Burgos et al v. JBS Carriers, Inc. et al
Filing
22
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 16 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint. Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint be GRANTED as to the addition of Gary MacDonnell as a Defendant and DENIED as to the addition of Paccar and Wells Fargo as Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 9/2/2016. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JUAN BURGOS and KRISTI COLE
)
)
v.
)
)
JBS CARRIERS, INC.;
)
DOE DEFENDANTS A, B, C, D, E and F; )
and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
)
INSURANCE COMPANY
)
NO. 3:15-1415
To: Honorable Todd J. Campbell, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and
Memorandum of Law in Support (the “Motion to Amend”) (Docket No. 16).
Defendant JBS
Carriers, Inc. (“JBS”) filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Docket
No. 17). For the reasons stated herein, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion to
Amend be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. Background
Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their Complaint to substitute originally named John Doe
Defendants as follows: John Doe Defendant A with Gary MacDonnell, the driver of the motorized
vehicle (which was a tractor trailer, commonly referred to as a “semi”); John Doe Defendant B
with Paccar Financial Corp. (“Paccar”), the owner of the tractor; and, Wells Fargo Equipment
Finance, Inc. (“Wells Fargo”), the owner of the trailer.
Plaintiffs’ personal injury claims arise out of a motor vehicle incident alleged to have
occurred on January 5, 2015. Generally, the allegations in the proposed Amended Complaint
against Defendants JBS and its driver, Gary MacDonnell, are based on negligence, negligence per
se, and vicarious liability. Docket No. 16-1 (the “Amended Complaint”) at ¶¶ 34-35, 38-43. As
to Paccar, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint states, “Paccar is liable for the acts and omissions of
JBS and MacDonnell as the owner of the tractor.” Amended Complaint at ¶ 36 (emphasis added).
Likewise, Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo is liable “for the acts and omissions of JBS and
MacDonnell as the owner of the trailer.” Id. at ¶ 37 (emphasis added). The Amended Complaint
does not contain any other specific allegations of negligence against Paccar or Wells Fargo.
II. Standard
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 15(a)1 directs courts to “freely give leave [to amend
complaints] when justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has held that a motion
for leave to amend should be liberally granted unless the motion is brought in bad faith or the
proposed amendments would cause undue delay, be futile, or unfairly prejudice the opposing party.
Foman v. Davis, 317 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). See also Miller v. Admin.
Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887, 898 (6th Cir. 2006). The grant or denial of a request to amend
a complaint is left to the broad discretion of the district court. Gen. Electric Co. v. Sargent &
Lundy, 916. F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990).
1
Unless otherwise noted, all references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
III. Analysis
JSB’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is essentially that the proposed
amendment to add Paccar and Wells Fargo would be futile because Plaintiffs’ asserted claims
against those parties, which are based solely on their ownership, respectively of the tractor and the
trailer, are precluded by the Graves Amendment, which preempts any state-law claims.
The 2005 Graves Amendment to the Federal Transportation Equity Act provides, in
pertinent part, as follows:
An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a
person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law
of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the
owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to
persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or
possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or
business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and
(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the
owner (or an affiliate of the owner).
49 U.S.C. § 30106(a) (the “Graves Amendment”). See also Layton v. Russell, No. 1:13-CV-325,
2014 WL 2949370, at *3 (W.D. Mich. June 30, 2014). The scope of the Graves Amendment
would include both the tractor and the trailer in question, because the statute defines “motor
vehicle” as “a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured for use on public
streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.” 49 U.S.C.
§ 30102(a)(7).
Although not expressly stated, there does not appear to be any dispute that Paccar and
Wells Fargo are engaged in the trade or business of leasing motor vehicles. As a result, absent a
showing of negligence or wrongdoing, any state statute or common law by which Paccar and Wells
Fargo might otherwise be found to be liable for the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs is preempted
3
by the plain language of the Graves Amendment. As noted, Plaintiffs’ proposed Amended
Complaint does not contain any specific allegations of negligence or wrongdoing against Paccar
or Wells Fargo. Because Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments are barred by the Graves Amendment,
the amendments would not survive a motion to dismiss. Under these circumstances, leave to
amend to add Paccar and Wells Fargo would be improper because the proposed amendment would
be futile. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend to add Paccar and Wells Fargo must be therefore denied.
As to Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to add Gary MacDonnell, the Amended Complaint
sufficiently alleges: (i) that Mr. MacDonnell was operating the semi involved in the collision
giving rise to this action; (ii) that during that time, Mr. MacDonnell was a driver for JBS and was
acting within the course and scope of his employment; and, (iii) that Mr. MacDonnell’s actions
and conduct were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. Amended Complaint,
Docket No. 16-1 at ¶¶ 4, 12, 16-18, 20, 21-23, 26-27, 29, 32-36, 38, 40-41, 43, 45-48. The
proposed amendment was timely filed and does not cause any undue delay. Nor is the amendment
prejudicial to JBS. The amendment is not futile and the motion for leave to amend was not brought
in bad faith. There is no basis to deny Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to add Gary MacDonnell
as a named Defendant.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that Plaintiffs’
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint be GRANTED as to the addition of Gary
MacDonnell as a Defendant and DENIED as to the addition of Paccar and Wells Fargo as
Defendants.
4
Any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which
to file any written objections to it with the District Judge. Failure to file specific objections within
fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further
appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 47 U.S. 140 (1985); Cowherd v. Million, 380
F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Any party opposing timely filed objections shall have
fourteen (14) days from receipt of the filed objections in which to file any responses to said
objections.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge
=
5
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?