811 F. Supp. 2d 1028
D.N.J.2011Background
- Plaintiff Canadian National Railway provided rail service and invoiced St. Mary’s Paper for freight charges related to shipments of paper under St. Mary’s contract with Defendants.
- St. Mary’s, an insolvent Canadian paper producer, arranged shipments to Defendants in Sept.–Oct. 2006; shipments were made by boxcar loaded at St. Mary’s facility with Plaintiff supplying the boxcars.
- Bills of lading for each shipment named Defendants as the consignee and were pre-paid; only Plaintiff and St. Mary’s received the bills of lading, not Defendants.
- St. Mary’s billed Defendants or Defendants’ clients for the cost of the paper and freight, and those payments were made to St. Mary’s; Plaintiff never billed Defendants directly.
- St. Mary’s filed for bankruptcy in Canada before paying Plaintiff the freight charges; Plaintiff subsequently filed suit in 2009 against Vertís and, in 2010, added American Color Graphics.
- Plaintiff seeks $263,983.13 in freight charges under ICA § 10743(a)(1) and also asserts quantum meruit and unjust enrichment theories; Defendants argue exemptions and lack of contract foreclose liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICA consignee liability for boxcar shipments | Plaintiff asserts consignees are liable under ICA § 10743(a)(1). | Boxcar shipments exempt from ICA regulation; no liability. | ICA claims dismissed; exempt boxcar shipments negate liability. |
| Quantum meruit recovery against Defendants | Plaintiff performed services at Defendants’ request without formal remuneration. | No contract or expectation of payment; no basis for quantum meruit. | Summary judgment for Defendants; quantum meruit claim fails. |
| Unjust enrichment against Defendants | Defendant retained benefit of shipped freight without payment. | No direct relationship or expectation of payment; ICA preemption and lack of privity. | Summary judgment for Defendants; unjust enrichment fails. |
| Common law consignee liability post-ICA exemption | Common law consignee liability exists independent of ICA exemption. | ICA exemption preempts common law remedies; claims untimely if raised late. | Preemption applies; no common law remedies; claim barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transportation Co. v. Novolog Bucks County, 502 F.3d 247 (3d Cir.2007) (consignee liability presumptions under ICA)
- G. & T. Terminal Packaging Co., Inc. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 830 F.2d 1230 (3d Cir.1987) (ICA remedies exclusive; preemption of state/common law relief)
- S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U.S. 336 (U.S.1982) (boxcar exemption foundations and transportation regulation policy)
- MKT R.R. Co., 4 I.C.C.2d 736 (ICC 1988) (boxcar exemption and contract-based regulation)
- Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J. Super. 105 (App.Div.1966) (unjust enrichment requires direct expectation of remuneration)
- Central States Trucking Co. v. J.R. Simplot Co., 965 F.2d 431 (7th Cir.1992) (ICA preemption and carrier-consignee liability context)