Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02739/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02739-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1 

3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 

LLOYDS SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY 

NO. 0801Q16413M13, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

TRANSPORT CONTINENTAL, INC., 

AND TRANSPORT CONTINENTAL 

LOGISTICS, 

 Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS; AND 

(Doc. No. 26) 

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF 

RECORD 

(Doc. No. 29) 

Presently before the Court are two motions: Defendants Transport Continental, Inc., 

and Transport Continental Logistics’ (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motion to 

dismiss and their motion to withdraw as counsel of record. (Doc. Nos. 26, 29.) Upon review 

of the parties’ arguments in support and opposition of the motions, the Court finds the 

motions suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Accordingly, the motion hearing set for June 29, 2017, at 2:00 

p.m. in Courtroom 4A is vacated. As set forth more fully below, Defendants’ motion to 

Case 3:16-cv-02739-AJB-DHB Document 37 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2 

3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB 

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

dismiss is DENIED and their motion to withdraw as attorney is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyds Subscribing to Policy No. 0801Q16413M13 

(“Plaintiff”) is a group of insurance syndicates associated with Lloyds of London, which 

are citizens of the United Kingdom. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff was the first 

party cargo insurer of the cargo that is the subject of this action. (Id.) Defendants are 

corporations that are citizens of Texas, which are engaged in business as motor truck 

carriers, bailees for hire, and logistics providers within the United States. (Id. ¶ 2.) 

The instant matter centers on the transport of a laser cutting machine (the “Cargo”). 

(Id. ¶ 4.) On or about October 30, 2014, Defendants agreed orally and in writing to provide 

a transportation trailer to carry the Cargo from Queretaro, Mexico, to Chickasha, 

Oklahoma. (Id.) The contract was made in San Diego and stated that the Cargo was to be 

delivered in the same condition as when it was received. (Id.) 

However, in breach of the foregoing contract, Defendants allegedly delivered the 

Cargo to its final destination severely damaged, with a total loss amount of $275,000. (Id. 

¶ 5.) As a result, Plaintiff was obligated to indemnify the owner of the Cargo for the entire 

amount of the loss. (Id.) 

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on November 4, 2016, alleging breach of contract, 

negligence, and bailment. (See generally Doc. No. 1.) On December 12, 2016, Defendants 

filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue, (Doc. No. 6), which was 

denied on March 20, 2017. (Doc. No. 23.) Subsequently, Defendants filed the present 

motion, its motion to dismiss on April 17, 2017. (Doc. No. 26.) On May 1, 2017, one of 

Defendants’ counsel, Brittany Shaw, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. (Doc. 

No. 29.) 

/// 

                                                                

1

 The following facts are taken from the Complaint and construed as true for the limited 

purpose of resolving the instant motion. See Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1247 

(9th Cir. 2013). 

Case 3:16-cv-02739-AJB-DHB Document 37 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3 

3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB 

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

LEGAL STANDARD 

A. Motion to Dismiss 

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s 

complaint and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack 

of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.” 

SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, a complaint will survive a 

motion to dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In making this 

determination, a court reviews the contents of the complaint, accepting all factual 

allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. 

Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 

2007). 

 Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need not accept “legal 

conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). It is also improper for a 

court to assume “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Associated 

Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 

(1983). 

B. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 

“An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision 

to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial 

court.” Beard v. Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., Case No. 07CV594 WQH (NLS), 2008 WL 

410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); 

see also CivLR 83.3(f)(3). “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as counsel, courts consider: 

(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other 

litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the 

Case 3:16-cv-02739-AJB-DHB Document 37 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4 

3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB 

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

degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Leatt Corp. v. Innovative 

Safety Tech., LLC, No. 09-CV-1301-IEG (POR), 2010 WL 444708, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 

2, 2010) (citation omitted). 

 DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Objections 

As an initial matter, the Court will first turn to Plaintiff’s objections filed with its 

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 28-1.) Plaintiff objects to (1) 

Defendants’ allegation that the Cargo was being transported by a Mexican carrier; (2) 

Defendants’ allegation that the Cargo was damaged in Mexico; and (3) Exhibit A to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Id. at 2–4.) In support of its objections, Plaintiff argues 

that Defendants are using extrinsic evidence outside of the Complaint, that the allegations 

lack foundation, and that the statements are irrelevant and inadmissible. (Id.) 

 Here, the contentions that the Cargo was damaged in Mexico and was being 

transported by a Mexican carrier do not appear within the four corners of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (See generally Doc. No. 1.) Accordingly, in ruling on Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, the Court declines to consider these allegations in coming to its holding. See 

Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) superseded by statute on other 

grounds in Mcmanus v. Mcmanus Fin. Consultants, Inc., 552 F. App’x 713 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(noting that “where a defendant attaches extrinsic evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the 

court ordinarily must convert that motion into one for summary judgment under Rule 56 

to give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond”); see also Saldate v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 

686 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1058 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“[A] court generally cannot consider material 

outside the complaint.”); Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 

1118 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court generally looks only 

to the face of the complaint and documents attached thereto.” (citation omitted)). 

 In regards to Exhibit A attached to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff argues 

that the exhibit lacks foundation and that the statement is irrelevant and inadmissible. (Doc. 

No. 28-1 at 3.) Defendants retort that Exhibit A, which is a copy of the TCI Bill of Lading, 

Case 3:16-cv-02739-AJB-DHB Document 37 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5 

3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB 

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

should be considered as it is expressly referenced in the Complaint and is central to 

Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 31 at 4.) The Court agrees with Defendants. Here, Plaintiff 

does expressly reference the bill of lading in its Complaint. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 4.) Moreover, 

the Court finds the bill of lading, which serves as a receipt of the shipment of the Cargo, to 

be a key part of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Accordingly, as this document is incorporated by 

reference, Plaintiff’s objection to Exhibit A is DENIED. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 

F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A court may, however, consider certain materials–

documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the 

complaint, or matters of judicial notice–without converting the motion to dismiss into a 

motion for summary judgment.”); see also Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 

551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007) (a court may consider “other sources courts ordinarily examine 

when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated 

into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.”). 

 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s 

objections. 

 B. Merits of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for two reasons: (1) 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because Mexican law applies to its claims; and (2) 

Plaintiff’s claims governed by the Carmack amendment do not apply to claims for Cargo 

damaged south of the border. (Doc. No. 26-1 at 4–10.) The Court will analyze both of 

Defendants’ arguments together as its analysis is related. 

 “Typically, a court can only consider what’s in the complaint when it is deciding a 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint.” Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 213 F. 

Supp. 3d 1275, 1279 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (citation omitted); see also In re Rigel Pharm., Inc. 

Sec. Litig., 697 F.3d 869, 875 (9th Cir. 2012) (challenges to a dismissal for failure to state 

a claim is “generally limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the 

complaint by reference, and matters of which we may take judicial notice”). 

Case 3:16-cv-02739-AJB-DHB Document 37 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6 

3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB 

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

Unfortunately for Defendants, their motion to dismiss is premised on the allegation 

that the Cargo was damaged in Mexico. (Doc. No. 26-1 at 4–9.) However, as discussed 

infra p. 4, Plaintiff’s Complaint never pled where the Cargo was allegedly damaged and 

thus Plaintiff’s objection to the use of this allegation was granted. Accordingly, as both of 

Defendants’ main contentions are premised on extrinsic evidence on which this Court 

cannot take into consideration, its arguments collapse upon themselves. Based on this, 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

2

 See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner 

& Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990) superseded by statute on other 

grounds by Blue Dolphin Charters, Ltd. v. Knight & Carver Yachtcenter, Inc., Civil No. 

11-cv-565-L (WVG), 2012 WL 1185945 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (noting that a district 

court generally only considers the material submitted as part of the complaint in ruling on 

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion); see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688–89 (9th 

Cir. 2001) overruled on other grounds by Martinez v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, Case No. 16-

CV-05626-LHK, 2017 WL 2180985 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2017) (noting that a court may 

only consider extrinsic evidence by converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for 

summary judgment); Gumataotao v. Director of Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 236 F.3d 

1077, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court was not required to consider 

evidence outside of the pleadings when ruling on a motion to dismiss). 

 C. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 

The Court now turns to Defendants’ motion to withdraw as counsel of record. (Doc. 

No. 29.) On May 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ 

motion to withdraw. (Doc. No. 35.) 

Under the Civil Local Rules, “[a] notice of motion to withdraw as attorney of record 

                                                                

2

 Based on this, the Court need not reach the parties’ arguments on whether the Carmack 

amendment preempts all state and common law claims to recover for cargo damages in the 

United States, (Doc. No. 26-1 at 8; Doc. No. 28 at 9), or whether California’s three-step 

governmental interest analysis to choice of law questions deems that Mexican law should 

or should not apply. (Doc. No. 26-1 at 4-6; Doc. No. 28 at 4-6.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02739-AJB-DHB Document 37 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7 

3:16-CV-02739-AJB-DHB 

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

must be served on the adverse party and on the moving attorney’s client.” CivLR 

83.3(f)(3)(a). In addition “a declaration pertaining to such service must be filed.” Id. at 

83.3(f)(3)(b). 

 In support of this motion, Ms. Shaw3

 contends that her withdrawal will not prejudice 

the rights of Defendants as Eric L. Zalud and Virginia Price will remain as counsel. (Doc. 

No. 29 at 2.) No further reasons for Ms. Shaw’s withdrawal is provided. Moreover, the 

Court notes that a declaration of service was not filed along with this motion. However, 

finding that withdrawal by Ms. Shaw will not prejudice Defendants and that this motion is 

unopposed, the Court within its discretion GRANTS Ms. Shaw’s motion to withdraw as 

counsel of record for Defendants. See Myers v. City of Madera, No. 1:10-cv-01398 AWI 

JLT, 2011 WL 2473270, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2011) (“The decision to grant withdrawal 

is within the discretion of the Court and leave ‘may be granted subject to such appropriate 

conditions as the Court deems fit.’” (citation omitted)). 

CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is 

DENIED and its motion to withdraw as counsel of record is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: May 31, 2017 

                                                                

3

 Ms. Shaw is currently one of four attorneys representing Defendants. 

Case 3:16-cv-02739-AJB-DHB Document 37 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7