Distribuidora Mari Jose, S.A. De C v. v. Transmaritime, Inc., 738 F.3d 703

Mari Jose purchased 11,490 boxes of Christmas lights in China; cargo shipped in 15 ocean containers to Long Beach, CA, under bills of lading issued by the ocean carrier (Chilena). Transmaritime was named consignee and hired to transport the goods "in bond" to Laredo, TX, for import into Mexico.
On arrival in Long Beach, Transmaritime submitted Customs Form 7512 to secure release, listing 11,490 boxes, but did not issue its own bill of lading or inventory the goods at the port. Fourteen of 15 containers arrived with seals intact.
The containers were moved to a container freight station 8 days after Customs release; an inventory then showed only 9,578 boxes — a shortage of 1,912 boxes.
Transmaritime filed a Manifest Discrepancy Report with Customs, amended the Form 7512 to the lower quantity, engaged motor carriers that issued bills of lading reflecting the reduced count, and did not immediately notify Mari Jose. Mari Jose learned of the shortage weeks later and sued under the Carmack Amendment.
The district court granted Mari Jose summary judgment; the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding a genuine dispute exists whether Transmaritime received the full 11,490 boxes at Long Beach, so Mari Jose failed to establish the first element of a Carmack prima facie case at summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mari Jose proved delivery to Transmaritime in good condition (prima facie Carmack element)	Form 7512s, Chilena bills of lading, director's declaration, and 8‑day delay prove Transmaritime received all 11,490 boxes	Form 7512s are insufficient proof of delivery because Transmaritime never inspected or issued a bill of lading; discrepancy may have occurred before Transmaritime took possession	Reversed: genuine issue of material fact exists whether Transmaritime received all boxes; plaintiff failed to carry prima facie burden at summary judgment

Accura Systems, Inc. v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 98 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 1996) (bill of lading with "apparent good order" clause proves delivery only as to portions open to inspection)
Spartus Corp. v. S/S Yafo, 590 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir. 1979) (sealed container requires proof from elsewhere to show delivery in good condition)
Man Roland, Inc. v. Kreitz Motor Exp., Inc., 438 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2006) (elements for prima facie Carmack claim)
Sompo Japan Ins. Co. of Am. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 456 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2006) (Carmack imposes near-strict liability on carriers)
Reider v. Thompson, 339 U.S. 113 (1950) (purpose of Carmack to relieve shippers of burden of identifying negligent carrier)