Adams v. Tranzit Logistics, Inc. et al, No. 2:2019cv12122 - Document 53 (E.D. La. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS DENYING AS MOOT 48 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as set forth herein. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 4/7/2021. (jls)

Download PDF
Adams v. Tranzit Logistics, Inc. et al Doc. 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TORREY ADAMS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 19-12122 TRANZIT LOGISTICS, INC., ET AL. SECTION: “G” ORDER AND REASONS In this litigation, Plaintiff Torrey Adams (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Tranzit Logistics, Inc. (“Tranzit”), William Lingren (“Lingren”), and American Inter-Fidelity Exchange (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Plaintiff alleges that while operating an 18-wheeler truck on Clarence Henry Truckway in Orleans Parish, his truck was struck by an 18-wheeler truck driven by Lingren, who was driving within the scope of his employment with Tranzit. 2 Before the Court is Defendants’ “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” filed on February 23, 2021. 3 In the Motion, Defendants assert that it is undisputed that Lingren was within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. 4 Therefore, Defendants argue that under Louisiana law, Plaintiff cannot pursue “both a negligence cause of action against [Lingren], for which Tranzit Logistics, Inc. will be vicariously liable, and a direct negligence claim against Tranzit Logistics, Inc. for alleged negligence in allowing [Lingren] to operate the vehicle and/or failing to train him 1 Rec. Doc. 2-2; Rec. Doc. 17. 2 Rec. Doc. 17 at 2–4. 3 Rec. Doc. 48. 4 Rec. Doc. 48-1 at 3–4. 1 Dockets.Justia.com [or] maintain the vehicle.” 5 On March 17, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to dismiss his direct negligence claims against Tranzit. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,”7 is DENIED AS MOOT. 7th NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of April, 2021. _________________________________________ NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 Rec. Doc. 48. 6 Rec. Doc. 50. 7 Rec. Doc. 48. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.