Venegas v. Space Exploration Technologies Corporation et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss 19 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. 27 Report and Recommendations (Signed by Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr) Parties notified.(dbenavides, 1)

Case 1:21-cv-00054 Document 30 Filed on 02/23/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
LUCINNE VENEGAS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

February 23, 2022
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-054

ORDER AND OPINION
In June 2020, in the darkness before dawn, Carlos Venegas drove his wife (Lucinne) and
their three children home from Boca Chica Beach. While driving down State Highway 4, they
crashed into an eighteen-wheel commercial truck stopped in the middle of the road and partly
turned into the intersecting road, LBJ Boulevard. The crash killed Carlos Venegas, and injured
his wife and children. At the time of the accident, the truck was turning onto LBJ Boulevard en
route to deliver cargo to SpaceX Corporation, which maintains a facility a short distance down the
intersection where the accident occurred.
Mrs. Venegas, individually and on behalf of the estates of her husband and her minor
children, filed this lawsuit against SpaceX Corporation and Dogleg Park, LLC (collectively,
“Defendants”). (Am. Complt., Doc. 19) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that they owed no duty to Venegas. (Motion, Doc. 22)
I
A United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted.
(R&R, Doc. 27) Venegas timely filed objections (Doc. 28). The Court reviews the portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which Venegas objected de novo and all other portions for clear
error. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
Based on the allegations within the First Amended Complaint and the applicable law, the
1/3

Case 1:21-cv-00054 Document 30 Filed on 02/23/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation correctly applies the law to the alleged
facts. As a result, the Court overrules Venegas’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.
II
Venegas requests in her Response (Doc. 25) that she “be afforded an opportunity to timely
re-plead” if the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss, and she reasserts this request in her
Objections (Doc. 28, 16). She does not submit a proposed Second Amended Complaint.
A court “should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when justice so requires.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Consistent with this rule, a “strong presumption [exists] in favor of granting
leave to amend[.]” Ackerson v. Bean Dredging LLC, 589 F.3d 196, 208 (5th Cir. 2009). At the
same time, courts properly deny a request to amend a complaint if the proposed amendments
would be futile, such as when the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal. Ackerson,
589 F.3d at 208; Briggs v. Mississippi, 331 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir. 2003).
The Magistrate Judge previously granted Venegas the opportunity to file her First
Amended Complaint, in which she added the theory of respondeat superior. (See Order, Doc. 18)
In her current request, she does not indicate how she would amend her First Amended Complaint,
other than to “plead with particularity the circumstances” that allegedly support her causes of
action. (Objections, Doc. 28, 16) But Venegas’s First Amended Complaint does not lack detail.
She devotes over 30 paragraphs to her factual allegations, complete with photographs and field
diagrams from the accident. Her claims fail not because she pleads insufficient facts, but because
the alleged facts, accepting them as true, do not support a cause of action against the defendants.
As a result, the Court concludes that her requested amendments would be futile.
III
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27). As a result, it is:
ORDERED that Defendant Space Exploration Technologies Corporation and Dogleg
Park, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) is GRANTED; and
2/3

Case 1:21-cv-00054 Document 30 Filed on 02/23/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

ORDERED that Plaintiff Lucinne Venegas’s causes of action are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Signed on February 23, 2022.
____________________________
Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.
United States District Judge

3/3