Unimax Express, Inc. v. Evergreen Shipping Agency America Corporation et al
Filing
42
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 20 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson.(MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (lc) Modified on 5/23/2012 (lc).
<![CDATA[
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNIMAX EXPRESS, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
EVERGREEN SHIPPING AGENCY,
15
Defendant.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 11-02957 DDP (FMOx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
[Docket No. 20]
16
17
Presently before the court is Defendant Evergreen Shipping
18
Agency (“Evergreen”)’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
19
Because the court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is
20
lacking, the court grants the motion and adopts the following
21
order.
22
I.
Background
23
Evergreen, a shipping company, contracts with trucking
24
companies such as Plaintiff for the overland transport of cargo
25
containers.
26
Evergreen charges late fees.1
When truckers do not return containers on time,
The parties enter into a standard
27
1
28
The parties refer to these fees as “per diem” charges.
Evergreen does not charge late pick-up, or “demurrage” fees.
(Declaration of Dominic C. Obrigkeit in Support of Defendant’s
(continued...)
1
contract, the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access
2
Agreement (“the Agreement”).
3
provision that applies to billing disputes.2
4
in this court, alleging that Evergreen improperly charged plaintiff
5
late return fees on weekends and holidays.
6
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.3
7
II.
8
9
The Agreement contains an arbitration
Plaintiff filed suit
Evergreen now moves to
Discussion
Plaintiff filed suit in this court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.
(Complaint ¶ 13.)
This court has jurisdiction over
10
civil actions between diverse parties where the amount in
11
controversy exceeds $75,000.
12
raise a jurisdictional challenge under Federal Rule of Civil
13
Procedure 12(b)(1) either on the face of the pleadings or with
14
reference to extrinsic evidence.
15
Inc., 38 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003).
16
jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting jurisdiction bears
17
the burden of proving its existence.
18
F.3d 683.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
A party may
Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide,
Where subject matter
Robinson v. United States, 58
Here, Evergreen has presented evidence that the total amount
20
of late fees billed to Plaintiff was $18,186.
21
Dominic C. Obrigkeit in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss ¶
(Declaration of
22
23
24
1
(...continued)
Motion to Dismiss ¶ 10.)
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 Evergreen that subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking, the court does not address Evergreen’s
other arguments in support of the motion to dismiss.
2
1
11.)
2
U.S.C. § 1332(a).
3
This amount is insufficient to confer jurisdiction under 28
Though not pled in the complaint, Plaintiff’s opposition to
4
the instant motion suggests that this court has jurisdiction under
5
the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
6
CAFA, this court has original jurisdiction over class actions in
7
which the parties are minimally diverse and in which the amount in
8
controversy exceeds $5 million.
9
complaint, however, makes no mention of CAFA and makes no
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
10
The
suggestion that the amount in controversy exceeds the
11
Under
jurisdictional minimum.
12
Nor has Plaintiff provided any extrinsic evidence that the $5
13
million minimum is met.
14
evidence that it charged all motor carriers, including Plaintiff, a
15
total of $8,862,453.66 in late fees incurred on all days of the
16
week.
17
evidence that it never collected late fees on weekends or holidays
18
in Oakland, and did not collect such fees in Los Angeles or Long
19
Beach between April 2007 and June 2011.
20
To the contrary, Evergreen has submitted
(Obrigkeit Dec. ¶¶ 12-13.)
Furthermore, Evergreen presented
(Id. ¶ 13-14.)
Apparently recognizing that it has not met its burden of
21
proving subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff has requested
22
jurisdictional discovery.
23
such discovery is necessary because the parameters of Evergreen’s
24
electronic database are unknown.
25
to the court, however, that there is any reasonable probability
26
that Plaintiff would be able to establish CAFA jurisdiction if
27
discovery were allowed.
(Opp. at 19-20.)
Plaintiff argues that
(Opp. at 20.)
It does not appear
See Laub v. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d
28
3
1
1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).
2
denied.
3
III. Conclusion
4
5
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
11
Dated: May 23, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
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?
