Candido and Vanessa Contreras v. Faircloth and Greatwide American Trans-Freight LLC

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Candido Contreras and Vanessa Contreras v. Matthew Faircloth; Greatwide American Trans-Freight LLC, and John Does 1-101

District Court, S.D. Mississippi

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:25-cv-00222

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (5K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

CANDIDO CONTRERAS and
VANESSA CONTRERAS PLAINTIFFS

vs. CAUSE No.: 3:25-CV-222-HTW-LGI

MATTHEW FAIRCLOTH;
GREATWIDE AMERICAN TRANS-
FREIGHT LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-101 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

BEFORE THIS COURT is the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
[Docket No. 51]. The Defendants, Matthew Faircloth (“Mr. Faircloth”) and Greatwide American
Trans-Freight LLC (“Greatwide”), seek the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent
entrustment, hiring, supervision, and training against Greatwide, as well as the dismissal of all
claims for punitive damages.
Plaintiffs, Candido and Vanessa Contreras, concede that the direct negligence claims
against Greatwide should be dismissed but maintain that genuine issues of material fact exist
regarding the availability of punitive damages. This court, having considered the motion, the

1 For the purposes of establishing this court’s authority, "the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names
shall be disregarded." 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b)(1). As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make clear, “an action must
be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1); Abraugh v. Altimus, 26 F.4th 298,
304 (5th Cir. 2022). The fictious John Does 1-10, thus, are dismissed from this matter.
parties’ submissions, and the relevant legal authority, finds that the motion is well-taken and
should be GRANTED for the reasons stated infra.

I. JURISDICTION
This court anchors its authority over this dispute in the diversity jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 13322, as the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiffs are residents of Mississippi; Defendant
Matthew Faircloth is a citizen of North Carolina; and Defendant Greatwide American Trans-
Freight LLC is a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Texas.
This court, exercising diversity subject matter jurisdiction here, must apply the

substantive law of the forum state—Mississippi—and federal procedural law. James v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 743 F.3d 65, 69 (5th Cir. 2014). This mandate originates from the “Erie
doctrine”, which requires federal courts sitting in diversity to apply state substantive law to avoid
the inequitable administration of the laws. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

This lawsuit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred at approximately 5:45
p.m. on November 30, 2023, in Hinds County, Mississippi. At the time, it was raining. Defendant
Matthew Faircloth was operating an 18-wheeler tractor-trailer in the far-left lane of I-55 North
near the Woodrow Wilson Drive exit. Plaintiff Candido Contreras was operating a GMC pickup
truck in the middle lane.

2 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—(1)
citizens of different States[.]"
A vehicle in front of Mr. Faircloth slammed on its brakes and came to a near stop. Mr.
Faircloth, who testified he was following at a safe distance, applied his brakes, but his chassis
tires hydroplaned. His vehicle subsequently struck the rear driver’s side door of the Plaintiffs’
pickup truck. Neither vehicle required towing from the scene, and Mr. Contreras did not seek

immediate treatment from emergency medical services.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed suit on March 3, 2025, in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi.
On March 21, 2025. Defendants Greatwide and Faircloth timely removed the case to this court .
Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add a loss of consortium claim on behalf of Vanessa
Contreras. Discovery concluded on December 4, 2025. Defendants now move for partial summary

judgment on the direct negligence claims against the employer and the demand for punitive
damages. [Docs. 51 and 52].
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows "that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law". Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a)3; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party bears the

initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If the moving party
sustains its burden, the nonmoving party must show with "significant probative evidence" that a
genuine issue exists for trial. Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994). This court

3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides: "A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim
or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
views all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Vaughan
v. Anderson Reg'l Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 588, 590 (5th Cir. 2017).

IV. DISCUSSION
A. Direct Negligence Claims Against Greatwide
Defendants argue that the direct negligence claims against Greatwide for negligent
entrustment, hiring, supervision, and training must be dismissed because Greatwide admits Mr.
Faircloth was acting within the scope of his employment. Under Mississippi law, when an
employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s actions, direct negligence claims against that
employer become redundant and are generally barred. Carothers v. City of Water Valley, 242 So.
3d 138, 144-45 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017); see also Nehi Bottling Co. v. Jefferson, 103 So. 2d 855 (Miss. 1928).
Plaintiffs stipulate to the dismissal of these claims in their response brief. [Doc. 57 at
3]. Accordingly, the court dismisses the counts for negligent entrustment, hiring, training, and
supervision against Greatwide with prejudice.
B. Punitive Damages
The remaining summary judgment dispute concerns whether Mr. Faircloth’s conduct

justifies submitting the issue of punitive damages to a jury. To recover punitive damages in
Mississippi, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant "acted with
actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the
safety of others, or committed actual fraud". Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a)4; Bradfield v.
Schwartz, 936 So. 2d 931, 936 (Miss. 2006).

4 Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) provides: "Punitive damages may not be awarded if the claimant does not prove
by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted with actual
Simple negligence is insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Choctaw
Maid Farms, Inc. v. Hailey, 822 So. 2d 911, 924 (Miss. 2002). In the context of motor vehicle
accidents, Mississippi courts are "extremely reticent" to permit punitive damages for "typical
traffic infractions". Walker v. Smitty's Supply, Inc., No. 5:06-cv-3, 2008 WL 2487793, at *6 (S.D.

Miss. May 8, 2008). This reticence extends to cases involving speeding or rear-end collisions.
Mayfield v. Johnson, 202 So. 2d 630, 631 (Miss. 1967).
Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Faircloth’s alleged violation of Mississippi’s "left-lane law" and
his speed while raining constitute reckless disregard. The record, however, shows that Mr.
Faircloth was following at what he considered a safe distance and attempted to brake when the
vehicle in front of him stopped abruptly. [Doc. 52-2 at 12]. Even assuming Mr. Faircloth
committed traffic violations by driving in the left lane or failing to maintain a proper lookout, such
conduct does not rise to the level of "aggravated conduct" required for punitive damages. Robinson
v. Colucci, No. 3:16-cv-687, 2017 WL 11379844, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 30, 2017).
The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that even when a driver exceeds the speed limit

and fails to keep a proper lookout, punitive damages are not warranted if the driver attempted to
avoid the collision. Mayfield, 202 So. 2d at 631. Allowing punitive damages in this "simple
automobile negligence case" would deviate from established precedent. Id. Furthermore,
Greatwide cannot be held vicariously liable for punitive damages under Mississippi law. Buckalew
v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-421, 2014 WL 4146654, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 19,
2014).

malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or
committed actual fraud."
V. CONCLUSION

The record before this court lacks any evidence that Mr. Faircloth acted with the
requisite reckless disregard to support a claim for punitive damages. Additionally, the parties
agree that the direct negligence claims against the employer are foreclosed by the admission of
vicarious liability.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment [Docket No. 51] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent entrustment, hiring,
supervision, and training against Greatwide American Trans-Freight LLC are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages against all
Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this the 20th day of April , 2026.

/s/HENRY T. WINGATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE