Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Old Dominion Freight Line v. Allou Distributors, Inc.
Citations: 86 F. Supp. 2d 92; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2560; 2000 WL 245785Docket: CV 98-5019(VVP)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York; March 1, 2000; Federal District Court
The defendant, Allou Distributors, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff Old Dominion Freight Lines, Inc.'s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in an interstate transportation case. The plaintiff seeks to recover $63,773.24 in unpaid freight charges related to approximately 138 deliveries, with individual bills of lading not exceeding $10,000. Allou argues that this fails to meet the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a), which necessitates that claims arising under certain sections of the U.S. Code exceed $10,000 per bill of lading. However, Old Dominion contends that this requirement does not apply as their claim pertains to unpaid freight charges rather than damage to goods, which would invoke the specified sections. The court is required to accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, view them favorably towards the nonmoving party, and assess the legal feasibility of the complaint rather than weigh evidence. The motion to dismiss was ultimately denied. A plaintiff is required to allege sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss, not to prove them, as established in Koppel v. 4987 Corp. The court will only dismiss if it is clear that no set of facts can support the plaintiff's claim for relief, as noted in Conley v. Gibson. In the case presented, the court finds the plaintiff's cited cases relevant. In Thurston Motor Lines v. Jordan K. Rand, the Supreme Court upheld that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims by common carriers for unpaid freight charges under federal law. The Interstate Commerce Act mandates that carriers collect and consignees pay lawful charges as prescribed by tariffs. Similarly, in United Van Lines v. Hellman, the court confirmed jurisdiction in a carrier's suit for freight charges and rejected the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant's argument, citing Hunter v. United Van Lines and Pillsbury Co. v. Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Co., claiming a $10,000 amount in controversy requirement, is deemed misplaced as those cases pertained to shippers seeking damages for goods, not carriers seeking freight charges. The court found no precedent supporting the application of the $10,000 requirement to the current case, which is not brought under the sections cited by the defendant. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. v. Jordon Manufacturing Co. clarified that suits for unpaid freight charges do not fall under the $10,000 limit, as this limit applies specifically to claims by shippers for lost or damaged freight. The plaintiff's action, based on 28 U.S.C. 1337(a) for freight charges, does not encounter the $10,000 limitation. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied, and the stay on arbitration is lifted, directing scheduling of a new hearing date.