Porche v. Zachry Holdings, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JABARI PORCHE
VERSUS
ZACHRY HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 24-639
SECTION L (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Zachry Industrial, Inc.’s (“Zachry”) Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Jabari Porche’s claim of direct negligence. R. Doc. 50. Plaintiff
opposes the Motion, R. Doc. 66, and Zachry has filed a reply memorandum, R. Doc. 68. Having
considered the parties’ arguments, in light of the applicable law and record facts, the Court will
GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the Motion for the following reasons.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This dispute arises from a motor vehicle collision. On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff, driving
a sports utility vehicle, collided with a Ford F-150 truck driven by Defendant Coral Gonzalez on
LA Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. R. Doc. 1-2 at 1. Both Plaintiff and Gonzalez
are employees of Zachry. R. Doc. 50-11 at 1. Because Gonzalez was operating the truck within
the scope of her employment with Zachry at the time of the accident, Plaintiff alleges that Zachry
is vicariously liable for the injuries he incurred as a result. R. Doc. 1-2 at 1. Additionally, Plaintiff
asserts direct negligence claims against Zachry on the basis that Zachry was negligent in its hiring,
Case 2:24-cv-00639-EEF-MBN Document 82 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
retention, training, and supervision of Gonzalez, and that this negligence jointly contributed to the
accident and Plaintiff’s injury. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks damages, inter alia, for past and future
medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, lost wages, loss of earning capacity,
and property damage. Id.
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW
Summary judgment is proper when “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). The court must view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Coleman v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist.,
113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997). However, “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth
‘ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a
motion for summary judgment.” Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir.
1985) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §
2738 (2d ed. 1983)). Initially, the movant bears the burden of presenting the basis for the motion;
that is, the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact or facts. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts
showing there is a genuine dispute for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986). A fact is “material” if its resolution in favor of
one party may affect the outcome of the case. Saketkoo v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 31 F.4th
990, 997 (5th Cir. 2022). “A dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is such that
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus.,
Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Zachry now moves the Court for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s direct negligence
Case 2:24-cv-00639-EEF-MBN Document 82 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
claims against it. R. Doc. 50. Zachry argues that Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to show that it
was negligent in its hiring, retention, training, or supervision of Gonzalez. Id. In opposition,
Plaintiff concedes that there is no evidence Zachry was negligent in its hiring or retention of
Gonzalez, but presses that genuine disputes of material fact remain regarding negligent training
and supervision that preclude summary judgment on those claims. R. Doc. 66 at 1.
Plaintiff bears the burden to establish that Zachry’s training and/or supervision of Gonzalez
was inadequate. Stein v. City of Gretna, 17-554, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/18); 250 So.3d 330,
336–37. Under Louisiana law, “[a] direct claim against an employer for torts of an employee based
on the employer’s alleged negligence in hiring, retaining, or supervising the employee generally
is governed by the same duty-risk analysis for all negligence cases in Louisiana.” Awanbor v.
Williams, No. 2025-0054, p. 7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/4/2025); 418 So.3d 1043, 1050; Griffin v. Kmart
Corp., No. 00-1334, p. 6 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/28/00); 776 So.2d 1226, 1231. “There are five
elements to a negligence claim: duty, breach, cause in fact, legal cause, and damages.” Lemann v.
Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 923 So. 2d 627, 632-33 (La. 2006). As part of meeting his burden to
prove that Zachry was negligent in its training or supervision of Gonzalez, Plaintiff must establish
(1) what Zachry should have done to train and supervise Gonzalez and (2) how it failed to do so.
Stein, 250 So.3d at 336–37.
With respect to Zachry’s supervision of Gonzalez, as Zachry asserts, Plaintiff merely
argues that Gonzalez should have been supervised more, without identifying what would constitute
a non-negligent level of supervision. See R. Doc. 68 at 2–3. Additionally, Plaintiff presents no
evidence suggesting a lack of supervision caused or contributed to the subject car accident. As a
result, Plaintiff has failed to show that any genuine issue of material fact precludes the entry of
summary judgment in Zachry’s favor on his negligent supervision claim.
Case 2:24-cv-00639-EEF-MBN Document 82 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
As to Plaintiff’s claim for negligent training, however, Plaintiff points to the deposition
testimony of several witnesses establishing that Zachry may have relied on officers from the
Plaquemines Parish Sheriff’s Office to block traffic at the intersection where the subject accident
occurred. See R. Doc. 66 at 2–4. Gonzalez testified that she had not received any training on this
procedure or otherwise in operating the company truck. See id. at 5–6. This creates, at minimum,
an issue of material fact as to whether Zachry violated a duty to train Gonzalez in its proper
operating procedures, potentially leading to the accident with Plaintiff and causing his alleged
injuries. Plaintiff’s negligent training claim requires resolution by a jury and must survive
summary judgment.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that Zachry’s Motion, R. Doc. 50, is GRANTED IN PART as to
Plaintiff’s claims against Zachry for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and DENIED IN
PART as to Plaintiff’s claims against Zachry for negligent training.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of February, 2026.
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00639-EEF-MBN Document 82 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 4