Ebomwonyi v. Sea Shipping Line

Background

Omoruyi Ebomwonyi, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sea Shipping Line (SSL) and Maersk Lines over the overseas shipment of four vehicles from Texas to Nigeria. He alleged that the shipment was delayed, that he paid storage-related charges in Nigeria, and that SSL promised to reimburse those charges. The amended complaint also asserted claims for Owolabi Olowookere, but Olowookere did not sign the amended complaint or otherwise indicate that he authorized being added as a plaintiff.

The case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the Southern District of New York based on a forum-selection clause in a house bill of lading. The court stated that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the parties were not completely diverse, but that the case fell within federal admiralty jurisdiction because it involved a maritime contract for transporting goods by sea.

SSL submitted a house bill of lading identifying Olowookere, rather than Ebomwonyi, as the shipper. Ebomwonyi submitted a different ocean bill of lading that identified SSL as the shipper and Ebomwonyi as the consignee. The house bill of lading stated that the carrier was not responsible for shipment delays, that the merchant was responsible for storage costs at the destination, and that claims for loss or damage had to be brought within one year after delivery or the date delivery should have occurred.

Rulings on Olowookere and Maersk

The court held that Ebomwonyi could not represent Olowookere in federal court while proceeding without a lawyer. Because Olowookere had not signed the amended complaint or otherwise participated in the case, the court dismissed Olowookere from the action without prejudice to Olowookere bringing claims personally or through counsel.

The court applied the one-year limitations period in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a federal statute governing certain shipments of goods by sea. The amended complaint added Maersk as a defendant on September 9, 2019, although the alleged shipment and related events occurred in 2018. The court held that the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint because the original complaint asserted no claims against Maersk and the omission was not the result of a mistake about Maersk’s identity. The court therefore dismissed all claims against Maersk as time barred.

Claims Against SSL

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting three claims against SSL: a claim that the shipment arrived late, a claim that SSL was responsible for storage costs after delivery, and a breach-of-contract claim based on SSL’s alleged promise to reimburse those costs.

The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court found that Ebomwonyi had not identified a contract that SSL breached. His allegation that SSL promised to pay the demurrage charges was conclusory, and he did not plead the contract’s formation, terms, or a connection between the ocean bill of lading and the alleged reimbursement promise. The court granted Ebomwonyi leave to amend this claim and directed him to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. The opinion states that if he failed to do so, the court would dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim.

The court treated SSL’s motion concerning the delay and storage-costs claims as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court did so because SSL submitted materials outside the pleadings, gave Ebomwonyi the required notice, and represented that the materials resolved the claims without discovery.

The court granted SSL summary judgment on both claims. It found that the arrival notice showed the cargo arrived early, not late. It also held that the house bill of lading barred claims against the carrier for shipment delays and required claims to be brought within one year of delivery; the cargo arrived on March 5, 2018, but the action was filed on March 28, 2019. As to storage costs, the court held that the house bill of lading assigned responsibility for destination storage expenses to the merchant rather than the carrier.

Disposition

The court dismissed Olowookere from the action without prejudice; dismissed all claims against Maersk as time barred; dismissed Ebomwonyi’s breach-of-contract claim against SSL; converted SSL’s motion to dismiss the delay and storage-cost claims into a motion for summary judgment; and granted SSL summary judgment on those claims. The court also granted Ebomwonyi leave to amend the breach-of-contract claim.