PCX Holding, LLC v. Guy M. Turner Incorporated, et al
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 34 Motion for partial Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 37 Motion to Strike. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 10/19/2017. (Stouch, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
PCX HOLDING, LLC
GUY M. TURNER, INC., and RELAY
RELAY AS SOCIATES, INC.,
ALTRAN SOLUTIONS CORP.,
This cause is before the Court on Defendant Guy M. Turner Inc. 's Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Relay Associates' claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
[DE 24], Defendant Turner's motion to strike Defendant Relay Associates' surreply brief [DE
37], and Third-Party Defendant Altran Solutions' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings
[DE 34]. The matters have been fully briefed and are ripe for ruling. For the reasons discussed
below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED, the motion to strike the surreply is DENIED, and the
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
The seeds of this case were sown when an oversized truck bearing electronic equipment
was hit by a train in Halifax, North Carolina in 2015. The truck was bound for New Jersey,
where third-party defendant Altran had contracted with defendant Relay Associates to build a
control house as part of an electrical switching station. Defendant Relay Associates in turn hired
plaintiff PCX, a North Carolina corporation, to build the control house sections. Once the
sections were completed, plaintiff PCX, through a shipping broker, hired defendant Turner to
transport the pieces from North Carolina to New Jersey. En route, the truck bearing one of the
sections was hit and the cargo was destroyed. Most of the underlying merits claims, which
include claims for damages between PCX and Relay Associates, PCX and Turner, Relay
Associates and Turner, and Relay Associates and Altran, are not yet before this Court.
Defendant Relay Associates filed a crossclaim against defendant Turner, asserting a
negligence claim stemming from the destruction of the control house section. Defendant Turner
has moved to dismiss that claim. Additionally, defendant Turner has filed a motion to strike a
surreply filed by defendant Relay Associates. Finally, Relay Associates' series of claims against
Altran include a claim under the New Jersey Prompt Pay Act, which is the subject of Altran's
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
This Court has jurisdiction over the claim plaintiff PCX brought against defendant Turner
on the basis of the federal question asserted, 49 U.S.C. § 14706. This Court has jurisdiction over
the remaining claims between the various parties under diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
as well as supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Defendant Turner's Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Turner's motion to dismiss defendant Relay Associates' crossclaim is made
under Rule 12(b)( 6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule l 2(b)( 6) motion tests the
legal sufficiency of the complaint. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). When acting on
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "the court should accept as true all well-pleaded
allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff." Mylan
Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). A complaint must allege enough facts
to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). Facial plausibility means that the facts pled "allow the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," and mere recitals of the
elements of a cause of action supported by conclusory statements do not suffice. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must be dismissed ifthe factual allegations do not
nudge the claims "across the line from conceivable to plausible." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Defendant Relay Associates, in its crossclaim against deJendant Turner, asserts a cause of
action sounding in negligence. To do so, a claimant must allege the following: a duty, breach of
that duty, causation, and damages. E.g., William L. Thorp Revocable Trust v. Ameritas Inv.
Group, 57 F. Supp. 3d 508, 531 (E.D.N.C. 2014). Defendant Relay Associates has pled enough
facts to state a claim. It has alleged that defendant Turner owed defendant Relay Associates a
duty of due care. It has alleged specific facts as to defendant Turner's neglect of that duty when
crossing the train tracks. It has alleged that this negligence led to a train hitting the equipment on
the truck. And it has alleged that the destruction of the equipment on the truck led to its injury.
These facts suffice to state a tort claim.
Defendant Turner, in its motion to dismiss defendant Relay Associates' negligence claim,
argues that the claim is preempted by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce
Commission Act, 49 U .S.C. §14706. The Carmack Amendment provides a mechanism to resolve
contractual and tort disputes between carriers and shippers. Turner is undisputedly the motor
carrier. But Relay Associates has alleged facts sufficient to argue that it is neither the shipper nor
on the bill of lading, and thus is not controlled by the Carmack Amendment. At this juncture,
such factual claims are substantial enough that a motion to dismiss should not be granted. Relay
Associates has stated a plausible claim.
Defendant Turner's Motion to Strike Defendant Relay Associates' Surreply
Defendant Turner also filed a motion to strike defendant Relay Associates' surreply
regarding the above claim. While surreply briefs are generally disfavored, this Court has the
discretion to permit them. See Osei v. University ofMaryland University College, 202 F. Supp.
3d 471 (D. Md. 2016). Tl}e Court declines to strike the surreply brief at issue here. The motion is
Third-Party Defendant Altran's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings
Under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment on the pleadings is
appropriate when no set of facts would entitle a plaintiff to relief under his claim. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c); Gibby v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 155 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 1998). The claim at issue here
is one of several defendant Relay Associates brought against third-party defendant Altran when
involving it in the proceeding before this Court. It alleges a violation of the New Jersey Prompt
Payment Act, or NJPP A. N.J.S.A § 2A:30A. The text of the NJPPA itselfrestricts it as a cause of
action outside the state of New Jersey. N.J.S.A § 2A:30A-2f ("In any civil action brought to
collect payments pursuant to this section, the action shall be collected inside of this state."). "The
terms of the NJPPA are unequivocal." First Gen. Const. Corp. v. Kasco Const. Co., 2011 WL
2038542, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2011). This claim is restricted to New Jersey. As this lawsuit is
proceeding outside of New Jersey, it is appropriate to grant judgment for third-party defendant
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Guy M. Turner Inc.' s Motion to Dismiss Defendant
Relay Associates' claim [DE 24] is DENIED, Defendant Turner's motion to strike Defendant
Relay Associates' surreply brief [DE 37] is DENIED, and Third-Party Defendant Altran
Solutions' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings [DE 34] is GRANTED. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED, this i!l_ day of October, 2017.
T RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
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?