1164062.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

MEXALLOYS, S.A. de C.V., § 

§ 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

v. § Case No.: 5:20-cv-120 

§ 

SOUTHWESTERN MOTOR § 

TRANSPORT, INC., § 

§ 

Defendant. § 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff MEXALLOYS, S.A. de C.V. (“Mexalloys”) and files this Original 

Complaint against Defendant Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc. (“SMTL”), and would respectfully 

show the Court as follows: 

I. 

THE PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff Mexalloys, S.A. de C.V. is a corporation organized and operating under the 

laws of Mexico. 

2. Defendant Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc. is a Texas corporation organized and 

operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas. Defendant may be served through its registered 

agent, Dennis C. Beierle, at 4600 Goldfield, San Antonio, Texas 78218, or wherever he may be 

found. 

II. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal law claims 

pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331. 

Case 5:20-cv-00120 Document 1 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 6
1164062.1 

2 

4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because 

defendant resides in this judicial district. 

III. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

5. On or about October 31, 2018, Mexalloys requested a quote from SMTL on 

shipping 11,087.13 lbs of Tungsten (the “Cargo”) from Laredo, Texas to Titan International, Inc. 

(“Titan”) in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. 

6. Titan had agreed to purchase the Cargo from Mexalloys for $108,420.00. Rachel 

Canales provided Mexalloys a quote of $2,102.22 for shipment of the Cargo. 

7. The quote provided by SMTL did not provide Mexalloys with a reasonable 

opportunity to choose between rates for two or more levels of liability. (Exhibit A, the Quote). 

8. Additionally, the Quote provided by SMTL did not give Mexalloys adequate notice 

of SMTL’s limitation of liability. The Quote does not adequately refer to SMTL’s tariff. 

9. On or about November 1, 2018, Mexalloys sent payment of $2,109.22 for the 

shipment and SMTL took possession of the Cargo on the same day. 

10. On November 1, 2018, SMTL signed and issued a Bill of Lading, which, again, did 

not provide Mexalloys with a reasonable opportunity to choose between rates for two or more 

levels of liability based on the value of the Cargo being shipped. 

11. In fact, the Bill of Lading states that SMTL’s liability “shall be limited to not 

exceed $0.50 per pound” for “used commodities.” Therefore, the Quote actually prevents 

Mexalloys from choosing between rates for two or more levels of liability and does not give 

Mexalloys a reasonable opportunity to choose between rates for two or more levels of liability 

based on the value of the Cargo being shipped. 

12. By November 15, 2018, it was clear that the Cargo had been completely lost. 

Case 5:20-cv-00120 Document 1 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 6
1164062.1 

3 

13. By November 20, 2018, the Cargo remained lost. In fact, the Cargo remains 

completely lost. 

14. Therefore, on November 21, 2018, Mexalloys submitted its “Standard Form for 

Presentation of Loss and Damaged Claim” as required by SMTL. On November 28, 2018, SMTL 

acknowledged receipt of the claim. 

15. On or about March 6, 2019, SMTL notified Mexalloys that payment in the amount 

of $7,645.22 would be made by SMTL to Mexalloys based on SMTL’s claim that the Bill of 

Lading and SMTL’s Tariff’s, SMTL’s liability is limited to $0.50 per pound when the shipped 

commodity is “used.” 

16. SMTL’s attempt to limit liability is unenforceable and does not meet the 

requirements of the Carmack Amendment. 

17. The Carmack Amendment obligates SMTL to pay for the actual loss suffered by 

Mexalloys without requiring Mexalloys to prove that SMTL was negligent. 

18. SMTL is strictly liable for the actual loss suffered by Mexalloys due to SMTL’s 

loss of the shipment. 

19. The Carmack Amendment only allows SMTL to limit its liability if certain 

requirements are met and SMTL proves that such requirements were met. 

20. In order for SMTL to limit its liability, SMTL must prove that: (1) the limitation of 

liability was the result of a fair, open, just and reasonable agreement between carrier and shipper 

entered into by the shipper for the purpose of obtaining the lower of two or more rates of charges 

proportioned to the amount of risk; and (2) the shipper was given the option of higher recovery 

upon paying a higher rate. 

21. Here, the Quote provided by SMTL did not provide the opportunity for MexAlloys 

Case 5:20-cv-00120 Document 1 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 6
1164062.1 

4 

to choose between different levels of coverage based on the value of the cargo. 

22. The Quote and the subsequent Bill of Lading make reference to potential liability 

limitations but do not allow MexAlloys to pay a higher rate for the shipment in exchange for higher 

liability limitation. 

23. Therefore, pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, SMTL is liable to Mexalloys for 

the actual loss suffered by Mexalloys, without any showing of negligence. 

24. Mexalloys’ actual loss is determined by the amount that Mexalloys would have 

received from Titan had the Cargo arrived in Pennsylvania, $74,235.17, plus the interest that 

Mexalloys has incurred in carrying the debt it used to purchase the Cargo, which currently totals 

$29,867.36. 

25. Therefore, Mexalloys’ actual damages total $104,102.53. 

26. A claimant is entitled to recover prejudgment interest and interest on the damages 

award. See La. & Ark. Ry. Co. v. Exp. Drum Co., 359 F.2d 311, 317 (5th Cir.1966). 

IV. 

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE: 

CARMACK CLAIM UNDER 49 U.S.C. § 14706 

27. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations asserted in 

paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein. 

28. Plaintiff provided goods to SMTL for SMTL to ship. 

29. Plaintiff provided the goods to SMTL in good condition. 

30. SMTL failed to deliver the goods at all and lost the goods. 

31. As a result of SMTL’s actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of 

$104,102.53 due to SMTL’s loss of the goods. 

Case 5:20-cv-00120 Document 1 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 6
1164062.1 

5 

32. SMTL did not legally or effectively limit its liability because SMTL cannot 

establish that the limitation of liability was the result of a fair, open, just and reasonable agreement 

between carrier and shipper entered into by the shipper for the purpose of obtaining the lower of 

two or more rates of charges proportioned to the amount of risk. 

33. SMTL did not legally or effectively limit its liability because SMTL cannot 

establish the shipper was given the option of higher recovery upon paying a higher rate. 

V. 

DAMAGES 

34. As a result of the foregoing wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff seeks to 

recover its actual damages, of at least $104,102.53 and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest 

as allowed by law, and costs of court. 

VI. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

35. All conditions, covenants, and obligations—whether precedent or otherwise—have 

all occurred, been performed, or been satisfied. 

36. Plaintiff has timely and properly presented its claims to Defendant, but 

notwithstanding the passage of significant and requisite time, Defendant has failed and refused to 

acknowledge and admit the justness of Plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be granted in its favor in 

connection with the claims made the subject of this Petition, that Plaintiff be granted recovery in 

the amount of its damages as set forth herein, pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate, and 

court costs, and that Plaintiff have such other and further relief to which it may be justly entitled. 

Case 5:20-cv-00120 Document 1 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 6
1164062.1 

6 

Respectfully submitted,

SCOTTHULSE, P.C. 

One San Jacinto Plaza 

201 E. Main Drive 

El Paso, Texas 79901 

(915) 533-2493 

(915) 546-8333 Telecopier 

By: /s/ James M. Feuille

JAMES M. FEUILLE 

 State Bar No. 24082989 

jfeu@scotthulse.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 5:20-cv-00120 Document 1 Filed 01/31/20 Page 6 of 6