McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP

Peter J. Boyer (ID # 25517)

Mellon Bank Center Building

1735 Market Street

Suite 700

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

(215) 979 - 3800

Attorneys for Defendant

International Bridge and Iron Co., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robins Motor Transportation, Inc.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Transport SRS Inc., et al,

Defendants 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 CIVIAL ACTION

 NO. 02-CV-2745

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE AND

IRON CO., INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Defendant International Bridge and Iron Co., Inc., by its undersigned attorneys, hereby

answers the Complaint in this matter as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

It is denied that jurisdiction lies in this Court under the Interstate Commerce Act, Title 49

U.S.C. §10101 et seq and the Motor Carriers Act of 1935. It is denied that venue is proper in this

District.

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 1 of 9
-2-

RESPONSE TO NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS

1. Admitted.

2. It is admitted only that International Bridge and Iron Co., Inc. (hereinafter

"IBIC") is a Connecticut corporation with an office at 90 Day Street, Newington, Connecticut

06111. Answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph and the same are therefore denied, and

strict proof thereof demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

COUNT ONE

3. IBIC incorporates herein its response to the proceeding paragraphs as though set

forth at length.

4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that IBIC has violated the

Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. §10101 et seq. It is admitted that IBIC has refused to pay

freight charges demanded in plaintiff's Complaint. It is denied that IBIC is responsible for

payment of the freight charges, or that there exists any contract of any kind between IBIC and

plaintiff.

5. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff transported goods for IBIC pursuant to a

contract to which IBIC was a party. IBIC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form

a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and same are therefore

denied, and strict proof thereof demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 2 of 9
-3-

6. Denied. It is denied that there exists an agreement between plaintiff and IBIC

relating to transportation and delivery of any goods. IBIC is without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph and the

same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

7. Denied. It is denied that IBIC was to pay $46,391.50 or any amount to plaintiff

for freight charges. It is denied that the invoices attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint are

directed to or were sent to IBIC. IBIC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is

demanded at trial, to the extent relevant. 

8. It is admitted that IBIC has made no payments to plaintiff. It is denied that IBIC

is responsible for any of the sums claimed by plaintiff. IBIC is without knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph as it

relates to the other defendants, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof

demanded at trial.

9. Denied. It is denied that IBIC owes the plaintiff $43,491.50 or any sum. IBIC is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of

this paragraph as it relates to other parties, the same are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof

demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 3 of 9
-4-

10. Admitted in part. It is admitted only that IBIC has failed to make any payments

to plaintiff for freight charges or services performed by plaintiff, and it is denied that IBIC is a

party to any contract with plaintiff pursuant to which those services were performed. Defendant

IBIC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

averments of this paragraph as it relates to other parties, the same are therefore denied, and strict

proof thereof demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

11. Denied. IBIC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which relates to other parties, and the same are

therefore denied, and strict proof thereof demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

12. Denied. It is denied that IBIC is responsible as consigner or otherwise, for

amounts claimed by plaintiff to be due.

13. Denied. IBIC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which related to a party other that IBIC, and the

same are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

14. Denied.

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 4 of 9
-5-

WHEREFORE, defendant IBIC demands judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against

IBIC, with prejudice, and awarding costs and counsel fees incurred in defending this action.

COUNT TWO

15. Defendant IBIC incorporates herein its responses to the allegations of paragraphs

1 through 14 as though set forth at length.

16. It is admitted that Count Two of the Complaint purports to state a State Law

claim. It is denied that this Court has supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over the claim set

forth in Count Two against IBIC.

17. Denied. It is denied that IBIC entered into a contract with plaintiff to transport

goods from Canada to New Jersey and Connecticut to Virginia. IBIC is without knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph as it

relates to other parties, the same are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof demanded at trial,

to the extent relevant.

18. Denied. It is denied that IBIC entered into a contract with plaintiff to transport

goods from Canada to New Jersey and Connecticut to Virginia. Defendant IBIC is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this

paragraph as it relates to other parties, the same are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof

demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 5 of 9
-6-

19. Denied. It is denied that IBIC was to pay plaintiff anything. IBIC is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this

paragraph as it relates to other parties, the same are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof

demanded at trial, to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the invoices attached as

Exhibit "A" to the Complaint are not addressed to IBIC and do not request payment from IBIC.

20. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff has demanded payment from IBIC prior to the

filing of this Complaint.

21. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that IBIC has not made

payment. It is denied that IBIC has any responsibility for the charges alleged to be due. IBIC is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of

this paragraph as it relates to other parties, the same are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof

demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

22. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that IBIC has not made

payment. It is denied that IBIC has any responsibility for the freight charges alleged to be due.

IBIC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

averments of this paragraph as it relates to other parties, the same are therefore denied, and strict

proof thereof demanded at trial, to the extent relevant.

23. Denied.

WHEREFORE, IBIC demands judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against IBIC, with

prejudice, and awarding costs and counsel fees incurred in defending this action.

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 6 of 9
-7-

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

against defendant IBIC.

2. The claims against defendant IBIC are barred by the Statute of Frauds.

3. There is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant IBIC.

4. There is no jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act for any claim against

defendant IBIC. 

5. This Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over claims against defendant IBIC.

6. IDIC sold steel products to ADF International, Inc., through a contract which

provided that the product was being sold “F.O.B. Newington, CT.” As a result, IDIC has no

responsibility for any freight charges for shipment of the steel products from its plant in

Newington, CT.

7. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to join an indispensable party, ADF International, Inc.,

IBIC’s customer, which purchased the steel products from IDIC “F.O. B. Newington, CT.”

McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP

1735 Market Street, Suite 700

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215)979-3800

Attorney for Defendant,

International Bridge and Iron Co., Inc.

BY: _____________________________

Peter J. Boyer, Esquire

Dated: June 28, 2002

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 7 of 9
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP

Peter J. Boyer (ID # 25517)

Mellon Bank Center Building

1735 Market Street, Suite 700

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

(215) 979 - 3800

Attorneys for Defendant

International Bridge and Iron Co., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robins Motor Transportation, Inc.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Transport SRS Inc., et al,

Defendants 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 CIVIAL ACTION

 NO. 02-CV-2745

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Peter J. Boyer, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date I caused the foregoing

Answer of Defendant International Bridge and Iron Co., Inc. to Plaintiff's Complaint to be filed

via hand delivery with the Clerk of Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and true and correct copies

via regular mail to:

John F. Peoples, Esquire

2701 West Chester Pike

Suite 104

Broomall, PA 19008

Derek Eddy, Esquire

Harry R. Blackburn & Associates, P.C.

1610 Spruce Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

____________________________ 

Peter J. Boyer, Esquire

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 8 of 9
-9-

Dated: June 28, 2002

PH1: 109046.01

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 8 Filed 06/28/2002 Page 9 of 9