CJ-2026-00068 - BRIAN ZUNIGA v. MVT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a MESILLA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION

What's This Case About?

Let’s just say you’re cruising down Interstate 44 in rural Oklahoma, minding your own business in a multi-ton semi-truck, doing everything by the book — obeying traffic, keeping your eyes on the road, your hands at ten and two — when suddenly, out of nowhere, a freight train hits you from behind. That’s not a metaphor. That’s what Brian Zuniga says happened on July 7, 2024, when a Mesilla Valley Transportation semi-tractor, allegedly driven by a distracted, untrained, and possibly reckless Ivan G. Quiroga, slammed into the back of his rig like it was auditioning for Mad Max. The result? A $1 million lawsuit that’s equal parts road rage, corporate negligence, and the kind of legal overkill usually reserved for pharmaceutical executives — except here, the weapon of mass destruction was a semi and a guy who may or may not have been paying attention.

Brian Zuniga is a Texas-based trucker, one of the tens of thousands of long-haul drivers keeping America’s supply chain moving, one greasy diner at a time. On the other side of this collision is Ivan G. Quiroga — also reportedly from Texas — behind the wheel of a big rig owned by MVT Services, LLC, better known as Mesilla Valley Transportation, a New Mexico-based trucking company with enough DOT numbers and regulatory filings to make your head spin. These aren’t neighbors feuding over a fence line; this is a high-speed, high-stakes encounter between two professional drivers on a stretch of highway where a split-second lapse in judgment can turn into a six-figure medical bill. And while we don’t know if Quiroga was texting, eating a burrito, or just daydreaming about his next break, Zuniga’s legal team wants the court to believe he was doing something other than driving — and that his employer, MVT, either didn’t care or didn’t bother to find out.

Here’s how it allegedly went down: Zuniga, operating his own semi-truck, was driving westbound on I-44 near Chandler, Oklahoma — a town so small it barely registers on most maps — when traffic began to slow ahead. Like any responsible commercial driver, he started braking, adjusting to the flow of traffic. Behind him, allegedly, came Quiroga — barreling forward in a massive International-brand semi pulling a trailer owned or operated by MVT — who, according to the petition, failed to react at all. No braking. No swerving. No last-second save. Just impact. The collision was described as “violent,” which, when you’re talking about two tractor-trailers, is not exactly a low bar. Zuniga’s truck was struck from behind with enough force to cause “severe injuries,” though the filing doesn’t specify exactly what kind — just that they involved physical and mental pain, medical expenses, potential disfigurement, physical impairment, and lost wages. In other words, this wasn’t a fender-bender you walk away from with a stiff neck and a rental car. This was life-altering.

And here’s where the legal gears start grinding. Zuniga isn’t just suing the guy who hit him. He’s suing the entire machine behind him. The lawsuit lays out three major claims, each one ratcheting up the blame a little further. First, straight-up negligence — the classic “you didn’t drive carefully and now I’m hurt” argument. But it’s not just about speed or tailgating (though those are definitely on the list). The petition accuses Quiroga of failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to maintain a safe speed or distance, failing to take evasive action — and, most dramatically — operating while distracted. That word is doing heavy lifting here. It’s the legal equivalent of whispering “he was on his phone” without actually saying it. Then there’s negligence per se, a fancy way of saying: “Hey, this guy broke the law, and that’s why I got hurt.” Specifically, the filing claims Quiroga violated both Oklahoma’s traffic laws — like the rule against reckless driving and the one that says you’ve gotta actually pay attention when operating a vehicle — and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are the strict federal rules governing how truckers should drive, rest, log hours, and generally not endanger the public. If true, this isn’t just a bad driver — it’s a driver who was legally prohibited from driving the way he did.

But the real fireworks come in Count III: negligent entrustment, supervision, hiring, and failure to train. This is where Zuniga’s lawyers go after MVT itself, not just as Quiroga’s employer, but as a company that allegedly knew or should have known their driver was a risk. The claim suggests MVT either hired Quiroga without proper vetting, failed to train him, failed to supervise him, or — most damning — knew he had a history of reckless driving and let him behind the wheel anyway. And then, just to cover their bases, they throw in “J. Does 1-5” — a legal placeholder for unnamed co-conspirators, partners, or corporate entities that might also be on the hook. It’s the legal equivalent of casting a wide net: “We’re not sure who else is responsible, but if you’re connected to this mess, you’re getting sued too.”

Now, about that $1 million demand. Is it outrageous? For a serious truck crash with lasting injuries, maybe not. Medical bills for spinal injuries, surgeries, rehab, lost income — it adds up fast. But the kicker? Zuniga is also seeking punitive damages. That means he’s not just asking to be made whole — he wants to punish MVT and Quiroga for what he calls a “deliberate disregard” for public safety. Punitive damages are the legal system’s version of a slap on the wrist with a baseball bat. They’re not awarded just because someone messed up — they’re for when someone should’ve known better and did it anyway. So this isn’t just about compensation. It’s about sending a message: if you’re going to send semi-trucks down the highway, you better make damn sure the person behind the wheel isn’t a walking hazard.

Our take? Look, truck accidents happen. We get it. Roads are long, days are boring, and fatigue is real. But when a company puts a driver behind the wheel of a 40-ton vehicle without proper training, supervision, or accountability — and that driver then plows into another professional at full speed — it stops being an accident and starts looking like a pattern. The most absurd part? That we even have to spell this out. These aren’t joyriders in a parking lot. These are highly regulated commercial vehicles governed by federal safety standards. And yet, here we are, in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, untangling whether a trucking company was too lazy, cheap, or careless to do basic due diligence. We’re rooting for accountability — not because we want to bankrupt a small carrier, but because every time a semi hits the road, the rest of us are playing chicken. And no one should have to lose just because the other guy wasn’t paying attention — or because his boss didn’t care enough to make sure he would.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But even we know this much: when you’re driving a vehicle that weighs more than a small house, “oops” shouldn’t be your defense.

Case Overview

$1,000,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Lincoln County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Michael D. Denton, Jr.

Denton Law Firm

Relief Sought

$1,000,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

BRIAN ZUNIGA individual
Rep: Michael D. Denton, Jr., OBA # 13939 and Austin C. Walters, OBA #33363

Defendants

MVT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a MESILLA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION business
IVAN G. QUIROGA individual
J. DOES 1-5 government

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	NEGLIGENCE – ALL DEFENDANTS	Plaintiff was rear-ended by a semi-tractor trailer driven by Defendant Quiroga, causing severe injuries.
2	NEGIGENCE PER SE - DEFENDANT MVT AND DEFENDANT QUIROGA	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Quiroga breached his duty to follow Oklahoma's Rules of the Road and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
3	NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, SUPERVISION, HIRING AND FAILURE TO TRAIN - DEFENDANT MVT AND J. DOES 1-5	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant MVT and J. Does 1-5 were negligent in entrusting the semi-tractor to Defendant Quiroga.

Petition Text

2,120 words

DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BRIAN ZUNIGA, Plaintiff, v. MVT SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a MESILLA VALLEY) TRANSPORTATION, IVAN G. QUIROGA, an individual, and J. DOES 1-5, Defendants. FILED APR 3 0 2026 KRISTIE HAMMOCK, COURT CLERK LINCOLN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Case no. CJ-2026-68 PETITION COME NOW Plaintiff, Brian Zuniga ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel of record, and for his causes of action against Defendants MVT Services, LLC d/b/a Mesilla Valley Transportation, Ivan G. Quiroga, and J. Does 1-5, alleges and states: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Texas. 2. Defendant MVT Service, LLC d/b/a Mesilla Valley Transpiration (hereinafter "Defendant MVT") is a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 3590 West Picacho Avenue, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88007 and at all times relevant hereto was engaged in some form of employment or business relationship with Ivan G. Quiroga, such that, Ivan G. Quiroga, was driving a truck owned by Defendant MVT that rear-ended the tractor-trailer driven by Plaintiff on July 7, 2024, on Interstate 44 in Chandler, Lincoln County, Oklahoma. 3. Defendant MVT is a "transportation company" as that term is defined by Art. IX § 34 of the Oklahoma Constitution operating under the USDOT #270179. 4. Defendant, Ivan G. Quiroga ("Defendant Quiroga"), upon information and belief, is a resident of the State of Texas and was at the time of the collision giving rise to this lawsuit, and further that at all time relevant was an employee, agent, servant and/or joint venturer with Defendant MVT, and was the operator of the tractor trailer that rear-ended Plaintiff's tractor-trailer in Chandler, Lincoln County, Oklahoma. 5. J. Does 1-5 are unknown individuals and/or legal entities which, upon and information and belief, have some sort of joint venture, partnership or other business relationship with Defendant MVT, such that they are legally responsible for the errors and omissions of Defendant MVT and its employees, agents, representatives and joint venturers. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Venue is proper in this county pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, §135 and §141(2). 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action and these parties pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 2004(F). 8. The Defendants, and each of them, have regular and systematic contacts with the State of Oklahoma and Plaintiff's causes of action arise from the Defendants' forum related activities; therefore, in personam jurisdiction exists in this Court and this Court has specific jurisdiction over the Defendants. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. On July 7, 2024, Defendant MVT, by and through its contractor, agent, servant, joint venturer and/or employee Defendant Quiroga, was operating an International semi-tractor pulling a trailer owned by, or leased-on to, or otherwise affiliated with and operating under the direction and/or control of Defendant MVT on Interstate 44 near Chandler, in Lincoln County, Oklahoma. 10. On July 7, 2024, Defendant Quiroga was employed and/or otherwise engaged in a business venture with Defendant MVT and was operating in the course and scope of his employment/venture as he drove the semi-tractor and trailer on Interstate 44 near Chandler in Lincoln County, Oklahoma. 11. At or close to the same time, Plaintiff was driving his semi-tractor and trailer headed the same direction on Interstate 44 near Chandler in Lincoln County, Oklahoma ahead of Defendant Quiroga. 12. Plaintiff began to slow for the traffic conditions ahead when Defendant Quiroga failed to do so and caused a violent collision when he rear-ended the semi-tractor trailer driven by Plaintiff. 13. At the above-mentioned time and place, Defendant Quiroga, operating by and through and/or on behalf of Defendant MVT, negligently, recklessly and carelessly: a. Failed to keep a proper lookout; b. Failed to maintain a proper and safe speed; c. Failed to maintain a safe distance; d. Failed to take a proper evasive action; e. Operated his semi tractor trailer while distracted; f. Failed to adhere to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; g. Failed to maintain control of his tractor-trailer; and/or h. Failed to operate his semi-truck in a reasonably careful manner so as to avoid a collision. 14. As a direct and proximate cause and consequence of said collision, Plaintiff was severely injured. 15. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Quiroga on behalf of Defendant MVT had a duty to operate the semi-tractor trailer with the requisite degree of care, skill and prudence. 16. As a regulated motor carrier registered with the United States Department of Transportation, Defendant MVT and its agents, servants or employees, were subject to and required to obey the rules, regulations and governing provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, codified at 49 CFR §§ 301-399. 17. As a holder of a commercial driver's license (CDL), Defendant Quiroga, in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle, was subject to and required to obey the rules, regulations and governing provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, codified at 49 CFR §§ 301-399. 18. As set forth in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, codified at 49 CFR §§ 301-399, Defendant MVT had a duty to retain, employ, or authorize qualified drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles, and further had a duty to train and supervise their drivers to prevent unqualified, dangerous drivers from operating commercial motor vehicles and protect the public. 19. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Quiroga, individually and/or on behalf of Defendant MVT, had a duty to abstain from injuring the person of another and infringing upon any rights of another. 20. Further, Defendant MVT had a duty to entrust their commercial motor vehicles and trailers to qualified, competent, and safe drivers to prevent unqualified, incompetent, or dangerous drivers from operating commercial motor vehicles and protect the public. 21. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to applicable law and as such bring this action on individually and in representative capacity and on behalf of all others entitled to recover under such statutes and bring this action to recover all damages allowable by law including but not limited to damages for the reasonable value of all recovery, including punitive damages. COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE – ALL DEFENDANTS 22. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 23. The collision between Plaintiff and the MVT semi-tractor and trailer driven by Defendant Quiroga was a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Quiroga, individually and/or on behalf of Defendant MVT. 24. Further, the collision between Plaintiff and the MVT semi-tractor and trailer was a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to use reasonable and ordinary care and negligent, reckless, and careless conduct. 25. Further, the collision between Plaintiff and the MVT semi-tractor and trailer resulting from Defendant MVT and Defendant Quiroga’s negligence was a direct and proximate result of the collision and injuries sustained by Plaintiff. 26. All other Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligent acts and/or omissions of its agent and employee, Defendant Quiroga through the doctrine of respondeat superior. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid occurrence, acts and omissions of the Defendants, the Plaintiff herein has suffered the following harms and losses: a. physical pain and suffering, past and future; b. mental pain and suffering, past and future; c. medical bills/expenses; d. disfigurement; e. physical impairment; and/or f. Loss of earnings/time. 25. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant MVT and Defendant Quiroga, individually and/or on behalf of Defendant Quiroga constitutes a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of others for which Plaintiff seeks punitive damages pursuant to Oklahoma law. COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE PER SE - DEFENDANT MVT AND DEFENDANT QUIROGA 26. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 27. Defendant Quiroga, in the operation of the semi-tractor, had a duty to follow Oklahoma’s Rules of the Road, codified at OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 11-101, et seq. as well as those portions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) adopted by the State of Oklahoma. 28. As set forth in Oklahoma’s Rules of the Road, Defendant Quiroga, in the operation of the semi-tractor on Oklahoma roads, had a duty to: a. Refrain from driving recklessly in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of others (OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 11-901); and/or b. Devote his full time and attention to driving (OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 11-901b); c. Not follow too closely to other vehicles; d. Maintain a proper and safe speed; e. Maintain a safe distance ahead. 29. Defendant Quiroga breached his duty owed to others, including Plaintiff, in one or more of the following ways: a. Operating the vehicle while distracted; b. Failing to keep a proper lookout; c. Failing to timely apply his brakes; d. Failing to maintain control of his vehicle; e. Failed to adhere to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; f. Failed to maintain a proper and safe speed; g. Failing to maintain a safe distance; or h. Failing to take proper evasive action. 30. Defendant Quiroga’s failure or refusal to obey and carry out the duties imposed upon him by Oklahoma’s Rules of the Road and FMCSRs caused a violent, catastrophic collision, which injured Plaintiff. 31. Defendant MVT is vicariously liable for the negligent acts and/or omissions of its agent, employee or servant, Defendant Quiroga, through the doctrine of respondeat superior. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Quiroga’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered grave bodily injury, endured pain and suffering, amassed significant medical bills/expenses and has incurred other consequential harms and losses, all in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code. 33. The aforesaid conduct of the Defendant MVT and Defendant Quiroga, individually and/or on behalf of the Defendant MVT constitutes a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of others for which Plaintiff seeks punitive damages pursuant to Oklahoma law. COUNT III: NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, SUPERVISION, HIRING AND FAILURE TO TRAIN - DEFENDANT MVT AND J. DOES 1-5 34. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 35. Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 were negligent in entrusting their dangerous instrumentality, namely the semi-tractor, to Defendant Quiroga. 36. Prior to the subject collision, Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 knew or should have known Defendant Quiroga was reckless in his operation of motor vehicles. 37. Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 were negligent in hiring and/or retaining and/or contracting with Defendant Quiroga to drive the subject semi-tractor. 38. Despite the knowledge of Defendant Quiroga’s prior reckless conduct, Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 disregarded that knowledge and permitted Defendant Quiroga to operate their commercial motor vehicle on Oklahoma roadways. 39. Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 were negligent in training Defendant Quiroga to safely operate and drive the subject semi-tractor. 40. Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 were negligent in supervising Defendant Quiroga to safely operate and drive the subject semi-tractor. 41. Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 were negligent by failing to exercise ordinary care to determine the fitness of their employee/agent/servant, Defendant Quiroga, to safely operate and drive the subject semi-tractor. 42. Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 were negligent in training Defendant Quiroga to safely operate and drive the subject semi-tractor. 43. Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5 had a duty to use ordinary care to avoid lending or allowing a person it knew or reasonably should have known was reckless to use its semi-tractor. 44. As a result of Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5’s negligence in entrusting the semi-tractor to Defendant Quiroga, negligence in hiring/retaining/contracting Defendant Quiroga, negligence in training Defendant Quiroga, and negligence in supervising Defendant Quiroga, Plaintiff suffered damages and is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages against Defendant MVT. 45. The actions and/or inactions of Defendant MVT and/or J. Does 1-5, evince a reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and others and evince malice towards others warranting the award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant MVT Services, LLC d/b/a Mesilla Valley Transportation, Defendant Ivan G. Quiroga and J. Does 1-5 for actual damages in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, and Plaintiff further prays for a judgment for punitive damages against Defendant MVT Services, LLC d/b/a Mesilla Valley Transportation, Defendant Ivan G. Quiroga and J. Does 1-5, for their reckless disregard of the rights of others in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, as well as for Plaintiff's costs incurred herein, and for all such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Michael D. Denton, Jr., OBA # 13939 Austin C. Walters, OBA #33363 DENTON LAW FIRM 925 West State Highway 152 Mustang, Oklahoma 73064 Telephone: (405) 376-2212 Facsimile: (405) 376-2262 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF