Darlene Dalley and Challen Bench v. Federal Express Corporation, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08038
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Darlene Dalley and Challen Bench, No. CV-25-08038-PCT-SMB

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Federal Express Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Grace Logistic & Transport LLC’s (“Grace 16 Logistic”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37). The Motion is fully briefed. The 17 Court grants Grace Logistic’s Motion for the reasons below. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 This case relates to a motor vehicle accident that killed Leland “Stan” Dalley on 20 December 14, 2022. (Doc. 44 at 2.) Defendant Lightning Transport & Logistics 21 (“Lightning Transport”) hired the driver and leased the vehicle that struck Stan Dalley. 22 (Doc. 37 at 3.) Defendant Grace Logistic leased the involved vehicle to Lightning 23 Transport. (Id.) On December 12, 2024, Plaintiffs sued Grace Logistic, among other 24 co-defendants, for negligence and negligence per se. (Doc. 1-2 at 30–37.) Defendant 25 Grace Logistic now moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure (“Rule”) 56. (Doc. 37.) 27 II. LEGAL STANDARD 28 Summary judgment is appropriate in circumstances where “there is no genuine 1 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of a case under 3 the applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 4 Factual disputes are genuine when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find in 5 favor of the nonmoving party. Id. “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely 6 disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the 7 record” or by showing “that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to 8 support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)–(B). Additionally, the Court may enter 9 summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the 10 existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the 11 burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 12 When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence 13 in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith 14 Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in 15 the nonmovant’s favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Additionally, the Court does not make 16 credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Id. “[T]he determination of whether a 17 given factual dispute requires submission to a jury must be guided by the substantive 18 evidentiary standards that apply to the case.” Id. 19 The burden initially falls on the movant to demonstrate the basis for a motion for 20 summary judgment and “identify[] those portions of [the record] which it believes 21 demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. 22 at 323. If this initial burden is not met, the nonmovant does not need to produce anything 23 even if they would have the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. Nissan Fire & Marine 24 Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2000). However, if the initial 25 burden is met by the movant, then the nonmovant has the burden to establish that there is 26 a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 1103. The nonmovant “must do more than simply 27 show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Zenith Radio Corp., 28 475 U.S. at 586. Bare assertions alone do not create a material issue of fact, and “[i]f the 1 evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be 2 granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249–50 (citations omitted). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 Grace Logistic argues there is no genuine dispute of material fact that it has an 5 affirmative Graves Amendment defense to Plaintiffs’ negligence claims. (Doc. 37 at 4.) 6 The Court finds that Grace Logistic sufficiently carries its burden of production as to its 7 affirmative defense, and that Plaintiffs fail to respond with any evidence that creates a 8 genuine dispute. 9 A. Graves Amendment Defense 10 “The Graves Amendment was enacted to protect the vehicle rental and leasing 11 industry against claims for vicarious liability where the leasing or rental company’s only 12 relation to the claim was that it was the technical owner of the car.” Leggions v. Chen, No. 13 CV-21-08057-PCT-JJT, 2023 WL 5951932, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sep. 13, 2023) (citation 14 modified). That statute provides: An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or 15 an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or 16 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 17 out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the 18 rental or lease, if—

19 (1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or 20 business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and

21 (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner 22 (or an affiliate of the owner). 23 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a). However, the defense does not apply to claims of direct negligence 24 such as negligent entrustment or hiring. See Carton v. Gen. Motor Acceptance Corp., 611 25 F.3d 451, 457–58 (8th Cir. 2010). 26 To benefit from the Graves Amendment, a defendant must establish: (1) it owned 27 the vehicle; (2) it rented or leased the vehicle; (3) it is engaged in the trade or business of 28 renting or leasing motor vehicles; and (4) it has not committed any negligence or criminal 1 wrongdoing. See Leggions, 2023 WL 5951932, at *4. Because Grace Logistic argues that 2 it is entitled to a Graves Amendment defense as a matter of law, it must satisfy each element 3 of this defense. The Court only addresses the third and fourth elements because the parties 4 do not dispute that the first two elements are satisfied. (Docs. 38 at 2 ¶ 2; 38-1 at 5; 44 5 at 2.) 6 1. Element 3: Engaged in the Business of Renting or Leasing Motor Vehicles 7 Grace Logistic states that it is engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor 8 vehicles. (Doc. 37 at 4.) In support of this proposition, Grace Logistic includes a 9 declaration from Alberto Peirtas—manager and member of Grace Logistic—declaring that 10 Grace Logistic is “solely in the leasing business” and “has leased five (5) semi tractors” to 11 Lightning Transport. (Docs. 38 at 1 ¶ 1; 38-1 at 2.) Grace Logistic also includes the 12 leasing agreement between itself and Lightning Transport. (Docs. 38 at 2 ¶ 2; 38-1 at 5.) 13 The combination of this evidence persuades the Court that Grace Logistic is engaged in the 14 business of leasing motor vehicles. See Moreau v. Josaphat, 42 Misc. 3d 345, 352 (N.Y. 15 Sup. Ct. 2013) (holding as satisfactory an affidavit from defendant’s manager attesting that 16 the company engaged in the business of renting motor vehicles). 17 Plaintiffs disagree. They argue that “this is not a case where ‘Owner’ Defendant 18 Grace Logistic & Transport simply rented a truck and went on its way.” (Doc. 44 at 3.) 19 Specifically, Plaintiffs point to provisions in the lease agreement between Defendant and 20 Lightning Transport where Defendant: offered to provide drivers; agreed to repair and 21 maintain the vehicle; agreed to pay for fuel, tires, tolls, and permits; accepted the 22 responsibility for loading and unloading property onto and from the vehicle; agreed to 23 indemnify Lightning Transport against all liability claims due to use of the vehicle; and 24 agreed to a compensation structure where Defendant received a percentage of the Lightning 25 Transport’s revenue earned from the trip. (Doc. 45 at 2–8.) Therefore, Plaintiffs argue 26 that the Graves Amendment is inapplicable because Defendant is potentially acting outside 27 a normal lessor/lessee relationship. However, Plaintiffs do not cite any legal authority to 28 support this argument. 1 Plaintiffs fail to convince the Court that these provisions are uncommon in the motor 2 vehicle leasing industry. In Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. Brada Miller Freight 3 Systems, Inc., 423 U.S. 28, 36 (1975), the Supreme Court recognized that a motor vehicle 4 lessor may provide a vehicle and a driver to the lessee. The Court also held that “the 5 presence in an equipment lease of an indemnification clause” did not violate applicable 6 regulations. Id. at 41. Additionally, the regulations state that a lease agreement may 7 express compensation “as a percentage of gross revenue.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(d). 8 Therefore, the parallel provisions in the leasing agreement here do not skew the nature of 9 Defendant’s lessor/lessee relationship with Lightning Transport. 10 At bottom, the essential component of a lease agreement is the lessee’s assumption 11 of “full control and responsibility for the operation.” Transamerican, 423 U.S. at 36. The 12 lease agreement here makes this delegation: “Upon the commencement of this Lease, 13 [Lightning Transport] shall assume exclusive possession, control, and use of Leased 14 Equipment, and shall assume complete responsibility for the operation of the Leased 15 Equipment during the term of this Lease.” (Doc. 38-1 at 6.) Defendant’s agreement to 16 load and unload the vehicle, maintain the vehicle, and pay for fuel, tolls, and permits does 17 not undermine the lessor/lessee relationship because the operational responsibility still lies 18 with Lightning Transport. See Zizersky v. Life Quality Motor Sales, Inc., 21 Misc. 3d 871, 19 878 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008) (“The central distinguishing characteristics of a lease is the 20 surrender of absolute possession and control of property for an agreed-upon rent.” (citation 21 modified)). 22 Accordingly, the cited provisions of the leasing agreement fail to genuinely dispute 23 Defendant’s evidence that it was engaged in the business of leasing motor vehicles. 24 2. Element 4: Criminality and Negligence 25 Finally, a Graves Amendment defense is unavailable if Defendant, or its affiliates, 26 acted negligently or criminally. See § 30106(a)(2). Defendant states that it is entitled to 27 immunity because Plaintiffs fail to provide any evidence of negligence on Defendant’s 28 part. (Doc. 37 at 4.) The Court finds that Defendant has carried its burden of production 1 as to the four elements of a Graves Amendment defense. See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. 2 Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a party moving for 3 summary judgment may carry its burden of production by showing “that the nonmoving 4 party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of 5 persuasion at trial”). Because Defendant satisfies its burden, Plaintiffs “must produce 6 evidence to support its claim or defense.” Id. at 1103 (emphasis added). If Plaintiffs fail 7 “to produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact,” then Defendant 8 “wins the motion for summary judgment.” Id. 9 In response to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiffs cite to a panoply of allegations from 10 their Complaint asserting Defendant’s negligence. (Doc. 44 at 7–10.) These allegations 11 claim: “One of more of The Defendants will be shown at trial to have violated one or more 12 State and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and State Statutes”; “Grace Logistic’s 13 actions and inactions were negligent”; “Grace Logistic’s [sic] negligently entrusted its 14 tractor to Lightning Transport”; “Grace Logistic’s agent(s) and/or employee(s) were 15 negligent”; and “Grace Logisitic is responsible for its own acts as well as the acts of its 16 agents and employees pursuant to respondeat superior, agency, negligent entrustment, 17 negligent hiring of an independent contractor, or similar theory of law.” (Doc. 1-2 18 at 33, 36.) 19 Plaintiffs fundamentally misunderstand their burden at this stage of the proceedings. 20 “[A] non-movant’s bare assertions, standing alone, are insufficient to defeat a motion for 21 summary judgment.” Sandrasegaran v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., No. 22 CV-22-00962-SMB, 2023 WL 7686658, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2023). There is no 23 evidence showing how Defendant violated state law or federal regulations. There is no 24 evidence showing why it was negligent for Defendant to entrust its vehicle to Lightning 25 Transport. The only “question” of fact Plaintiffs posit is whether the driver, Francisco 26 Marche, was an employee of Grace Logistic or Lightning Transport. (Doc. 45 at 13.) 27 However, there is no evidence to show this is a bona fide dispute. In its Answer, Lightning 28 Transport stated: “It is admitted that Francisco Marche was hired as an independent 1 contractor by Lightning Transport and was a CDL driver.” (Doc. 5 at 4 ¶ 63.) Plaintiffs 2 do not offer any evidence connecting Fracisco Marche to Grace Logistic. 3 In sum, there is no evidence showing that Defendant: violated state law or federal 4 regulation, negligently entrusted the vehicle to Lightning Transport, or negligently hired 5 an independent contractor to drive the vehicle. Therefore, the Court finds that there is no 6 genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant did not act negligently or criminally. 7 Accordingly, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that Defendant is entitled to a 8 Graves Amendment affirmative defense and is immune from Plaintiffs’ vicarious liability 9 claims. 10 B. Negligent Entrustment and Hiring 11 That leaves Plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment and hiring claims against Defendant. 12 Both claims require Plaintiffs to show that Defendant knew or should have known that 13 Lightning Transport or Francisco Marche were incompetent to perform their duties. See 14 Verduzco v. Am. Valet, 377 P.3d 1016, 1019 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016) (negligent entrustment); 15 see also Hasse v. City of Avondale, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0361, 2023 WL 2127543, at *3 (Ariz. 16 Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2023) (negligent hiring). As noted, Plaintiffs have not submitted any 17 evidence to prove these claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment and hiring 18 claims against Defendant fail as a matter of law. 19 C. Rule 56(d) 20 Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s Motion should be denied as premature 21 pursuant to Rule 56(d). (Doc. 44 at 7.) In their Response, Plaintiffs only state they “have 22 not had the opportunity to fully investigate this allegation during fact discovery.” (Id.) 23 This is insufficient to invoke Rule 56(d). 24 Rule 56(d) states: “If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 25 specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court 26 may . . . defer considering the motion or deny it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (emphasis added). 27 Therefore, a “requesting party must show: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific 28 facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought- 1 || after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment.” Fam. Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. 2|| Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing Rule 56(d)’s || substantially similar predecessor). Plaintiffs have not filed an affidavit or declaration. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not specified what facts it hopes to elicit that would preclude || summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) request and will 6 || not postpone ruling on Defendant’s Motion. See Swoger v. Rare Coin Wholesalers, 803 7\| F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s denial of a Rule 56(d) request 8 || because plaintiff did not provide an affidavit or declaration and did not specify what facts it hoped to reveal with further discovery). 10], IV. CONCLUSION 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 13} (Doc. 37) is granted. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss 15 || Defendant Grace Logistic & Transport LLC from this case. 16 Dated this 11th day of February, 2026. 17 Se .

United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-R-