Frost et al v. Valdez-Gonzalez et al
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 61 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Deangela Frost: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to file first amended complaint [#61] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 04/29/2021. (CMH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DEANGELA FROST and
JOHN SOTOFALCON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LUIS VALDEZ-GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:18-cv-0088-SNLJ
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants seeking damages for injuries
sustained as the result of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs named as defendants the
driver of the tractor-trailer with which they collided, Luis Valdez-Gonzalez, and TMB
Carriers, which employed defendant Valdez-Gonzalez. Although this lawsuit was filed in
2018, plaintiffs did not serve defendant Valdez-Gonzalez until 2020. Thus, the first Case
Management Order was not entered in this case until April 2020.
Plaintiffs have since obtained new counsel. The new attorneys now seek to file an
Amended Complaint adding new claims and theories. The original complaint included
four counts --- one count of negligence against defendant Valdez-Gonzalez on behalf of
each plaintiff, and one count of respondeat superior against defendant TMB Carriers on
behalf of each plaintiff.
The First Amended Complaints seeks to add the following allegations of
negligence to Counts I and III against defendant Valdez-Gonzalez: Operating the tractor1
trailer without adequate training and experience; operating the tractor-trailer when not
properly qualified to do so; driving while tired and/or fatigued in violation of 49 CFR
392.3; and driving while under the unsafe side-effects of prescription medication.
The First Amended Complaint also seeks to add Counts V-VIII, all against
defendant TBM Carriers: Count V–Independent Negligence against Defendant TBM
Carriers; Count VI –Direct Negligence against Defendant TBM Carriers based on
negligent hiring/retention; Count VII–Direct Negligence against Defendant TBM Carriers
based upon negligent training; and Count VIII–Direct Negligence against Defendant
TBM Carriers based upon negligent supervision.
Defendants oppose the motion to file the amended complaint.
As for the addition of counts against defendant TBM Carriers, under Missouri law,
“[t]here are at least three distinct theories under which an employer might be held to have
derivative or dependent liability for the conduct of an employee.” State ex rel. McHaffie
v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Mo. banc 1995) (citing Ransom v. Adams Dairy Co., 684
S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985)). “Derivative or dependent liability means that
one element of imposing liability on the employer is a finding of some level of
culpability by the employee in causing injury to a third party.” Id.
However, “[t]he majority view is that once an employer has admitted respondeat
superior liability for a driver's negligence, it is improper to allow a plaintiff to proceed
against the employer on any other theory of imputed liability.” Id. at 826 (citations
omitted). “[I]t is improper for a plaintiff to proceed against an owner of a vehicle on the
independent theory of imputed negligence where respondeat superior is admitted.” Id.
2
“Vicarious liability or imputed negligence has been recognized under varying theories,
including agency, negligent entrustment of a chattel to an incompetent, conspiracy, the
family purpose doctrine, joint enterprise, and ownership liability statutes.” Id.
Defendant TBM Carriers has already admitted that defendant Valdez-Gonzalez
was an employee of defendant TBM Carriers and was operating in the scope and course
of his employment with defendant TBM Carriers at the time of this motor vehicle
accident. The additional counts against TBM Carriers are therefore unnecessary,
particularly because plaintiffs do not seek punitive damages from any party. See id. at
827.
Plaintiffs argue the additional allegations against defendant Valdez-Gonzalez
should be allowed because he does not speak English and was operating without a valid
Commercial Drivers License. The police report attached to plaintiffs’ complaint,
however, shows defendant Valdez-Gonzalez possessed a valid CDL issued by the
Country of Mexico. Defendant also had a valid Department of Transportation number.
Regardless, this and other allegations against defendant Valdez-Gonzalez could
have been brought at the start of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs fail to address why they believe
they should be permitted to add allegations of defendant Valdez-Gonzalez driving while
tired and/or fatigued in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.3 and/or driving while under the
unsafe side-effects of prescription medication. Defendants suggest these allegations are
being added based on nothing more than speculation or an attempt to harass, annoy,
embarrass, or intimidate defendants. Ultimately, plaintiffs do not bring punitive damages
3
claims against the defendants, and they do not need these allegations added to the
complaint for purposes of their claims.
And, critically, plaintiffs did not file a reply brief refuting any of the above reasons
to deny their motion to amend their complaint nearly three years after the lawsuit was
filed. The deadline for filing an amended complaint was April 30, 2020. Plaintiffs
suggest that the entire delay can be blamed on the fact that service on defendant ValdezGonzalez was difficult because he lived in Mexico, but there was zero activity on the
docket sheet in this case for nearly a year after the matter was removed. Defendant TMB
Carriers has admitted its respondeat superior liability, the case has progressed through a
year of discovery, and this Court is unwilling to add superfluous counts and claims that
would further delay its progress.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to file first amended complaint
[#61] is DENIED.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2021.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?