Ramos v. Sancity, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEE RAMOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SANCITY, LLC,
MUHAMED MOHAMUD, and
AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,
Defendants.
No. 4:25-CV-01203
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FEBRUARY 20, 2026
I. 	BACKGROUND
On July 2, 2025, Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. (“Amazon”) removed this
case from the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.1 By stipulation, Plaintiff Lee Ramos (“Plaintiff”) filed an Amended
Complaint on October 20, 2025, bringing a three-count complaint against Amazon
as well as Defendants Muhamed Mohamud (“Mohamud”) and Sancity, LLC
(“Sancity”) (collectively with Amazon, “Defendants”), seeking to recover against
all three Defendants for negligence and negligence per se, and to recover against
Amazon and Sancity for negligent hiring and supervision.2
1 	Doc. 1 (Removal).
2 	Doc. 15 (Amend. Compl.) at 6-13.
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 12

2
On November 3, 2025, Amazon filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 3 The
following day, Defendants Mohamud and Sancity filed their own motion seeking the
same. 4 The motions are now ripe for disposition; for the reasons that follow, they are
granted in part and denied in part. However, Plaintiff will be provided leave to
amend the complaint.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Motion to Dismiss Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), courts dismiss a complaint,
in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to “state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Following the landmark decisions of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly5 and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,6 “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’”7 The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed
that “[u]nder the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps”: (1) “take note of the
elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim”; (2) “identify allegations that,
3 	Doc. 17 (Mot.).
4 	Doc. 19 (Mot.).
5 	550 U.S. 544 (2007).
6 	556 U.S. 662 (2009).
7 	Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 12

3
because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth”; and (3) “assume the[] veracity” of all “well-pleaded factual allegations” and
then “determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 8
B. 	Facts Alleged in the Amended Complaint
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following:
On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff was driving his vehicle on Interstate 80 westbound
in Sandy Township, Clearfield County.9 At that time, Mohamud was driving a
commercial tractor-trailer with the Amazon logo on the trailer, and that, “upon
information and belief, at the time in question, Mr. Mohamud, was hauling freight
for Amazon in a tractor owned by Amazon, under the control of Amazon and
operating under the direction of Amazon.” 10 Plaintiff asserts separately that “the
tractor operated by Mr. Mohamud was, at the time of the accident, owned by Sancity
and/or Amazon and being operated by Mr. Mohamud while in the employment
and/or agency of Sancity and/or Amazon for Sancity’s and/or Amazon’s financial
benefit.” 11
It is alleged that Mohamud’s tractor-trailer slammed into the back of the
vehicle driven by Ramos, causing a multi-vehicle crash that closed the interstate for
8 	Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
9 	Doc. 15 at ¶ 12.
10 	Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.
11 	Id. at ¶ 14
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 12

4
a considerable time. 12 The collision was alleged to have occurred during a heavy
rainstorm.13 Pennsylvania State Police Investigator Tyler Blanair’s report concluded
that Mohamud’s failure to operate the vehicle in a manner safe for conditions,
specifically going too fast and following too closely, caused the crash, and finding
that Mohamud was careless in the operation of his tractor-trailer.14 Mohamud was
cited by Pennsylvania State Police for “Operating a Vehicle Without proper Safety
Equipment, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. 4107(B)(2); and Following Too Closely, in
violation of 75 Pa. C.S. 3310(A).” 15 Mohamud ultimately pled guilty to both traffic
citations.16
C. 	Analysis
Plaintiff brings two types of claims: direct negligence and vicarious liability.17
Plaintiff brings his direct negligence claims against all Defendants and those for
vicarious liability against Sancity and Amazon only.
12 	Id. at ¶ 18.
13 	Id. at ¶ 20.
14 	Id. at ¶ 20.
15 	Id. at ¶ 21.
16 	Id. at ¶ 22.
17 	Doc. 15 (Amend. Compl.) at 6, 9, 13; Doc. 21 (Br. in Opp.) at 5-6. Originally, Plaintiff pled
negligence per se as a separate cause of action, but has since agreed that negligence per se is a
theory encapsulated in the broader negligence claim. Doc. 21 at 6 (“Ramos has no objection to
subsuming the allegations of the negligence per se claim (Count I) into his claim for negligence
(Count II), and would so amend his complaint as required”). Accordingly, the Court will
address the more general negligence claim.
Additionally, Defendants moved to dismiss punitive damage theories, to which Plaintiff
indicated that he had not intended to plead any such theories. Doc. 18 at 15; Doc. 20 at 8; Doc.
21 at 6. As Plaintiff has not pled punitive damages, there is nothing to dismiss regarding such
theories and, therefore, this will not be addressed.
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 12

5
1. 	Direct Negligence
It is well established in Pennsylvania law that a pure negligence claim requires
proof of four elements: duty, breach, cause, and harm. 18 Plaintiff’s claims will be
addressed in turn by reference to the individual Defendants.
a. 	Mohamud
Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to allow a direct negligence claim to proceed
against Mohamud, the driver of the vehicle. 19 First, “[u]nder Pennsylvania law, it is
well-established that a person operating a motor vehicle has a duty to ‘exercise
ordinary and reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid injury to others.’” 20
Mohamud, as the driver of the vehicle, therefore had a duty to other motorists,
including Ramos. Second, Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts from which the
remaining elements can be inferred. Specifically, Plaintiff has pled that Mohamud
breached his duty of care by exceeding a safe speed for the conditions and for
following too closely, for which, as noted above, he received a citation.21 Similarly,
Plaintiff’s complaint states that Mohamud’s driving caused the instant crash,
18 	See, e.g., Jordan v. Pa. State Univ., 276 A.3d 751, 771 (Pa. Super. 2022); Sharpe v. St. Luke’s
Hospital, 573 Pa. 90, 95 (2003).
19 	It is unclear to what extent Defendant Mohamud moves to dismiss the bare negligence claim
against him, as Defendants Mohamud and Sancity’s joint brief does not address the issue.
Regardless, as Defendants move to dismiss the entire complaint, the Court will address this
theory briefly.
20 	Ciotola v. Star Transportation & Trucking, 481 F. Supp. 3d 375, 387 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (quoting
Adley Express Co. v. Willard, 372 Pa. 252 (1953)).
21 	Doc. 15 at ¶¶ 20, 35(a)-(h).
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 12

6
resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries including concussion, right knee surgery, headaches,
and other medical problems.22
Moreover, Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to utilize negligence per se as a
theory of recovery for negligence. Negligence per se imports the standard of care
appropriate 	to 	the 	underlying 	court 	by 	reference 	to 	a 	statutory 	scheme. 23
“Pennsylvania's time-honored rule [is] that a violation of a statute may be negligence
per se upon which liability may be grounded if such negligence is the proximate and
efficient cause of the incident.” 24 As Mohamud was charged with and pled guilty to
the citation of “Following Too Closely,” which could have plausibly been the
proximate cause of the accident based on the pleadings, Plaintiff’s direct negligence
claim against Mohamud survives. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is
denied as to the negligence claim against Mohamud.
b. 	Sancity & Amazon
Next, the direct negligence claims against Sancity and Amazon, including the
negligent hiring and supervision claims, will be dismissed. First, Plaintiff does not
plead any facts to indicate the general negligence of Sancity or Amazon related to
the crash aside from hiring and supervision. Plaintiff pleads a list of potential causes
of the accident that he asserts constitute negligence, but all of them are related to the
22 	Id. at ¶¶ 25, 26.
23 	Cabiroy v. Scipione, 767 A.2d 1078, 1082 (Pa. Super. 2001).
24 	Moore v. Sylvania Elec. Prods. Inc., 454 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1972).
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 12

7
operation of the vehicle. 25 Plaintiff does not plead any facts to indicate how Amazon
or Sancity could be negligent in the operation of the vehicle itself. 26 The potential
avenue for direct negligence would come only from the hiring and supervision, if at
all. Accordingly, any claims against Sancity and Amazon for general negligence are
dismissed.
Similarly, Plaintiff’s claims for direct negligence related to the hiring and
supervision of Mohamud will be dismissed as well. Preliminarily, the theories of
negligent hiring, selection, retention, or supervision are “predicated upon an
employer-employee relationship.”27 There are a series of factors to be considered in
determining whether an employer-employee relationship existed, including the
employer’s ability to control, supervise, and manage the employee’s actions.28 “The
factors entitled to the most weight are ‘whether the purported employer has the right
to hire and fire the employee; whether the employer has the right to direct the manner
of the employee’s performance of the work; and whether the employer has the right
to control the work to be completed.’” 29
25 	Doc. 15 at ¶35 (a)-(h) (e.g. “failure to exercise proper, adequate, or reasonable control over
Defendants’ vehicle sufficient to avoid striking Mr. Ramos’ vehicle;” or “[f]ailing to maintain
an assured, clear distance between Defendants’ vehicle and Mr. Ramos’ vehicle;”).
26 	For instance, Plaintiff does not plead that a corporate representative sat in Mohamud’s
passenger seat telling him to drive faster.
27 	Allen v. Foxway Trans., 705 F. Supp. 3d 297, 313 (M.D. Pa. 2023) (Brann, J.).
28 	Allen, 705 F. Supp. at 308-09.
29 	Id. at 309 (quoting Ciotola v. Star Trans. & Trucking, 481 F. Supp. 3d 375, 390 (M.D. Pa.
2020).
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 12

8
Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts tending to show an employer-employee
relationship between Sancity and Mohamed; indeed, Plaintiff pleads nothing at all
about Sancity’s involvement in the crash. Plaintiff states that the tractor was “owned
by Sancity” and operated by Mohamud “while in the employment and/or agency of
Sancity . . . for Sancity’s . . . benefit.” However, these conclusory allegations
unsupported 	by 	facts 	cannot 	withstand 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss.30 Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s claims for negligent hiring and supervision against Sancity is dismissed
and Defendant Sancity’s motion to dismiss granted.
As for Amazon, Plaintiff has pled some facts rendering a finding of agency
plausible; namely, Plaintiff has pled that the truck displayed an Amazon logo and
that Mohamud was “hauling freight for Amazon in a tractor owned by Amazon,
under the control of Amazon and operating under the direction of Amazon.”31
Moreover, a rebuttable presumption of employment arises when “‘a business
automobile, bearing the trade[ ]name of defendant, [is] displayed thereon in such a
30 	Bolles v. One West Bank, No. 3:10-2556, 2014 WL 888517, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2014)
(“[C] onclusory allegations of an agency or employment relationship are insufficient to survive
a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”); Garczynski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 656 F.
Supp. 2d 505, 512 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (finding conclusory allegations of agency without factual
support insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss).
Plaintiff pleads no explanation as to why he believes Sancity was involved in the crash at all;
for instance, Plaintiff pled that the Amazon logo was on the side of the truck and that Mohamud
was hauling freight for Amazon. Doc. 15 at ¶ 16. Plaintiff has made no such representation for
Sancity, including any facts demonstrating why he believes Sancity is involved, and
consequently only relies on conclusory allegations. Sancity makes no representation one way
or the other regarding its employment of Mohamud. Doc. 19 (Mot.).
31 	Doc. 15 at ¶¶ 15, 16.
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 8 of 12

9
manner as trade or business names are usually placed on vehicles used for trade or
business purposes.’” 32 Plaintiff has therefore pled sufficient facts to “raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” of the elements of his
claim, specifically, an employer-employee relationship between Mohamud and
Amazon. 33
However, regardless of the employment relationship of either Sancity or
Amazon to Mohamud, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support a claim for
negligent hiring and/or supervision against either party.34 “An employer owes a duty
‘to exercise reasonable care in selecting, supervising and controlling employees.’” 35
Negligent supervision and hiring claims stem from “two duties of an employer: the
duty to reasonably monitor and control the activities of an employee, and the duty
to abstain from hiring an employee and placing that employee in a situation where
the employee will harm a third party.” 36 A claim for negligent hiring requires a
32 	Lynn v. Cepurneek, 352 Pa. Super. 379, 384 (1986) (quoting Capozi v. Hearst Publishing Co.,
371 Pa. 503, 511 (1952)) cited by Coryell v. Morris, 330 A.3d 1270, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2025);
see also Fulerton v. Motor Exp., 375 Pa. 173, 175 (1953); Hillwig v. Joseph T. Ryerson and
Son, No. 93-2455, 1994 WL 88081, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 1994).
33 	Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 2016).
34 	Additionally, the Court notes that “federal courts in Pennsylvania have found ‘a plaintiff
cannot pursue a claim against an employer for negligent entrustment, hiring, supervision, or
training when the employer admits that its employee was acting within the scope of
employment when the accident occurred.’” Tjokrowidjojo v. San Lucas, No 20-6564, 2021 WL
1143379, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2021) (collecting cases). An exception to this rule is provided
when a case for punitive damages can be sustained against the employer. Id. However, as
Defendants have not admitted an agency relationship, let alone that Mohamud was acting in
the scope of his employment, the Court need not address the issue now.
35 	M.S. ex rel. Hall v. Susquehannah Twp. Sch. Dist., 43 F. Supp. 3d 412, 432 (M.D. Pa. 2014)
(quoting R.A. ex rel. N.A. v. First Church of Christ, 748 A.2d 692, 697 (2000)).
36 	Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc., 708 F.3d 470, 488 (3d Cir. 2013).
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 9 of 12

10
showing of foreseeability of the injury by the employer; 37 specifically, Plaintiff must
demonstrate that “the employer knew or should have known” of the employee’s
propensity to injure others when hiring them. 38 “An employer knows, or should
know, of the need to control an employee if the employer knows that the employee
has dangerous propensities that might cause harm to a third party.”39 “A harm is
foreseeable if it is part of a general type of injury that has a reasonable likelihood of
occurring.” 40 “[F]ederal courts routinely dismiss negligent hiring claims under Rule
12(b)(6) if the plaintiff fails to allege a specific instance of past misconduct.” 41
Here, Plaintiff’s claims for negligent hiring and supervision against Amazon
and Sancity fail. Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts, rather conclusory allegations,
to permit these claims to go forward; Plaintiff pleads only that “Mohamud had traffic
infractions in other jurisdictions outside of Pennsylvania that questioned his
suitability for employment and/or agency with said companies” and that “Ramos
suffered injury due to the failure of Sancity and Amazon failure [sic] to properly vet
Mr. Mohamud and ensure that he was a competent [sic] to safely operate a tractor-
37 	Belmont, 708 F.3d at 491.
38 	See Matos v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 23-5038, 2024 WL 3238127, at *6 (collecting cases).
39 	Belmont, 708 F.3d at 491.
40 	Id.
41 	Fusco v. Uber Techs., No. 17-00036, 2018 WL 3618232, at *5 (E.D. Pa July 27, 2018)
(collecting cases); Matos, 2024 WL 3238127, at *6; Klingaman v. J&R Schugel Trucking, No.
5:25-CV-00584, 2025 WL 3079978, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2025) (“Plaintiff fails to establish
why or how [Defendant] knew or should have known of [employee’s] propensity by offering
facts related to [employee’s] background, any prior misconduct, or how [Defendant’s] hiring
and oversight practices were deficient.”).
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 10 of 12

11
trailer on public highways.”42 These are conclusory allegations that do not plausibly
raise an inference that either Sancity or Amazon was on notice of any tendency of
Mohamud to injure others. The mere reference to “traffic infractions in other
jurisdictions” is insufficient, as the traffic infractions would need to be of a similar
nature to the instant crash so as to render Sancity or Amazon negligent in their hiring
of Mohamud. Similarly, there are no factual pleadings to support the conclusion that
either Defendant failed to properly supervise Mohamud; indeed, there is no reference
at all to training procedures by either Defendant in the pleadings. “While Plaintiff
argues he needs additional discovery to develop the factual basis of the claim, he has
not provided sufficient details to survive a motion to dismiss” on negligent hiring. 43
Therefore, Plaintiff’s direct negligence claims against Sancity and Amazon
are dismissed. Plaintiff’s direct negligence claim against Mohamud will survive.
2. 	Vicarious Liability
The doctrine of respondeat superior holds employers vicariously liable for the
negligent conduct of their employees when those acts were committed during the
course 	of 	and 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	the 	tortfeasor’s 	employment.44 “‘Under
42 	Doc. 15 at ¶¶ 51-52.
43 	Klingaman, 2025 WL 3079978, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2025).
44 	Fitzgerald v. McCutcheon, 370 Pa. Super. 102, 106 (Pa. Super. 1979); Lunn v. Yellow Cab Co.,
403 Pa. 231, 235 (1961).
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 11 of 12

12
Pennsylvania law, to establish vicarious liability, a plaintiff must show a master-
servant relationship existed.’”45
As I have held above, Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to plausibly raise an
inference 	of 	employment 	between 	Mohamud 	and 	Amazon, 	but 	not 	between
Mohamud and Sancity. Accordingly, Defendant Amazon’s motion to dismiss is
denied as to Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim against it, while Defendant Sancity’s
motion to dismiss is granted as to the same. Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim
against Amazon may proceed.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) are granted in part
and denied in part. The motions to dismiss are denied as to the direct negligence
claim against Mohamud and the vicarious liability claim against Amazon. The
motions to dismiss are granted as to the direct negligence claims against Amazon
and Sancity, including the negligent hiring and supervision claims, and as to the
vicarious liability claim against Sancity. Plaintiff will be provided leave to amend.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
45 	Allen, 705 F. Supp. 3d at 308 (quoting Ciotola, 481 F. Supp. 3d at 390).
Case 4:25-cv-01203-MWB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 12 of 12