Watson v. Peters, Jr. et al

Filing 45

ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that the 35 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, and FURTHER ORDERED that the 34 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/11/2025. (jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JARED MALIK WATSON, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 24-730

TERRENCE PETERS, JR., ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
The following motions are before the Court: Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 35) and
Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 34) filed by the defendants, Terrence Peters,
Jr., Turquoise, LLC d/b/a Turquois Trucking, and Canal Insurance Co. (at times collectively
“Defendants”). The plaintiff, Jared Malik Watson, opposes the motions; the intervenor,
LUBA Indemnity Insurance Co., likewise opposes the motions. The motions, submitted for
consideration on March 5, 2025, are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
This case is a rear-end accident wherein the defendant driver, Terrence Peters, Jr.,
struck the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle on I-10 West onto US 90B Pontchartrain
Expressway.1 Peters was driving a 2023 Freightliner owned by Turquoise, LLC d/b/a
Turquoise Trucking. Watson, the plaintiff driver, contends that he sustained ongoing bodily
injuries from the accident.
Defendants now move for summary judgment contending that the accident was
unavoidable and that Peters was free from fault. Defendants also move to dismiss on the
pleadings any direct or independent negligence claims for negligent hiring, training,
supervision or retention of Peters.

The plaintiff characterizes the impact as “violent.” The dash cam video supports this assertion.
But ultimately the jury will consider the video and decide the extent of the impact.
1
1

A jury trial in this matter is set for April 28, 2025.
In the context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept all factual allegations in
the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff=s favor. Lormand v.
US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues &
Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Lovick v.
Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)). However, the foregoing tenet is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550, U.S. 544, 555
(2007)).
The central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether, in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v. Rege, 627
F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir.
2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to Astate a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face.@ Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). AA claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.@ Id. The Court
does not accept as true Aconclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal
conclusions.@ Id. (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal
conclusions must be supported by factual allegations. Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” when viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-movant, “show that there is no genuine issue as to any
2

material fact.” TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). A dispute about a material
fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The court must draw all justifiable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). Once the
moving party has initially shown “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s cause,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), the non-movant
must come forward with “specific facts” showing a genuine factual issue for trial. Id. (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587
(1986)). Conclusional allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences,
unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation do not adequately substitute for
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id. (citing SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097
(5th Cir. 1993)).
When faced with a well-supported motion for summary judgment, Rule 56 places the
burden on the non-movant to designate the specific facts in the record that create genuine
issues precluding summary judgment. Jones .v Sheehan, Young, & Culp, P.C., 82 F.3d
1334, 1338 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court has no duty to survey the entire record in
search of evidence to support a non-movant’s position. Id. (citing Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d
1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1992); Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir.
1988)).
The motion for summary judgment is easily denied based upon the dash cam video
that the plaintiff submitted with his opposition. The plaintiff’s position is that liability is clear
and that he was free from fault. The Court’s role is not to apportion fault but the video does
not support Defendants’ contention that the accident was unavoidable and that Peters was
3

free from fault. The motion for summary judgment is denied because there are genuine
issues of material fact as to fault.
The motion to dismiss is likewise denied. As the plaintiff points out, this case is fast
approaching trial so challenges to the allegations made in the removed state court petition
are not only unconvincing at this juncture but also late in arriving. The Court is persuaded
that all claims asserted in this case should be submitted to and decided by the jury.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 35) filed by the defendants,
Terrence Peters, Jr., Turquoise, LLC d/b/a Turquois Trucking, and Canal Insurance Co. is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 34)
filed by the defendants, Terrence Peters, Jr., Turquoise, LLC d/b/a Turquois Trucking, and
Canal Insurance Co. is DENIED.
March 11, 2025
_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4