2019 WL 3068341

United States District Court, N.D. California.
G.A. BRAUN, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
LANDSTAR RANGER, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 19-cv-02259-JCS
|
Signed 07/12/2019
Attorneys and Law Firms
Joshua A. Southwick, Gibson Robb & Lindh LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Gordon Douglas McAuley, Williams & Gumbiner LLP, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE, VACATING MOTION HEARING AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO AUGUST 23, 2019

Re: Dkt. No. 13
JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION
*1 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (“Motion”). The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument and therefore vacates the motion hearing set for July 19, 2019 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED. The Case Management Conference previously scheduled for July 19, 2019 is continued to August 23, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.1

II. BACKGROUND
In this action, Plaintiff G.A. Braun, Inc. (“Braun”) asserts claims for damage to cargo under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, against carrier Landstar Ranger, Inc. (“Landstar”). Complaint ¶ 3. Braun alleges that Landstar agreed to transport cargo from New York to Maryland, that the cargo was in good condition when a Landstar truck received it, and that it was damaged when it arrived at its destination; the driver allegedly admitted that the damage occurred when he drove over a curb in transit. Id. ¶ 5; see also Complaint, Ex. A (Bill of Lading showing that truck was loaded in Syracuse, N.Y., with note that shipment was refused because it was damaged and that “driver hit curb on the way in”). In the Complaint, Braun alleges that Landstar “was at all times herein material engaged in business as a carrier of goods for hire and bailee for hire within this judicial district.” Id. ¶ 2.

Landstar responded to the Complaint by bringing the instant Motion, asserting that the case should be transferred to the District of Maryland pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14706(d)(2) (providing for venue in the judicial district in which the damage occurred) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (providing for dismissal or transfer of action when it has been filed in the wrong venue). It argued in the alternative that the action should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which gives the court discretion to transfer an action to another district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.

In its Reply brief, Landstar withdrew its request to transfer under 49 U.S.C. § 14706(d)(2), conceding that under subsection (d)(1) of section 14706, venue lies in a judicial district in which the defendant carrier operates and that Landstar does operate in this judicial district. Landstar also apologized for “missing” Braun’s allegation in paragraph 2 of the Complaint that Landstar operates in this judicial district. The only remaining question is whether the action should be transferred to the District of Maryland2 under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Landstar argues that it should because none of the relevant events occurred in this district, whereas the truck was loaded in New York, the driver resides in Hornell, New York, the cargo was delivered in Maryland and the inspector who inspected the damage on behalf of Braun’s insurer is based in Boston, Massachusetts. See McAuley Decl. ¶¶ 4-7; McAuley Supp. Decl. ¶ 4.

*2 Braun argues that Landstar has not established that a transfer of this case to the District of Maryland is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and therefore, that Landstar’s request should be denied.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
A case may be transferred “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice,” to “any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). There are two prongs to this analysis. First, the transferee district must be a district where the case could have originally been filed, meaning the court has jurisdiction and venue is proper. Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 03-3711 (MHP), 2003 WL 22387598, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2003). The moving party bears the burden to prove this first step. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). If the first prong is satisfied, the court decides whether to grant or deny a motion to transfer, balancing “the plaintiff’s interest to freely choose a litigation forum against the aggregate considerations of convenience of the defendants and witnesses and the interests of justice.” Wireless Consumers, 2003 WL 22387598, at *1; 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The factors a court may consider include:
(1) plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) convenience of the parties; (3) convenience of the witnesses; (4) ease of access to the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (7) any local interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum.
Royal Queentex Enters. Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., No. C-99-4787 MJJ, 2000 WL 246599, at *2 (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2000) (citing Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)).

“As a general rule, the plaintiff’s choice of forum is given significant weight and will not be disturbed unless other factors weigh substantially in favor of transfer.” Edwards v. Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc., No. C 13-6006 CW, 2014 WL 2194798, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2014). “Transfer is not appropriate under § 1404(a) where it “would merely shift rather than eliminate the inconvenience.” ” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

2. The Carmack Amendment
The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, “codifies the common-law rule that a carrier, though not an absolute insurer, is liable for damage to goods transported by it unless it can show that the damage was caused by (a) the act of God; (b) the public enemy; (c) the act of the shipper himself; (d) public authority; (e) or the inherent vice or nature of the goods.” Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 137 (1964) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “[T]he shipper establishes his prima facie case when he shows delivery in good condition, arrival in damaged condition, and the amount of damages.” Id. at 138. Where this burden is satisfied, the “burden of proof is upon the carrier to show both that it was free from negligence and that the damage to the cargo was due to one of the excepted causes relieving the carrier of liability.” Id.

B. Discussion
*3 Braun does not dispute that this action could have been brought in the District of Maryland; rather, it argues that Landstar has not demonstrated that a transfer is appropriate under Section 1404(a). The Court agrees.

Based on the declarations supplied by the parties, it appears that there are no significant disputes with respect to the elements required in order for Braun to make a prima facie case under the Carmack Amendment. The main issue in this case relates to the defense Landstar intends to assert based on Braun’s alleged negligence in packing the cargo. In particular, it is Landstar’s position that Braun packed the equipment that was shipped by Landstar on pallets that weren’t adequate to carry such a heavy load and the insufficiency of the packing was not apparent to the driver. Reply at 3. Thus, the driver (who lives in Hornell, New York) will likely be a witness in this case. Indeed, the parties appear to be in agreement that the driver will be one of the most important witnesses in this case.

Perhaps there also will be witnesses who were involved in packing the cargo for shipping, presumably in Syracuse, New York, though none has been identified. The individual who rejected the shipment when it arrived in Maryland may also be a witness, though it is not apparent this individual will need to be deposed as it appears to be undisputed that the cargo was damaged when received and that it occurred when the driver went over a curb at the delivery location. Likewise, although it is possible that the inspector employed by the Recovery Services Group to inspect the damaged cargo will be deposed, Landstar has not identified any disputes as to the opinions he expresses in his written report (attached to the McAuley Declaration as Exhibit 4) about the damage to the cargo.

This case is not complicated, and Landstar has not established that any important witnesses reside in the requested transferee district. It also has not explained why the driver cannot be deposed by video; nor has it addressed whether the driver travels to this district in connection with his job as a truck driver. Landstar’s reliance on the assertion that the “East Coast” is “the location of all relevant knowledge about this case” is not sufficient to establish that proceedings in the District of Maryland would be substantially more convenient than in this District.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

All Citations
Slip Copy, 2019 WL 3068341

Footnotes

1
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2
Although there is a passing reference in the Motion to the possibility of transferring the action to a district court “in New York … or Maryland,” the relief that Landstar requests in the Motion is either dismissal or “an Order assigning this case to the Federal District Court of Maryland.” Motion at 2, 6. In Landstar’s Reply brief, it asks the Court to transfer the case to the “Southern District of Maryland.” See Reply at 1. The Court interprets this as a request for transfer to the District of Maryland.” Nowhere does Landstar directly request that the Court transfer the case to a district court in New York state or identify any particular district court in New York that might be a more appropriate venue.

2019 WL 3244612

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division.
Darryl RAMOS, Plaintiff,
v.
CMI TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 3:18-CV-968 JD
|
Signed 07/19/2019
Attorneys and Law Firms
Candace C. Williams, Michael E. Tolbert, Tolbert & Tolbert LLC, Gary, IN, for Plaintiff.
Jennifer M. Carpenter, Edward W. Hearn, Johnson & Bell Ltd., Crown Point, IN, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
JON E. DEGUILIO, Judge
*1 Plaintiff Darryl Ramos was hit by a semi-truck driven by defendant Miguel Gonzalez. Mr. Ramos sued Mr. Gonzalez and two entities that he alleges employed Mr. Gonzalez—CMI Transportation, LLC, and NFI Industries, Inc. The claims against those two entities assert two theories upon which those entities could be held liable: that they are vicariously liable for Mr. Gonzalez’s negligence, and that their own negligence led to the collision. In an amended answer, CMI Transportation admitted that Mr. Gonzalez was negligent and one hundred percent at fault for the collision, and that CMI Transportation is vicariously liable for Mr. Gonzalez’s negligence. Because those admissions suffice to establish liability, CMI Transportation moves for judgment on the pleadings on the negligence theory, arguing that that alternative theory is now superfluous. The Court agrees, and grants the motion.

I. BACKGROUND
In October 2017, plaintiff Darryl Ramos was driving in LaPorte, Indiana. Defendant Miguel Gonzalez was driving a semi-truck on the same road in the opposite direction. As the vehicles approached, Mr. Gonzalez lost control of his truck, crossed the center line, and struck Mr. Ramos’ vehicle. Mr. Ramos later filed suit seeking damages for the losses and injuries he sustained in that collision. He sued Mr. Gonzalez along with CMI Transportation and NFI Industries, which he alleged employed Mr. Ramos. The complaint contains three counts, one against each of the three defendants. In the counts against the two entities, the complaint alleges two theories: that the entities are vicariously liable as Mr. Ramos’ employer, and that they are liable for their own negligence that led to the collision.

In the operative answer, Mr. Gonzalez admitted that he was negligent and one hundred percent at fault for the collision, while NFI Industries denied any liability. For its part, CMI Transportation denied that it was negligent, but it admitted that it was vicariously liable for Mr. Gonzalez’s negligent acts. In particular, CMI Transportation admitted that Mr. Gonzalez was operating a commercial motor vehicle on behalf of CMI Transportation, under authority granted to CMI Transportation by the Department of Transportation. Thus, CMI Transportation admitted that it was “vicariously responsible for any negligent acts and/or omissions, chargeable to Mr. Gonzalez.” [DE 24 ¶¶ 14, 16, 17]. It further admitted that Mr. Ramos sustained injuries as a result of the collision, and contested only the amount of damages that resulted. On the basis of those admissions, CMI Transportation moved for judgment on the pleadings on the theory of negligence, arguing that that theory is redundant now that liability has already been established. That motion has been fully briefed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(c) permits a party to move for judgment on the pleadings after the parties have filed a complaint and answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the same standard of review as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 339 (7th Cir. 2017). In evaluating such a motion, the Court considers the allegations in the complaint and any admissions in the answer. N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of S. Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452 (7th Cir. 1998). The Court construes the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Guise v. BWM Mortg., LLC, 377 F.3d 795, 798 (7th Cir. 2004). A motion for judgment on the pleadings can be granted when, viewed in that light, the pleadings establish that the non-movant is not entitled to relief. ADM Alliance Nutrition, Inc. v. SGA Pharm Lab, Inc., 877 F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir. 2017).

III. DISCUSSION
*2 Mr. Ramos’ complaint asserts a single count against CMI Transportation, but that count includes two theories for holding CMI Transportation liable: negligence and vicarious liability. CMI Transportation moves for judgment on the pleadings on the negligence theory. It argues that the admissions in its answer establish liability under the vicarious liability theory, and that all that remains to be determined on the claim against it is the amount of damages caused by Mr. Gonzalez’s negligence, so the negligence theory is now superfluous.

In opposing the motion, Mr. Ramos first expresses doubt that CMI Transportation has actually admitted that it is vicariously liable for Mr. Gonzalez’s negligence. The Court disagrees. As Mr. Ramos notes, CMI Transportation does not admit that Mr. Gonzalez was its employee and was acting in the scope of his employment, which is a conventional basis for vicarious liability. But commercial trucking companies can be vicariously liable even absent a traditional employee–employer relationship. Indiana courts have held that “a [Department of Transportation]-authorized motor carrier will be held liable for the negligence of its ‘employee’ as that term is defined in 49 C.F.R. § 390.5.” Ill. Bulk Carrier, Inc. v. Jackson, 908 N.E.2d 248, 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). That regulation, in turn, states that the term “employee” “ ‘includes a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (including an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle).’ ” Id. (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 390.5); see Carroll v. Kamps, 795 F. Supp. 2d 794, 799–800 (N.D. Ind. 2011) (holding that the “distinction between employees and independent contractors has been eliminated for motor carriers operating pursuant to equipment lease agreements”). Here, CMI Transportation admitted that it is a Department of Transportation-authorized motor carrier and that Mr. Gonzalez was operating a commercial motor vehicle on its behalf at the time of the accident. As CMI Transportation concedes, that admission establishes that it is vicariously liable for Mr. Gonzalez’s negligence.

Even if CMI Transportation was mistaken in that respect, its own admissions and statements in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings would preclude it from contesting liability. In support of its motion, CMI Transportation repeatedly confessed its liability for the collision. It states, for example, that “Gonzalez is at fault and CMI is responsible for that fault; the pleadings establish this. No further proof of liability is necessary.” [DE 32 p. 6]. It likewise states that the “only thing [Mr. Ramos] needs to establish is the nature, extent, and proximate cause of his damages.” Id. p. 7. CMI Transportation is bound by those concessions and cannot later take a position to the contrary. Milwaukee Ctr. for Indep., Inc. v. Milwaukee Health Care, LLC, No. 2019 WL 2912487, at *3 (7th Cir. July 8, 2019); Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 896 F.3d 792, 798 (7th Cir. 2018). Thus, between the admissions in its answer and the express concessions in its briefs, CMI Transportation’s vicarious liability for the collision has been established.

The remaining question, then, is whether Mr. Ramos should be permitted to proceed on his negligence theory when he has already prevailed on liability on other grounds. Mr. Ramos argues that he should be allowed to proceed on that theory because his complaint adequately alleges negligence. The issue is not the adequacy of the complaint, though, but whether the negligence theory has any work left to do now that CMI Transportation’s liability has already been established. It does not. In short, there is no need to keep litigating an issue on which Mr. Ramos has already won—CMI Transportation is liable for the damages Mr. Ramos suffered as a result of the collision. All that remains to be decided is the amount of those damages, but Mr. Ramos can collect those damages only once no matter how many theories of liability he may have. The negligence theory is thus superfluous, as prevailing on that theory would have no effect on his recovery in this case.

*3 Indiana courts have addressed this situation many times, and they routinely dismiss alternative theories of negligence once vicarious liability has been established. For example, in Sedam, the plaintiff was injured in a collision with a pizza delivery driver. Sedam v. 2JR Pizza Enters., LLC, 84 N.E.3d 1174, 1178 (Ind. 2017). The plaintiff asserted two claims against the driver’s restaurant for that injury: that the restaurant was liable under respondeat superior for the negligence of its employee, and that the restaurant was liable for its own negligence in hiring the employee. After the restaurant admitted the facts necessary to establish vicarious liability on the first claim, the court dismissed the second claim as redundant. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed:
Under each claim, the plaintiff seeks the same result—employer liability—and recovery is based on the same negligent act—the employee’s. To allow both claims would serve only to prejudice the employer, confuse the jury, and waste judicial resources when ultimately the result—that the employer is liable—is the same and the employer has stipulated as much. Such an admission exposes an employer to liability for any and all fault assessed to the employee’s negligence, and thus a negligent hiring claim becomes duplicative since a plaintiff may not recover twice for the same damage.
Id. (internal citation omitted) (also noting a line of precedent “spanning nearly five decades” to that same effect).

The same is true here. As already discussed, CMI Transportation has admitted facts sufficient to establish that it is vicariously liable for the collision. Mr. Ramos will thus prevail on his claim against CMI Transportation, and he only needs to prove the amount of damages he suffered as a result of that injury. Mr. Ramos does not suggest that his damages would be any different under his alternative theory of negligence, nor does he identify any purpose that theory could serve now that liability has been established on other grounds, so that theory is superfluous and can be dismissed. Therefore, the Court grants CMI Transportation’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the negligence theory.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for judgment on the pleadings on the negligence theory against CMI Transportation under Count 2. [DE 25]. CMI Transportation is vicariously liable on that claim, so all that remains to be determined on the claim against CMI Transportation is the measure of Mr. Ramos’ damages.

SO ORDERED.

All Citations
Slip Copy, 2019 WL 3244612