Joe Boxer Corp. v. Fritz Transp. Int'l

Good Law
33 F. Supp. 2d 851·1998 WL 938581·1998 A.M.C. 2576·1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21689
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 19, 1998CV 97-9083 LGB (Mcx)California3,265 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baird, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND.

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Joe Boxer Corporation and Federal Insurance Company move for remand of this case. Plaintiffs’ Motion came on regularly for hearing on May 18, 1998. Having reviewed all pertinent papers on file and considered the arguments of counsel, for the reasons described below the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.

II.PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joe Boxer contracted with Defendants to ship some cotton yarn from Shanghai, China to Guatemala City, Guatemala via the port of Long Beach, California. (Comply 5.) The bill of lading received by Plaintiff indicates that the “port of loading” was Shanghai, the “port of discharge” was Puerto Quetzal, Guatemala, and the “place of delivery by on-carrier” was Guatemala City, Guatemala. (Pis.’ Mot.Ex. A.)

Plaintiff alleges that when Defendants delivered the yarn, it was short by an amount worth $112,191.71. (CompU 6.) Plaintiff Federal Insurance Company insured the cargo for Plaintiff Joe Boxer, and has reimbursed Joe Boxer all but its $1,000 deductible. (Compl.f 7.)

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Los An-geles Superior Court on September 12,1997. Defendants…

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.