United Granite & Quartz, Inc. v. Emuro Transp.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 23-01673 (GC) (DEA) |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED GRANITE & QUARTZ, INC., and UNITED GRANITE NJ, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. EMURO TRANSPORT, LLC, TOTAL QUALITY LOGISTICS, LLC, JOHN DOES 1100, JANE DOES 1-100, and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Total Quality Logistics, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) Plaintiffs' Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs opposed, and Defendant replied. (ECF Nos. 11 & 14.) The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the motion without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1 (b). For the reasons set forth below, and other good cause shown Defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and the case will be REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Plaintiff United Granite & Quartz, Inc., is based in New Jersey and is the “successor” corporation of Plaintiff United Granite NJ, LLC. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) Defendant Total Quality Logistics, LLC (TQL), is based in Ohio. (Id. ¶ 5.) TQL “delivers shipments of commercial goods and arranges for delivery of shipments of commercial goods.” (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs have used TQL's services for its shipping needs since approximately 2016. (Id. ¶ 13.)
In July 2020, Plaintiffs and TQL entered into a contract (the Agreement) governing the transportation services TQL provided to Plaintiffs.[2] The document is titled “Total Quality Logistics Customer Application.” (ECF No. 7-1 at 21-25.[3]) The second page of the Agreement shows that the customer that filled out the form is “United Granite N.J. LLC,” with the same business address as Plaintiffs. (Id. at 22; ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1-2.) The fifth page of the Agreement is titled “General Terms and Conditions” and states in relevant part:
[(ECF No. 7-1 at 25.)]
The General Terms and Conditions identify, at the bottom, “United Granite N.J. LLC” as the customer and contains an electronic signature and date. (Id.) Below these lines, the Agreement then states: “By signing above, or electronically, Customer agrees to these General Terms.” (Id.)
On December 11, 2021, Plaintiffs hired TQL to transport granite, quartz, and marble slabs “by freight via Defendant, TQL” from Hillsborough, New Jersey, to Colmar, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 16.) Plaintiffs value the slabs at $88,729.10. (Id. ¶ 10.) TQL “assured Plaintiffs . . . that all of the goods transported were insured up to the limits of $100,000,” and it advised Plaintiffs that they needed to alert TQL if the value of the goods exceeded $100,000. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.)
Plaintiffs allege that, “[u]pon information and belief, [TQL] entrusted Defendant, [Emuro Transport, LLC (Emuro)] to transport the goods in question.” (Id. ¶ 17.) Emuro is a trucking company based in New Jersey that “transports commercial goods via tractor trailer throughout the United States.” (Id. ¶ 3-4.) On December 11, 2021, both Defendants “[Emuro] and/or TQL” accepted delivery and assumed control over the goods in New Jersey and transported the slabs via tractor trailer. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19). The slabs were in good condition at the time Defendants accepted delivery. (Id. ¶ 18.) While in transit from New Jersey to Pennsylvania, the tractor trailer flipped over onto its side, destroying all the slabs. (Id. ¶ 20.)
Shortly after the crash, TQL informed Plaintiffs of the destruction of their goods, “and initiated the claims process to reimburse Plaintiffs for the losses.” (Id. ¶ 21.) On December 14, 2022, however, TQL advised Plaintiffs “that they were unable to bring this claim to a successful resolution.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiffs allege that Emuro “did not have insurance to cover the cost of cargo.” (Id. ¶23.)
On February 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County, Docket No. SOM-L-000191-23. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint asserts eight causes of action. Count One is against Emuro for liability under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706. (Id. ¶¶ 24-29.) Count Two is against TQL under the Carmack Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 30-34.) Counts Three through Eight assert state and common law claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, promissory estoppel, agency, and a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:8-1, etseq. (Id. ¶¶ 35-55.) Counts Three through Eight are all asserted against TQL, but only Count Three for negligence is also asserted against Emuro. (Id.) It does not appear that Emuro has yet been served,[4] and Emuro has yet to make an appearance in the case.
On March 24, 2023, TQL removed the case to federal court.[5] (Id. at 1-3.) TQL then moved to dismiss. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiffs opposed, and TQL replied. (ECF Nos. 11 & 14.)
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, courts “accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and assess whether the complaint and the exhibits attached to it ‘contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. LLC, 57 F.4th 131, 140 (3d Cir. 2023) (quoting Watters v. Bd. of Sch. Directors of City of Scranton, 975 F.3d 406, 412 (3d Cir. 2020)). “A claim is facially plausible ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” Clark v. Coupe, 55 F.4th 167, 178 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Mammana v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 934 F.3d 368, 372 (3d Cir. 2019)). When assessing the factual allegations in a complaint, courts “disregard legal conclusions and recitals of the elements of a cause of action that are supported only by mere conclusory statements.” Wilson, 57 F.4th at 140 (citing Oakwood Lab 'ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 903 (3d Cir. 2021)). The defendant bringing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion bears the burden of “showing that a complaint fails to state a claim.” In re Plavix Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 914 F.3d 228, 231 (3d Cir. 2020).
The parties focus on whether the forum-selection clause in the Agreement between Plaintiffs and TQL compels this matter to be dismissed in favor of it being litigated in Ohio. (ECF No. 7-2 at 13-18; ECF No. 11 at 18-23.) In reviewing the papers, however, it has become apparent to the Court that the parties agree that the federal claim against TQL upon which this matter was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey is subject to dismissal. As a result, the Court does not have original jurisdiction and will remand the matter for venue and the other issues posed by the parties to be resolved in the state forum. See Sinochem Infl Co. v. Malaysia Infl Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) .
Count Two of Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts a federal cause of action pursuant to the Carmack Amendment against TQL, alleging that TQL held itself out as a “carrier” and is therefore liable under the statute. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 30-34.)
The statutory scheme commonly referred to as the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, et seq. established a uniform federal standard governing “liability for ‘loss, damage, or injury' to goods while in interstate transit.” AMG Res. Corp. v. Wooster Motor Ways, Inc., 796 Fed.Appx. 96, 98 (3d Cir. 2020); see also Certain Underwriters at Int. at Lloyds of London v. UPS of Am., Inc., 162 F.3d 332, 334-37 (3d Cir. 2014) (). The Carmack Amendment governs interstate liability “comprehensively,” standardizing inconsistencies between the laws of different jurisdictions, which inconsistencies had previously made it “practically impossible for a shipper ... to know [its potential liability].” Certain Underwriters, 762 F.3d at 334 (citing Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 505 (1913)). As such, “[f]or over one...
To continue reading
Request your trial