Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. et al v. CMT International, Inc.

Filing 192

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 10/11/2013:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA, LTD.,
and “K” LINE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
and

Case No. 07 C 5675

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
Intervening Plaintiff,
v.
PLANO MOLDING CO.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Plano Molding Co.’s (“Plano”)
Motion for Reconsideration. [ECF No. 170.]

For the reasons

stated herein, that Motion is denied.
I.

BACKGROUND

This case stems from a Union Pacific Railroad Co. (“Union
Pacific”) train derailment that caused extensive damage to both
the railroad and the train’s cargo.

Plaintiffs Kawasaki Kisen

Kaisha, Ltd., “K” Line America, Inc. (collectively, “K-Line”) and
Union Pacific blame Plano for the accident.

Plaintiffs claim

that Plano’s steel injection molds were packed improperly, broke
through their container and fell onto the track.

They seek to

hold Plano liable for damages arising from the derailment.

The

specific facts of this case have been recited extensively in
previous decisions, so the Court will not repeat them here. See,
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, LTD v. Plano Molding Co., No. 07 C 5675,
2011

U.S.

Dist.

LEXIS

82335

(N.D.

Ill.

July

27,

2011)

(“Kawasaki I”); Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, LTD v. Plano Molding Co.,
696 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Kawasaki II”); Kawasaki Kisen
Kaisha, LTD v. Plano Molding Co., No. 07 C 5675, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 101118 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2013) (“Kawasaki III”).
On July 27, 2011, this Court granted Plano’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims.
U.S.

Dist.

LEXIS

82335.

It

did

so

See, Kawasaki I, 2011
despite

noting

some

discrepancies regarding whether Plano was a consignee to a bill
of lading prepared by World Commerce Services, LLC (“World”),
which was the basis for some of Plaintiffs’ claims.
18.

Id. at *15-

World, a non-vessel operating common carrier, arranged the

shipment of the steel molds from China to Illinois.

Plaintiffs

appealed, and while the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision
with respect to some of Plaintiffs’ claims, it found unresolved
questions of fact relevant to the Plaintiffs’ contract claims
based on the World Bill of Lading.

The Seventh Circuit stated

that, in analyzing Plaintiffs’ contention that Plano is bound by
the terms of the World Bill of Lading as a contracting party, “we

- 2 -

must consider Plano’s role in obtaining World as the freight
forwarder for the molds’ transportation.
at 656.

Kawasaki II, 696 F.3d

The Seventh Circuit found this question important,

because “if Plano engaged World to handle the shipment on its own
behalf, it could be found liable to K-Line and Union Pacific by
the plain terms of the World bill of lading.”

Id.

The Seventh

Circuit

the

Plano/World

found

the

evidence

surrounding

interaction “murky at best,” and concluded that conflicts in the
record created a material question of fact that required remand.
Id.

As such, the Seventh Circuit concluded:
On this record, we are unable to ascertain
whether CMT or Plano arranged the molds’
shipment
with
World.
Without
this
determination, we cannot conclude whether or
not Plano engaged World in a manner that
would impose liability as a contracting
party, and subject Plano to liability under
the World bill of lading. As to this narrow
issue, we reverse the district court’s grant
of summary judgment and remand for further
consideration.

Id. at 657-58.
Following

the

Seventh

Circuit’s

ruling,

the

parties

stipulated to bifurcating all issues of causation and damages
while the Court first made an initial determination of the sole
issue remanded by the Seventh Circuit:

“whether or not Plano

engaged World in a manner that would impose liability as a
contracting party and subject Plano to liability under the World
bill of lading.”

See, Pre-Trial Order at 1, ECF No. 153.
- 3 -

On June 24, 2013, this Court conducted a one-day bench trial
focusing on the narrow issue raised by the Seventh Circuit with
respect to whether Plano’s interactions with World were such that
Plano was subject to World’s Bill of Lading.
Plano

presented

subject.

both

live

and

deposition

Plaintiffs and

testimony

on

the

After the trial concluded, the Court directed the

parties to submit post-closing briefs.
On July 19, 2013, this Court issued a decision finding that
Plano’s role in obtaining World as the freight forwarder was
sufficient to bind Plano to the World Bill of Lading.

Kawasaki

III, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101118 at *19.

The Court based this

determination on several findings of fact.

The Court found that

Plano selected World as its forwarder, and that Plano gave World
various instructions regarding shipment.

Id. at *18.

The Court

also found that the molds were shipped FOB Shanghai, and that
Plano was listed as the Consignee of the World Bill of Lading.
Id. at *19.

Based on these findings, the Court held that “Plano

is bound to the World Bill of Lading and may be held liable to
Plaintiffs. . . .”

Id. at *19, *20.

Pursuant to the stipulation

entered between the parties, the Court also set the matter for
trial on the issues of causation and damages.
Plano

now

moves,

pursuant

to

Federal

Id. at *20.
Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 54(b), for this Court to reconsider its July 19, 2013

- 4 -

Opinion, claiming that the Court misapprehended certain facts and
that it reached a decision outside of the issues presented to the
Court.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs non-final
orders and permits revision at any time prior to the entry of
judgment.

Galvan v. Norberg, 678 F.3d 581, 587 n.3 (7th Cir.

2012). Rule 54(b) provides that any order or other decision that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims of fewer than all the
parties may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims, unless a partial judgment is entered
as to such an order.

See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Starks v. City

of Waukegan, No. 09 C 348, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116075 at *2
(N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2013).
A motion to reconsider brought pursuant to Rule 54(b) may be
granted where a court:
has obviously misunderstood a party, where
the Court’s decision rests on grounds
outside the adversarial issues presented to
the Court by the parties, where the Court
has made an error not of reasoning but of
apprehension, where there has been a
controlling or significant change in the law
since the submission of the issue to the
Court, or where there has been a controlling
or significant change in the facts of the
case.

- 5 -

FDIC v. Mahajan, No. 11 C 7590, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99450 at
*4-5 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 16, 2013).

A motion to reconsider “is not

an appropriate vehicle for relitigating arguments that the Court
previously rejected or for arguing issues that could have been
raised during the consideration of the motion presently under
reconsideration.”

Id. at *5.
III.

ANALYSIS

In its initial Brief in support of its Motion to Reconsider,
Plano

contends

that

in

reaching

its

decision,

the

Court

misapprehended certain facts and that it reached a decision
outside the issues it was presented.

The heart of its argument

is that the Opinion “not only finds that Plano could be bound by
the terms of the World Bill of Lading, but also finds that Plano
is

liable

under

it.”

Def.’s

Mem.

in

Support

of

Mot.

to

Reconsider at 7, ECF No. 171. While it acknowledges that nowhere
in the Court’s Opinion did the Court hold explicitly that Plano
was liable, Plano asserts that the Court assumed that Plano was
liable under the World Bill of Lading when it set the matter for
trial on the issues of causation and damages.

Id. at 6.

Plano

argues that “[t]he issue of whether Plano could be bound by the
World Bill of Lading is wholly separate and distinct from the
question of whether Plano breached the World Bill of Lading.”
Id. at 7.

Plano then puts forth a number of arguments as to why

- 6 -

it did not breach the World Bill of Lading, and why, even if it
is a party to the agreement, it cannot be held liable under it.
Plaintiffs argue that Plano misreads the Court’s Opinion,
since the Court made no determination that Plano breached the
World Bill of Lading.

They argue that such a finding “awaits the

trial on causation and damages, when Plano’s liability will be
determined.

The

Court

did

not

commit

any

‘errors

of

apprehension,’ nor did the Court ‘skip over any steps’ as Plano
contends, since the parties did not litigate, and the Court did
not decide Plano’s liability.”
at 1.

Pls.’ Opp. to Mot. to Reconsider

Plaintiffs then address Plano’s various arguments.

This Court finds that its holding in its July 2013 Opinion
does not warrant reconsideration.

Specifically, the Court’s

conclusion that Plano is bound by the World Bill of Lading and
may be held liable to Plaintiffs does not satisfy any of the
bases for granting a motion to reconsider.

The Court did not

misunderstand a party or make an error of apprehension, the
decision rests on grounds within the adversarial issues presented
to the Court, and there has been no significant change in law or
facts.
As to Plano’s contention that the Court reached a conclusion
outside the issues presented, the Court disagrees.
Circuit

directed

this

Court

to

examine

The Seventh

whether

Plano’s

interactions with World could subject it to liability under the
- 7 -

World Bill of Lading.

The Court held a one day hearing on that

subject, and based on the evidence and testimony presented, found
that Plano’s interactions with World were such that it was bound
by the Bill of Lading and could be subjected to liability under
it.

As both parties note, the Court made no finding that Plano

was liable under the World Bill of Lading, only that it may be.
The Court then set the trial on causation and damages according
to the parties’ own stipulation, not because it assumed Plano was
liable.

The Court made no such finding or assumption.

In its Reply Brief, Plano softens its stance, acknowledging
that the Court and the parties have been focused on the “more
important threshold issue of whether Plano was bound by the terms
of the World Bill of Lading,” and as such, the issue of whether
and how the World Bill of Lading imposes liability on Plano has
not been addressed.

Thus, Plano suggests that the question of

how the World Bill of Lading’s provisions operate in light of the
facts of the case should be considered by the Court, specifically
by applying the findings of fact already made in the case.
Plano’s contention is that it cannot be held liable under the
facts of the case already established, because Clause 10.2 of the
World Bill of Lading imposes liability on Plano only if World
received a sealed container, and in this case, it did not.

As

such, Plano argues that the issue is not that the Court made a

- 8 -

determination as to Plano’s liability under the World Bill of
Lading.

Rather,
Plano merely asks this Court to reconsider
whether a trial on the issues of causation
and damages is necessary in light of Clause
10.2 of the World Bill of Lading and the
findings of fact made by both this Court and
the Seventh Circuit that bear upon the
application of Clause 10.2.

Def.’s Reply at 2.
This is not just a shift in Plano’s stance with respect to
the purpose of its Motion to Reconsider, but a complete 180
degree turn.

In its opening brief, it accuses the Court of

reaching a conclusion outside the matters that were presented to
it by finding that Plano is liable under the World Bill of Lading
(which, as explained earlier, the Court did not).

In its Reply,

it seeks to have the Court do exactly what it complained about in
its opening brief – make a determination regarding Plano’s
liability despite the fact that doing so would be outside the
matters that were presented to it during the one day trial.

The

only difference is that it wants the determination to be in its
favor.

In essence, Plano seeks to transform its Motion to

Reconsider into a Motion for Summary Judgment, which this Court
finds improper.
With the Court’s approval, the parties stipulated to first
determining whether Plano could be bound by the World Bill of
Lading, before then moving on to causation and damages.
- 9 -

The

Court’s July Order does precisely that:

it concludes that Plano

can be bound by the World Bill of Lading, and sets trial for
causation and damages. Plaintiffs will have their opportunity to
show that Plano is liable under the World Bill of Lading at
trial, and Plano will have its opportunity to defend itself.

As

such, reconsideration is unwarranted.
IV.
For

the

reasons

CONCLUSION

stated

herein,

Plano’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration (ECF No. 170) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
DATE: October 11, 2013

- 10 -