Personal Communications Devices LLC v. Platinum Cargo Logistices Inc et al, No. 8:2009cv00516 - Document 73 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment 56 and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss 61 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. The court therefore denies the Motion to Dismiss as moot. (See Order for Details). (sch)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Personal Communications Devices LLC v. Platinum Cargo Logistices Inc et al Doc. 73 1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 PLATINUM CARGO LOGISTICS, INC., 16 Defendant. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. SACV 09-00516 DDP (ANx) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLANTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS [Motion filed on 7/09/2010 and 8/2/2010] 17 18 Presently before the court is Defendant Platinum Cargo 19 Logistics’ (“Platinum”) Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and 20 Plaintiff Personal Communications Devices(“PCD)’s Motion to 21 Dismiss. 22 and hearing oral argument, the court grants the partial motion for 23 summary judgment, denies the motion to dismiss, and adopts the 24 following order. 25 I. 26 After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties Background On or around October 2, 2008, PCD tendered seven separate 27 consigned shipments containing mobile phones to Platinum. 28 ¶ 9.) (Compl. PCD alleges that, together, the seven shipments were worth Dockets.Justia.com 1 $7,692,149.60. 2 an online bill of lading through Platinum’s website, and signed an 3 agreement setting forth Platinum’s standard terms and conditions. 4 (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28.) 5 each shipment (totaling $245,000 for all seven shipments) on the 6 bill of lading. 7 value of $35,000 in lieu of its standard limitation of liability of 8 50 cents per pound. 9 each shipment and pay a higher freight rate, PCD obtained insurance 10 Prior to tendering the goods, PCD prepared (Id.) PCD elected a declared value of $35,000 for (Compl. ¶ 28.) Platinum accepted the declared (Id.) Rather than declare the actual value of of $5 million per truckload. 11 According to PCD, the parties agreed that each consigned 12 shipment would be shipped “less than trailer load,” i.e., that the 13 shipments would not be consolidated without notification. 14 ¶ 10.) 15 Platinum consolidated the seven shipments without providing 16 notification. 17 contained a $5 million dollar per truckload limit, Platinum’s 18 consolidation of the shipment exposed PCD to considerable risk 19 (approximately $2.6 million of uninsured exposure). 20 (Compl. In contravention of the parties agreement, PCD contends, (Id.) Because PCD’s shipping insurance policy Platinum, the Complaint alleges, subcontracted carriage of the 21 shipment to Defendant Celestial Freight Solutions, LLC 22 (“Celestial”). 23 from Celestial picked up the shipment to transport it from Carson, 24 CA to Louisville, Kentucky. (Id.) 25 Celestial drivers reported the truck, trailer, and shipments 26 stolen. 27 trailer were stolen from an unlocked truck yard in Santa Ana, CA, (Compl. ¶ 14.) (Compl. ¶ 16.) On October 2, 2008, two drivers On October 3, 2008, the two According to the Complaint, the truck and 28 2 1 where the drivers had, for reasons unknown, temporarily stored 2 them. 3 (Id.) On October 4, 2008, the Pasadena Police Department recovered 4 the truck, but not the trailer containing the shipment. 5 17.) 6 Department recovered the trailer. 7 never recovered. (Compl. ¶ On November 4, 2008, the North Port (Florida) Police (Compl. ¶ 18.) The shipment was (Id.) 8 PCD contends that the Celestial drivers were not properly 9 trained, and that they failed to undertake the security precautions 10 that Platinum guaranteed in the parties’ agreement. 11 contends that Platinum: (1) refused to provide PCD with a copy of 12 its tariff; (2) failed to use care in selecting a motor carrier; 13 (3) wrongfully held out personnel as experienced; and (4) failed to 14 “abide by reasonable standards of conduct in all pre-shipment 15 processes. PCD also (Opp’n 8:1-7.) 16 PCD submitted timely claims to its insurer, Fireman’s Fund, 17 but the claims were denied on the grounds that Platinum, and its 18 agents, were responsible for the loss of the shipment. 19 21.) 20 court seeking a declaration that PCD’s insurance policy does not 21 cover the loss of the shipment.1 22 (Compl. ¶ Fireman’s Fund subsequently sued PCD in federal district (Compl. ¶ 20.) PCD brought the present action, naming Platinum, Celestial, 23 and the two drivers (Lai Dang and Thuong Trong) as defendants, on 24 May 1, 2009. 25 forth the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract The Complaint seeks $7,692,149 in damages and sets 26 1 27 28 The question whether the insurance policy covers PCD’s loss is ultimately at issue in a related case, SACV 09-04916 DDP (Cwx)(the “Fireman’s Fund case”), but is not currently before the court. 3 1 (against Platinum only); (2) breach of bailment obligations; (3) 2 negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and/or wilfulness; and 3 (4) conversion. 4 Carmack Amendment preempts PCD’s state law claims against Platinum 5 and Celestial, and dismissed all state law claims. 6 Platinum now moves for partial summary judgment, arguing that the 7 Carmack Amendment limits Platinum’s liability to $245,000, the 8 declared value of the seven stolen shipments. 9 seeks to dismiss this case and resolve its dispute with Platinum as 10 On October 6, 2009, this court concluded that the part of the related Fireman’s Fund case. (Dkt. No. 37.) (Dkt. No. 56.) PCD (Dkt. No. 61.) 11 12 II. Legal Standard 13 A motion for summary judgment must be granted when “the 14 pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions 15 on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is 16 no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party 17 is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 56(c). 19 of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of 20 identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses 21 that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 22 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 23 A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an 24 issue at trial, the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no 25 reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving 26 party. 27 burden of proof, however, the movant can prevail merely by pointing 28 out that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving On an issue as to which the nonmoving party will have the 4 1 party's case. 2 burden, the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as 3 otherwise provided in Rule 56, “specific facts showing that 4 there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 5 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). 6 See id. If the moving party meets its initial It is not the Court's task “to scour the record in search of a 7 genuine issue of triable fact.” 8 1278 (9th Cir. 1996). Counsel have an obligation to lay out their 9 support clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 10 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court "need not examine the entire file 11 for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the 12 evidence is not set forth in the opposition papers with adequate 13 references so that it could conveniently be found." 14 Id. The federal rules of civil procedure explain that an “action 15 shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon 16 order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the 17 court deems proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The decision to 18 allow dismissal rests in the Court's sound discretion. 19 v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 20 1982). 21 III. Discussion 22 Hamilton The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 23 generally limits a carrier's liability under an interstate bill of 24 lading to “the actual loss or injury to the property caused by” the 25 carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a). 26 may establish rates “under which the liability of the carrier . . . 27 is limited to a value established by written or electronic 28 declaration of the shipper or by written agreement between the However, a carrier such as Platinum 5 1 carrier and shipper if that value would be reasonable under the 2 circumstances surrounding the transportation.” 3 14706(c)(1)(A). 4 declaration of a $35,000 value per shipment, along with the written 5 agreement between Platinum and PCD, limits Platinum’s liability to 6 $245,000, the declared value of the lost shipments. 7 49 U.S.C. § The court agrees with Platinum that PCD’s To successfully limit its liability under the Carmack 8 Amendment, a carrier must (1) give the shipper a reasonable 9 opportunity to choose between levels of liability, (2) obtain an 10 agreement as to the shipper’s choice of carrier liability, and (3) 11 issue a bill of lading prior to shipment. 12 Aircraft Co. V. North Am. Van Lines, 970 F.2d 609, 611-12 (9th Cir. 13 1992); see also Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Yasutomi Warehousing and 14 Distribution, Inc., 326 F.Supp.2d. 1123, 1126-27. (C.D. Cal. 2004). 15 Where a limitation of liability is unreasonable under the See, e.g. Hughes 16 circumstances surrounding a shipment, this court has declined to 17 limit liability under § 14706(c)(1)(A). 18 Freightways Corp. of Del. V. Travelers Ins. Co., 2003 WL 2215968 at 19 *5 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (finding no limitation of liability where 20 carrier sought a limitation of less than 0.08 percent of actual 21 loss and shipper had no reasonable opportunity to choose between 22 levels of liability). 23 Platinum, PCD elected the $35,000 declared value on a bill of 24 lading that PCD itself prepared. 25 Opposition to Platinum Cargo Logistics, Inc.’s Motion for Partial 26 Summary Judgement ¶¶ 4, 14.) 27 $35,000 per shipment is not a reasonable value, and that the 28 liability limitation of § 14706(c)(1)(A) does not apply. See, e.g., Cons. Here, through active discussions with (Declaration of Rick Wohlberg In Nevertheless, PCD now contends that 6 This 1 argument is not persuasive. 2 liability for the actual value of the shipments because PCD (1) 3 sought to avoid additional shipping costs and (2) had obtained 4 insurance coverage sufficient to cover total loss.2 5 ¶ 5.) 6 liability was not unreasonable. 7 PCD consciously elected not to seek (Wohlberg Dec. Under such circumstances, the $35,000 limitation of PCD also argues that the $35,000 declared value was not a 8 limitation of liability. 9 and Conditions of Contract stated that “Platinum’s liability, in This argument fails. Platinum’s Terms 10 the absence of a higher declared value for carriage, is limited to 11 a minimum of $50.00 per shipment . . . .” 12 Spiri in Support of Platinum Cargo Logistics Inc.’s Motion for 13 Partial Summary Judgment ¶ 7 (emphasis added)). 14 the higher, $35,000 declared value for carriage rather than 15 Platinum’s standard limitation. 16 Contract included an integration clause, which superseded any prior 17 oral discussions that may have taken place. 18 PCD cannot now assert that it did not have notice of the $35,000 19 limitation when PCD itself, after discussions with Platinum, 20 selected that figure. 21 (Declaration of Kelli PCD selected The Terms and Conditions of (Spiri Dec., Ex. C) Furthermore, this court has found that a shipper’s acquisition 22 of cargo insurance demonstrates that the shipper had notice of the 23 carrier’s limited liability. 24 “[T]he function served by notice of limited liability is 25 accomplished if the shipper in fact purchases separate insurance, 26 whether or not such notice is actually given.” Yasutomi, 326 F.Supp. at 1128. Id., citing Read- 27 2 28 As discussed above, the actual value of PCD’s insurance coverage is not at issue here. See n.1, supra. 7 1 Rite Corp. v. Burlington Air Express, Ltd., 186 F.3d 1190, 1198 2 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 selected an alternative limitation of liability and obtained 4 insurance for its cargo. 5 the $35,000 per shipment limitation of liability. 6 Here, PCD There is no issue of material fact as to PCD’s remaining arguments are also unavailing. This circuit 7 has never extended the admiralty concept of material deviation to 8 Carmack Amendment cases. 9 Airlines, Inc., 847 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1988) is misplaced. PCD’s reliance on Coughlin v. Trans World 10 Coughlin did not concern a Carmack Amendment claim, and cannot 11 support the proposition that material deviation should be extended 12 to the Carmack context. 13 applied Carmack Amendment limitations of liability even when a 14 carrier fails to provide a special condition in the contract of 15 carriage. To the contrary, the Ninth Circuit has See Hughes, 970 F.2d at 610-13. 16 PCD’s allegation that Platinum wrongly refused to provide a 17 copy of its tariff, as Platinum is required to do under U.S.C. § 18 14706()(1)(B), has no bearing on whether the liability limitation 19 requirements of § 14706(c)(1)(A) have been met. 20 21 Accordingly, the court concludes that the Carmack Amendment limits Platinum’s liability to $245,000. 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 8 1 2 IV. Conclusion 3 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants the Partial 4 Motion for Summary Judgment. 5 The court therefore denies the Motion to Dismiss as moot. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: September 3, 2010 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
