Apex Compounding Pharmacy LLC v. Best Transp. Servs., Inc.
Decision Date | 18 March 2021 |
Docket Number | CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-73-TLS |
Parties | APEX COMPOUNDING PHARMACY LLC, Plaintiff, v. BEST TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant. |
Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana |
Sometime prior to July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff, Apex Compounding Pharmacy LLC, sought delivery services from the Defendant, Best Transportation Services, Inc. The parties entered into a contract, under which the Defendant would deliver medications manufactured by the Plaintiff to its customers in the Chicago metropolitan area. The Plaintiff alleges that on July 17, 2015, it was notified that the Defendant's delivery person, Katherine Rodriguez, failed to complete eight deliveries. After this discovery, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant in Indiana state court. See State Court Compl., ECF No. 3. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, and respondeat superior claims against the Defendant. The Defendant contends that Indiana law prohibits all but the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim and that the Plaintiff's recovery for such a claim is limited to, as per the terms and conditions of service agreed upon by both parties, $800.00. This lawsuit was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, see Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, and the parties then proceeded to trial without a jury, see Bench Trial, ECF Nos. 108, 109. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), after observation of the witnesses at trial and review of the trial exhibits, the Court enters the following written findings of facts and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Prior to the Bench Trial, the following undisputed material facts were established:
Best operates a for-hire delivery service that is registered with the United States Department of Transportation. Apex manufactures and sells specialized prescription medication. Apex had an agreement with eight customers to deliver prescriptions for medication to them. Apex engaged Best to pick up the prescriptions at Apex's location in Dyer, Indiana, and deliver them to the customers in Chicago and various Illinois suburbs of Chicago, namely: Lansing, Oak Lawn, Park Forest, and Crete. Katherine Rodriguez, an agent for Best, picked up the prescriptions.
Aug. 20, 2018 Op. & Order 1, ECF No. 75. At trial, the Court heard testimony from the following witnesses:
The following facts are based on admitted exhibits and from testimony elicited at trial.
The Plaintiff submitted orders through the Defendant's online portal seeking delivery services for the eight medications that are at issue in the instant case. Tr. Ex. 6. The Plaintiff submitted a valuation of $100.00 for six of the medications and no valuation, which appears as a valuation of $0.00, for two of the medications. Tr. v.2, p. 285, ECF No.112; Tr. Ex. 6. The Defendant engaged Katherine Rodriguez to deliver the medications at issue. Aug. 20, 2018 Op. & Order 1. On July 17, 2015, Katherine Rodriguez failed to deliver the medications. See, e.g.,Tr. v.1, p. 38-39, 50-53, 76-77, ECF No. 111. The medications were not returned to and could not be recovered by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant. The week following July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff remanufactured the medications, and the Defendant delivered them to the Plaintiff's clients. Tr. Ex. 10.
The Plaintiff contends that Katherine Rodriguez was the Defendant's employee; however, the Defendant argues that she was an independent contractor. The following was established about the Defendant's and industry practices:
Despite the above detailed practices being established by witness testimony and trial exhibits, some details are absent from the record. Regarding the Defendant's practices, it is unclear whether its delivery persons were required to maintain constant communication with the dispatch department (as opposed to simply confirming receipt and delivery of a package) and whether the Plaintiff required the Defendant's delivery persons to receive specialized training before they were staffed on the Plaintiff's delivery jobs. Furthermore, the record is lacking in facts and details particularized toward Katherine Rodriguez's tenure as a Best delivery person. Specifically, no evidence was introduced indicating how long she worked for or how many deliveries she made for the Defendant, whether she leased a uniform or a handheld device, whether she received any training, or whether she used the route generated by her leased software. Evidence was introduced indicating that Katherine Rodriguez contacted the dispatch department on July 17, 2015; however, this communication occurred only after she experienced difficulties during her delivery job. See Tr. v.1, p. 79.
ANALYSIS
The Pre-Trial Order [ECF No. 105] presented the following issues for trial:
Pre-Trial Order 1-2, ECF No. 105. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 19] alleges the following claims against the Defendant: Breach of Contract (Count VI), Gross Negligence(Count I), and Respondeat Superior (Counts III, V, VIII). Am. Compl., ECF No. 19. The Court will...
To continue reading
Request your trial