During et al v. UMT Global Logistics, LLC et al

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
ALTON JULIAN DURING and
CHARLES CLARK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UMT GLOBAL LOGISTICS, LLC and
JOHN DOE DRIVER,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-677
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant UMT Global Logistics, LLC’s (“UMT”) Partial
Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) (the “Motion”) (Dkt. #2). Having considered the Motion
and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury suit that arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on
October 8, 2025, on Interstate 35E in Farmers Branch, Texas (Dkt. #1-3 at ¶¶ 10–22). Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant John Doe Driver (“Driver”), an employee of UMT, struck and sideswiped
Plaintiffs’ vehicle during an unsafe lane change (Dkt. #1-3 at ¶¶12–13). Plaintiffs allege that this
caused damage to the right side of the vehicle and bodily injuries to Plaintiffs (Dkt. #1-3 at ¶13).
Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Driver caused the collision while working “under dispatch”
for Defendant UMT and acting within the course and scope of his employment with UMT
(Dkt. #1-3 at ¶¶ 17, 20–21).
On February 27, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Original Petition in the 380th District Court of
Collin County, Texas against Defendants Driver and UMT for claims of negligence against Driver,
Case 4:26-cv-00677-ALM Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
respondeat superior against UMT, negligent entrustment against UMT, and negligent hiring,
supervision, training, and retention against UMT (Dkt. #1-3 at ¶¶ 23–49). On June 18, 2026, UMT
removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
(Dkt. #1).
On June 24, 2026, Defendant UMT filed the present Motion, seeking dismissal of
Plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention claims
against UMT (Dkt. #2). Plaintiffs filed no response.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a “short
and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Each
claim must include enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. F ED. R. C IV. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the
plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bowlby v. City
of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court may consider “the complaint, any
documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that
are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays
Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). The Court must then determine whether the
complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
Case 4:26-cv-00677-ALM Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “But
where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ʻshow[n]’—ʻthat the pleader is entitled to
relief.’” Id. at 679 (quoting F ED. R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2)).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency
of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court should identify and
disregard conclusory allegations, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 664. Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine
if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. “This standard ʻsimply calls for enough fact[s]
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). This evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Thus, “[t]o survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ʻstate a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
ANALYSIS
Defendant UMT argues that Plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment and negligent hiring,
supervision, training, and retention claims should be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiffs’
allegations consist entirely of conclusory legal assertions devoid of any factual content and fail to
meet the plausibility standard required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Dkt. #2 at p. 2). After reviewing Plaintiffs’ Original Petition,
the Court agrees with UMT that these claims do not meet the plausibility standard required by
Case 4:26-cv-00677-ALM Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Rule 12(b)(6); however, the Court finds dismissal with prejudice is inappropriate at this stage,
considering the Court’s scheduling order (Dkt. #10). Instead, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file
an Amended Complaint. If Plaintiffs fails to do so within thirty (30) days of this Order, the Court
will dismiss Plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and
retention claims with prejudice.
I. 	Negligent Entrustment
Under Texas law, a plaintiff asserting a negligent entrustment claim must establish that (1)
the defendant entrusted a vehicle to an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver; (2) that the
defendant knew or should have known the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (3) that
the driver was negligent on the occasion in question; and (4) that the driver’s negligence
proximately caused the accident. Schneider v. Esperanza Transmission Co., 744 S.W.2d 595, 596 (Tex.
1987); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754, 758 (Tex. 2007). Knowledge of the
driver’s incompetency at the time of the entrustment is an essential element to establish
negligence. McDorman ex rel. Connelly v. Tex.-Cola Leasing Co., 288 F. Supp. 2d 796, 806 (citing
Briseno v. Martin, 561 S.W.2d 794, 796 n.1 (Tex. 1977)). For UMT to be found liable, Driver’s
incompetence or recklessness must have existed at the time of UMT’s entrustment because the act
of entrusting a vehicle “necessarily takes place before the accident.” Huynh v. R. Warehousing &
Port Servs., Inc., 973 S.W.2d 375, 378 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1998, no pet.).
To make a plausible claim for relief and survive UMT’s Motion, Plaintiffs must have alleged
facts that Driver had a history of driving habits and traffic violations that would exhibit a pattern of
deviations from lawful and proper manner of vehicle operation that if UMT knew about, UMT
should reasonably have anticipated that Driver would operate the entrusted vehicle in a wrongful
Case 4:26-cv-00677-ALM Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
manner and thereby damage persons or property. See Pesina v. Hudson, 132 S.W.3d 133, 137–38 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 2004, no pet.)
Here, Plaintiffs allege no facts in their Original Petition that would show Driver had a
history incompetence or recklessness that UMT knew about and reasonably should have
anticipated that Driver would operate the entrusted vehicle in a wrongful manner that would lead
to harm to others or property (See Dkt. #1-3 at ¶¶ 41–49). See Pesina, 132 S.W.3d at 137–38. The
only factual allegations Plaintiffs make against UMT for these direct liability claims are that Driver
was incompetent and/or reckless at the time of the accident through multiple violations of the
TEXAS 	TRANSPORTATION 	CODE 	(See 	Dkt. #1-3 at ¶¶ 41–49). 	But, 	the 	incompetence 	or
recklessness of Driver must have existed at the time of UMT’s entrustment, not only at the time
of the accident. See Huynh, 973 S.W.3d at 378.
Furthermore, on the knowledge requirement, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition alleges only that
“UMT knew or should have known Defendant Driver was an incompetent and/or reckless driver
at the time of entrustment” without additional factual support. This allegation is a threadbare
recital of the elements of a negligent entrustment cause of action, supported by conclusory
statements and insufficient to survive UMT’s Motion. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, with respect to their negligent entrustment claim,
does not allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” See Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
II. 	Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Training, and Retention
Under Texas law, the elements of a negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention
claim are duty, breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. Greater Hous.
Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990). An employer owes a duty to ascertain the
Case 4:26-cv-00677-ALM Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
qualifications and competence of the employees it hires, “especially where the occupation at issue
could cause hazard to others or requires skilled or experienced persons,” and is liable “if it hires an
incompetent or unfit employee whom it knows, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have
known, was incompetent or unfit, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others.” Morris
v. JTM Materials, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 28, 49 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). Negligence in
hiring requires that UMT failed to investigate, screen, or supervise Driver and that failure
proximately caused Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. See Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788, 796
(Tex. 2006) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs cannot succeed on a negligent hiring claim where an
investigation would not have revealed the risk. TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230, 240–41
(Tex. 2010) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs again do not make factual allegations that would plausibly support the
elements of a negligent hiring claim (See Dkt. #1-3 at ¶¶ 43–49). Instead, Plaintiffs allege
threadbare recital of the elements of a negligent hiring cause of action, supported by conclusory
statements, which are insufficient to survive UMT’s Motion (See Dkt. #1-3 at ¶¶ 43–49). See Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, with respect to their negligent hiring claim, does
not allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” See Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). However, Plaintiffs should be given a chance
to amend.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant UMT’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Under Rule
12(b)(6) (Dkt. #2). is hereby DENIED.
Case 4:26-cv-00677-ALM Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Accordingly, it is further ORDRED that Plaintiffs must file an Amended Complaint within
thirty (30) days of this Order. If Plaintiffs do not file an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days
of this Order, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment (Count VIII of the Original
Petition) and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention (Count IX of the Original
Petition) claims with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 4:26-cv-00677-ALM Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>