Chicas-Ramos v. Simon's Trucking et al
Filing
91
OPINION BY RICHARD MILLS, United States District Judge: The motion of Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Simon's Trucking, Inc. and Ronald Elmer Jansen for leave to file their counterclaim for contribution against Drivers Management, LLC (d/e 81 ) i s GRANTED. The Clerk will docket and file the counterclaim (d/e 81 -1). The motion of Counter-Plaintiff Francisco Sepulveda and Counter-Defendant Drivers Management to dismiss count II of Counter-Plaintiff Francisco Sepulveda's counterclaim against Counter-Defendant Drivers Management, LLC (d/e 83 ) is GRANTED. Count II of Sepulveda's counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear its own costs. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered on 4/2/2020. (MJC, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 02 April, 2020 04:22:40 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DIANA M. CHICAS-RAMOS and
EBER C. VALLADARES-ESPINOZA,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SIMON’S TRUCKING, INC., an Iowa
)
Corporation, and RONALD ELMER
)
JANSEN, individually, and DRIVER’S
)
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
)
SIMON’S TRUCKING, INC. and
)
RONALD ELMER JANSEN,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
FRANCISCO SEPULVEDA and
)
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
)
Third-Party Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
)
FRANCISCO SEPULVEDA,
)
)
Counter-Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SIMON’S TRUCKING, INC.,
)
1
Case No. 18-3072
RONALD ELMER JANSEN and
DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
)
)
)
)
Counter-Defendants.
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, United States District Judge:
Pending is the Motion of the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Simon’s
Trucking, Inc. (“Simon’s”) and Ronald Elmer Jansen (“Jansen”) for Leave to File
Counterclaim for Contribution against Defendants/Counter-Defendants Drivers
Management, LLC.
I.
Plaintiffs Diana M. Chicas-Ramos (“Ramos”) and Eber C. ValladaresEspinoza filed an amended complaint in this case seeking recovery for alleged
damages suffered in a motor vehicle accident in DeWitt County, Illinois, on or about
November 8, 2016. Drivers Management, LLC is named as a Defendant. Drivers
Management notes both the complaint and amended complaint aver that Ramos was
an employee of Driver’s Management, which has provided workers’ compensation
benefits to Ramos and was named as a Defendant in the case for workers’
compensation subrogation purposes. Simon’s and Jansen were also named as
Defendants and are Counter-Plaintiffs as well.
The Plaintiffs allege Jansen, an employee of Simon’s, was driving a tractortrailer eastbound on I-74 and fell asleep while driving, overturned his tractor-trailer,
2
and blocked both lanes of eastbound I-74. Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Francisco Sepulveda was driving another tractor-trailer while Ramos was a
passenger in the sleeper berth. The Plaintiffs allege the tractor-trailer operated by
Sepulveda collided with the overturned tractor-trailer operated by Jansen on I-74.
Because of the collision, the Plaintiffs assert Ramos sustained personal and
pecuniary injuries caused by Jansen and Simon’s.
Simon’s and Jansen filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the Plaintiffs’
amended complaint. They also filed an amended third-party complaint against
Francisco Sepulveda and Werner Enterprises, Inc. (“Werner”) seeking contribution
under Illinois law, 740 ILCS 100/0.01 et seq. Simon’s and Jansen alleged Sepulveda
was an agent and/or employee of Werner. In response, Werner admitted that
Sepulveda was driving under Werner’s D.O.T. motor carrier “operating authority”
at the time of the alleged accident and, therefore, Sepulveda was a “statutory
employee” of Werner for purposes of “public liability” in this case. Werner also
noted Ramos was an employee of Drivers Management and was also the
special/loaned/borrowed employee of Werner and was acting within the scope of
that employment with Werner at the time of the accident at issue.
Third Party Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Sepulveda filed an amended
counterclaim for personal injuries against Simon’s, Jansen and Drivers
Management, LLC, alleging that Sepulveda was an employee of Drivers
3
Management and naming that entity for workers’ compensation subrogation
purposes only. Sepulveda has moved to dismiss the count asserted against Drivers
Management, on the basis he has settled with Drivers Management with a full waiver
of the subrogation interest of Sepulveda’s workers’ compensation payments held by
the entity’s parent company, Werner.
In a motion for summary judgment on Simon’s Trucking and Jansen’s thirdparty complaint seeking contribution, Werner and Sepulveda alleged that Sepulveda
was an independent contractor for Werner at the time of the alleged occurrence. That
summary motion is not yet fully briefed.
In support of their motion for leave to file their counterclaim for contribution
against Drivers Management, Simon’s and Jansen note that Plaintiffs’ initial
complaint was filed on or about April 6, 2018. Under Illinois law, claims for
contribution must be filed within two years of being served with a complaint
sounding in tort. See generally, 740 ILCS 100/0.01 et seq.; 735 ILCS 5/13-204.
In its response in opposition to Simon’s and Jansen’s motion, Drivers
Management notes that at no time before filing its motion had Simon’s and Jansen
filed a contribution claim against Drivers Management for either Ramos’s or
Sepulveda’s personal injury claims. Drivers Management asserts the Court should
deny the motion because it is untimely, fails to articulate any “newly discovered”
evidence, and would unduly prejudice Drivers Management and the other parties.
4
II.
Drivers Management notes that the deadline to file motions to join other
parties or amend the pleadings expired on January 31, 2019. The Seventh Circuit
has observed that, “when a motion for leave to amend is filed after the deadline for
amending the pleadings has elapsed, the generous standard in Rule 15(a)(2) for
allowing amendments is in some tension with Rule 16(b)(4) which governs
scheduling orders and requires a showing of good cause to justify modifying time
limits.” Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 733-34 (7th Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Drivers Management claims Simon’s and Jansen have not established good
cause as to why they did not attempt to bring a claim for contribution against Drivers
Management at an earlier stage of the litigation. The motion does not articulate any
newly discovered evidence which might justify an untimely motion. Plaintiff Ramos
alleged at the beginning of this litigation—well before the January 31, 2019 deadline
to add parties and amend pleadings—that Drivers Management was her employer.
In their reply, however, Simon’s and Jansen note that in both her answers to
interrogatories and during her deposition testimony, Ramos attested that she was
employed by Werner on the date and time of the alleged accident.
Simon’s and Jansen further note that the deposition of Michael Peterson, the
Senior Litigation Counsel of Werner, was completed on February 25, 2020, after he
5
submitted an affidavit in support of Sepulveda’s and Werner’s summary judgment
motion.
The affidavit provides that Ramos was an employee of Drivers
Management, not Werner, on the date of the accident. Peterson also testified in his
deposition that Ramos was an employee of Drivers Management at that time.
Simon’s and Jansen allege the proposed counterclaim for contribution is based upon
this new evidence concerning the employment of Ramos by Driver’s Management,
not Werner.
Simon’s and Jansen allege that Drivers Management has been a party to this
action since September 2018 and would not be prejudiced by the granting of this
motion. Simon’s and Jansen further assert they will be overly prejudiced in their
right to seek contribution from Plaintiff Ramos and Third-Party Defendant/CounterPlaintiff Sepulveda.
Drivers Management claims the parties would be prejudiced by the delay this
new claim would have on the lawsuit. It is almost certain that further fact discovery
will have to occur with Drivers Management, which thus far has only been a party
to protect its workers’ compensation subrogation interest in this matter pursuant to
Nebraska law and has not answered any discovery or been deposed in this case. This
would delay the expert discovery phase which is set to commence. If the motion is
granted, Drivers Management would have to expend the time and effort to file a
separate motion for summary judgment, which could have been avoided had
6
Simon’s and Jansen brought their claims against Drivers Management sooner.
Simon’s and Jansen note that all discovery is not due until December 31, 2020.
Simon’s and Jansen further state that fact discovery is ongoing and
continuing. Moreover, Drivers Management would not be prejudiced by the filing
of a counterclaim for contribution as it has been a party since September 2018 and
is now represented by the same counsel as Werner, with access to the same materials.
Simon’s and Jansen contend that material questions of fact exist as to the
employment of Sepulveda, as well as the control, oversight and supervision of
Sepulveda and Ramos at the time of the alleged incident. Moreover, the parties are
continuing to complete fact discovery. For these reasons, Simon’s and Jansen seek
leave to file their counterclaim for contribution against Drivers Management.
Drivers Management alleges Simon’s and Jansen chose to wait to file their
motion for leave on the same day they filed their response to Werner’s and
Sepulveda’s summary judgment motion. Drivers Management believes the motion
for leave is a back-up plan or “insurance policy” to seek to have Drivers
Management waive or reduce its workers’ compensation subrogation interest in this
matter in case the Court grants the summary judgment motion. It further asserts the
motion seeks to backdoor allegations of negligent training and supervision against
Drivers Management, which were not brought against Werner, its parent company,
before it filed for summary judgment.
7
Until recently, there was at least some conflict in the record as to Ramos’s
employer at the time of the accident. At different times, it was alleged that she was
employed by Werner and Drivers Management. Simon’s and Jansen filed the
motion for leave to file a counterclaim against Drivers Management on March 16,
2020, approximately three weeks after Michael Peterson’s deposition testimony and
declaration stating that Ramos was employed by Drivers Management. At least until
that point, there was a factual dispute as to Ramos’s employer. Accordingly,
Simon’s and Jansen have provided cause as to why the claim for contribution was
not brought sooner.
Additionally, the Court does not believe that any party will be significantly
prejudiced in the event the motion is granted. As noted, all discovery is not due for
another nine months and the dispositive motion deadline is due on January 29, 2021.
The Court will allow the motion for leave to file a claim for contribution against
Drivers Management.
The Court will also allow the motion of Counter-Plaintiff Francisco
Sepulveda and Counter-Defendant Drivers Management, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), to dismiss with prejudice Sepulveda’s counterclaim
against Drivers Management.
8
Ergo, the motion of Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Simon’s Trucking, Inc. and
Ronald Elmer Jansen for leave to file their counterclaim for contribution against
Drivers Management, LLC [d/e 81] is GRANTED.
The Clerk will docket and file the counterclaim [d/e 81-1].
The motion of Counter-Plaintiff Francisco Sepulveda and Counter-Defendant
Drivers Management to dismiss count II of Counter-Plaintiff Francisco Sepulveda’s
counterclaim against Counter-Defendant Drivers Management, LLC [d/e 83] is
GRANTED.
Count II of Sepulveda’s counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice with each
party to bear its own costs.
ENTER: April 2, 2020
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?