Lucero v. Sti Trucking Incorporated

── Lucero v. Sti Trucking Incorporated ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH LUCERO, an individual, No. 25-688 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:22-cv-08035-SMB v. MEMORANDUM* STI TRUCKING INCORPORATED, an Indiana corporation; ALEXANDER KIM, Defendants - Appellants, and DMITRY KARP, UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as Jane Doe Kim, Wife; named as Jane Doe Karp, Wife, Defendants. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. JOSEPH LUCERO, No. 25-968 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-08035-SMB v. STI TRUCKING INCORPORATED; ALEXANDER KIM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 14, 2026 Phoenix, Arizona Before: GRABER, HURWITZ, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Defendants STI Trucking Incorporated (“STI”) and Alexander Kim, its employee, appeal a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff Joseph Lucero based on Kim’s negligence while driving an STI vehicle.1 Lucero cross-appeals a summary judgment in favor of STI on his direct negligence claims against STI and in favor of both defendants on his claim for punitive damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 1. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment on punitive 1 STI did not contest that it was liable under respondeat superior for the damages caused by Kim’s negligence. 2 25-968 damages. In Arizona, punitive damages can be awarded only if the “defendant’s evil hand was guided by an evil mind,” Rawlings v. Apodaca, 726 P.2d 565, 578 (Ariz. 1986), which means that a negligent defendant’s conduct was “outrageous, oppressive or intolerable,” Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz. LLC v. Carman, 515 P.3d 685, 692 (Ariz. 2022) (cleaned up). Kim did not have an evil mind simply because he negligently attempted to pass Lucero’s truck, did not provide a recorded statement to STI after the accident, and failed to complete mandated post-accident drug testing, See id. at 688-89, 694-95. Kim’s conduct did not create “a risk substantially greater than that necessary to make [it] negligent or even grossly negligent.” Id. at 693. Nor was STI’s alleged negligence in hiring Kim or entrusting its vehicle to him the kind of “outrageous conduct” that is “required to sustain a claim for punitive damages in negligence cases.” Id. 2. Defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on whether the accident caused Lucero’s blurry vision. There was “medical evidence of the possibility of the existence of the causal relationship” and “other evidence or circumstances indicating such relationship.” Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Tucson v. Fitzgerald, 413 P.2d 869, 872 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). An ophthalmologist provided a differential diagnosis that included “trauma given recent MVA [motor vehicle accident]” as a possible cause of the blurry vision. Shortly before the accident, Lucero had 20/30 vision in his left eye. Immediately after the accident, Lucero 3