Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On May 4, 2024, Jaime Rubio was killed at a worksite when a cement mixer truck rolled while he stood between two vehicles operating rear-mounted controls to transfer concrete. The truck’s air brakes disengaged unexpectedly, causing the vehicle to roll and crush Rubio. At the time, Rubio was employed by Alleyton Resource Company, LLC.
Floriberto Rubio, as the deceased’s representative, filed suit in Harris County District Court on August 5, 2025, against Alleyton and Roger Bustamante, Alleyton’s safety supervisor. Family members Arcelia and Elvira Rubio intervened as plaintiff-intervenors. On March 27, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended petition adding the truck manufacturer (Daimler Truck North America LLC) and its distributor (Western Star Truck Sales Inc.) as defendants, alleging strict product liability, negligence, and gross negligence claims.
Defendants removed the action to federal court on April 24, 2026, arguing that Bustamante’s improper joinder destroyed diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand on May 26, 2026, contending that Bustamante was properly joined because they could pursue valid negligence and gross negligence claims against him under Texas law. The court heard arguments on the motion to remand.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to remand, holding that Roger Bustamante was improperly joined and that federal diversity jurisdiction existed. The court applied Fifth Circuit precedent establishing that a defendant can be improperly joined if the plaintiff cannot establish a viable cause of action against a non-diverse defendant under state law. The test requires examining whether there is a reasonable basis to predict the plaintiff might recover, using a Rule 12(b)(6)-type pleading analysis. The removing party bears a heavy burden, but if the defendant carries it, the court should find improper joinder.
The court first found that plaintiffs’ negligence claim against Bustamante was barred by Texas Labor Code § 408.001(a), which makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Although this exclusive remedy bar has a gross negligence exception, Bustamante’s own answer established that he was Rubio’s co-employee and that Alleyton maintained workers’ compensation insurance. This conclusively barred the negligence claim as a matter of law, consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent finding improper joinder where affirmative defenses eliminate all possibility of recovery.
Second, the court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a gross negligence claim because they did not allege specific facts showing that Bustamante owed an independent duty of care to Rubio. Plaintiffs asserted conclusory allegations that Bustamante “was personally aware of brake issues” and “had actual knowledge” of dangers from rear-mounted controls, but cited no specific facts—such as complaints he received, inspections he conducted, or reports he reviewed—to support these claims. The court rejected this as threadbare recitation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Bustamante had a duty to provide a safe workplace, finding this is a nondelegable employer duty that cannot support individual employee liability in tort.
Key Takeaways
- Improper joinder can be found even when plaintiffs assert legally viable theories, if they fail to plead adequate factual support for the elements of a state-law cause of action against the non-diverse defendant.
- Under Texas law, conclusory allegations of a co-employee’s knowledge of dangerous conditions are insufficient; plaintiffs must allege specific facts showing how the employee came to know of the hazard.
- Employers’ statutory duty to maintain safe workplaces is nondelegable and cannot be transferred to individual employees as a basis for personal tort liability.
- Negligence claims against co-employees are barred by the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provision absent employer fraud or gross negligence, and this bar eliminates diversity-jurisdiction challenges.
Why It Matters
This decision has significant implications for wrongful death litigation arising from workplace injuries. It warns plaintiffs’ counsel that surviving family members cannot simply name supervisors or safety directors as defendants on conclusory allegations of their knowledge or oversight responsibilities. Instead, plaintiffs must conduct discovery and develop specific, detailed factual allegations about what an individual defendant knew, when they knew it, and what they did in response. Failure to meet this pleading burden invites improper joinder determinations that remove cases to federal court—typically favored by corporate defendants seeking a different litigation environment.
The ruling also reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s strict approach to pleading independent duties under Texas law. In an era of notice pleading, this decision carves out a demanding exception for workplace injury cases: supervisors and co-employees face higher factual pleading burdens than those imposed by Rule 8. Plaintiffs and their counsel must weigh whether they have sufficient evidence to survive this pleading gauntlet before naming individual defendants, particularly in catastrophic injury or death cases where the emotional pressure to hold multiple parties accountable can obscure the legal obstacles to recovery.