Transport Financial Services LLC v. Solaris Transport, LLC et al
Filing
39
OPINION AND ORDER: Kelly Group Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 33 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall deposit the interpleader funds in accordance with the forthcoming order to withdraw funds and disburse. Signed on 2/1/2018 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (joha)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
TRANSPORT FINANCIAL SERVICES,
LLC,
No. 3:17-cv-00513-HZ
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
SOLARIS TRANSPORT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
John P. Manning
8152 SW Hall Blvd. #224
Beaverton, OR 97008
Attorney for Plaintiff Transport Financial Services, LLC
OPINION & ORDER - 1
David B. Gray
12275 SW 2nd St.
Beaverton, OR 97005
Attorney for Defendants Kelly Pipe Company, LLC, Master Pipe Distribution Company,
and B&E Freight, LLC
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Defendants Kelly Pipe Company, LLC, Master Pipe Distribution Company, and B&E
Freight, LLC (hereinafter "Kelly Group Defendants") move for summary judgment under 49
U.S.C. § 14704 to recover economic damages for unpaid transportation services. Plaintiff
Transportation Financial Services, LLC ("TFS") brought this interpleader action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335, interpleading Defendant Solaris Transportation, LLC ("Solaris") as well as numerous
interpleader defendants that may have had claims against Solaris for unpaid services. TFS filed
with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration a surety instrument, a "Form BMC-85
Broker's or Freight Forwarder's Trust Fund Agreement," ("BMC-85 Trust") in the amount of
$74,150, that TFS held in trust for Solaris. See Compl. ii 2, ECF 1. TFS deposited the corpus of
the MBC-85 Trust with the Court for disbursement as the Court deems proper. Id. at iii! 8-9. TFS
alleged that the interpleader defendants, including Kelly Group Defendants, may have
conflicting claims against the BMC-85 Trust.
TFS dismissed the majority of interpleader defendants because they did not timely file
claims in response to the Complaint. See Notice of Dismissal, ECF 32. Seven interpleader
defendants that have filed claims remain: the three Kelly Group Defendants; B&G, LLC; Handy
Trucking Company, LLC; Douglas Keck d/b/a Douglas Keck Trucking Company; and Hamilton
Transportation, LLC. Before the Court is Kelly Group Defendants' motion for summary
judgment that it is entitled to the entirety of the BMC-85 Trust funds and that the remaining
OPINION & ORDER - 2
interpleader defendants' claims should be stricken or dismissed. See Mot. Summ. J., ECF 33;
Mem. in Support of Mot. Summ. J., ECF 34. None of the remaining interpleader defendants filed
a response to Kelly Group Defendant's summary judgment motion.
STANDARDS
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis of its motion, and
identifying those portions of '"the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
Once the moving party meets its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to present "specific facts"
showing a "genuine issue for trial." Fed Trade Comm 'n v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927-28 (9th
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The nonmoving party must go beyond the
pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for trial. Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218
(9th Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). The court draws inferences from the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011).
Summary judgment "may not be granted based on a failure to file an opposition to the
motion." Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013). In other words, a district
court may not grant summary judgment "by default even if there is a complete failure to respond
to the motion. Id (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Committee Notes (2010)). Under Rule
56, where a party "fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact" the court may: "(1)
OPINION & ORDER - 3
give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for
purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment ifthe motion and supporting materials-including the facts considered undisputed--show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any
other appropriate order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
DISCUSSION
Kelly Group Defendants have demonstrated that they are entitled to recover the BMC-85
Trust funds that TFS deposited with the Court. Kelly Group Defendants were the only
interpleader defendants that filed an answer responsive to TFS's Complaint. See Answer, ECF
23. In that Answer, Kelly Group Defendants admitted that they were either "shippers" or
"authorized carriers" entitled to the BMC-85 Trust under 49 CFR 376.2(a), (k); 49 U.S.C.
§ 14704. Id.
if 6; Compl. iii! 2, 11-12. Kelly Group Defendants have submitted affidavits
substantiating their claims against Solaris. See Medal Aff., ECF 35, Matsumoto Aff., ECF 36;
Konis Aff., ECF 37. Kelly Group Defendants claim amounts are as follows: Kelly Pipe
Company, LLC $44,200.00; B&E Freight, LLC $37,100; and Master Pipe Distribution Company
$6,000.00. Mot. Summ. J. 3. Given that the claims exceed the amount of the BMC-85 Trust,
Kelly Group Defendants request the following distribution: Kelly Pipe Company, LLC
$37,542.14; B&E Freight, LLC $31,511.60; and Master Pipe Distribution Company $5,096.26.
Id.
The remaining interpleader defendants, by contrast, have not substantiated their claims
nor have they raised a genuine issue of material fact as to Kelly Group Defendants' claims. For
example, Douglas Keck Trucking Company submitted a single-page handwritten request for
$850.00 attached to a Solaris invoice. See Keck Claim, ECF 27. Douglas Keck Trucking
Company has not demonstrated that it is a "shipper" or "authorized carrier" entitled to the BMC-
OPINION & ORDER - 4
85 Trust funds. In further example, Hamilton Transportation, LLC submitted as its claim a fourpage document including a copy of its own invoice, a Solaris invoice, a bill of lading, and a
shipping truck log tally. See Hamilton Claim, ECF 28. In sum, none of the remaining
interpleader defendants' claims are responsive to TFS's Complaint, nor do those claims establish
that they are legally entitled to the BMC-85 Trust. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is
no genuine issue of material fact and Kelly Group Defendants have demonstrated, based on their
papers and affidavits, that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
Kelly Group Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [33] is GRANTED. The Clerk
of the Court shall deposit the interpleader funds in accordance with the forthcoming order to
withdraw funds and disburse.
l
f'AL
Dated this _ __,___ day of _ _ _
~------' 2018.
OPINION & ORDER - 5
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?