Texas Southern District Court Grants Freight Broker’s Motion to Dismiss on Federal Preemption

Houston, Tex. (April 21, 2025) - A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently granted a freight broker’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In this case, Armstrong Transport Group, LLC, a licensed freight broker, was sued by Yunieski Riveron Gonzalez for negligence arising out of injuries Gonzalez suffered while unloading cargo he alleges was improperly loaded and secured.

Gonzalez was hired to transport a load of steel materials from a Nucor Corporation facility in Houston to Ferguson Enterprise in Virginia. Having no prior experience with this type of load, Gonzalez relied on Nucor employees to properly load and secure the cargo. The steel columns were bundled with zip ties that he further secured with straps pursuant to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) regulations. Once at Ferguson Enterprises, Gonzalez was instructed to remove the securing straps, doing so without assistance or safety precautions. When he removed the straps, the zip ties failed, causing the load to fall on him, resulting in injury. Gonzalez filed suit against the defendants, alleging improper loading and securing of the cargo and failure to provide safe unloading instructions and procedures.

Armstrong and Nucor filed 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss alleging the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

In granting Armstrong’s motion, District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt first considered that Armstrong, as a broker, is an entity that arranges for transportation by motor carriers, but does not itself transport goods. Therefore, it did not play a role in loading and securing the cargo. Judge Hoyt interpreted these facts to mean that Armstrong incurred no liability, directly or otherwise, as a result of the loading or securing of the cargo.

Judge Hoyt then considered whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempts state law claims against brokers that seek to impose duties affecting the transportation of cargo, per 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(1)). In holding that it does, Gonzalez’s attempt to impose liability on Armstrong in its role as a transportation broker was preempted. Judge Hoyt further concluded that the FAAAA’s limited safety exception for state regulations “with respect to motor vehicles” did not apply, because there was no direct link between the state regulations and motor vehicle safety issues raised in the case. The safety exception was not applicable because Gonzalez’s claims against Armstrong did not relate to motor vehicle safety.

Gonzalez additionally insisted that Armstrong was his statutory employer based on a “responsibility and control” theory. However, Judge Hoyt disagreed, holding that the plaintiff could not establish the necessary elements for this theory. Gonzalez has to prove that: (1) Armstrong was a motor carrier, not a broker, (2) Armstrong did not own the vehicle involved, (3) Armstrong used the vehicle in interstate commerce (4) and Armstrong does not employ the driver. Here, Judge Hoyt found that Armstrong was a broker, not a motor carrier, as evidenced by its FMCSA license, and that the transport was intrastate, not interstate. Thus, the statutory employer theory failed in this case.

Lastly, the court granted Nucor’s simultaneously heard motion to dismiss because the plaintiff failed to allege that Nucor was responsible for loading the cargo. Since there was a lack of factual allegations showing proximate cause, the negligence claim against Nucor failed.

Takeaway

This decision shows that district courts in Texas are taking heed of upper-level decisions favoring the dismissal of claims against freight brokers based on negligence suffered during the transport of cargo, including loading and unloading. Freight brokers should feel more confident that they can successfully navigate these claims in Texas, as Judge Hoyt stated that no liability, directly or otherwise as a result of the loading or securing of the cargo, had been incurred by the freight broker.

For more information about this decision, contact the authors of this alert. Visit our Transportation Practice page to learn more about our capabitilies in this area.

Authors:

Al Durrell, Partner and Vice-Chair of National Transportation Practice

Todd A. Gray, Partner and Co-Chair of National Transportation Practice

Joelle Nelson, Partner and Co-Chair of National Transportation Practice

Joseph Fiorello, Partner

Heriberto Fernandez, Partner