The case of Ernest Trentham v. Jaffar Al-Zayadi involves claims of wrongful death and negligence stemming from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Ernest Trentham alleges that his wife, who was driving the vehicle, died due to injuries sustained when struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Al-Zayadi. The court discusses motions for leave to file counterclaims, including issues of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The document outlines the legal standards for these claims and the court's reasoning for granting or denying the motions. This case is significant for those studying tort law and the complexities of negligence claims in Missouri.

Key Points

  • Details the wrongful death and negligence claims in the Trentham v. Al-Zayadi case.
  • Explains the legal standards for malicious prosecution and abuse of process in Missouri.
  • Discusses the court's decision on counterclaims filed by the defendants.
  • Highlights the implications of contributory negligence in the context of the accident.
Jusme Da One
8 pages
Accounting
Jusme Da One
8 pages
Accounting
219
/ 8
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jaffar Al-Zayadi’s Motion for Leave to
File Counterclaim (ECF No. 31), Defendant Thira Trucking, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File
Counterclaim (ECF No. 33), and Defendant B&W Cartage Company Inc.’s Motion for Leave to
File Amended Counterclaim (ECF No. 35).
I. BACKGROUND
In November 2020, Plaintiff Ernest Trentham filed a complaint against Defendants
asserting claims for wrongful death, negligence, respondeat superior, and negligent hiring,
training, supervision, and retention arising out of a motor vehicle accident. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges he was a passenger in a vehicle which was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by
Al-Zayadi. Plaintiff alleges his wife, who was driving the car, died as a result of the injuries she
sustained in the collision. In response, B&W Cartage answered the Complaint and filed a
counterclaim against Plaintiff for contribution. Al-Zayadi and Thira Trucking filed answers but
did not assert any counterclaims. Now, Al-Zayadi and Thira Trucking seek leave to file
counterclaims, and B&W Cartage seeks leave to amend its counterclaim. Al-Zayadi and Thira
Trucking seek to assert claims of contribution, abuse of process, and malicious continuation of
ERNEST TRENTHAM,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
JAFFAR AL-ZAYADI, et al.,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:20-CV-70 SRW
Case: 2:20-cv-00070-SRW Doc. #: 42 Filed: 08/10/21 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
2
prosecution. B&W Cartage seeks to add counterclaims of abuse of process and malicious
continuation of prosecution.
II. DISCUSSION
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend a
pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after serving the pleading, or, in all
other cases, with written consent of the opposing party or by leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Whether to grant a motion for leave to amend is “left to the sound discretion of the district
court.” Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 394 (8th Cir. 2016)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). “The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under this liberal standard, “[a] district court may deny leave
to amend if there are compelling reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
non-moving party, or futility of the amendment.” Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918, 922 (8th
Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
Defendants’ motions were not filed in bad faith, or with dilatory motive or undue delay,
and Plaintiff has not asserted the proposed amendment would be prejudicial. There is also no
issue of a repeated failure to cure deficiencies because this is the first time Al-Zayadi and Thira
Trucking have sought to file a counterclaim and B&W Cartage has sought to amend its
counterclaim. Therefore, the issue before the Court is futility.
A proposed claim is futile when it could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. J-McDaniel Constr. Co. v. Mid-Continent Cas.
Co., 761 F.3d 916, 919 (8th Cir. 2014); Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 850 (8th Cir. 2010). The
proposed claim must therefore satisfy the pleading standards laid out in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
Case: 2:20-cv-00070-SRW Doc. #: 42 Filed: 08/10/21 Page: 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
3
U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Zutz, 601 F.3d at
850– 51. Under those cases, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Thus, “although a complaint need
not include detailed factual allegations, ‘a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.’” C.N. v. Willmar Pub. Schs., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347,
591 F.3d 624, 629–30 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
A. Malicious Prosecution
All three defendants seek to assert claims of malicious continuation of prosecution
against Plaintiff. In their proposed counterclaims, Defendants allege the Missouri Uniform Crash
Report and the Crash Reconstruction Report (“Crash Report”), created by the Missouri Highway
Patrol after the accident, states Plaintiff’s wife was the sole cause of the accident. Defendants
allege Plaintiff possessed and reviewed the reports and yet initiated and continued this litigation
alleging Defendants are liable for the accident. Therefore, according to Defendants, Plaintiff
lacks probable cause to continue this case.
To establish a claim for malicious prosecution, a party must plead six elements: “(1)
commencement of an earlier suit against the party; (2) instigation of that suit by the adverse
party; (3) termination of the suit in the party’s favor; (4) lack of probable cause for filing the suit;
(5) malice by the adverse party in initiating the suit; and (6) damage sustained by the party as a
result of the suit.” State ex rel. O’Basuyi v. Vincent, 434 S.W.3d 517, 519 (Mo. 2014). Missouri
requires “strict compliance” with the elements of a malicious prosecution claim, including, in
particular, that the prior action result in a favorable conclusion prior to the filing of a malicious
Case: 2:20-cv-00070-SRW Doc. #: 42 Filed: 08/10/21 Page: 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
/ 8
End of Document
219

You May Also Like

FAQs

What were the main allegations in the Trentham v. Al-Zayadi case?
The main allegations in the Trentham v. Al-Zayadi case include wrongful death and negligence. Plaintiff Ernest Trentham claims that his wife, while driving, was fatally injured when their vehicle was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Jaffar Al-Zayadi. The case centers on the circumstances surrounding the accident and the responsibilities of both the driver and the passenger.
What is required to establish a claim for malicious prosecution in Missouri?
To establish a claim for malicious prosecution in Missouri, a party must demonstrate six elements: the commencement of a prior suit, instigation by the adverse party, termination of that suit in the party's favor, lack of probable cause for filing the suit, malice by the adverse party, and damages sustained as a result of the suit. This strict requirement ensures that claims are substantiated and not merely retaliatory.
What did the court decide regarding the motions for counterclaims?
The court granted some motions for counterclaims while denying others. Specifically, the court allowed Jaffar Al-Zayadi and Thira Trucking to file counterclaims for contribution but denied their claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The court found that the claims for malicious prosecution were futile since the underlying case had not yet concluded in favor of the defendants.
How does contributory negligence apply in this case?
Contributory negligence plays a significant role in this case as the defendants allege that Ernest Trentham, as a passenger, had a duty to exercise ordinary care for his own safety. They argue that he failed to warn his wife of traffic conditions and allowed her to drive when she was not capable of doing so safely. This claim of contributory negligence could potentially impact the outcome of the wrongful death claim.
What is the significance of the Crash Report in the case?
The Crash Report is significant in the case as it indicates that the plaintiff's wife was the sole cause of the accident. Defendants argue that this report undermines the plaintiff's claims and supports their counterclaims. The report's findings are central to the defendants' argument that the plaintiff lacks probable cause to pursue the lawsuit.

Related