Velasquez et al v. Martinez et al

Filing 111

ORDER granting 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 18 Motion to Amend/Correct as set out in the Order. Plaintiffs have 21 days to move for leave to amend as stated on the order. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on January 7, 2025. (SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM VELASQUEZ and
ROSA LOPEZ
V.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-224-DPJ-ASH

MIGUEL MARTINEZ et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

After a traffic accident, Plaintiffs William Velasquez and Rosa Lopez sued five
Defendants—three drivers and two companies that employed two of those drivers. One
company, B&A Transportation, LLC, moves for partial judgment on the pleadings. The Court
will grant its motion [8] while allowing Plaintiffs to seek leave to amend.
I.

Facts and Procedural History
Taking their allegations as true for purposes of the motion, Plaintiffs were traveling on

Interstate 20 in Brandon, Mississippi, when they were injured in a collision involving two 18wheelers and another passenger vehicle. Compl. [1-1] ¶¶ 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 25. Plaintiffs
describe a chain-reaction accident on an icy road. Id. ¶ 19. And they suggest that it started when
Defendant Jamie Moore—the driver of the other passenger vehicle—“was outside the normal
line of travel, impeded on a lane, and/or lost control of the vehicle causing an obstruction to the
flow of traffic.” Id. ¶ 20.
About three months after the accident, on April 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a state-court
action against the other drivers and the employers of the two defendants driving the 18-wheelers.
Id. One of those employers, B&A, removed the case three days later. Notice [1]. Plaintiffs did
not seek remand, and the deadline has passed. The other employer, East-West Express, Inc.,
later appeared and joined in the removal along with its driver Miguel Martinez. Joinder [12].

The docket does not show a return of service on any Defendant, although B&A says it waives
service of process. Notice [1] ¶ 21. So do East-West and Martinez. Joinder [12] ¶ 7. Anderson
later filed his Answer [29].
B&A has moved for judgment on the pleadings as to some of Plaintiffs’ claims. Mot. [8].
It concedes vicarious liability for its driver’s fault—if any—but contends that Plaintiffs’ direct
claims against it for (1) general negligence; (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and entrustment;
and (3) negligent inspection and maintenance of its 18-wheeler should be dismissed, along with
claims that it is liable for (4) gross negligence and thus subject to punitive damages. Id. ¶¶ 2–4;
Def.’s Mem. [9] at 9.
Because the Court questioned whether subject-matter jurisdiction was evident from the
Complaint, it invited the parties to brief that issue before addressing the pending motion. Order
[98]. Only B&A opted to do so, providing Plaintiffs’ responses to requests for admissions that
the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at time of removal. Supp. Br. [104]. The Court is
satisfied that jurisdiction exists.1
II.

Standard
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the same standard

as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir.
2008). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the “[C]ourt accepts ‘all well-pleaded
facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’ ” Martin K. Eby Constr.
Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jones v. Greninger,
188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)). But the Court will not “accept as true

1

See Tornabene v. Cox, No. CV 20-400, 2020 WL 1429858, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 24, 2020).
2

conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Watkins v. Allstate
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 90 F.4th 814, 817 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting King v. Baylor Univ., 46 F.4th
344, 356 (5th Cir. 2022)). “Conclusory” means “[e]xpressing a factual inference without stating
the underlying facts on which the inference is based.” Black’s Law Dict. (11th ed. 2019), quoted
in Favela v. Collier, 91 F.4th 1210, 1213 (5th Cir. 2024).
To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A
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.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “This standard ‘simply
calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of’ the
necessary claims or elements.” In re S. Scrap Material Co., LLC, 541 F.3d 584, 587 (5th Cir.
2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
III.

Discussion
A.

Conceded Claims

Plaintiffs agree that because B&A accepts its vicarious liability for any fault proved
against its driver, their direct claims against it for simple negligence and for negligent hiring,
supervision, and entrustment are duplicative and therefore “unnecessary.” Pls.’ Mem. [15] at 4.
The Court will dismiss those claims.
B.

Disputed Claims

Plaintiffs say they have pleaded B&A’s own negligence and gross negligence in the
inspection and maintenance of its 18-wheeler. Id. They alternatively assert that dismissal is
improper “at this early stage of litigation.” Id. at 6.

3

To begin, Plaintiffs have not pleaded a claim against B&A for negligence or gross
negligence based on the inspection or maintenance of its vehicle. The only facts alleged in the
Complaint are those found in paragraphs 11 through 25 describing a chain-reaction collision on
an icy road. Compl. [1-1] ¶¶11–25. None of those paragraphs mentions inspections,
maintenance, or anything about the 18-wheeler’s condition that contributed to cause the accident.
Nor have Plaintiffs pleaded necessary facts elsewhere in their Complaint. At most, their causes
of action list supporting conclusions, like claiming that all “Defendants” failed to “perform
adequate pre-trip inspections” or “routine maintenance.” Id. ¶ 38. As noted, conclusory
assertions are not enough to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(c). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
Plaintiffs seem to acknowledge these deficiencies and alternatively argue that the case
“should not be dismissed at this early stage of litigation.” Pls.’ Mem. [15] at 6. They say the
claims should instead remain in the case “until . . . it has become undisputed in discovery that the
sole proximate cause for the accident was Defendant B&A’s employee-driver.” Id. at 6–7.
But discovery is a tool for proving claims, not identifying them. The federal pleading
standards are “generous” but do “not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with
nothing more than conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. Thus, when a plaintiff's “complaint
is deficient under Rule 8, he is not entitled to discovery.” Id. at 686; accord Whitaker v. Collier,
862 F.3d 490, 502 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that plaintiffs are “not entitled to discovery without a
properly pleaded complaint”) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 559).2

2

There may be limited exceptions to this rule, but the exceptions have not been established.
4

B&A’s motion is therefore granted. All claims against it are dismissed except for
vicarious liability for its driver’s alleged negligence.3 The Court will, however, allow Plaintiffs
21 days to seek leave to file an amended complaint restating their claims. For this reason, the
Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ pending motion to amend [18] so they can address the
issues examined in this Order and add any new facts they may now know.
IV.

Conclusion
The Court has considered all arguments presented. Any not specifically addressed would

not change the result. The Court grants the motion [8] for partial judgment on the pleadings and
dismisses Plaintiffs’ direct claims of negligence and gross negligence against Defendant B&A,
which remains in the case to defend against claims of its vicarious liability for its driver’s alleged
negligence. The motion for leave to amend [18] is denied without prejudice, and Plaintiffs have
21 days to move for leave to amend as stated above.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 7th day of January, 2025.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

B&A argues that the Complaint states “simple negligence at most” against its driver Anderson.
Def.’s Mem. [9] at 18. But Anderson did not join the motion, and B&A has not explained how it
would have standing to seek dismissal of any claims against him.
5