Fourth Dimension Securities, Inc. v. Federal Express Corporation
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER denying 4 Motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/19/2012. (SVC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
FOURTH DIMENSION SECURITIES, INC. a
Florida corporation doing business
as Solar Illuminations,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.
2:12-cv-154-FtM-29DNF
FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
Defendant.
______________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Complaint (Doc. #4) filed on March 19, 2012.
filed a response on March 29, 2012.
Plaintiff
For the reasons set forth
below, the motion to dismiss is denied.
I.
The Complaint alleges that on July 27, 2011, plaintiff Fourth
Dimensions Securities, Inc., a Florida corporation doing business
as Solar Illuminations (Solar Illuminations or plaintiff) paid
defendant FedEx Freight, Inc.1 (FedEx or defendant) to deliver
light fixtures and light poles through defendant’s freight delivery
services to a Solar Illuminations customer.
FedEx undertook the
obligation of delivering the goods, as evidenced by a Bill of
Lading.
1
However, the goods received by the customer were damaged.
Plaintiff incorrectly named the defendant as Federal Express
Corporation.
On August 9, 2011, Solar Illuminations again paid FedEx to deliver
light poles to replace those damaged goods, and FedEx undertook the
obligation as evidenced by a second Bill of Lading.
the
goods
delivered
to
the
customer
were
Once again,
damaged.
Solar
Illuminations ultimately re-shipped the order through a third party
carrier. Solar Illuminations alleges that it has sustained damages
as a result of FedEx delivering damaged goods including, but not
limited to, the shipping costs and costs of damaged goods.2
Solar
Illuminations reported the alleged damages to FedEx but defendant
has refused to compensate plaintiff.
As a result, plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County,
Florida, Civil Division on March 15, 2012.
The matter was removed
on March 15, 2012, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction
under the Federal Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706.
Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint based on Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) because the allegations establish that FedEx delivered
the packages and therefore it met its obligations to deliver the
shipped
goods
to
Solar
Illuminations’s
customer.
Defendants
further contend that the Complaint fails to meet the pleading
requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 because it asserts
2
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the July 27, 2011,
transaction resulted in damages of $1,400.28 in shipping costs and
$20,000.00 in damaged goods.
The August 9, 2011, transaction
resulted in $707.89 in shipping costs and $9,996.00 in damaged
goods. (Doc. #2, ¶13.)
-2-
nothing more than mere conclusions that plaintiff is entitled to
relief under the Bills of Lading.
In response, plaintiff alleges
that its Complaint is sufficient, and if the Court finds it
insufficient, it should be granted leave to amend the Complaint.
II.
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in a complaint as true
and take them in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.
403,
406
(2002).
“To
survive
dismissal,
the
complaint’s
allegations must plausibly suggest that the [plaintiff] has a right
to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if
they do not, the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.” James
River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Eng’g, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274
(11th Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555–56 (2007)); see also Edwards v. Prime Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291
(11th Cir. 2010).
The former rule-that “[a] complaint should be
dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiffs can
prove no set of facts which would entitle them to relief,” La
Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir.
2004)-has been retired by Twombly.
at 1274.
James River Ins. Co ., 540 F.3d
Thus, the Court engages in a two-step approach: “When
there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume
their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise
-3-
to an entitlement to relief.”
(2009).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
The Court need not accept as true legal conclusions or
mere conclusory statements.
Id.
To survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must
first satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2).
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief,” and that each allegation be pleaded in a
“simple,
concise,
8(a)(2)(d)(1).
and
direct”
manner.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
The purpose of this requirement is to supply the
defendant with fair notice as to the nature of the claim and the
grounds upon which the claim rests.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 552.
III.
The Court finds that the Complaint meets Rule 8's pleading
requirements. The Complaint clearly alleges that plaintiff entered
into two Bills of Lading with the defendant for the shipment of
goods, that the defendant undertook the obligation of delivering
the goods, the defendant delivered damaged goods, and as a result
the plaintiff sustained damages.
These allegations clearly give
rise to a cause of action under the Carmack Amendment, which
governs the liability of a carrier for the loss of, or damage to,
an interstate shipment of goods.
226 U.S. 491, 503-04 (1913).
Adams Express Co. v. Croninger,
The Carmack Amendment provides that
a shipper may recover “for the actual loss or injury to the
-4-
property” caused by a carrier.
49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1); Malloy v.
Allied Van Lines, Inc., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1251 (M.D. Fla.
2003); see also A.I.G. Uru. Compania de Seguros, S.A. v. AAA Cooper
Transp., 334 F.3d 997, 1003 (11th Cir. 2003).
Defendants
were
clearly
on
notice
as
to
the
basis
for
plaintiff’s Carmack Amendment claim as its Notice of Removal
specifically
states
that
the
claim
falls
under
the
Carmack
Amendment because it “arises from an alleged cargo loss that
occurred during an interstate commercial movement.”
(Doc. #1, p.
2.) As such, the Court finds that the Complaint meets the pleading
requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Further, because the
Complaint does not allege that FedEx failed to deliver goods, and
instead alleges that FedEx delivered damaged goods, defendant’s
assertion
that
Rule
12(b)(6)
warrants
dismissal
because
they
completed their obligation to deliver the goods is without merit.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. #4) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
October, 2012.
Copies: Counsel of record
-5-
19th
day of
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?