Removing the Texas Trucking Case: Foreign Motor Carriers, BOC-3 Agents, and the Path to Federal Court

By Ezequiel "Zeke" Moya, Jr., Partner | May 21, 2026

A Texas highway accident involving a foreign motor carrier — say, a Mexican-domiciled trucking company with a BOC-3 process agent designated in Texas — presents a recurring set of removal questions for defense counsel. The good news for defendants is that, in most configurations, the case is removable. The better news is that the BOC-3 designation, often invoked by plaintiffs as a basis for jurisdiction, does not change the removal analysis. The questions worth working through are which removal path applies, what the plaintiff's pleading can do to defeat it, and how the personal jurisdiction issues interact with the federal forum.

The Removal Framework: Alienage Jurisdiction Under § 1332(a)(2)

When a U.S. citizen plaintiff sues a foreign motor carrier in Texas state court for a Texas accident, the federal forum is available through alienage jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) extends diversity jurisdiction to civil actions between "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state." A Mexican corporation is a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" within the meaning of the statute, and a U.S. citizen plaintiff residing in Texas sits on the opposite side of the alienage divide.

Complete diversity, the rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, is satisfied where no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant. A U.S. citizen plaintiff and one or more Mexican defendants meet that requirement. The presence of multiple foreign defendants does not defeat diversity — it simply places them together on the alien side of the case.

The one configuration that defeats the analysis is the alien-versus-alien case. If the plaintiff is also a foreign citizen, even a foreign citizen residing in Texas, § 1332(a)(2) does not apply, and federal diversity jurisdiction is unavailable. Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 303 (1809). For Texas border-region practitioners in particular, confirming the plaintiff's citizenship — not merely residency — is an essential first step before drafting a notice of removal.

The Forum-Defendant Rule Does Not Apply

Plaintiffs occasionally argue that a foreign defendant with a Texas process agent should be treated as a forum defendant for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), which bars removal where "any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." The argument fails on the text. A foreign motor carrier is a citizen of a foreign state, not of Texas, regardless of where its process agent is located. The forum-defendant rule applies to defendants who are citizens of the forum, and a BOC-3 designation does not convert a Mexican carrier into a Texas citizen. Courts have uniformly held that foreign defendants do not trigger § 1441(b)(2).

The Amount-in-Controversy Problem Texas Pleading Creates

The harder removal issue in Texas state-court trucking cases is the amount in controversy, not the diversity side of the equation. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47(c) requires plaintiffs to plead into a damages range, and plaintiffs routinely combine that pleading with allegations designed to defeat removal. A petition that simultaneously alleges damages of "$75,000 or less" while seeking "monetary relief of $250,000 or less, including all damages, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees" is internally inconsistent. The two figures cannot both be controlling, and the ambiguity creates the opening for the defense.

Under Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014), a notice of removal needs only a plausible allegation of the amount in controversy. Where the plaintiff later contests the amount, the removing defendant must establish it by a preponderance of the evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). The $250,000 figure in the Rule 47(c) statement, combined with the categories of recoverable damages pled, will often suffice.

Defense counsel facing this kind of pleading should consider a pre-removal letter demanding either (1) an amended petition that conforms the pleaded damages to the $75,000 limitation, or (2) a binding written stipulation that the plaintiff will not seek or accept any recovery — inclusive of actual damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, penalties, and interest — in excess of $75,000. The Fifth Circuit's decision in De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404 (5th Cir. 1995), requires that any limiting stipulation be unequivocal and binding on the total recovery; a stipulation that limits only what is "pleaded" or excludes fees and interest will not defeat removal.

If the plaintiff refuses to clarify or stipulate, removal proceeds on the basis that the petition itself places more than $75,000 in controversy.

The Procedural Mechanics

Two procedural requirements deserve close attention. First, the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) runs from each defendant's receipt of the initial pleading or summons. With multiple foreign defendants, each has its own 30-day clock, and all properly served defendants must consent to removal. Second, the one-year cap on diversity removals under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) prevents removal more than one year after the case was filed in state court, absent bad-faith conduct by the plaintiff designed to prevent removal. In trucking cases that linger in state court while the plaintiff conducts discovery on damages, the one-year mark can sneak up on defense counsel.

Service on a foreign defendant raises a separate set of issues. Where the defendant has a valid BOC-3 process agent in Texas under 49 C.F.R. § 366.4, service on that agent is generally effective under Texas law and Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988), without resort to the Hague Service Convention — because the document is served domestically and no transmission abroad is required. For Mexican defendants in particular, this is significant: Mexico's objections to alternative service methods under the Hague Convention make Convention service slow and procedurally difficult. The BOC-3 path, when available, avoids that problem.

The BOC-3 Designation and Personal Jurisdiction — A Separate Issue

Plaintiffs facing removal will sometimes pivot to argue that the BOC-3 designation also confers general personal jurisdiction over the foreign carrier in Texas — meaning the case must remain in Texas, federal or state, regardless of where the accident occurred. The argument is a serious one, but should not be confused with the removal analysis. Subject matter jurisdiction for removal turns on citizenship and amount in controversy. Personal jurisdiction is a separate question that, if successful for the defense, can result in dismissal — but does not affect the propriety of removal.

However, for a Texas highway accident, the personal jurisdiction question is usually straightforward. A foreign motor carrier whose driver caused an accident on Texas roads has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas, and the cause of action arises directly from those activities. Specific personal jurisdiction under International Shoe and its progeny will almost always be present. The harder Daimler and Mallory questions surrounding BOC-3 designations and general jurisdiction arise primarily when the underlying accident occurred outside Texas. See Paz v. Castellini Co., L.L.C., No. B-07-036, 2007 WL 3342214 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2007) (rejecting BOC-3 designation as a basis for general jurisdiction where the accident occurred in Kentucky and the carrier did not operate in Texas).

Where the accident is in Texas, specific jurisdiction supplies the basis for the court's authority over the foreign carrier, and the BOC-3-as-consent argument becomes largely irrelevant. The carrier is properly before the court because of its conduct in Texas, not because of its regulatory filing.

Why Defendants Prefer the Federal Forum

The strategic case for removal in trucking matters is well known: federal procedural rules, the availability of Daubert gatekeeping at the summary judgment stage, generally tighter discovery management, more uniform jury pools across multi-county federal divisions, and the procedural protections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For foreign motor carrier defendants in particular, federal court can also offer a more predictable forum for the eventual enforcement and recognition of judgments in the carrier's home country.

The removal opportunity in a Texas trucking case against a foreign carrier should not be allowed to lapse due to inattention to the 30-day deadline, the amount-in-controversy fight, or failure to confirm the plaintiff's citizenship. Each of those issues is addressable, but only within the procedural window provided by the removal statute.

Practical Takeaways

A Texas highway accident case brought by a U.S. citizen plaintiff against one or more foreign motor carriers is generally removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). The forum-defendant rule does not bar removal where all defendants are foreign citizens. A BOC-3 process agent designated in Texas does not change the citizenship of the foreign carrier and does not trigger the forum-defendant rule. The amount-in-controversy requirement is the issue most likely to be contested, and an ambiguous Texas pleading that combines a $75,000 limitation with a $250,000 Rule 47(c) statement gives the defense a credible basis to seek removal. A pre-removal demand for clarification or a binding stipulation is often the most efficient way to resolve the issue without protracted remand litigation. Service on the BOC-3 agent generally avoids the Hague-Convention service and the delays it creates for Mexican defendants in particular. Specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign carrier will almost always be present where the accident occurred on Texas roads, mooting the harder consent-by-registration questions that arise in out-of-state accident cases.