Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01964/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01964-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 49:81 Damaged Goods While Being Transported

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACCESS BIOLOGICALS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

XPO LOGISTICS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER

Access Biologicals, LLC (“Access”) filed suit against XPO 

Logistics, LLC (“XPOL”) in September 2019. Compl., ECF No. 1. 

Access alleges XPOL’s improper delivery of an order of fetal 

bovine serum amounted to negligence, a breach of contract, and a 

violation of the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706. Compl. 

¶¶ 18-59. Access raised these claims on its own behalf and as 

Life Technology, Inc.’s (“LTI”) assignee. Id.

Case 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 8
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

2

XPOL filed a motion to dismiss or transfer Access’s suit.1 

Mot. to Dismiss or Transfer (“Mot.”), ECF No. 9. XPOL argues 

each claim arises under a February 2, 2016 contract it entered 

with LTI. Mot. at 5. This contract incorporated a forum 

selection clause by way of XPOL’s “Standard Terms and 

Conditions.” Id. XPOL contends this clause required Access to 

file its suit in North Carolina. Id. at 5-6. Access filed an 

opposition to XPOL’s motion, ECF No. 18, and XPOL filed a reply, 

ECF No. 21. Because XPOL’s reply introduced new evidence and 

raised new legal arguments, the Court granted Access’s request to 

file a surreply. See Plf.’s Ex parte Application, ECF No. 25; 

Feb. 10, 2020 Minute Order, ECF No. 26; see also Plf.’s Surreply, 

ECF No. 27. 

The Court finds XPOL failed to show that its February 2, 

2016 contract with LTI covered the shipment of fetal bovine serum 

at issue here. XPOL similarly fell short of identifying any 

other basis for subjecting Access to the forum selection clause 

contained in XPOL’s terms and conditions. For these reasons, the 

Court denies XPOL’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue. 

I. BACKGROUND

In October 2016, Access purchased 1200 liters of fetal 

bovine serum from LTI, to be delivered to Access’s contractor 

J.R. Scientific. Compl. ¶ 10. LTI then hired XPOL to transport 

the order from LTI’s facility in Grand Island New York to J.R. 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for February 11, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 8
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

Scientific in Woodland, California. Compl. ¶ 11. 

On January 6, 2017, XPOL’s subcontractor picked up the order 

at LTI’s facility and began the cross-country delivery. Compl. 

¶ 14. The subcontractor arrived in Woodland, California six days 

later. Compl. ¶15. The parties dispute exactly what happened to 

the shipment en route, but ultimately, the USDA ordered that the 

entire order be destroyed. See Compl. ¶¶ 14-15; Mot. at 3. 

Access contends the destruction of their order resulted in a 

$298,935 loss. Compl. ¶ 15. LTI filed a claim with XPOL to 

recoup this loss, but XPOL denied it. Compl. ¶ 16. LTI then 

assigned its claims to Access. Compl. ¶ 17.

II. OPINION

A. Analysis

Forum selection clauses “are prima facie valid and should 

be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party 

to be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances.” M/S Bremen v. 

Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972). A motion to 

dismiss premised upon the enforcement of a forum selection 

clause amounts to a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper 

venue. Arugueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th 

Cir. 1996). Rule 12(b)(3) motions, unlike Rule 12(b)(6) 

motions, do not require courts to accept all of the allegations 

in the complaint as true. Id. (citing Carnival Cruise Lines v. 

Shute, 499 U.S. 5858 (1991)). Indeed, a party opposing the 

enforcement of a forum selection clause must generally produce 

“some evidence . . . to establish fraud, undue influence, 

overweening bargaining power, or such serious inconvenience in 

Case 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 8
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

litigating the selected forum so as to deprive that party of a 

meaningful day in court.” Argueta, 87 F.3d at 324 (quoting 

Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theaters, Inc., 741 

F.2d 273, 280 (9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by

Powerpex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 

235-36 (2007) (emphasis in original)). Here, however, Access 

avoids this heavy burden of production because XPOL failed to 

identify a forum selection clause that covers Access’s claims.

As Access argues, “[i]n resolving a motion to transfer 

involving a forum-selection clause, ‘[t]he threshold issue is 

whether the forum-selection clause applies to Plaintiff’s 

claims.” Opp’n at 4 (quoting Henry v. Cent. Freight Lines, 

Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00280-JAM-EFB, 2017 WL 4517836, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Oct. 10, 2017)). XPOL contends its February 2016 contract 

with LTI sets forth the agreed-upon terms for the January 2017 

shipment from Grand Island to Woodland. Mot. at 5-6. In 

support of this position, XPOL focuses on a single sentence 

within the agreement: “Except as modified herein, any 

transportation or logistics services provided by XPOL are 

subjected to XPOL’s standard terms and conditions . . . .” Id.

at 5 (citing Ex. A to Perry Decl., ECF No. 19). XPOL’s standard

terms and conditions, in turn, contain a forum selection clause 

requiring the parties to file suit in North Carolina “in the 

event of any disagreement or dispute.” Mot. at 5-6 (quoting Ex. 

A. to Perry Decl. at 16). XPOL contends its shipment from LTI’s 

Grand Island facility to J.R. Scientific plainly falls within 

the category of “any transportation or logistics services.” 

Mot. 3-4. 

Case 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 03/09/20 Page 4 of 8
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

5

Access urges the Court to, instead, interpret the sentence 

XPOL identified in context of the broader document. Opp’n at 4-

6. The Court finds Access’s method of contract interpretation 

is the proper one. See Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast 

Insurance Co., 176 F. Supp. 3d 949, 955 (E.D. Cal. 2016). Using 

this approach, the relevant portion of the contract reads:

Purpose:

The standard operating procedures of this document 

have been established between Life Technologies and 

XPOL to define agreed best practices for the 

administration and transportation of Life 

Technologies’ shipments as shown in Schedule 1.

Scope:

XPOL will arrange with third party independent 

contractor licensed motor carriers (“Carriers”) for 

truckload transportation of Life Technologies’ 

shipments, in the laneways specified in Schedule 1, 

for the rates and terms specified therein, in 

accordance with the requirements set out herein. Life 

Technologies’ shipments shall be transported as 

“exclusive use” shipments, meaning no other shippers’ 

freight may be transported in the same trailer at the 

same time as Life Technologies’ shipments. Except as 

modified herein, any transportation or logistics

services provided by XPOL are subject to XPOL’s 

standard terms and conditions . . . . Current version 

at Effective Date is attached as Schedule 2. 

Ex. A to Perry Decl. at 1. The Schedule 1 attachment lists two 

laneways—one between Grand Island, NY and Chester, NY; the other 

between Grand Island, NY and Charlottetown, PE. Id. at 3. 

The February 2016 contract’s plain language states that the 

purpose of the agreement was to “define agreed best practices 

for the administration and transportation of Life Technologies’ 

shipments as shown in Schedule 1.” Ex. A to Perry Decl. at 1. 

Schedule 1 does not include a laneway between Grand Island, NY 

and Woodland, CA. The Court would have to adopt an 

unnecessarily strained reading of the contract to find that its 

Case 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 03/09/20 Page 5 of 8
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

6

terms nonetheless govern this unenumerated route. The more 

natural interpretation of the seemingly-broad language XPOL 

identifies is that any transportation or logistics services 

provided by XPOL for the laneways listed in Schedule 1 are 

subject to XPOL’s terms and conditions. Accordingly, the Court 

finds that the forum selection clause incorporated into the 

February 2, 2016 contract does not apply to any claims arising 

out of XPOL’s January 2017 shipment to Woodland, CA. 

The Rate Confirmation Sheet XPOL discusses in its reply 

brief does not alter the Court’s conclusion. See Reply at 3-4. 

After LTI hired XPOL to transport Access’s order of fetal bovine 

serum to California, XPOL sent LTI a Rate confirmation Sheet. 

Id. This form included a disclosure purporting to subject “any 

transportation brokerage and/or other transportation 

intermediary-related services provided by XPO” to the company’s 

“Customer Standard Terms and Conditions.” Ex. A to Supp. Perry 

Decl., ECF No. 22. Although it is not entirely clear from the 

reply, XPOL seems to argue that this disclosure either (1) 

reinforces the notion that the February 2016 contract bound the 

January 2017 shipment to XPOL’s terms and conditions; or (2) 

provides an independent contractual basis for subjecting the 

January 2017 shipment to XPOL’s terms and conditions. See Reply 

at 3-5. The Court does not find either argument persuasive. 

First, as Access argues, the fact that the February 2016 

contract and the Rate Confirmation Sheet for the January 2017 

order both reference XPOL’s terms and conditions does little to 

suggest the 2016 contract governed the 2017 shipment. The sheet 

does not reference the February 2016 contract or any of the 

Case 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 03/09/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

laneways listed in Schedule 1 of that agreement. The Court 

lacks any basis for viewing these two distinct arrangements as 

one. Second, the Rate Confirmation Sheet does not stand as its 

own contract. XPOL maintains that, based on its terms and 

conditions, LTI agreed to be bound by XPOL’s terms and 

conditions when it tendered the fetal bovine serum to XPOL’s 

subcontractor. Reply at 4-5 (quoting Ex. A to Perry Decl. at 

5). Tautologically, this argument uses standards set forth in 

XPOL’s terms to determine that LTI was bound by XPOL’s terms. 

The Court is not convinced.

XPOL’s central critique is that Access is trying to have 

its cake and eat it too—that Access claims the February 2016 

contract to invoke its benefits but then disavows the agreement

to avoid its obligations. But the Court does not find any 

indication that Access’s suit flows from rights the February 

2016 contract created. Because XPOL failed to identify a forumselection clause that applies to Access’s claims, the Court 

denies XPOL’s Rule 12(b)(3) motion. 

B. Page Limits

The Court’s Order re Filing Requirements (“Order”), ECF No. 

4-2, limits memoranda in support of and opposition to motions to 

dismiss to fifteen pages. Order at 1. It limits reply 

memoranda to five pages. Id. A violation of the Order requires 

the offending counsel (not the client) to pay $50.00 per page 

over the page limit to the Clerk of Court. Id. Moreover, the 

Court does not consider arguments made past the page limit. Id. 

XPOL’s brief exceeded the page limit by three pages. XPOL’s 

counsel must therefore send a check payable to the Clerk for the 

Case 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 03/09/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Eastern District of California for $150.00 no later than seven 

days from the date of this Order. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES XPOL’s

motion to dismiss or transfer Access’s suit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-01964-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 03/09/20 Page 8 of 8