Elite Logistics Corp. v. Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation et al
Filing
41
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 24 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (lc)
<![CDATA[
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
ELITE LOGISTICS CORP., and
on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
v.
16
YANG MING MARINE TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, YANG MING
(AMERICA) CORPORATION,
17
Defendants.
18
___________________________
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 11-02954 DDP (PLAx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
[Dkt. No. 24]
Presently before the court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
20
Complaint brought by Defendants Yang Ming Marine Transport
21
Corporation and Yang Ming America Corporation (collectively, “Yang
22
Ming”).
23
jurisdiction is lacking, the court grants the motion and adopts the
24
following order.
25
I.
26
Because the court determines that subject matter
Background
Yanhg Ming, a shipping company, contracts with trucking
27
companies such as Plaintiff for the overland transport of cargo
28
containers.
When truckers do not return containers on time, Yang
1
Ming charges late fees.1
2
contract, the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access
3
Agreement (“the Agreement”).
4
provision that applies to billing disputes.2
5
in this court, alleging that Yang Ming improperly charged plaintiff
6
late return fees on weekends and holidays.
7
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.3
8
II.
9
The parties enter into a standard
The Agreement contains an arbitration
Plaintiff filed suit
Yang Ming now moves to
Discussion
Plaintiff filed suit in this court on the basis of diversity
10
jurisdiction.
11
civil actions between diverse parties where the amount in
12
controversy exceeds $75,000.
13
raise a jurisdictional challenge under Federal Rule of Civil
14
Procedure 12(b)(1) either on the face of the pleadings or with
15
reference to extrinsic evidence.
16
Inc., 38 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003).
17
jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting jurisdiction bears
18
the burden of proving its existence.
19
F.3d 683.
(Complaint ¶ 14.)
This court has jurisdiction over
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
A party may
Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide,
Where subject matter
Robinson v. United States, 58
20
21
22
23
24
1
The parties refer to these fees as “per diem” charges. Yang
Ming does not charge late pick-up, or “demurrage” fees.
(Declaration of Thomas Liou in Support of Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss ¶ 9.)
2
25
26
27
28
In a related case, this court found the arbitration
provision unconscionable and unenforceable. See Unimax Express,
Inc. v. Cosco North Am., Inc., No. CV 11-02947 DDP, 2011 WL 5909881
at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. November 28, 2011).
3
Because the court agrees with Yang Ming that subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking, the court does not address Yang Ming’s
other arguments in support of the motion to dismiss.
2
1
Here, Yang Ming has presented evidence that the total amount
2
of late fees billed to Plaintiff was $16,525, and that the amount
3
actually collected was only $12,737..
4
in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss ¶ 10.)
5
insufficient to confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
6
(Declaration of Thomas Liou
This amount is
Though not pled in the complaint, Plaintiff’s opposition to
7
the instant motion suggests that this court has jurisdiction under
8
the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
9
CAFA, this court has original jurisdiction over class actions in
Under
10
which the parties are minimally diverse and in which the amount in
11
controversy exceeds $5 million.
12
complaint, however, makes no mention of CAFA and makes no
13
suggestion that the amount in controversy exceeds the
14
jurisdictional minimum.
15
evidence that the $5 million minimum is met.
16
Ming has submitted evidence that it charged all motor carriers,
17
including Plaintiff, a total of $4,290,320.05 in late fees incurred
18
on all days of the week.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
The
Nor has Plaintiff provided any extrinsic
To the contrary, Yang
(Liou Dec. ¶¶ 11-12.)
Apparently recognizing that it has not met its burden of
20
proving subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff has requested
21
jurisdictional discovery.
22
such discovery is necessary because the parameters of Yang Ming’s
23
electronic database are unknown.
24
to the court, however, that there is any reasonable probability
25
that Plaintiff would be able to establish CAFA jurisdiction if
26
discovery were allowed.
27
1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).
28
denied.
(Opp. at 19-20.)
Plaintiff argues that
(Opp. at 20.)
It does not appear
See Laub v. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is
3
1
2
3
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8
Dated: May 23, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
