Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
December 15, 2011, Decided; December 15, 2011, Filed
Case No.: 2:10-CV-0994
[*473] OPINION AND ORDER
This case involves an interstate shipment of goods allegedly stolen or lost while in the custody of Defendant Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc. ("SRT"). Pending before the court are SRT's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and SRT's request for an oral hearing on its motion. As set forth below, the Court grants SRT's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denies SRT's request for oral hearing.
Exel is a freight broker (or, in its estimation, a company that "makes arrangements on behalf of its customers for the transport of cargo"). Complaint (Doc. No. 2) at ¶10. SRT "is a motor carrier, who provides transportation of cargo in interstate commerce." Complaint at ¶7. In 2007, Exel [**2] and SRT entered into a "Master Transportation Services Agreement" ("the Agreement") whereby SRT agreed to act as a motor carrier for the transportation of Exel's customers' cargo. Complaint at ¶9. Sandoz, Inc. was one of Exel's customers. Neither party has produced a copy of the Agreement to the court.
In late 2008, pursuant to the Agreement, SRT undertook to transport a shipment of Sandoz's pharmaceutical products ("the Shipment") from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania to Memphis, Tennessee. Complaint at ¶11. The Complaint suggests that bills of lading were issued for the Shipment, see e.g., Complaint at ¶¶42, 43, but neither party has produced a copy of those bills of lading to the court. The SRT truck carrying the Shipment was "stolen or otherwise lost from an unsecured rest area" en route to its intended destination, and the Shipment was never recovered. Complaint at ¶13. Exel alleges that "[t]he value of the Shipment is $8,583,671.12." Complaint at ¶12. Exel further alleges that it submitted a claim to SRT (on behalf of Sandoz) for the value of the Shipment, see Complaint at ¶39, but that "SRT denied the claim [on the basis] that the recovery is subject to a limitation of liability found [**3] in the bills of lading issued for the shipments," Complaint at ¶40.
This action was filed thereafter by "EXEL, INC. f/u/b/o [for the use and benefit of] Sandoz INC." Complaint caption (emphasis added.) Exel alleges that Sandoz "has assigned all of its rights to Exel with regard to the recovery against SRT for the lost Shipment." Complaint at ¶14.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
835 F. Supp. 2d 472 *; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144566 **; 2011 WL 6258387
Exel, Inc., f/u/b/o Sandoz Inc., Plaintiff v. Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc., Defendant.
Subsequent History: Vacated by, in part, Summary judgment denied by, Without prejudice Exel, Inc. v. Southern Refrigerated Transp., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104740 (S.D. Ohio, July 27, 2012)
Summary judgment granted by, Dismissed by, in part Exel, Inc. v. Southern Refrigerated Transp., Inc., 44 F. Supp. 3d 736, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119024 (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 26, 2014)
Stay granted by, in part Exel, Inc. v. S. Refrigerated Transp., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168762 (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 5, 2014)
carrier, Carmack Amendment, Shipment, broker, transportation, preempt, bill of lading, shipper, preemption, pleadings, declaratory judgment, motion for judgment, interstate, alleges, plaintiff-broker, obligations, indemnify, survive, contractual obligation, brokerage agreement, customers, damages, alleged breach, broker's claim, declaratory, bailment, oral hearing, indemnity, courts, rights