United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
CHISESI BROTHERS MEAT PACKING COMPANY, INC.
TRANSCO LOGISTICS CO., ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are two motions to dismiss: (1) Transco Logistics,
Inc.'s and Transco Logistics, LLC's (Transco) Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and (2) Travelers Property
Casualty Company of America's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. For the following reasons, Trancso's motion is
GRANTED IN PART and Travelers' motion is CONTINUED, to
allow for supplemental briefing.
case arises out of an interstate shipment of a Metalquimia
Movistick 5500 Boneless Injector machine (the injector) from
New Jersey to Louisiana.
Brothers purchased the injector, which is a complex and
specialized piece of equipment that is extremely limited in
supply in the United States. On or about February 22, 2016,
Transco transported the injector in a truck from its location
in New Jersey to the Chisesi plant in Jefferson Parish,
alleges that the injector was in good condition before
Transco loaded it onto the truck for delivery to Chisesi.
However, Chisesi contends that when the injector arrived at
its plant, the injector was severely damaged and missed
several component parts.
alleges that the injector was negligently dropped during the
loading, unloading, or transportation of the injector, all
while in the care, custody, and control of Transco. This
negligent handling caused extensive damaged to the injector.
Moreover, Chisesi alleges that Transco engaged in even more
wrongful conduct when it unloaded the injector at its plant.
Chisesi contends that this caused additional component parts
to break or become damaged during the unloading process at
obtained an estimate to repair the injector from a local
construction company, Diversified Construction, in the amount
of $125, 867. After contacting the broker who arranged for
the injector's transportation, the broker informed
Chisesi that Transco held liability insurance with Travelers.
This insurance policy allegedly covers the type of loss
sustained by Chisesi; the broker provided Chisesi with the
information to pursue a claim with Travelers. After receiving
multiple repair estimates, Travelers allegedly failed to make
any offer of settlement to Chisesi within 30 days of
receiving the repair estimates.
originally filed its petition for damages in the
24thJudicial District Court in Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana against Transco, and against Travelers under the
Louisiana Direct Action Statute (LDAS). It alleged claims
against Transco and Travelers for negligence and breach of
contract and brought a claim against Travelers for bad faith
in failing to make a written offer to settle with Chisesi
within 30 days of proof of loss. The case was removed to this
Court. Transco now moves this Court to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint, contending that the Carmack
Amendment preempts the plaintiff's claims against it.
Travelers also moves the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims against, contending that the plaintiff's claims
are preempted by the Carmack Amendment and that the plaintiff
has not properly established a right of action under
Louisiana's Direct Action statute.
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a
party to move for dismissal of a complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Such a motion
is rarely granted because it is viewed with disfavor. See
Lowrey v. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247
(5th Cir. 1997) (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem.
Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045,
1050 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678-79 (2009) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). "[T]he pleading
standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed
factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an
accusation." Id. at 678 (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
in considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court
"accepts 'all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'"
See Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid
Transit, 369 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jones
v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999)). But,
in deciding whether dismissal is warranted, the Court will
not accept conclusory allegations in the complaint as true.
Kaiser, 677 F.2d at 1050. Indeed, the Court must
first identify allegations that are conclusory and thus not
entitled to the assumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678-79. A corollary: legal conclusions "must be
supported by factual allegations." Id. at 678.