Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01886/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01886-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United Van Lines, L.L.C., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Susan Dunkin, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1886-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter arises upon the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff consented in

writing to magistrate judge jurisdiction on October 18, 2007 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

(docket #7) To date, Defendant Susan Dunkin has not appeared in this action through

counsel or otherwise.

On October 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this District Court, seeking

a judicial declaration of the rights and liabilities of the parties pursuant to the Carmack

Amendment as a result of the transportation of Defendant’s household goods from

Greenwich, Connecticut through interstate commerce to Scottsdale, Arizona on or about

February 14, 2006. (docket # 1) Defendant Susan Dunkin was purportedly served with the

Summons and Complaint on November 18, 2007. (docket # 8) On January 10, 2008 and due

to Defendant’s failure to timely answer or otherwise respond to its Complaint, Plaintiff filed

its Request to Enter Defendant’s Default. (docket # 9) The Clerk entered Defendant’s

Case 2:07-cv-01886-ROS Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

default the next day pursuant to Rule 55(a), FED.R.CIV.P. There has been no activity in the

file since January 11, 2008.

This Court presumptively concludes that Plaintiff has asserted a claim arising

under federal law, the Carmack Amendment, and the existence of the $10,000 jurisdictional

minimum. (docket # 1, ¶ 5) Moreover, the Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes the Court

to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such

declaration” when there is an “actual controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Therefore, the

Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a) and 2201(a).

Pursuant to the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49

U.S.C. §§ 14706 et seq., a common carrier, such as Plaintiff, transporting goods via interstate

commerce from one state to another may limit its liability for loss or damage for the item

being shipped. The Ninth Circuit has described the Carmack Amendment as providing “a

uniform national liability policy for interstate carriers.” Hall v. North American Van Lines,

Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). The Carmack Amendment is the exclusive cause of

action for interstate-shipping contract claims alleging loss or damage to property. Id.; Adams

Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 505-06 (1913) (Carmack covers “the subject of the

liability of the carrier under a bill of lading . . . so completely that there can be no rational

doubt but that Congress intended to take possession of the subject, and supersede all state

regulation with reference to it”).

Plaintiff has failed to file an application for a default hearing pursuant to Rule

55(b) or take any other known action since January 10, 2008, nearly two months ago.

Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P., specifically provides that the failure of a plaintiff to

prosecute his claim is grounds for involuntary dismissal of the action. Anderson v. Air West,

Inc., 542 F.2d at 524. The courts have read this rule to require prosecution with “reasonable

diligence” if a plaintiff is to avoid dismissal. Id. (citing Ballew v. Southern Pacific Co., 428

F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1970)). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the procedural

rules of the court is within the court’s discretion. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet

Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 188 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County,

Case 2:07-cv-01886-ROS Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

216 F.3rd 837 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, district courts have the inherent power to control

their dockets and, in the exercise of that power, may impose sanctions including, where

appropriate, dismissal of a case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). A

dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 41(b) will stand unless it is an abuse of

discretion. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing on or before Monday,

March 17, 2008 why its Complaint against Defendant should not be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P. Plaintiff may

discharge this OSC by either filing an application for a default hearing pursuant to Rule 55(b)

or filing a status report demonstrating that good cause exists not to dismiss this lawsuit for

failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence. Settlement negotiations do not constitute good

cause.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01886-ROS Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3