Schneider Electric USA, Inc. et al v. Landstar Inway, Inc.

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER granting 35 Motion for Reconsideration of the 3/29/2012 Opinion and Order and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Instanter. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs to file their Amended Complaint, consistent with thisOrder. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/7/2012. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, USA,
INC., et al.,

:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
LANDSTAR INWAY, Inc., et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
:

NO. 1:11-CV-00801

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Schneider
Electric USA, Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, P.A.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the March 29, 2012
Opinion and Order; and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint, Instanter (doc. 35), Defendant Landstar Inway’s Response
in Opposition (doc. 41), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (doc. 42).
I.

Background
Plaintiff Schneider Electric U.S.A., Inc. entered into a

transportation contract with Landstar Inway Inc. to move electrical
equipment, which was damaged in transit after the equipment became
untarped.

After the delivery, Plaintiffs filed this action, and

then amended their Complaint so as to assert a breach of contract
claim as well as a claim under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. §
14706 (doc. 7).

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ contract

claim, contending such claim is preempted by the Carmack Amendment

(docs. 10, 17).

The Court agreed and issued an Order dismissing

the contract claim (doc. 35).
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its decision
dismissing the contract claim, because Defendant Landstar has since
raised as an affirmative defense that is acted solely as a broker,
and brokers are outside the Carmack Amendment (doc. 35, citing
Navigators Ins. Co. v. Freight Tec Mgmt. Group, Inc., 11-C-7, 2011
WL 4402090 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 19, 2011)).

As such, Plaintiffs

contend their contract claim as to Landstar is viable, and request
leave to amend their Complaint so as to plead such claim in the
alternative against Landstar (Id.).
Defendants oppose both reconsideration and the filing of
an Amended Complaint (doc. 41).

In Defendants’ view, there is no

clear error to correct, no manifest injustice to prevent, and no
change

in

the

law

so

as

to

justify

reconsideration

(Id.).

Defendants further contend they will be prejudiced if Plaintiffs
are allowed to amend their Complaint, and that in any event, the
amendment would be futile (Id.).
II.

Discussion
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds Plaintiffs’

motion well-taken.

It would appear unjust to preclude Plaintiffs

from pleading their contract claim in the alternative, because
should it be determined that Landstar is a broker, then Plaintiffs
would have no recourse against Landstar.

2

Defendants have not

demonstrated any real prejudice or undue delay, as Plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration was filed only a little over two months
after the Order, and less than a month after Landstar’s Amended
Answer and Third-Party Complaint.

Although there has been no

change in law, there has been a change in the factual nature of
this case as Landstar now alleges in its defense that it acted as
a broker.

Broker liability survives the enactment of the Carmack

Amendment.
F.Supp.2d

Comm’l
255,

259

Union

Ins.

(S.D.N.Y.

Co.

v.

1999),

Forward

Custom

Air,

Cartage,

Inc.,

50

Inc.

v.

Motorola, Inc., No. 98 C 5182, 1999 WL 89563, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb.
16, 1999).
The Supreme Court has held that motions for leave to
amend pleadings should be liberally granted unless the motions are
brought in bad faith or the proposed amendments would cause undue
delay, be futile, or unfairly prejudice the opposing parties. Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Moore v. City of
Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 561 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Tefft v. Seward,
689 F.2d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir. 1982)).

Taking into consideration

the liberal standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, the Court finds
Plaintiff’s

motion

for

leave

clarification well-taken.

to

amend

their

Complaint

for

The Court disagrees with Defendant that

such amendment would be futile because it very well could ensure
Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their rights under the contract.
Accordingly,

the

Court

3

GRANTS

Plaintiffs

Schneider

Electric USA, Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, P.A.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the March 29, 2012
Opinion and Order; and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint, Instanter (doc. 35), in all respects, and DIRECTS
Plaintiffs to file their Amended Complaint, consistent with this
Order.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2012

/s/ S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

4