B&W Fiber Glass, Inc. v. Kerns Trucking, Inc. et al
Filing
27
ORDER granting 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/30/2017. (khm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00306-MR-DLH
B&W FIBER GLASS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KERNS TRUCKING, INC., ELE
LOGISTICS, INC., EXPRESS
BROKERAGE, INC., PL
TRUCKING, LLC.,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AGAINST DEFENDANT PL
TRUCKING, LLC
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant PL Trucking, LLC pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 25].
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff B&W Fiber Glass, Inc. (“B&W”) filed this civil action on August
18, 2016 in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Cleveland County, North Carolina.
[Doc. 1-1].
Defendant PL
Trucking, LLC (“PL Trucking”) was served with the Summons and Complaint
on August 24, 2016. [Doc. 15-1 at ¶ 3]. On September 15, 2016, the
Defendants Kerns Trucking, Inc., ELE Logistics, Inc., and Express
Brokerage, Inc., with the consent of PL Trucking, filed a Notice of Removal
to this Court, citing as a basis for removal the existence of a federal question,
namely the application of the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706.
[Doc. 1].
Following removal, PL Trucking failed to appear, plead, or otherwise
defend against the claims asserted.
A default was entered against PL
Trucking by the Clerk of Court on December 9, 2016. [Doc. 16].
The Plaintiff reached a settlement with the non-defaulting Defendants
[see Doc. 24], and on August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Stipulation of
Dismissal as to its claims against these Defendants [Doc. 26]. The Plaintiff
now seeks a default judgment against PL Trucking. [Doc. 25].
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry
of a default when “a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is
sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Once
a defendant has been defaulted, the plaintiff may then seek a default
judgment. If the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or can be made certain
by computation, the Clerk of Court may enter the default judgment. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 55(b)(1). In all other cases, the plaintiff must apply to the Court for a
default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
2
“The defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
allegations of fact . . . .” Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778,
780 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat'l
Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). A defendant, however, “is not
held . . . to admit conclusions of law.” Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780 (quoting
Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206). The Court therefore must determine whether
the
facts
as
alleged
state
a
claim.
GlobalSantaFe
Corp.
v.
Globalsantafe.com, 250 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 n.3 (E.D. Va. 2003).
III.
PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The well-pleaded factual allegations of the Plaintiff’s Complaint having
been deemed admitted by virtue of the Defendant’s default, the following is
a summary of the relevant facts.
The Plaintiff B&W Fiber Glass, Inc. manufactures and develops
technical fibers, including fiber glass yarn. [Id. at ¶ 2]. The Defendants Kerns
Trucking, Inc., ELE Logistics, Inc., Express Brokerage, Inc., and PL
Trucking, LLC are all motor carriers providing motor vehicle transportation
services for compensation. [Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6, 8, 10].
On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Kerns
Trucking to transport nine beams of fiber glass yarn from the Plaintiff’s
headquarters in Shelby, North Carolina, to Intertape Polymer Group in
3
Carbondale, Illinois. [Id. at ¶ 14]. Under the terms of the contract, Kerns
Trucking agreed to transport the beams to Intertape Polymer Group and bear
responsibility for any damage. [Id. at ¶ 15]. Kerns Trucking invoiced the
Plaintiff $2,350.00 for the shipment. [Id. at ¶ 19]. Kerns Trucking then
tendered the shipment to ELE Logistics and/or Express Brokerage for
transportation to Intertape Polymer Group. [Id. at ¶ 20]. Thereafter, ELE
Logistics and/or Express Brokerage tendered the shipment to PL Trucking
for transportation to Intertape Polymer Group. [Id. at ¶ 21].
The Plaintiff provided the nine beams of fiber glass yarn in good
condition, and the Bill of Lading notes that the beams were “received in good
order.” [Id. at ¶¶ 22, 23]. The nine beams, however, arrived in a damaged
condition at Intertape Polymer Group. [Id. at ¶ 24]. The damage to the
beams was not caused by: an act of God; a public enemy; an act or omission
of the Plaintiff; an act by a public authority; or an inherent vice of nature of
the goods. [Id. at ¶ 25]. As a result of the damage, Intertape Polymer Group
rejected all nine beams, and the beams were returned to the Plaintiff in
Shelby, North Carolina. [Id. at ¶ 26].
As a result of these events, the Plaintiff suffered direct losses of
$43,710.74, comprising: (a) a total loss of eight beams of fiberglass yarn in
($40,005.94); (b) a partial loss one beam of fiberglass yarn ($302.00); (c) a
4
total loss of four steel racks used to transport beams ($2,146.00); and (d) the
costs to rework the damaged racks that could be salvaged ($1,256.80).
[Declaration of M. Brent Beason (“Beason Decl.”), Doc. 25-1 at ¶ 3]. The
Plaintiff’s damages also include $2,350.00 paid for the shipment. [Id. at ¶ 4].
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s total damages, not including costs, interest or
attorneys’ fees, are $46,060.74. [Id. at ¶ 5].
The Plaintiff reached a settlement with the non-defaulting Defendants
and thereby will recover $25,000 of its damages.
After crediting the
settlement amount against the Plaintiff’s total damages, the Plaintiff’s
unrecovered damages are $21,060.74. [Id. at ¶ 6].
IV.
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiff brings this action under the Carmack Amendment, 49
U.S.C. § 14706.1 In order to state a claim under that statute, the Plaintiff
must allege: (1) receipt of the goods by the defendant carrier in good order
and condition; (2) the arrival of the shipment at its destination in a damaged
condition or the failure of the shipment to arrive at all; and (3) the amount of
1
The Plaintiff also asserts an alternative claim for relief against PL Trucking for
negligence. [See Doc. 1-1 at 8]. Because the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to
relief under the Carmack Amendment, the Court need not address the Plaintiff’s
negligence claim.
5
damages. See Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 138
(1964).
Upon review of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Declaration of M. Brent
Beason, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established the elements
necessary to impose liability under the Carmack Amendment. In addition to
damages, the Court in its discretion will also award prejudgment interest at
a rate of 3.5%2 simple interest from October 19, 2015 to the date of the entry
of judgment. See American Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. ex rel. Tabacalera Contreras
Cigar Co. v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 325 F.3d 924, 937 (7th Cir. 2003)
(noting that prejudgment interest is typically awarded on Carmack
Amendment claim from the date of injury); George R. Hall, Inc. v. Superior
Trucking Co., 532 F. Supp. 985, 997 (N.D. Ga. 1982) (concluding that
damages are “sufficiently certain” to award prejudgment interest on Carmack
Amendment claim). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
against the Defendant PL Trucking, LLC will be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant PL Trucking, LLC [Doc. 25] is GRANTED, and
a default judgment is awarded in favor of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant PL Trucking, LLC in the principal amount of $21,060.74, plus
2
This was the prime rate in effect at the end of 2015.
6
prejudgment interest (calculated at a rate of 3.5% simple interest from
October 19, 2015 to the date of the entry of judgment) and costs.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter a judgment in
accordance with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 30, 2017
7
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?