Cisneros v. Jose Garcia et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
DANIEL CISNEROS,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	Civil No. 5:25-cv-00216
JOSE GARCIA D/B/A 3G CARRIERS,
ELSA AMABEL TAMEZ RIVERA
D/B/A 3G CARRIERS,
and DANTE BORJAS DE LA PAZ,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, Dkt. No. 4, Defendants’ Response, Dkt. No. 5, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings, Dkt. No. 6, were referred to the
undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. No. 8. For
the following reasons, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand, Dkt. No. 4, be GRANTED, and that this case be REMANDED back to the Webb County
49th District Court.
Background
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 9, 2024. Dkt.
No. 1-2 at ¶¶ 19–23. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant De La Paz, while employed by Defendant
Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers or Elsa Rivera (“Elsa Garcia” in the amended complaint) d/b/a 3G
Carriers, took a tight turn in a tractor-trailer and collided with Plaintiff’s car. Id. at ¶¶ 12–13, 21.
Plaintiff alleges both that Defendant De La Paz was employed by 3G Carriers at the time of the
accident and that 3G Carriers owned the tractor-trailer or leased it to Defendant De La Paz. Id. at
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:25-cv-00216 Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

2
¶¶ 12, 20. Plaintiff brought claims against Defendant De La Paz for direct negligence and against
“Defendant 3G Carriers” for vicarious liability under the statutory employment doctrine and
respondeat superior, and for negligence and gross negligence in the hiring, training, and
supervision of Defendant De La Paz. Id. at ¶¶ 24–29.
Plaintiff filed his original complaint in state court on July 8, 2025. 	Dkt. No. 1-6 at 6.
Defendant De La Paz was served on July 15, 2025, and Defendant Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers
was served on July 21, 2025. Id. at 3, 5. On October 10, 2025, Plaintiff amended his state court
petition to join Defendant Elsa Amabel Tamez Rivera d/b/a 3G Carriers (“Elsa Garcia d/b/a 3G
Carriers” in the first amended complaint). Id. at 13. Defendant Elsa Amabel Tamez Rivera d/b/a
3G Carriers was served on or about October 14, 2025. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. In their original answer to
the amended complaint, Defendants Rivera and De La Paz stated that Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers
“was neither the owner of the vehicle at issue nor the employer of the driver at issue” and was
“improperly named in this lawsuit.” Dkt. No. 1-6 at 22. Defendants Rivera d/b/a 3G Carriers and
De La Paz timely removed this case from state court to this Court on November 13, 2025. Dkt.
No. 1. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
The material issue regarding the Court’s jurisdiction in this case is whether it is Jose Garcia
or Elsa Rivera who was doing business as 3G Carriers and owned and operated the semitruck
involved in the accident. 	Defendants argue that Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers was improperly
joined for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants assert that the
accident involved only Elsa Amabel Tamez Rivera’s tractor-trailer and employee, relying on
Defendant Rivera’s verified denial in her state court answer. Dkt. No. 5 at 1; Dkt. No. 1-6 at 22.
Moreover, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory and do not meet federal
pleading standards. Dkt. No. 5 at 5. For his part, Plaintiff argues that Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers
Case 5:25-cv-00216 Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

3
is a proper party and submitted evidence to support his contention that Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G
Carriers was Defendant De La Paz’s employer at the time of the accident. Dkt. No. 4.
Legal Analysis
“The starting point for analyzing claims of improper joinder must be the statutes
authorizing removal to federal court of cases filed in state court.” Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.,
385 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To remove a civil case, the removing defendant must
file a notice of removal within thirty days after receiving service of the summons or complaint. 28
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). 	A defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court if it is a
case over which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction. 	28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). Thus, a defendant may remove a case from state court if there is complete diversity
between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
If a non-diverse defendant has been improperly joined in the case, the court may disregard
its citizenship, and the case may still be removed to federal court. Flagg v. Stryker Corp., 819 F.3d
132, 136 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Cuevas v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 648 F.3d 242 (5th
Cir. 2011) (“The improper joinder doctrine constitutes a narrow exception to the rule of complete
diversity.” (citing McDonal v. Abbott Lab’ys, 408 F.3d 177, 183 (5th Cir. 2005))). However, the
burden of proving improper joinder is a “heavy one.” Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 649 (5th Cir.
2003). The removing defendant must prove that “there is no possibility of recovery by the plaintiff
against an in-state defendant, which stated differently means that there is no reasonable basis for
the district court to predict that the plaintiff might be able to recover against an in-state defendant.”
Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573 (citing Travis, 326 F.3d at 648).
The Fifth Circuit recognizes two ways in which a defendant can establish improper joinder:
“(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish
Case 5:25-cv-00216 Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

4
a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.” 	Travis, 326 F.3d at 647 (citing
Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, 181 F.3d 694, 698 (5th Cir. 1999)). To determine whether a removing
defendant has met this burden to prove improper joinder, courts conduct one of two inquiries:
The court may conduct a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis, looking initially at the
allegations of the complaint to determine whether the complaint states a claim
under state law against the in-state defendant. Ordinarily, if a plaintiff can survive
a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, there is no improper joinder. That said, there are cases,
hopefully few in number, in which a plaintiff has stated a claim, but has misstated
or omitted discrete facts that would determine the propriety of joinder. 	In such
cases, the district court may, in its discretion, pierce the pleadings and conduct a
summary inquiry.
Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573 (footnotes omitted). 	A court may elect to use either one of these
analyses, “but it must use one and only one of them, not neither or both.” Int’l Energy Ventures
Mgmt., LLC v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193, 207 (5th Cir. 2016). In assessing whether
there was improper joinder, the Court must focus on the joinder itself, not the merits of the case.
Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573. Contested issues of fact and ambiguities of state law must be resolved
in the plaintiff’s favor. Cuevas, 648 F.3d at 249 (citing Travis, 326 F.3d at 649).
The removing Defendants request that the Court take the first approach, conducting a
12(b)(6)-type inquiry to determine whether Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers was improperly joined.
Dkt. No. 5 at 2 (“[T]he Court need not review the exhibits in determining whether Jose Garcia is
a nominal Defendant whose citizenship is not considered in determining diversity.”). 	Plaintiff,
however, urges the Court to pierce the pleadings and consider additional evidence, which he has
attached to his Motion for Remand. Dkt. No. 4.
The issue is “whether there is arguably a reasonable basis for predicting that state law might
impose liability” on Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers. Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc., 344 F.3d 458, 462
(5th Cir. 2003) (citing Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305,
312 (5th Cir. 2002)). 	As an initial matter, Defendants take issue with Plaintiff referring to
Case 5:25-cv-00216 Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

5
Defendants Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers and Elsa Rivera d/b/a 3G Carriers collectively as “3G
Carriers.” Dkt. No. 5 at 4. While the Court agrees that this choice may cause confusion, it seems
to stem from Plaintiff’s need to confirm which individual d/b/a 3G Carriers is the appropriate party.
Defendants correctly state that a d/b/a business is not its own legal entity. 	Id. 	Therefore, the
undersigned finds that the individuals’ name and the company name are interchangeable. 	See
Fettner v. Daniel Jackson & Assocs., PC, 2021 WL 126396, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Jan. 14, 2021, no pet.) (“In effect, the expression ‘d/b/a’ defines two or more names as
synonyms, each of which refers to the same person or business.”). Moreover, Plaintiff clarified in
his motion for leave to amend his complaint that he intended “3G Carriers” to include both Jose
Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers and Elsa Rivera d/b/a 3G Carriers. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. Plaintiffs may plead
in the alternative. Tex. R. Civ. P. 48; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). 	For these reasons, the undersigned
understands “Defendant 3G Carriers” to mean Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers or, in the alternative,
Elsa Rivera d/b/a 3G Carriers. 	Next, based on this understanding, the undersigned inquires
whether Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers was properly joined.
Because the amended complaint states vicarious liability claims against “3G Carriers” and
omits evidence that Plaintiff relied on in identifying Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers as the
appropriate party, the undersigned finds that it is proper to pierce the pleadings to determine
whether it is plausible that Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers employed Defendant De La Paz at the
time of the accident. 	See Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573 (holding that a summary inquiry is
appropriate where “a plaintiff has stated a claim[] but has misstated or omitted discrete facts that
would determine the propriety of joinder”); Hernandez v. Transportes Servicio y Distribucion Sa
De CV, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-247, 2026 WL 795797, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026) (holding
that “[t]he Court analyses whether Plaintiffs can establish a cause of action against the non-diverse
Case 5:25-cv-00216 Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

6
party in state court by piercing the pleadings and conducting a summary inquiry” where it was
unclear whether the plaintiff had a theory of recovery against the defendant LLC).
Accordingly, the undersigned considers the summary judgment-type evidence that Plaintiff
included in his Motion to Remand. 	Dkt. No. 4. 	Namely, Plaintiff submitted the Texas Peace
Officer’s Crash Report from the accident on December 9, 2024. Dkt. No. 4-2. The Crash Report
lists the carrier’s name as 3G Carriers, the carrier’s primary address as “10121 Truchas Laredo,
TX 78045,” and the semitruck’s United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) number as
02872504. Id. at 3. Plaintiff also submitted a photo of the cab of the semitruck, which displays
several identification numbers, including the USDOT number 2872504. Dkt. No. 4-3 at 1. The
next photo shows the driver exiting the semitruck and holding a binder labeled “3G Carriers,
USDOT 2872504.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel certified that these photos are screenshots from
the police body cam footage associated with this incident. Dkt. No. 4-6 at 1.
The submitted evidence also includes a copy of a SAFER Web search, which shows that
the USDOT number 2872504 is associated with 3G Carriers, under the legal name Jose Garcia,
and with the company mailing address 10121 Truchas Laredo, Texas 78045. Dkt. No. 4-4 at 1. A
SAFER Web search for Elsa Amabel Tamez Rivera yields a different USDOT number of 3579468
with the same company mailing address of 10121 Truchas Rd., Laredo, Texas 78045. Dkt. No. 4-
5 at 1. Plaintiff’s counsel certified that these are true and correct copies of the website entries she
personally accessed when attempting to identify the proper parties. Dkt. No. 4-6 at 1–2. In sum,
the USDOT number on the truck and the binder corresponds to Jose Garcia, not Elsa Rivera,
although both individuals’ d/b/a 3G Carriers list the same company mailing address. Additionally,
the Court notes that the MC number that appears on the truck is MC-973110, which corresponds
Case 5:25-cv-00216 Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

7
to Jose Garcia on the SAFER report. Dkt. No. 4-3 at 1; Dkt. No. 4-4 at 1. The parallel number for
Elsa Rivera, in contrast, is MX-1267659. Dkt. No. 4-5 at 1.
This evidence is sufficient to support a conclusion that there is “arguably a reasonable basis
for predicting that state law might impose liability” on Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers. See Ross,
344 F.3d at 462. Moreover, beyond the simple (albeit verified) assertion that Elsa Amabel Tamez
Rivera d/b/a 3G Carriers is the proper employer, Defendants have presented no evidence to support
this contention. Defendants have therefore failed to “demonstrate[] that there is no possibility of
recovery by the plaintiff against [the] in-state defendant,” or that “there is no reasonable basis for
the district court to predict that the plaintiff might be able to recover against [the] in-state
defendant.” 	Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573 (citing Travis, 326 F.3d at 648). 	On the contrary, the
display of the USDOT number associated with Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers on both the cab of
the tractor-trailer and Defendant De La Paz’s binder lends support to Plaintiff’s reasonable belief
that Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G Carriers was connected to the vehicle and to Defendant De La Paz.
Moreover, the legal framework strongly favors remand. Gasch v. Hartford Acct. & Indem.
Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281–82 (5th Cir. 2007) (“The removal statute is . . . to be strictly construed, and
any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand.”). Thus,
Defendants have failed to meet their heavy burden of proof and show that Jose Garcia d/b/a 3G
Carriers was improperly joined, and the case should be remanded to state court for lack of diversity
jurisdiction.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully requests that the district court
ADOPT her findings of fact. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion
to Remand, Dkt. No. 4, be GRANTED, and this case be REMANDED to state court for further
Case 5:25-cv-00216 Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

8
proceedings. 	Because the undersigned finds that the parties lack complete diversity, this Court
does not have jurisdiction over the case to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Pleadings, Dkt. No. 6.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED
Signed this May 26, 2026, in Laredo, Texas.
______________________________
Diana Song Quiroga
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00216 Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 8