Federal Insurance Company v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., et al.,

Filing 28

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/6/11. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New
Jersey Corporation,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14

v.
JAS FORWARDING (USA), INC., a
Washington Corporation; SIERRA
BAY TRANSPORT, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive

15

Defendants.
________________________________

16

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00586-GEB-KJN
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT*

17
Plaintiff

18

filed

a

Notice

of

Settlement

and

Motion

for

19

Application for a Determination of Good Faith Settlement and Dismissal

20

of Cross-Claims (hereinafter “Motion”), in which it seeks an order

21

determining its settlement with Defendant/Cross-Defendant Sierra Bay

22

Transport, Inc. was reached in good faith under California Code of Civil

23

Procedure section 877.6. Plaintiff also seeks in the motion dismissal

24

of

25

cross-claims

26

settlement.

Defendant

JAS

Forwarding

against

Sierra

(USA),
Bay

Inc.’s

Transport,

(hereinafter
Inc.

pursuant

“JAS’s”)
to

the

27
28

*

argument.

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1

JAS opposes the dismissal of its cross-claims against SBT, and

2

argues if the motion is granted, JAS may be deprived of its federal

3

right prescribed in 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b) (“the Carmack Amendment”) to

4

seek indemnity from SBT, should JAS ultimately be found liable under the

5

Carmack Amendment for Plaintiff’s missing property. (Def.’s Opp’n to

6

Mot. (“Opp’n”), 2:1-3:27.) Specifically JAS argues approval of the

7

settlement under California law could “eviscerate [JAS’s] federal

8

statutory right to indemnity [under § 14706(b)] from the responsible

9

carrier.” (Opp’n, 1:25-26.)

10

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that JAS is a motor carrier

11

or

12

alternatively, that JAS is a freight broker liable only under state law.

13

(First

14

Transportation Systems, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (C.D. Cal.

15

2002).

16

Amendment, Plaintiff has not discussed in its motion the nature of JAS’s

17

exposure to liability in this case or JAS’s asserted Carmack Amendment

18

federal indemnity claim. Since Plaintiff has not addressed these issues

19

in its motion or otherwise sustained its burden showing its motion

20

should be granted, the motion is denied.

freight

Am.

forwarder

Comp.,

¶¶

Notwithstanding

subject

2,

20);

to

Carmack

Chubb

Plaintiff’s

Amendment

Group

of

allegations

liability

Ins.

under

Cos.

v.

the

21
22
23
24

Dated: October 6, 2011
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2

and,

H.A.

Carmack