Noble Environmental, Inc., et al v. Landstar Ranger, Inc. et al, No. 5:2019cv01173 - Document 23 (N.D. Ohio 2019)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: As the Second Amended Complaint supersedes the First Amended Complaint, Landstar Ranger's motion 17 to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Further, Landstar Ranger's motion 22 for an extension of time until 10/16/2019 to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Judge Sara Lioi on 10/1/2019. (O,K)

Download PDF
Noble Environmental, Inc., et al v. Landstar Ranger, Inc. et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., et al., PLAINTIFFS, vs. NATIONAL FREIGHT LOGISTICS, INC., et al., DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:19-cv-1173 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 21, 2019, Plaintiffs, Noble Environmental, Inc. and PennOhio Waste, LLC, filed the present action against numerous defendants, including defendant Landstar Ranger, Inc. (“Landstar Ranger”), seeking to recover for alleged damage to goods during transportation by a motor carrier. (Doc. No. 1 (Complaint).) The first amended complaint (“FAC”) raises two claims: violations of the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 11706 (Count One); and gross negligence (Count Two). (Doc. No. 12 (FAC).) Landstar Ranger subsequently moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim for relief against it, arguing that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) preempts the only claim against it. (Doc. No. 17 (Landstar Ranger Motion to Dismiss [“MTD”]) at 89.) On August 19, 2019, plaintiffs and Landstar Ranger filed a document styled “Joint Stipulation to Extend Time.” (Doc. No. 20 [“Stip.”].) In their stipulation, the parties agreed to extend plaintiffs’ deadline for responding to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to September 18, 2019. The stipulation contemplated the Dockets.Justia.com filing of an amended pleading as a response to the motion. (Stip. at 117.) The Court construed the parties’ stipulation as a joint motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss and granted the same. (Non-document Order, Aug. 21, 2019.) On September 18, 2019, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. No. 21 (SAC).) The amended pleading was not accompanied by any other filing, and—consistent with the parties’ stipulation—the Court construes the SAC as plaintiffs’ response to Landstar Ranger’s motion. Without ruling on the merits of Landstar’s Ranger’s dispositive motion, the Court observes that it is appropriate to address complaint deficiencies identified in a Rule 12 motion to dismiss with an amended pleading. See generally Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516, 521 (6th Cir. 2008). As the SAC supersedes the FAC, Landstar Ranger’s motion to dismiss the FAC is DENIED without prejudice. Further, Landstar Ranger’s motion (Doc. No. 22) for an extension of time until October 16, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to the SAC is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 1, 2019 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.