Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's Of London v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company…

Background

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London sued MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A., and Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. over alleged damage to shoe cover dispensers and armchairs transported by the defendants from Barcelona, Spain, to Long Beach, California. The plaintiff alleged that the cargo became severely wet during transit and arrived damaged. It also alleged that it insured the cargo while it was in the defendants’ care and paid under the insurance policy. The plaintiff claimed more than $93,400 in damages.

The plaintiff brought claims under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30701 et seq., and for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of bailment. The defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement, which asks a party to clarify a pleading that is too vague or ambiguous to answer. They also filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the amended complaint did not provide enough identifying information about the shipment. It did not state the shipment name, container number, bill of lading number, shipment date, or contract that was allegedly breached. Without those details, the defendants might not be able to determine which shipment was involved or assess possible defenses, including the statute of limitations.

The defendants proposed a possible container number, bill of lading number, and shipment date and then argued that the claims should be dismissed based on that information. The court rejected that approach, explaining that the defendants could not supply facts missing from the complaint and then use those facts to seek dismissal. The court concluded that the plaintiff should have an opportunity to provide the missing factual details.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion for a more definite statement and denied their motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court stated that the dismissal motion was premature and could be renewed after the plaintiff supplied enough factual information for the defendants to respond. The plaintiff was ordered to file a second amended complaint by March 23, 2020.

This was a procedural ruling about the clarity and adequacy of the pleading; the opinion did not decide whether the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the cargo-damage claims.