Fednav Ltd. v. Sterling International

Good Law
572 F. Supp. 1268·1986 A.M.C. 606·1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12209
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 28, 1983C-83-2992 SAWCalifornia1,155 words

Opinion

Opinion

Weigel, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff alleges that:

The complaint seeks indemnification from Sterling for Fednav’s losses. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), claiming it is insufficient for two reasons. First defendant contends that, absent an express indemnity agreement, a carrier (Fednav) liable to a consignee for variance between goods as delivered and as described on a bill of lading prepared by the shipper has no right of indemnity against the shipper. Defendant asserts that this is true even where the variance is entirely due to the shipper. Second, defendant contends that even if such a cause of action exists, the complaint is inadequate because plaintiff fails to allege that defendant Sterling or “anyone for whom it was responsible prepared the bills of lading or improperly described the cargo on the bills of lading.” Both contentions are without merit.

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the formal sufficiency of the statement of claim for relief. The Court’s inquiry is whether the allegations state a sufficient claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). 5 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1357, p. 594 (1969).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.