Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01361/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01361-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 

---

; 

DERRICK 

HORTON; 

v. 

UNITED 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uaiced Scates Coun of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 14 1991 

R. PARKHURST; RAYMONDE. ) 

DON SMITH, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

) 

) 

PARCEL SERVICE~ INC., ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

90-1361 

(D.C. No. 90-F-1703) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs Derrick R. Parkhurst, Raymond Horton, and Don 

Smith appeal the district court's dismissal of their claim under 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1361 Document: 010110120899 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 1 
• 

the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 u.s.c. §§ 10101-11917 (1990) for 

lack of jurisdiction. 1 We reverse. 

Plaintiffs filed a complaint for "Conversion and Violation of 

the Interstate Commerce Act" on September 25, 1990, against United 

Parcel Service ("UPS"). The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte for want of jurisdiction, holding that plaintiffs did not allege a federal cause of action. We disagree. 

Although plaintiffs did not cite to a specific substantive section 

of the Act in their complaint, but instead cited to the enforcement section, i.e., 49 u.s.c. § 11705, the detailed recitation of 

the facts supporting their complaint clearly states a claim for 

damages under section 11707 of the Act. See,~, Nat'l Transp. 

Inc. v. Inn Foods, Inc., 827 F.2d 351, 353-54 (8th Cir. 1987) 

(under 49 u.s.c. § 11707 shipper states prima facie case when 

shows 1) goods delivered to the carrier in good condition, 2) 

goods arrived in damaged condition, 3) amount of damages); John 

Morrell & Co. v. Frozen Food Express, Inc., 700 F.2d 256, 258 (5th 

Cir. 1983) (same). 

Pursuant to our policy of construing prose complaints 

liberally, see Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 

(10th Cir. 1991), and the spirit of notice pleading encompassed in 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Mountain View Pharmacy 

v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1386 (10th Cir. 1980), we 

conclude that plaintiffs' complaint gave UPS "fair notice of what 

1 Our disposition of the claim on the merits makes it unnecessary for us to reach plaintiffs' argument that the district court 

improperly refused to entertain their "Combined Motion for Relief 

from Judgment and Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint". 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1361 Document: 010110120899 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 2 
[their] claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," id. 

Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1361 Document: 010110120899 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 3