Thompson's Transport, LLC v. Lisi's Towing Service, Inc.

Background

Thompson’s Transport, LLC rented a Freightliner tractor and trailer to transport about 45,000 pounds of frozen French fries. During travel on I-84 in Stormville, New York, the freightliner left the road, struck trees, and overturned. The accident damaged the tractor and trailer, and the cargo spilled.

Lisi’s Towing Service, Inc. was called to recover the vehicles and towed them to its facility in Brewster, New York. Thompson’s alleged that Lisi’s performed the work improperly, worsened damage to the vehicles and refrigerator unit, failed to salvage the French fries, charged excessive fees, improperly placed a lien, and refused to return the property. Thompson’s brought claims including negligence, a request for a declaration about the amount owed and the lien, and conversion.

Lisi’s filed a counterclaim alleging that it performed towing and related services, that Thompson’s had not paid its invoice totaling $133,014.87 plus storage and other amounts, and that Lisi’s maintained a lien under New York Lien Law § 184. Thompson’s moved to dismiss the counterclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a pleading does not state a legally sufficient claim. Lisi’s opposed the motion and alternatively requested permission to amend.

Lien-law claim

The court held that New York Lien Law § 184 provides an in rem right—a right against the specific property itself—but does not independently create personal, or in personam, liability for the vehicle owner. Under the statute, a qualifying towing or storage business may have a lien on the vehicle for reasonable towing and storage costs and may retain the vehicle while lawfully in its possession until the amount is paid.

Because the statute did not provide a basis for Lisi’s to recover money directly from Thompson’s, the court dismissed the counterclaim to the extent it sought in personam relief under the lien law. The court explained that Lisi’s could enforce the lien against the freightliner and trailer, including by selling the property to satisfy the lien. The court did not decide whether Lisi’s had adequately established or asserted a valid lien, because Thompson’s challenged only the type of remedy available under the statute at this stage.

The court also explained that the lien law does not prevent a separate contractual claim. A towing business may potentially have both a lien against the vehicle and a contract-based right to monetary damages, but the lien itself is enforceable only against the property.

Leave to amend

The court granted Lisi’s request to amend its counterclaim to the extent Lisi’s could assert liability under contract law. The court found that the request was made early in discovery, was not shown to be in bad faith, and would not prejudice Thompson’s because an amended claim would arise from the same underlying facts. The court also concluded that amendment was not clearly futile because Thompson’s complaint itself referred several times to an agreement between Thompson’s and Lisi’s concerning towing and recovery work.

Disposition

Judge Victoria Reznik granted Thompson’s motion to dismiss Lisi’s counterclaim. The counterclaim was dismissed to the extent it claimed recourse beyond an in rem lien against the freightliner and trailer. Lisi’s request to amend its counterclaim was granted to the extent it could assert a claim under contract law. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.