Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00466/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00466-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 49:11702(a)(4) Violations of Interstate Commerce Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pacific Indemnity Co., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pickens Kane Moving & Storage Co.;

Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 

Defendants. __________________________________

Pickens Kane Moving & Storage Co.

Cross-Claimant

vs.

Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

Cross-Defendant __________________________________

Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

Cross-Claimant

vs.

Pickens Kane Moving & Storage Co.

Cross-Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0466-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Pickens Kane’s motion for reasonable expenses (doc. 154),

Atlas’ response (doc. 157), Pickens Kane’s reply (doc. 158), and Pickens Kane’s renewed

Case 2:08-cv-00466-FJM Document 181 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

Pickens Kane has withdrawn its request for attorney’s fees. Memorandum at 2. 

- 2 -

motion for reasonable expenses (doc. 162), Atlas’ response (doc. 170), and Pickens Kane’s

reply (doc. 175). Finally, we have Atlas’ objection to the clerk’s taxation of costs (doc. 180).

This case arises out of the loss of household goods by fire during shipment. Pacific

Indemnity Company filed this action against Pickens Kane Moving & Storage (“Pickens

Kane”), the receiving carrier and Atlas Van Lines (“Atlas”), the delivering carrier, asserting

claims under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, and seeking damages in the

amount of $1 million, the declared value of the shipment. Pickens Kane then filed a cross

claim against Atlas for indemnity under 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b). 

In our order dated September 9, 2009, we held that Pickens Kane is liable to Pacific

Indemnity for $1 million (doc. 139). We then considered apportionment of liability under

49 U.S.C. § 14706(b) as between Pickens Kane and Atlas. Pickens Kane sought

indemnification from Atlas for all sums awarded to Pacific Indemnity. Atlas argued that its

liability was limited to 60 cents per pound, or alternatively $5.00 per pound (docs. 62, 116).

We entered judgment in favor Pickens Kane and against Atlas in the amount of $5.00 per

pound, or $52,500 (doc. 160). Pickens Kane now seeks to recover its reasonable expenses

under 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b).

In order to “relieve shippers of the burden of searching out a particular negligent

carrier from among the often numerous carriers handling an interstate shipment of goods,”

Reider v. Thompson, 339 U.S. 113, 119, 70 S. Ct. 499, 502 (1950), the Carmack Amendment

makes the originating carrier liable for damage to a shipper’s cargo regardless of whether the

damage occurred on its line or on the line of a connecting carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a). A

carrier found strictly liable under subsection (a) is then “entitled to recover from the carrier

over whose line or route the loss or injury occurred the amount required to be paid to the

owners of the property . . . and the amount of its expenses reasonably incurred in defending

a civil action brought by that person.” Id. § 14706(b). Pickens Kane contends that it is

entitled to recover its expenses in the amount of $74,402.35.1

Case 2:08-cv-00466-FJM Document 181 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Atlas does not contest the reasonableness of the claimed expenses, but instead argues

that because it admitted that it was liable for damages up to the limitation of liability

contained in its bill of lading and controlling tariffs–a maximum of $52,500–Pickens Kane

is not entitled to recover any of its expenses. It also argues that Pickens Kane is not entitled

to recover its expenses under § 14706(b) because it sought $1 million in indemnification, but

was awarded only $52,500, and therefore it is not the prevailing party. We disagree with

both arguments.

First, although Atlas admitted some liability from the inception of the litigation, it

continued to argue alternatively, as late as its motion for summary judgment, that its liability

was limited to 60 cents per pound (doc. 116). Therefore, the issue of Atlas’ liability

remained in dispute until our order on summary judgment was entered. 

As to the second argument, Atlas has cited no case law to establish that a traditional

prevailing party analysis is applicable to the indemnification provisions of § 14706(b).

Section 14706(a) imposes strict liability on even a faultless originating carrier. In order to

ameliorate the harshness of the rule, the statute also provides that the “carrier issuing the

receipt or bill of lading . . . is entitled to recover from the carrier over whose line or route the

loss or injury occurred . . . the amount of its expenses reasonably incurred in defending a

civil action brought by [the owner of the shipment].” 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b) (emphasis

added). Therefore, Atlas, over whose route the loss indisputably occurred, is liable to

Pickens Kane, the carrier issuing the bill of lading, for the amount of reasonable expenses

Pickens Kane incurred in defending the civil action brought by Pacific Indemnity. 

Even if a traditional prevailing party analysis is applicable, we would nevertheless

conclude that Pickens Kane satisfies the test. A party need not succeed on all issues or even

on what may be considered the “central” issue of the case. Park v. Anaheim Union High

School Dist., 464 F.3d 1025, 1035 (9th Cir. 2006). Instead a prevailing party is one who

succeeds on “any significant issue” in litigation which “achieves some of the benefit the

parties sought in bringing the suit.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, Pickens Kane clearly

Case 2:08-cv-00466-FJM Document 181 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

prevailed in obtaining some of the relief it sought and therefore is entitled to recover its

reasonable costs. 

For the same reasons stated above, we deny Atlas’ objection to the clerk’s order taxing

costs against Atlas and in favor of Pickens Kane in the amount of $10,135.86 (doc. 180).

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Pickens Kane’s motion (doc. 154) and renewed

motion (doc. 162) for reasonable expenses in the amount of $74,402.35.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Atlas’ motion objecting to taxation of

costs (doc. 180). 

DATED this 6th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00466-FJM Document 181 Filed 05/07/10 Page 4 of 4