The Defendant alternatively argues that any claim under the ICCTA must be contested within 180 days of receipt of the bill. On June 26, 2003, Defendant ABF filed this Motion to Dismiss all counts of the Complaint, arguing that the Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA"), 42 U.S.C. Mastercraft commenced this suit on May 30, 2003, alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment under state law. Mastercraft alleges that it immediately protested the charges to ABF, by demanding that ABF return the overcharges and by refusing to pay the pending invoices. ![]() Nevertheless, in reliance on the alleged oral agreement, Mastercraft paid the invoices.Īt some point later, Mastercraft realized that its shipping costs had increased after commencing business directly with ABF, and believed that ABF was not charging the rates allegedly orally agreed upon. Mastercraft alleges that the invoices sent to Mastercraft for the shipping services did not indicate whether the particular items for which the charges were levied constituted a truck load, or more, or less, than a truck load. In reliance on such promises, Mastercraft ceased shipping through the furniture manufacturer, and began shipping directly with ABF. Mastercraft alleges that as a result of these conversations, ABF promised that Mastercraft could save money by shipping directly with ABF, and that ABF would charge less than $3,000.00 per truck load. In response, Mastercraft spoke directly with ABF to procure shipping services at a lower cost. In December 2000, the furniture manufacturer raised its shipping prices. Mastercraft paid the furniture manufacturer for the shipping directly, but ABF, a motor carrier, actually performed the shipping service. Mastercraft regularly purchased furniture from a furniture manufacturer in El Monte, California. The facts are recited in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, as they must be for purposes of this Motion to Dismiss. With respect to Count I, alleging Breach of Contract, the motion is DENIED, and the Plaintiff's case shall proceed. Accordingly, Counts II, III, and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint shall be dismissed, as *285 these causes of action under state law are preempted by federal law. For the reasons stated below, ABF's Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. ![]() The issues have been fully briefed by the parties, and no oral argument is necessary. ("Mastercraft") sued the Defendant in a four-count Complaint, alleging Breach of Contract (Count I), misrepresentation (Count II), negligent misrepresentation (Count III), and unjust enrichment/restitution (Count IV) in the overcharging of shipping costs. Pending is the Motion to Dismiss of the Defendant ABF Freight Systems, Inc. Policastri, Stein, Sperling, Bennett, De Jong, Driscoll and Greenfeig, PC, Rockville, MD, for Defendant. Siegel, Strasburger and Price, LLP, Washington, DC, Alexia Kent Bourgerie, Eugene W. Claxton, Garson & Associates, LLC, Bethesda, MD, for Plaintiff.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |