Elite Logistics Corporation v. Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A. et al
Filing
36
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 22 defendants Mediterranean Shipping Company U.S.A., Inc., Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A. Motion to Dismiss. ( 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
ELITE LOGISTICS CORPORATION,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING
COMPANY, S.A.; MEDITERRANEAN
SHIPPING COMPANY U.S.A.,
INC.,
16
Defendants.
17
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 11-02963 DDP (PLAx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
[Dkt. No. 22]
18
19
Presently before the court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
20
Complaint brought by Defendants Mediterranean Shipping Company,
21
S.A. and Mediterranean Shipping Company U.S.A., Inc. (collectively,
22
“Mediterranean”).
23
jurisdiction is lacking, the court grants the motion and adopts the
24
following order.
25
I.
Because the court determines that subject matter
Background
26
Mediterranean, 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,
1
Mediterranean charges late fees.1
2
standard contract, the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and
3
Facilities Access Agreement (“the Agreement”).
4
contains an arbitration provision that applies to billing
5
disputes.2
6
Mediterranean improperly charged plaintiff late return fees on
7
weekends and holidays.
8
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.3
9
II.
10
The parties enter into a
The Agreement
Plaintiff filed suit in this court, alleging that
Mediterranean now moves to dismiss the
Discussion
Plaintiff filed suit in this court on the basis of diversity
11
jurisdiction.
12
civil actions between diverse parties where the amount in
13
controversy exceeds $75,000.
14
raise a jurisdictional challenge under Federal Rule of Civil
15
Procedure 12(b)(1) either on the face of the pleadings or with
16
reference to extrinsic evidence.
17
Inc., 38 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003).
18
jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting jurisdiction bears
19
the burden of proving its existence.
20
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
21
1
22
23
24
25
26
The parties refer to these fees as “per diem” charges.
Mediterranean does not charge late pick-up, or “demurrage” fees.
(Declaration of Donnell Thorn in Support of Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss ¶ 12.)
2
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
27
28
Because the court agrees with Mediterranean that subject
matter jurisdiction is lacking, the court does not address
Mediterranean’s other arguments in support of the motion to
dismiss.
2
1
Here, Mediterranean has presented evidence that the total
2
amount of late fees billed to Plaintiff was $12,640. (Thorn Dec. ¶
3
10.)
4
U.S.C. § 1332(a).
5
This amount is insufficient to confer jurisdiction under 28
Though not pled in the complaint, Plaintiff’s opposition to
6
the instant motion suggests that this court has jurisdiction under
7
the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
8
CAFA, this court has original jurisdiction over class actions in
9
which the parties are minimally diverse and in which the amount in
Under
10
controversy exceeds $5 million.
11
complaint, however, makes no mention of CAFA and makes no
12
suggestion that the amount in controversy exceeds the
13
jurisdictional minimum.
14
evidence that the $5 million minimum is met.
15
Mediterranean has submitted evidence that it charged all motor
16
carriers, including Plaintiff, a total of $506,685 in late fees
17
incurred on weekends and holidays.
18
Mediterranean arrived at this figure by extrapolating from the
19
amount of holiday and weekend fees charged in the representative
20
month of March 2011.
21
not assess fees on weekends or holidays, unless shipping terminals
22
were open and/or other contractual provisions applied.
23
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
The
Nor has Plaintiff provided any extrinsic
To the contrary,
(Thorn Dec. ¶ 18.)
(Id. ¶¶ 16-18.)
Mediterranean generally did
(Id. ¶ 13.)
Apparently recognizing that it has not met its burden of
24
proving subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff has requested
25
jurisdictional discovery.
26
such discovery is necessary because the parameters of
27
Mediterranean’s electronic database are unknown.
28
While the nature of Mediterranean’s extrapolations might give cause
(Opp. at 19-20.)
3
Plaintiff argues that
(Opp. at 20.)
1
for concern under some circumstances, here, the disparity between
2
Mediterranean’s $506,685 in charges and the $5 million necessary to
3
invoke CAFA jurisdiction is sufficiently large that it does not
4
appear to the court that there is any reasonable probability that
5
Plaintiff would be able to establish CAFA jurisdiction if discovery
6
were allowed.
7
discredit Mediterranean’s estimate, Plaintiff provides no
8
explanation how more detailed information about Mediterranean’s
9
database parameters would help Plaintiff satisfy its burden to
Furthermore, even if discovery were to somehow
10
demonstrate that the jurisdictional minimum is met.
11
Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).
12
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is denied.
13
III. Conclusion
14
15
See Laub v.
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated: May 23, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
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?
