Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01347/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Expeditors International of Washington,

Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Synergy Cargo Logistics, Inc., an Arizona

corporation; Towne Air Freight, Inc., an

Indiana corporation; Towne Air Freight,

LLC, an Indiana corporation; Towne

Holdings, Inc., an Indiana corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1347-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) filed by Defendants Synergy

Cargo Logistics, Inc., Towne Air Freight Incorporated, Towne Air Freight, LLC, and Towne

Holdings, Inc. (“Defendants”), and a Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply filed by Plaintiff

Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (“Expeditors”). For the reasons provided below,

the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and denies as moot Plaintiff’s

Motion to File a Sur-Reply.

Defendants’ motion argued that the Carmack Amendment “governs the liability of

carriers for lost or damaged goods and mandates that it is the exclusive remedy against such

carriers. Consequently, the Carmack Amendment preempts all state laws that impose liability

on carriers, including Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.” (Doc. 11 (emphasis added)). In

its Response, Expeditors asserted that Defendants’ motion should be denied because the

Case 2:10-cv-01347-GMS Document 16 Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

“Supreme Court held that the Carmack Amendment does not apply to the inland segment of

a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading.” (Doc. 12 (citing

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 130 S.Ct. 2433, 2446 (2010))). In their

Reply, Defendants agreed, stating that “[a]s Plaintiff’s [sic] have asserted, this case does not

fall under the Carmack Amendment.” (Doc. 13). After conceding that the Carmack

Amendment is not applicable to this case, Defendants raise a new argument that Plaintiff’s

claims should nevertheless be dismissed because the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act

(“COGSA”) is the exclusive remedy. 

The Court need not consider Defendants’ COGSA argument because it was raised for

the first time in their Reply. See Delgadillo v. Woodford, 527 F.3d 919, 930 n.4 (9th Cir.

2008) (“Arguments raised for the first time in [the] reply brief are deemed waived.”); Marlyn

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Improvita Health Prods., 663 F. Supp.2d 841, 848 (D. Ariz. 2009)

(“The Court need not consider Defendants’ position, however, since it was first raised in their

reply brief . . . Thus, even if the argument has merit, this Court cannot appropriately consider

it, since Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to respond.”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is

denied without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply

Memorandum (Doc. 14) is denied as moot.

DATED this 21st day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01347-GMS Document 16 Filed 12/21/10 Page 2 of 2