FREIGHT CONNECTIONS INC v. EXPRESS HOUND LLC et al, No. 2:2022cv01668 - Document 29 (D.N.J. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Evelyn Padin on 10/27/2022. (ld, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com FREIGHT CONNECTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, No. 22cv1668 (EP) (AME) v. EXPRESS HOUND, LLC; KING CARGO, LTD.; PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE, INC.; JOHN DOES AND XYZ CORPS, Defendants. Presently before the Court is Defendant motion to dismiss Plaintiff complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D.E. 3. and decides the motion without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons stated below, motion is . On or about December 11, 2020, Plaintiff engaged Express Hound to transport mixed FREIGHT CONNECTIONS INC v. EXPRESS HOUND LLC et al Doc. 29 freight under Bill of Lading No. 0025464 from Ridgefield, New Jersey to Houston, Texas. D.E. 1Id. ¶ 7. Expres 1 allegations. -pled factual Id. ¶ 8. Express Hound never informed Plaintiff about its use of King Cargo to transport the shipment. Id. 1-2 ¶ 9. The King Cargo employee/truck driver who was responsible for transporting the goods to Houston, Texas improperly diverted the truck to Orlando, Florida. Id. was determined that the seal on the truck was broken and goods with a total value of $73,308.71 Id. ¶ 12. Prior to the foregoing incident, on July 20, 2020, Plaintiff and Express Hound entered into a Broker-Shipper Agreement that, inter alia $100,000 as supplemental contingency insurance to compensate [Plaintiff] for loss or damage to shipments tender Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff initiated this action in New Jersey Superior Court on or about January 24, 2022. -count complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract (First Count), against all defendants; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Second Count), against all defendants; (3) Negligence (Third Count), against Express Hound and King Cargo; (4) Agency (Fourth Count), against Express Hound; (5) Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and Retention (Fifth Count), against Express Hound; (6) Agency (Sixth Count), against King Cargo; (7) Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention (Seventh Count), against King Cargo; (8)Theft (Eighth Count), against King Cargo; (9) Conversion (Ninth Count), insurance carrier, Progressive Insurance. D.E. 1-2. 2 On March 24, 2022, Express Hound removed th alleged loss of cargo that was to be transported by [King Cargo] from Ridgefield, New Jersey to Houston, Texas 1- -established law from jurisdictions across the country, state law claims arising from the loss or damage to cargo transported via interstate commerce are preempted by federal law, including by . . . 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1) (the Carmack Amendment Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff has not challenged the propriety of removal, and the Court agrees that Plain . On April 6, 2022 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D.E. 3. On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed its opposition to the same. D.E. 5. Express Hound filed its reply on the same day. D.E. 6. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) does not require that a complaint contain detailed factual allegations. However, the relief Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also West Run Student Hous. Assocs., LLC v. Huntington Nat. Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 169 (3d Cir. 2013). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). . Id. Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As the moving party, the defendant bears the burden of showing that no 3 claim has been stated. Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462, 469 n.9 (3d Cir. 2011). For the purposes of the motion, the facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. New Jersey Carpenters & the Trustees Thereof v. Tishman Const. Corp. of New Jersey, 760 F.3d 297, 302 (3d Cir. 2014). Plaintiff, by way of this lawsuit, seeks recovery for the financial losses it truck goods. See D.E. 1- during the interstate shipment of its es for relief. appropriate because the sole cause of action that Plaintiff may assert based on the facts alleged in its complaint is a federal Carmack Amendment claim, and its complaint contains no such allegation. See D.E. 3-1 at 3; D.E. 6 at 3. The Court agrees. The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, governs the field of interstate shipping. Inter Metals Grp. v. Centrans Marine Shipping, No. CV 20-7424, 2022 WL 489404, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 17, 2022). preempts all state law claims for compensation for the loss of or damage to goods shipped by a ground carrier in interstate commerce Certain Underwriters at Interest at Lloyds of London v. Untied Parcel Service of America, Inc., 762 F.3d 332, 333 (3d Cir. 2014); accord Phoenix Assurance Co. v. K-Mart Corp., 977 F. Supp. 319, 324 (D.N.J. 1997) of goods transported in inter ; see also AMG Res. Corp. v. Wooster Motor Ways, Inc. Carmack Amendment still preempts all state regulation regarding the loss or injury to goods in commerce, so that the shipper 4 Stated simply, the lone cause of action which Plaintiff may assert based on the facts alleged tains only state law claims that are preempted by that Amendment, the Court will dismiss the complaint, in its entirety. Inter Metals Grp., 2022 WL 489404, at *3- claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because those claims were, inter alia, preempted by the Carmack Amendment). Express Hound further avers that its dismissal from this matter, specifically, must be with relevant times, act D.E. 3-1 at 11. For the reasons that follow, the Court cannot conclusively rule, at this time, on this issue. Moreover, because there are facts alleged in the complaint which suggest that Express Hound may have acted as a carrier for purposes of Plaintiff asserting a Carmack Amendment against it, the Court will decline to enter prejudicial dismissal against Express Hound at this time. To be clear, l transportation or service. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1). prima facie case against a carrier under the Carmack Amendment, a shipper must prove (1) delivery of goods to the initial carrier in good condition, (2) damage of the goods before delivery to their final destination, and , 675 F. App'x 136, 140 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). H alleges that Plaintiff was a shipper who delivered its goods to Express Hound in Ridgefield, New Jersey in good condition, that some of those goods were stolen before delivery to their final destination in Dallas, Texas, and that Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $73,308.71 as a result. The 5 Express Hound assumed the role of carrier at any point in the transaction. Un . . sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, see also 49 C.F.R. § 371.2. elivery of goods, regardless of who actually transported them, then [the entity] qualifies as a carrier. If, however, [the entity] merely agreed to locate and hire a third party to transport the machines, then it was Nipponkoa Ins. Co., Ltd. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 2365(PGG), 2011 WL 671747, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2011) (quoting Keystone Lines Corp., No. 02-3751, 2004 WL 1047982, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2004)); accord Tryg Ins. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. CV155343MASTJB, 2017 WL 5725057, at *6 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2017), C endment. See Pelletron Corp. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 09-2365, 2012 WL 3104845, at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 2012). This includes: (1) whether the entity promised to personally perform the transport and therefore legally bound itself to transport; (2) the type of services the entity offers; (3) whether the entity held itself out to the 6 public as the actual transporter of goods; and (4) whether the entity s only role was to secure a third party to ship plaintiff s goods. Id. To that end, the inquiry into whether an entity See Nipponkoa Ins., 2011 WL 671747; Tryg Ins., 2017 WL 5725057. that Plaintiff engaged Express Hound to carry a shipment of mixed freight under a bill of lading and that Express Hound accepted those goods at its facility in Ridgefield, New Jersey. D.E. 1-2 ¶¶ 6, 7. These two factual allegations suggest that Express Hound may have acted as carrier during this particular transaction. See 49 U.S.C. § for property it receives for transportation under this part. That carrier and any other carrier that delivers the property and is providing transportation or service . . . are liable to the person entitled While the Express Hound also b -related services to Plaintiff including with respect to the transaction underlying this lawsuit2 the Court is not in a position, at this time, to definitively rule on the transaction was limited to that of a broker. It will accordingly decline to dismiss Express Hound from this action with prejudice at this time. Finally, Plaintiff avers that in the event the Court determines that dismissal of its complaint . 2 The Court recognizes that if Freight Connections is ultimately found to be nothing other than a ould have other claim preclusion defenses available to it under the 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1). o further discussion on this point is required at this time. 7 5 at 5. The Court agrees. Plaintiff will be afforded the opportunity to amend its complaint to address the pleading deficiencies identified herein. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). There has been no prior dismissal of the complaint, Plaintiff has not previously amended its pleadings, and Express Hound has not demonstrated that it would be prejudicial, futile, or otherwise unfair for Plaintiff to be given leave to amend. It is consistent with principles of fairness and justice to afford Plaintiff an opportunity to do so. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 90 days of the date of this Opinion. For the reasons above, Freight Connections motion to dismiss (D.E. 3) is . Plaintiff is afforded 90 days to file an amended complaint to address the pleading deficiencies identified herein. An appropriate order follows. Dated: October 27, 2022 __________________ Evelyn Padin, U.S.D.J. 8
]]>
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.
