicle. c. Defendants owed a duty to others, including Plaintiff, to maintain a reasonably safe premises free from hazards and conditions, which could foreseeably cause harm to others, including invitees and Plaintiff. 36. Upon information and belief, Defendants served, furnished or provided alcohol to Defendant Boykin and others on March 21 & 22, 2025. 37. Upon information and belief, Defendants, on March 21 & 22, 2025, served, furnished or provided alcohol to invitees, including Defendant Boykin, while they were visibly intoxicated. 38. Defendants breached their duties owed to Plaintiff by continuing to serve Defendant Boykin and other invitees alcohol, despite knowing they were visibly intoxicated. 39. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Defendant Boykin was too intoxicated to operate his motor vehicle when he crashed into Plaintiff’s person, pinning her to her vehicle, before leaving Defendants’ parking lot. 40. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff sustained severe, catastrophic and permanent bodily injuries. Said bodily injuries were caused by the negligence of Defendant and without any negligence on the part of Plaintiff. Said bodily injuries were a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, and reckless disregard for rights and safety of Plaintiff by Defendant; and by virtue of the following facts and circumstances, each individually, and in combination, constituting negligence and negligence per se, which includes the following acts and omissions. g. Defendant failed to use ordinary care resulting in serving alcohol to a person Defendant knew or should have known under the circumstances was intoxicated; h. Defendants failed to supervise, manage, and/or train their employees, allowing Defendants’ employees to create a hostile, dangerous, unsafe environment fueled by alcohol jeopardizing the safety and well-being of invitees, including Plaintiff. 41. By clear and convincing evidence, and as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries resulting in the following elements of actual damage, past, present, and future, in a combined amount in excess of $1,000,000.00: j. Pain in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; k. Suffering in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; l. Permanent disability in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; m. Disfigurement in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; n. Mental anguish in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; o. Medical expenses incurred to date and yet to be determined by the trier of fact; p. Loss of enjoyment and quality of life in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; q. Loss of wage and impairment of future earning capacity in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; and r. Other damages to be set forth after discovery. 42. Because the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendant were at a minimum reckless, and more likely grossly negligent, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages as a result of the subject collision. The acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendants constitute intentional, careless, wanton, reckless disregard, and conscious indifference to the rights, welfare, and safety of Plaintiff, and the public at large, beyond a reasonable doubt. The acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendants therefore warrant an award to Plaintiff of exemplary or punitive damages well in excess of $1,000,000.00 from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Samantha Camacho, prays judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the Defendants for an award of actual damages in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00 exclusive of costs and interest; and Plaintiff prays judgment in favor of Plaintiff as against the Defendants, for an award of exemplary or punitive damages in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest, together with the awarding of lawful costs and interest along with any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Nathan D. Richter, OBA No. 22003 Mark Van Paasschen, OBA No. 31431 Kevin H. Cunningham, OBA No. 22117 BISON LAW FIRM 1609 Professional Circle Yukon, Oklahoma 73099 Tel: 405-407-0111 Fax: 405-407-0211 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED