Devoir v. Star Fleet

The case

Plaintiff Victoria Devoir alleges that on September 26, 2025, at approximately 12:30 p.m., near mile point 8.1 on Interstate 76 in Adams County, Colorado, a tire detached from an oversized load being transported by Defendant Willard Simmons, entered her lane, and struck her 2024 Toyota Highlander. She asserts negligence and negligence per se against Simmons and respondeat superior against Star Fleet Trucking, Inc. Defendants removed on May 29, 2026, invoking diversity under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. The case is before Chief Judge Domenico with a full referral to Magistrate Judge Chung. An in-person Scheduling Conference is set for August 11, 2026, at 10:15 a.m. in Courtroom C-201. The operative state pleading is the Complaint filed April 17, 2026. Defendants answered May 21, 2026. The parties held a Rule 26(f) conference on June 29, 2026, and jointly approved a Proposed Scheduling Order filed July 21, 2026 (ECF 14). Initial disclosures were set for August 4, 2026. Removal and jurisdiction Star Fleet was served through CT Corporation on April 30, 2026, at 12:55 p.m. at 7700 East Arapahoe Road, Suite 220, Centennial (Exhibit E). Simmons was personally served on May 12, 2026, at 8:11 a.m. at 87 County Road

3428, Cookville, Titus County, Texas (Exhibit F). Removal on May 29, 2026, is timely under the later-served defendant rule as to Simmons and within thirty days of Star Fleet’s service. The Civil Cover Sheet (Exhibit B) contains counsel’s C.R.C.P. 11 certification that Plaintiff seeks a monetary judgment over $100,000 against another single party. Defendants rely on that cover sheet—and on Tenth Circuit treatment of Colorado cover sheets as “other paper”—for the amount in controversy. See Paros Properties LLC v. Colorado Casualty Insurance Co., 835 F.3d 1264, 1272–73 (10th Cir. 2016); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553–54 (2014); McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 954 (10th Cir. 2008). Citizenship as pleaded for removal establishes Plaintiff as a citizen of Colorado, Star Fleet as a Delaware corporation, and Simmons as a citizen of Texas. The Corporate Disclosure Statement further places Star Fleet’s principal place of business in Middlebury, Indiana, and identifies Champion Home Builders, Inc. and Champion Homes, Inc. (with BlackRock, Inc. owning more than 10%) under Rule 7.1. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010). The Notice of Removal contains drafting defects (including a “William Simmons” misnomer and a “20 U.S.C. § 1332(c)” citation typo) that do not appear jurisdictional, but they indicate carelessness.

The claims, in short

A tire left an oversized mobile-home load at highway speed. Defendants admit detachment of the tire, and that it struck Plaintiff. The fight is fault allocation, securement breach, corporate responsibility, and damages. Plaintiff asserts three counts: negligence against Simmons; negligence per se against Simmons under C.R.S. §§ 42-4-1402, 42-4-202, and 42-4-1407; and respondeat superior against Star Fleet only—with no direct corporate negligence claim pleaded. Damages now quantified ECF 14 discloses past medical expenses of $38,867.30 (CareNow $413.00; Power Health Colorado $35,104.30; Touchstone Imaging $3,350.00; Marathon Health $0.00) and wage loss of $13,066.00 for September 27, 2025 through March 30, 2026—approximately $51,933.30 in disclosed economic damages to date—plus unspecified future medical care, noneconomic damages, physical impairment/disfigurement, interest, and costs. Expert fields preview cervical and lumbar spine injuries, chronic pain, headaches, and psychological injuries. The schedule, if ECF 14 were entered as written Joinder / amendment: September 11, 2027 Discovery cutoff: February 11, 2027 Dispositive motions: March 11, 2027 Plaintiff experts: October 13, 2027 Defendant experts: February 11, 2027 Rebuttal experts: March 11, 2027 As written, fact discovery would close months before Plaintiff’s expert disclosures and before the amendment deadline. That cannot be what either side intends. Correcting the calendar at the August 11 conference is mandatory. Separately, ECF 14 states “Undisputed Facts: None,” despite multiple Answer admissions that should be converted into stipulated facts.

Contested facts

• Lane position: Complaint “left of Kenworth” vs Answer “passing on the shoulder.” • Ownership of the Kenworth (denied). • Employee status (denied). • CSP “at-fault” determination (denied); CSP report not yet obtained. • Negligence, causation of injury, and all damages (denied). Service, removal, and corporate facts • Complaint filed April 17, 2026; cover sheet certifies >$100,000 (Exs. A–B). • Service on Star Fleet via CT Corporation April 30, 2026 (Ex. E); Simmons May 12, 2026 in Cookville, TX (Ex. F). • Answer May 21, 2026 (Ex. G); removal May 29, 2026 (ECF 1). • Star Fleet to Champion Home Builders to Champion Homes; BlackRock >10% (ECF 2). • FMCSA SAFER: STAR FLEET TRUCKING INC, USDOT 493424, MC-246487, Middlebury, IN; Active; Mobile Homes / Drive-Tow away.

Count I — Negligence (Simmons)

Elements: duty, breach, causation, damages. A driver transporting an oversized mobile-home load on a Colorado interstate owes a duty of reasonable care in operation and in the condition/securement of the load. The detachment-and-strike admissions strongly support a jury question on breach if Plaintiff proves inadequate inspection or securement. The defense will reframe breach as sudden mechanical failure and will use the shoulder narrative to attack proximate cause and comparative fault. Missing proof: CSP file; tire/wheel hardware; pre-trip and DVIR records; photos/video; reconstruction.

Count II — Negligence per se (Simmons)

Plaintiff invokes C.R.S. §§ 42-4-1402 (careless driving), 42-4-202 (unsafe vehicles), and 42-4-1407 (spilling loads). The 2025 CRS text of § 42-4-1407(1) prohibits driving a vehicle on a highway unless it is constructed or loaded or the load securely covered to prevent the load from “blowing, dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping.” A detached tire from a mobile-home load is a natural fit for the “escaping” concept, but Defendants will argue the statute’s examples and subsections focus on covering aggregate/trash/recyclables and that FMCSR cargo-securement duties are the better standard-of-care reference. Section 42-4-202 reaches unsafe vehicle conditions and equipment; whether a load tire is “equipment” of the Kenworth combination is contestable. Section 42-4-1402 is broad careless-driving language—useful, but easy for a court to treat as duplicative of ordinary negligence. Corrective action: preserve NPS where the facts cleanly match § 42-4-1407; plead and prove FMCSR securement standards as evidence of the standard of care without inventing a private right of action; do not rest the case on CSP conclusions.

Count III — Respondeat superior (Star Fleet)

Star Fleet’s course-and-scope admission is valuable, but the “independent contractor” label is the escape hatch. Colorado agency doctrine distinguishes servants from non-servant agents and independent contractors. Grease Monkey International, Inc. v. Montoya, 904 P.2d 468, 472–73 (Colo. 1995), discusses principal-agent, master-servant, and independent-contractor concepts as distinct relationships that may overlap, and emphasizes that a common-law servant (unlike a non-servant agent) subjects the employer to liability for physical harm from conduct in the scope of employment. That opinion is a fraud/apparent-authority case, not a trucking case; it is cited here for conceptual vocabulary, not as a holding that Star Fleet is vicariously liable. Plaintiff must prove control: lease terms, dispatch, hours pressure, placarding, insurance, qualification file, and who directed the Colorado delivery. Simultaneously, Plaintiff should prepare a Rule 15 amendment adding direct-negligence theories if facts support them, before whatever corrected amendment deadline the Court sets.

Damages defenses

Expect preexisting-condition, mitigation, collateral-source (C.R.S. § 13-21-111.6), setoff, and noneconomic-cap arguments. ECF 14’s interest paragraph incorrectly cites “Fed. R. Civ. P. 13-21-101(1)”; the correct reference is C.R.S. § 13-21-101, which provides nine percent interest for personal-injury damages as specified in the statute. Clean that up in the next damages disclosure. Two findings that should drive strategy a. Lock the Answer admissions into the scheduling order. Convert detachment, strike, mobile-home load, course-and-scope IC relationship, and service dates into undisputed facts. Do not leave ECF 14’s “None.” b. Treat the shoulder narrative as Exhibit A for the defense. Obtain CSP materials, scene photos, and electronic data before Plaintiff’s deposition. Do not let the first sworn account of lane position be improvisation. c. Repair the corporate pleading before summary judgment. Discover control facts and amend to add direct-negligence theories if supported. RS-only against an IC admission is a planned defense motion. d. Fix the calendar on August 11. A discovery cutoff before Plaintiff experts is case-damaging. Bring a redline. Plaintiff’s affirmative trial theme An oversized mobile-home haul shed a tire at highway speed into the travel path of another westbound vehicle. The carrier and its driver owned the duty to inspect and secure that load. The shoulder story is a liability diversion that must be tested against measurements, video, and the geometry of a multi-lane oversized load—not accepted because it appears in an Answer.

Before the August 11, 2026 Scheduling Conference

• Circulate a redlined ECF 14 with coherent dates (amendment and Plaintiff experts before discovery cutoff; Defendant experts after Plaintiff; rebuttal after Defendant). • Propose undisputed facts reflecting Answer admissions (detachment, strike, mobile-home load, course-and-scope IC relationship, service dates). • Raise Rule 35 IME audio-recording dispute (already flagged in ECF 14 §11). • Calendar Chung discovery-dispute path: email Chung_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov; joint statement ≥4 business days before any discovery hearing.

Next 14 days

• Serve comprehensive preservation demands covering tractor/toter, mobile home, detached tire/wheels/securement devices, ELD/ECM/EDR, telematics, dashcam, phones, dispatch, DQF, permits, and claims files. • Subpoena the complete Colorado State Patrol file and CAD/body-worn media if any. • Issue third-party subpoenas to identify manufacturer, shipper/dealer, and escort for the September 26, 2025 load. • Complete medical, billing, employment, and tax collection; prepare a clean Rule 26 damages supplement. • Pull FMCSA Licensing & Insurance active policies / MCS-90 and demand insurance disclosures. Before the amendment deadline (once corrected) • Decide whether to amend to add direct negligence theories against Star Fleet and any additional entities supported by the load-chain investigation. • Conform the Complaint’s principal-place-of-business allegation to Middlebury, Indiana, and correct the Simmons address typography (“County Toad” / “Cootville” → County Road / Cookville). • Evaluate exemplary-damages amendment only if discovery yields willful and wanton facts; do not plead punitives on speculation.

Expert sequence

• Accident investigation / commercial-vehicle operations / cargo securement early, after physical inspection. • Orthopedics / physiatry / pain management tied to imaging and treatment chronology. • Life-care and impairment only after medical stabilization evidence exists. • Comply with Domenico Civ. P.S. III(J) on Rule 702 motion timing once the scheduling order is entered.