Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

B&W Fiber Glass, Inc. v. Kerns Trucking, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

August 30, 2017

B&W FIBER GLASS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
KERNS TRUCKING, INC., ELE LOGISTICS, INC., EXPRESS BROKERAGE, INC., PL TRUCKING, LLC., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT PL TRUCKING, LLC

          MARTIN REIDINGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant PL Trucking, LLC pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 25].

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff B&W Fiber Glass, Inc. (“B&W”) filed this civil action on August 18, 2016 in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Cleveland County, North Carolina. [Doc. 1-1]. Defendant PL Trucking, LLC (“PL Trucking”) was served with the Summons and Complaint on August 24, 2016. [Doc. 15-1 at ¶ 3]. On September 15, 2016, the Defendants Kerns Trucking, Inc., ELE Logistics, Inc., and Express Brokerage, Inc., with the consent of PL Trucking, filed a Notice of Removal to this Court, citing as a basis for removal the existence of a federal question, namely the application of the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706. [Doc. 1].

         Following removal, PL Trucking failed to appear, plead, or otherwise defend against the claims asserted. A default was entered against PL Trucking by the Clerk of Court on December 9, 2016. [Doc. 16].

         The Plaintiff reached a settlement with the non-defaulting Defendants [see Doc. 24], and on August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to its claims against these Defendants [Doc. 26]. The Plaintiff now seeks a default judgment against PL Trucking. [Doc. 25].

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of a default when “a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Once a defendant has been defaulted, the plaintiff may then seek a default judgment. If the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or can be made certain by computation, the Clerk of Court may enter the default judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1). In all other cases, the plaintiff must apply to the Court for a default judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2).

         “The defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact . . . .” Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). A defendant, however, “is not held . . . to admit conclusions of law.” Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780 (quoting Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206). The Court therefore must determine whether the facts as alleged state a claim. GlobalSantaFe Corp. v. Globalsantafe.com, 250 F.Supp.2d 610, 612 n.3 (E.D. Va. 2003).

         III. PLAINTIFF'S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         The well-pleaded factual allegations of the Plaintiff's Complaint having been deemed admitted by virtue of the Defendant's default, the following is a summary of the relevant facts.

         The Plaintiff B&W Fiber Glass, Inc. manufactures and develops technical fibers, including fiber glass yarn. [Id. at ¶ 2]. The Defendants Kerns Trucking, Inc., ELE Logistics, Inc., Express Brokerage, Inc., and PL Trucking, LLC are all motor carriers providing motor vehicle transportation services for compensation. [Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6, 8, 10].

         On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Kerns Trucking to transport nine beams of fiber glass yarn from the Plaintiff's headquarters in Shelby, North Carolina, to Intertape Polymer Group in Carbondale, Illinois. [Id. at ¶ 14]. Under the terms of the contract, Kerns Trucking agreed to transport the beams to Intertape Polymer Group and bear responsibility for any damage. [Id. at ¶ 15]. Kerns Trucking invoiced the Plaintiff $2, 350.00 for the shipment. [Id. at ¶ 19]. Kerns Trucking then tendered the shipment to ELE Logistics and/or Express Brokerage for transportation to Intertape Polymer Group. [Id. at ¶ 20]. Thereafter, ELE Logistics and/or Express Brokerage tendered the shipment to PL Trucking for transportation to Intertape Polymer Group. [Id. at ¶ 21].

         The Plaintiff provided the nine beams of fiber glass yarn in good condition, and the Bill of Lading notes that the beams were “received in good order.” [Id. at ¶¶ 22, 23]. The nine beams, however, arrived in a damaged condition at Intertape Polymer Group. [Id. at ¶ 24]. The damage to the beams was not caused by: an act of God; a public enemy; an act or omission of the Plaintiff; an act by a public authority; or an inherent vice of nature of the goods. [Id. at ΒΆ 25]. As a result of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.