Bigge Equipment Co. v. Maxpeed Int'l Transport Co.

Good Law
229 F. Supp. 2d 977·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21380
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 2002C 01-3011 MJJ. No. C 01-1071 MJJCalifornia2,111 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MARINE TERMINAL CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

• Before- the Court is Defendant Marine Terminal Corporation’s (“MTC”) motion for summary judgment to limit its liability to $500. The motion requires the Court to determine whether Plaintiffs Bigge Equipment Co. and Dongbu Insurance Co., Ltd. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are subject to the limitation of liability of $500 for damages allegedly caused to cargo, in part, by MTC. For the reasons stated below, MTC’s motion is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Link-Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Link”) sold Plaintiff Bigge Equipment Co. (“Bigge”) one 1987 Samsung-Todano truck crane, model CX300R. The cargo was delivered to Defendant Maxpeed International Transport Co., Ltd. (“Maxpeed”), a non-vessel operating common carrier (“NVOCC”) who issued a bill of lading to Link. See Complaint, Exh. 1 (“Maxpeed BOL”). Bigge was the consignee of the Maxpeed BOL. Maxpeed then delivered the cargo to Defendant Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (“Hanjin”), the entity which would actually transport the cargo across the ocean. At that time, Hanjin-issued a bill of lading to Maxpeed. See Declaration of Laura Davis In Support of…

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.