CJ-2026-301 - Durfey's Trucking, LLC v. Joshua Bender

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: a trucking company is suing a guy named Joshua Bender for $75,000 because he allegedly screwed up a single injector repair on a 2004 Peterbilt—and now the whole engine needs to be rebuilt. That’s like going to your mechanic to fix a squeaky belt and coming back to find your entire car wrapped in duct tape and floating down the river. Except this isn’t a car. It’s a semi-truck. And we’re not talking about a river—we’re talking about Canadian County, Oklahoma, where a quiet repair job has exploded into a full-blown legal dumpster fire.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Durfey’s Trucking, LLC—a legit Iowa-based trucking operation that hauls freight for a living. Their bread and butter is keeping their rigs on the road, and downtime means lost money. Their prized (or at least, still-running) asset in this case is a 2004 Peterbilt Model 379, the kind of truck that’s seen more miles than your GPS can count and probably has a coffee stain on the dash that’s older than some of its drivers. On the other side? Joshua Bender, a solo operator who allegedly ran a shop called Bender’s Truck and Equipment Repair, LLC, out of El Reno. Now, if you're thinking, “Wait, is this guy a real mechanic or just a dude with a wrench and a dream?”—well, the filing does suggest he charged $1,444 for the job, so let’s assume he at least had a torque wrench and a Spotify playlist titled “Diesel Vibes.”

Here’s how this whole mess went down. In January 2026—yes, that’s next year, but let’s just assume that’s a typo and roll with 2023 or 2024—Durfey’s Trucking rolled their smoking, sputtering Peterbilt into Bender’s shop. The truck was missing on cylinder #6, coughing diesel like a chain-smoker on a treadmill. Bender ran a diagnostic test, pulled the injector, saw the tip was dumping fuel, and—this is the key part—claimed he replaced it with a brand-new Cat injector. The invoice even says so. Labor, computer charge, shiny new injector: $1,444.08, due on receipt. Simple, right?

Wrong. Because after the so-called “repair,” the truck still had a miss on #6. That’s like pulling someone’s rotten tooth and them still screaming in pain—only to realize you left the root in and now their jaw’s infected. But here’s where it gets wild: Durfey’s claims that Bender botched the installation, which led to catastrophic engine damage requiring a full rebuild. We’re not talking about a tune-up. We’re talking about cracking open the heart of a diesel beast, pulling out pistons, rods, maybe even cursing a few times. And someone—presumably Durfey’s—had to foot that bill. Hence the $75,000 demand.

Now, let’s talk about the legal drama. Durfey’s isn’t just mad—they’re lawyered up. Enter George H. Brown of BROWN & FLESCH, PLLC, who dropped a petition in Canadian County District Court like it was a mic. The two main claims? Breach of agreement and negligence. In plain English: “You promised to fix our truck, and you either didn’t do it or did it so badly you broke it worse.” But here’s the spicy legal garnish: at the time of the repair, Bender’s Truck and Equipment Repair, LLC wasn’t even a legal company. According to the Oklahoma Secretary of State records, the LLC was officially terminated on October 6, 2025—meaning when this repair allegedly happened in January 2026, the business didn’t legally exist. It’s like getting your roof fixed by “Bob’s Roofing, LLC,” only to find out Bob’s company was dissolved six months earlier and he’s just some guy with a ladder and a GoPro.

That’s a big deal because Durfey’s is now going after Joshua Bender personally. No LLC shield. No corporate veil. Just one man, one invoice, and one very angry trucking company. The argument? Since the company wasn’t active, Bender was acting as an individual, so he’s on the hook for everything. And if you think that’s a technicality, well, welcome to the legal world—where paperwork can turn a $1,400 repair into a $75,000 lawsuit.

And speaking of that $75,000—let’s put that in perspective. For a trucking company, that’s not unreasonable if they’re talking about a full engine rebuild, lost revenue, towing, diagnostics, and all the other fun costs that come with a rig being dead in the water. But for a solo mechanic? That’s life-ruining. That’s “sell your house, your tools, and your childhood stamp collection” money. It’s the kind of sum that makes you wonder: did Bender really mess up that badly? Or is Durfey’s overreaching, trying to shift the cost of an aging truck’s inevitable breakdown onto the last guy who touched it?

Because let’s be real—this is a 2004 Peterbilt. That truck was born during the Bush administration. It predates the iPhone. It’s had more oil changes than most people have had hot meals. Mechanical failures happen. Sometimes, even if you do everything right, engines just say “nah” and give up. But Durfey’s isn’t suing the engine. They’re suing the mechanic. And that tells you something: when a company sues an individual for 50 times what they paid for the repair, it’s not just about accountability—it’s about deterrence. It’s a message: “Fix our trucks right, or we will end you.”

Now, our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the mismatch in scale—it’s the timing. The LLC was reinstated for a hot second in October 2024, then terminated again in October 2025. So if this repair happened in early 2026, the company was definitely dead. But here’s the kicker: the invoice still lists “Bender’s Truck and Equipment Repair, LLC” as if everything’s fine. No disclaimer. No “Hey, FYI, I’m operating as a ghost entity.” Just a clean invoice, a paid bill, and then—boom—lawsuit. It’s like ordering food from a restaurant that closed last month and then getting mad when the fries are cold.

Are we rooting for the little guy? Maybe. Joshua Bender might be a negligent mechanic, or he might just be a guy who got blamed for the natural decay of a 20-year-old engine. But Durfey’s isn’t exactly a sympathetic giant either—suing an individual for $75K over a repair that cost $1,400 feels less like justice and more like legal intimidation. If they wanted accountability, they could’ve started with a demand letter. Or a mediation. Instead, they went straight for the jugular with a corporate attorney and a spreadsheet of damages.

At the end of the day, this case isn’t really about an injector. It’s about risk, responsibility, and the fragile line between “I fixed it” and “I broke it worse.” And in the world of truck repairs, where one wrong torque setting can cost thousands, the stakes are sky-high. So buckle up, Canadian County. Because whether Joshua Bender is a hack or a scapegoat, one thing’s clear: this truck ain’t going anywhere—except maybe straight into civil court infamy.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

George H. Brown

BROWN & FLESCH, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Durfey's Trucking, LLC business
Rep: George H. Brown of BROWN & FLESCH, PLLC

Defendants

Joshua Bender individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Agreement	Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached an agreement to repair a truck, resulting in significant damages.
2	Negligence	Plaintiff alleges Defendant was negligent in repairing the truck, resulting in significant damages.

Petition Text

1,151 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DURFEY'S TRUCKING, LLC, an Iowa Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, vs. JOSHUA BENDER, an individual, Defendant. ORIGINAL PETITION COMES NOW, the plaintiff, Durfey's Trucking, LLC, by and through its attorney of record, George H. Brown of BROWN & FLESCH, PLLC, and for its causes of action against the defendant, Joshua Bender, alleges and states as follows: I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff, Durfey's Trucking, LLC ("Plaintiff"), is an Iowa Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Underwood, Pottawattamie County, Iowa. Plaintiff is the owner and operator of a 2004 Peterbilt Model 379 Tractor Trailer, VIN #1XP5DB9X94D813453 (hereafter, "Truck"). 2. Upon information and belief, defendant, Joshua Bender ("Defendant" and together with Plaintiff, the "Parties"), is an individual resident of El Reno, Canadian County, Oklahoma. 3. Among other things, this matter concerns a certain agreement entered into between the Parties wherein Defendant agreed to repair the Truck for Plaintiff. 4. All acts, events and occurrences that relate to, regard or are pertinent to this lawsuit took place in Canadian County, State of Oklahoma. In addition, the work performed on the Truck took place in Canadian County, State of Oklahoma. Further, the contract that is the subject of this lawsuit was entered into in Canadian County, State of Oklahoma. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and controversy. 6. Venue for this matter is proper before this Court pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, §§ 134 and 143. II. FACTS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSE OF ACTION Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every material allegation above as if fully herein set forth. 7. On or about January of 2026, Plaintiff entered into an agreement (hereafter, “Agreement”) with Bender’s Truck and Equipment Repair, LLC (“Bender’s Truck”), to perform certain mechanical services on the Truck including, without limitation, the replacement of an injector. See copy of Invoice Number 2257, attached as Exhibit 1. 8. At the time the Agreement was entered into, Bender’s Trucking was not an active, legal entity in the State of Oklahoma. In fact, Bender’s Truck was terminated as of October 6, 2025, and has never been reinstated. See documents from Oklahoma Secretary of State, attached as Exhibit 2. Therefore, Bender’s Truck was not a legally cognizable entity when the Agreement was executed and Defendant, as its agent, was and is personally liable for breach of the Agreement and negligence. 9. Plaintiff paid Defendant $1,444.08 for the repairs to the Truck. 10. Defendant improperly installed the new injector in the Truck while making repairs. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, the engine in the Truck had to be rebuilt at a significant cost to Plaintiff. III. THEORIES OF RECOVERY Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every material allegation above as if fully herein set forth. 11. Plaintiff’s statement of any theories of recovery or individual elements thereof under its causes of action against Defendant, infra, are merely for organizational convenience and are in no way intended to limit Plaintiff’s ability, after discovery and at the time of trial or other disposition, to fully recover on its causes of action set forth herein under any cognizable theory of relief. COUNT 1 (BREACH OF AGREEMENT) Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every material allegation above as if fully herein set forth. 12. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant wherein Defendant agreed to perform certain services and provide certain parts to repair the Truck. 13. Defendant breached the agreement. 14. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the agreement, Plaintiff has incurred foreseeable damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but believed to be in excess of $75,000.00. 15. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant based on Defendant’s breach of contract for an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus pre and post-judgment interest and attorney’s fees and costs. COUNT 2 (NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every material allegation above as if fully herein set forth. 16. Based on the relationship between the Parties, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care to perform the repair services to the Truck. 17. Defendant performed repair services for Plaintiff below the reasonable standard of care expected of a truck mechanic and was therefore negligent in his repair of the Truck. 18. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages for which Defendant should be held liable. 19. Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and consequential damages from Defendant in an amount in excess of $75,000.00. IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for money judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus applicable interest, costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ George H. Brown, OBA #18020 BROWN & FLESCH, PLLC 136 N.W. 10th, Suite 201 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 Telephone: (405) 548-1970 Facsimile: (405) 548-1986 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Benders Truck and Equipment Repair LLC 7315 Britton Rd El Reno, OK 73036 USA +641984 [email protected] INVOICE BILL TO Durfey's Trucking LLC Durfey's Trucking LLC SHIP TO Durfey's Trucking LLC Durfey's Trucking LLC INVOICE 2257 DATE 01/20/2026 TERMS Due on receipt DUE DATE 01/20/2026 SERVICE DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT Labor Labor rate 2 150.00 300.00 Computer Charge 1 85.00 85.00 Injector New Cat injector in #6 1 1,059.08 1,059.08 Repairs to truck #338 Peterbilt vin#4D813453. Truck came in making a ton of smoke and missing. Ran an injector cut out test on it and found #6 hole was the miss. Pulled #6 injector and the tip was dumping diesel. Sucked the cylinder dry and looked at the piston with a bore scope and didn't see a problem. Installed new injector in #6 hole and put the valve train back on. Truck still has a miss in #6 hole. SUBTOTAL 1,444.08 TAX 0.00 TOTAL 1,444.08 BALANCE DUE $1,444.08 Details Filing Number: 3512862937 Entity Name: BENDER'S TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR LLC Status: Inactive Entity Type: Domestic Limited Liability Company Jurisdiction: Oklahoma Original Filing Date: Aug 6 2020 Duration: Perpetual Entity Address: 7315 BRITTON RD NE, EL RENO, OK, 73036, USA Registered Agent Information Name: JOSHUA D BENDER Effective: Aug 6 2020 Address: 7315 BRITTON RD NE City,State,ZipCode: EL RENO OK 73036 FILING HISTORY : <table> <tr> <th>Document Number</th> <th>Filing Type</th> <th>Filing Date</th> </tr> <tr> <td>45870110002</td> <td>Articles of Organization</td> <td>August 6, 2020</td> </tr> <tr> <td>50463460002</td> <td>Annual Certificates</td> <td>July 29, 2021</td> </tr> <tr> <td>55800940002</td> <td>Annual Certificates</td> <td>August 8, 2022</td> </tr> <tr> <td>61094970002</td> <td>Annual Certificates</td> <td>August 2, 2023</td> </tr> <tr> <td>67717880044</td> <td>Terminated</td> <td>October 6, 2024</td> </tr> <tr> <td>67822450002</td> <td>Reinstatement</td> <td>October 15, 2024</td> </tr> <tr> <td>73118280186</td> <td>Terminated</td> <td>October 6, 2025</td> </tr> </table> NAMES INFORMATION <table> <tr> <th>Name</th> <th>Name Type</th> <th>Name Status</th> <th>Creation Date</th> </tr> <tr> <td>BENDER'S TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR LLC</td> <td>Legal</td> <td>Inactive</td> <td>October 6, 2025</td> </tr> </table> PRINCIPALS No entries found. TRADE NAMES No entries found. STOCKS INFORMATION No entries found. POC: $0 TAC: $0 Total Investment in OK: $0 Qualified: NO