Federal Insurance Co. v. SF Expresss Corporation
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:21-cv-05539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Federal Insurance Co. v. SF Express, Judge Rakoff granted Total Quality Logistics leave to file a proposed dismissal motion without deciding it.
The order directly affected Defendant Total Quality Logistics by allowing it to file a motion to dismiss. It also affected the plaintiffs, SF Express, and pro se Defendant Mukoma Family LLC by setting the briefing and argument schedule; the order states that Mukoma did not make a representative available for the required joint call.
What happened
Federal Insurance Co. v. SF Express concerns Total Quality Logistics’s request to file a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint. The request followed a failed attempt to arrange a required joint call because pro se Defendant Mukoma Family LLC did not make a representative available.
The court granted Total Quality Logistics leave to file the motion and set deadlines for the motion, opposition, and reply, followed by telephone argument. The order did not decide whether the complaint should be dismissed or whether Total Quality Logistics’s arguments were correct.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued the August 18, 2021 order. The case therefore continued to the scheduled briefing and argument on Total Quality Logistics’s proposed motion.
The detailed version
- Federal Insurance Co. v. SF Expresss Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-05539
- Jed Rakoff
- Aug. 18, 2021
Background
Total Quality Logistics (TQL), represented by counsel, notified the court that it anticipated filing a motion to dismiss the complaint. TQL stated that it had tried to arrange the joint call required by Judge Rakoff’s individual rules with the plaintiffs, SF Express’s counsel, and the principal of Mukoma Family LLC. The plaintiffs and SF Express responded, but Mukoma did not. The order describes Mukoma as proceeding without a lawyer and states that it did not make a representative available within 24 hours for the joint call.
The attached letter said the plaintiffs’ claims arose from an alleged failure to deliver the correct number of face masks ordered by the plaintiffs’ insured, Elco Limited, Inc. TQL proposed arguing that it operated only as a transportation broker, not as a motor carrier; that the Carmack Amendment preempted state-law cargo-damage claims; and that the complaint did not allege an act or omission by TQL. The letter also stated that Mukoma had contractually agreed to indemnify TQL for losses of the type alleged. These were TQL’s proposed arguments, not rulings by the court.
Court’s action
Judge Rakoff granted TQL leave to file its motion to dismiss. He set the following schedule: the motion was due September 1, 2021; opposition was due September 15, 2021; reply was due September 22, 2021; and telephone oral argument was scheduled for September 29, 2021, at 3:00 p.m.
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss itself. It also did not decide the parties’ underlying claims, the applicability of the Carmack Amendment, TQL’s status as a broker or carrier, or the effect of Mukoma’s alleged indemnity agreement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.