A Pattern of Puddles and Collisions: The Serial Claims of Delmis Maricela Lopez Pinto

Over the span of several years, Harris County resident Delmis Maricela Lopez Pinto (also identified in court records as Delmis Lopez), an immigrant from Honduras, has initiated a series of premises liability and personal injury claims. While the plaintiff consistently alleges serious bodily injuries resulting from these incidents, the recurring nature of her lawsuits highlights a distinct pattern of litigation.

The Initial Slip and Depositions

The earliest documented slip-and-fall incident occurred on October 14, 2018, when Lopez alleged she slipped on shampoo at a Family Dollar store on South Gessner Drive in Houston. For this incident, she sought monetary relief of up to $70,000.00. During a September 2020 deposition for this case, significant contradictions emerged regarding the nature of her fall. After initially claiming she fell to the floor, defense counsel confronted her with her own written discovery responses stating she only slipped and caught herself. Lopez Pinto subsequently admitted under oath that she did not fall completely to the ground, but rather slipped, grabbed onto a metal shelf, and got soap on her calf. Despite not fully falling, she claimed the incident caused a hernia that required surgery in Mexico.

A Broader Web of Litigation

The 2020 deposition also revealed that Lopez Pinto’s litigation history extends beyond retail slip-and-fall claims. Her attorney confirmed on the record that she had been involved in two separate motor vehicle accident claims prior to that testimony. The first was a small claims property damage case from December 2018 involving her husband’s vehicle. Exactly one year later, in December 2019, she was involved in another car crash where she claimed she sustained a neck injury and pursued a personal injury claim.

This vehicle-related litigation continued into 2021. On August 6, 2021, another motor vehicle accident lawsuit was filed in the 061st Civil District Court of Harris County under Judge Lee Kathryn Shuchart. This case, which involved a minor’s settlement, saw a jury fee paid in September 2021 and ultimately concluded with a final judgment signed on August 10, 2023. This third auto claim further expanded her history of personal injury and property damage litigation before her retail claims resumed.

The 2025 Retail Lawsuits

Years later, the premises liability litigation restarted with two retail incidents occurring just months apart. On April 29, 2025, Lopez Pinto alleged she slipped on a spilled liquid in the aisle of an H-E-B Mi Tienda store located on East Little York. In this lawsuit, she sought significantly higher monetary relief, requesting between $250,000.00 and $1,000,000.00. A little over two months later, on July 8, 2025, she claimed to have slipped on a “white cream like substance” near the entrance of a Ross Dress For Less store on the same road. For this third retail incident, she sought damages of up to $75,000.00.

Legal Pushback and Scrutiny

Retailers and their defense teams have actively pushed back against these recurring claims. The scrutiny reached a peak in the 2025 Ross Dress For Less case, where the defense hired medical billing expert Michelle Castro to audit the plaintiff’s medical expenses. According to Castro’s counter-affidavit, Sanavate Physicians Group billed $16,530.00 for treatments provided to Lopez Pinto between August and October 2025. Castro’s review concluded that these charges were highly excessive, stating that the usual, customary, and reasonable charge for those services in that area should have only been $5,610.75. Ultimately, the timeline of events presents a clear and highly scrutinized track record of litigation pursued by the same individual across multiple venues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

FCRA Disclaimer: This website is NOT a Consumer Reporting Agency and data cannot be used for employment, credit, or tenant screening.FCRA Disclaimer: This website is NOT a Consumer Reporting Agency and data cannot be used for employment, credit, or tenant screening.