Ebomwonyi v. Sea Shipping Line, 473 F.Supp.3d 338

Plaintiff Omoruyi Ebomwonyi (pro se) sued Sea Shipping Lines (SSL) and Maersk over an international shipment of four vehicles from Houston to Tin Can Island, Lagos (ship date Feb. 1–2, 2018). The action began in the W.D. Tex. on March 28, 2019 and was transferred to S.D.N.Y. based on a forum clause.
Defendants submitted several shipping documents: a house bill of lading (HBOL) listing Olowookere as shipper and containing broad exculpatory language (no liability for delay; merchant bears storage costs; one‑year time bar), and an Arrival Notice showing the cargo arrived March 5, 2018.
Plaintiff submitted a different bill of lading for ocean transport (OBOL) showing Ebomwonyi as consignee and bill/booking number 963374259, but omitted the OBOL’s reverse side containing terms.
Ebomwonyi added Owolabi Olowookere as a co‑plaintiff in an amended complaint, but Olowookere did not sign or participate. Maersk was added as a defendant only in the amended complaint.
SSL and Maersk moved to dismiss; SSL asked the court to consider extraneous shipping documents and gave Rule 12(d)/Local Rule 12.1 notice converting its motion to one for summary judgment.
The Court dismissed Olowookere without prejudice, dismissed all claims against Maersk as time‑barred under COGSA, dismissed Ebomwonyi’s breach‑of‑contract claim against SSL (with leave to amend), converted SSL’s motion to summary judgment, and granted summary judgment for SSL on the delay and storage‑costs claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Olowookere may proceed through pro se co‑plaintiff	Ebomwonyi filed an amended complaint adding Olowookere as plaintiff	Ebomwonyi may not prosecute another person’s claims pro se; Olowookere did not sign or authorize filing	Court dismissed Olowookere without prejudice (may refile pro se or via counsel)
Whether claims vs. Maersk are time‑barred under COGSA	Ebomwonyi sued Maersk in the amended complaint (Sept. 2019) for events in early 2018	Maersk: COGSA one‑year limitations bars suits filed more than one year after delivery	Court: dismissed Maersk — claims untimely and do not relate back to original complaint
Sufficiency of breach‑of‑contract claim against SSL	Ebomwonyi alleges SSL “promised” to reimburse demurrage/storage	SSL: plaintiff fails to plead a contract with SSL or essential contract terms	Court: breach claim dismissed for failure to plead contract; granted leave to amend
Whether SSL is liable for delay and storage costs; whether court may consider HBOL/Arrival Notice	Ebomwonyi claims delay and storage liability; relies on OBOL	SSL: HBOL and Arrival Notice show (1) cargo arrived early, (2) HBOL disclaims delay liability and places storage risk on merchant, (3) one‑year limitation — and asked conversion to summary judgment	Court: converted to summary judgment, considered HBOL and Arrival Notice, and granted SSL summary judgment on delay and storage claims

LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., 570 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) (pleading factual allegations accepted as true on motion to dismiss)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires more than conclusions)
Goel v. Bunge, Ltd., 820 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2016) (materials district court may consider on Rule 12(b)(6))
Roth v. CitiMortgage Inc., 756 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2014) (documents outside complaint that plaintiff relied on may be considered)
First Fin. v. Allstate Interior Demolition, 193 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1999) (when conversion to summary judgment is appropriate)
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (solicitude for pro se litigants)
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se submissions read to raise strongest arguments)
Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1998) (pro se litigant cannot appear on behalf of another)
Thea v. Kleinhandler, 807 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2015) (statute‑of‑limitations defense may be decided on 12(b)(6) if apparent on face of complaint)