Estes Express Lines, Inc. v. Carpenter Decorating Company, Inc.
5:09-cv-00084
W.D.N.C.Jun 28, 2012Background
- Estes Express Lines, Inc. sues Carpenter Decorating Company, Inc. for unpaid freight charges and related claims in the Western District of North Carolina.
- Plaintiff filed the original complaint July 22, 2009; moved for entry of default against Carpenter on April 25, 2011; dismissed Doe defendants by stipulation.
- Carpenter was defaulted; it neither pleaded nor appeared, and a default judgment motion was filed June 19, 2012 seeking damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees.
- Court recognizes that upon default, well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions and entitlement to relief are not admitted.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction hinges on whether federal question or statutory framework (ICCTA) provides basis for federal jurisdiction over breach-of-contract/freight-charge claims.
- Court notes ICCTA changed federal jurisdictional framework for rail/motor carrier claims and discusses whether EXLA 105 Rules Tariff creates any jurisdictional basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over Estes' claim? | Estes relies on ICCTA and tariffs to establish federal jurisdiction. | Carpenter contends no federal question jurisdiction exists for state-law contract claims post-ICCTA. | Jurisdiction not established; case will be stayed for jurisdictional memorandum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778 (4th Cir. 2001) (default admits facts; limits contest on liability)
- Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U.S. 104 (1885) (default judgment must follow proper decree from statements of the bill)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. 1999) (burden to demonstrate jurisdiction lies with the asserting party)
- Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (1979) (jurisdictional questions depend on congressional intent to create a private remedy)
- Tempel Steel Corp. v. Landstar Inway, Inc., 211 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2000) (tariffs labeled as tariffs do not confer jurisdictional status)
- Munitions Carriers Conference, Inc. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (describes regulatory framework changes under ICCTA)