2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-26-2005 

# Ro a dm a s t e r ( U SA) v

. C almo d al F reight Sys P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3970

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ro a dm as t e r ( U SA) v

. C almod al F r ei ght Sys " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 342. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/342H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 04- 3970 and 04- 3995

R O A D M A S T E R (U S A ) C O R P ., a N ew J er s eyC orpor at i on,

A ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee v. C A L M O D A L F R E IG H T S Y S T E M S , IN C .,

A ppel l ee/ C r os s - appel l ant

ON APPEAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT CO UR T

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . N o. 01- C V - 1364) Di s t r i c tCo u r tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Ga r r e t tE . Br o wn

A r gued Sept ember29, 2005

B efor e: A L I T O and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober26, 2005) G R E G O R Y A . L O M A X ( A r gued) DR EW W I XTED W ol f, B l ock, Schor rand Sol i s - C ohen2

1940 R out e 70 East , St e 200 C herr yH i l l , N J 08003 C ouns el forA ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee G E O R G E W . W R I G H T ( A r gued) G eor ge W . W r i ght& A s s oci at es 401 C ont i nent al A venue H acke ns ack, N J 07601 C ouns el forA ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M: B efor e us ar e an appea l and cr os s - appea l fr om a j udgm entent er ed af t era benc h tr ia l. W e a f

f ir m . I. R oadmast er , an i m por t er , s ued C al m odal , cl ai m i ng thatC al m odal br eac hed an or al agr eementdeal i ng w i t h t he i nt er s t at e tr ans por tof goods . A ttr i al , R oadmast erar gued t hatC al m odal act ed as an i nt er s t at e ca r r i er , r atherthan as a br oker , as defi ned bythe C arm ack A m endmentt o t he I nt er s t at e C om m er ce A ct , 49 U . S. C . § 13102. U nderthe s t atut e, i tw as nece s s aryforR oadmast ert o pr ove thatC al m odal w as an i nt er s t at e ca r r i er r athert han a br okeri n or dert o r ecove rthe damages i tal l eged. See, e. g. , G r aham v. M al one Fr ei ghtL i nes , I nc. , 314 F. 3d 7, 15 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) ( t r ans por t at i on br okeri s not l i abl e fort he negl i gence of the truckeri thi r es as i ndepende ntcontr act or ) . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt , f in d in g th a t C a lm o d a l d id n o t a c t a s a n in te rs ta te c a rr ie r, h e ld in C a lm o d a l’ s f a v o r.3

In d o in g so , the C o u rt c ited tes tim o n yb yC a lm o d a l’s p re sid e n t th a t h e h a d m e re ly

“ a rr a n g [ e d ]” f

o r b u t h a d n o t “ p ro v id [ e d ]” in s te rs ta te tr a n s p o rt a tio n . A 1 5 -1 6 . C a lm o d a l co u n ter c laim e d , se e k in g c o m p e n sa tio n f o r u n p a id in v o ice s s u b m itt e d to R o ad m aster f

rom M arc h 2 0 0 0 thro u g h Jan u ary2 0 0 1 . O n this i ssu e, th e D istri ct C o u rt found thatR oadmast eri ndeed ow ed C al m odal s om e money , butfound no evi dence that C al m odal ’ s damage cal cul at i on of $238, 165. 81 w as corr ect . B eca us e C al m odal coul d not pr ovi de a r el i abl e ac count i ng of i t s damages , the C our tturned t o t he t es t i m onyof R oadmast er ’ s C hi ef Fi nanci al O ffi cerand C ontr ol l er , w ho admi t t ed thatR oadmast erhad notpai d al l of C al m odal ’ s i nvoi ces , and t es t i fi ed thatR oadmast erhel d back $129, 269. 50 agai ns ti t s damage cl ai m . B as ed on thi s t es t i m ony , the D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hat R oadmast erw as l i abl e for$129, 269. 50. R oadmast erfi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on t o amend t he C our t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctand concl us i ons of l aw pur s uantt o Fed R . C i v. P. 52( b) . R oadmast erar gued that , i f C al m odal di d notactas an i nt er s t at e ca r r i er , i tm us thave a ct ed as a br okerand thati f C al m odal act ed as a br oker , i tdi d s o w i t houta l i cens e, vi ol at i ng 49 U . S. C . § 13901 and thus ren d ering the c o n tr ac t i ll eg al an d u n en fo rce ab le. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied R o ad m aster’s m ot i on, chas t i s i ng R oadmast erfor“t aki ng [the] C our t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctoutof cont ext . ” A -2 2 . B o th R o a d m a s te r a p p e a le d a n d C a lm o d a l c ro s s -a p p e a le d . II . W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the R ul e 52( b) m ot i on underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. M ax’ s Seafood Café e x r el . L ou- A nn, I nc. v. Q ui nt er os , 176 F. 3d4

6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). F e d R . C iv . P 5 2 (b ) sta tes th a t “[o] n a part y ' s m ot i on . . . , the cour tm ayamend i t s fi ndi ngs - orm ake a ddi t i onal fi ndi ngs - and mayamend t he j udgm ent acc or di ngl y . ” The purpos e of thi s rul e i s t o al l ow the courtt o corr ectpl ai n err or s of l aw o r f a c t, o r, i n lim ite d s itu a tio n s , to a llo w th e p a rt ie s to p re s e n t n e w ly d is c o v e re d e v id e n c e . See G ut i err ez v. A s hcr oft , 289 F. Supp. 2d 555, 561 ( D . N . J . 2003) . H er e, R oadmast er pr es ent ed no new evi dence , and the C our ts aw no err or s t o corr ect . G i ven that R oadmast erbas ed i t s r econs i der at i on ar gum enton t he “i m pl i cat i ons ” i tdr ew fr om the w or di ng of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ow n fi ndi ngs , i ti s w el l w i t hi n t he C our t ’ s br oad di s cr et i on t o cl ar i fyt hatR oadmast er ’ s i nt erpr et at i on w as i ncorr ect . W e ther efor e conc l ude thatt he D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n b yd e n y in g R o a d m a s te r’ s R u le 5 2 (b ) m o tio n . II. T h ro u g h o u t th e b e n c h trial, R o a d m a ste r a rg u e d th a t, be c a u se it co n tra c ted w ith C al m odal as an i nt er s t at e mot orcarr i er( and notas a br oker ) , C al m odal w as l i abl e fort he val ue of the goods t r ans por t ed. O nl yaft erthe D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatC al m odal w as not a c a rrie r d id R o a d m a ste r a rg u e , as it d o e s in th is p ro c e e d in g , tha t th e c o n tra c t w a s in v a lid beca us e C al m odal act ed as an unl i cens ed br oker . W e hol d t hatR oadmast erhas w ai ved th is a rg u m e n t b e c a u se it fa iled to p re se n t itto th e D istric t C o u rt. T h is C o u rt g e n e ra lly d o e s n o t co n sid e r iss u e s th a t ar e ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. F ra n k v . C o lt I ndus t r i es , I nc. , 910 F. 2d 90, 100 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . R oadmast ercl ai m s t o have pr es ent ed t he i s s ue pr i ort o i t s R ul e 52( b) m ot i on, butan exa m i nat i on of the r ecor d of pr ocee di ngs5

re v e a ls n o th in g o f

th e s o rt . S e e id .; K ie w it E a s te rn C o ., In c . v . L & R C o n s tru c tio n C o ., I nc. , 4 4 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 3 -0 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (u p h o ld in g a d istric t co u rt' s f in d in g th a t a p a rt yh a d w a iv e d a n is s u e w h e n m e m o ra n d a m a d e o n ly v a g u e re f e re n c e s to th e is s u e ). T hus , byfai l i ng t o pr oper l yr ai s e thi s ar gum entbefor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , R oadmast er w a iv e d th is a rg u m e n t. E ven i f R oadmast erhad notw ai ved the r i ghtt o pr es entthe i s s ue, i t s ar gum ent l acks m er i t . R oadmast ers eeks t o i nval i dat e the contr actbetw een i t s el f and Cal m odal as ill e g a l, an d th e re f

o re u n e n f

o rc e a b le, b e c a u se C a lm o d a l alle g e d lyv io late d th e In ter sta te C om m erce A ctbyact i ng as a broker w i t ho ut a l i cense. H ow ever, the A ctprovides a s peci fi c pena l t yforbr oker s oper at i ng w i t houta l i cens e. See 49 U . S. C . § 14901( a) ( pr ovi di ng t hata per s on t hat“does notcompl yw i t h s ect i on 13901 . . . i s l i abl e t o t he U ni t ed St at es fora ci vi l penal t yof notl es s than $500 foreac h vi ol at i on and foreac h addi t i onal dayt he vi ol at i on cont i nues ) . I ti s i nappr opr i at e t o “add j udi ci al l yt o t he r emedi es ” byr ender i ng a pr i vat e contr actvoi d w hen a c ongr es s i onal s t atut e pr ovi des s peci fi c pena l t i es forvi ol at i on. See K el l yv. K os uga, 358 U . S. 516, 519 ( 1959) ( hol di ng t hata pr om i s orm aynotavoi d per form i ng a l egal pr om i s e bec aus e he e l s ew her e vi ol at ed t he Sherm an A ct ) ; C oncor d I ndus t r i es , I nc. v. K . T . I . H ol di ngs , I nc. , 711 F. Supp. 728, 729 ( E . D . N . Y . 1989) . B eca us e the s ubj ectm att erof the R oadmast er - C al m odal contr act i s l egal , i ti s contr ol l ed byK os uga. See N or t hern I ndi ana Publ i c Servi ce Co. v. C arbon C ount yC oal C o. , 799 F. 2d 265, 273 ( 7th C i r . 1986) ( decl i ni ng t o voi d a contr actfor il lega li tyb ec au se th e su b ject m att er o f th e c o n tr ac t w as n o t i ll eg al).I V.

C a l m o d a l a l s o a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s d a m a g e a w a r d o f $ 1 2 9 , 2 6 9 . 5 0 . We r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s cal cul at i on of C al m odal ’ s damages forcl earerr or . See L e rm a n v . J o y c e In te rn ., In c ., 1 0 F .3 d 1 0 6 , 1 1 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). D a m a g e s m u st b e p ro v e n to a re a so n a b le d e g re e o f c e rta in ty , tho u g h a b so lu te pr eci s i on i s notr equi r ed. B er g C hi l l i ng Sy s t ems, I nc. v. H ul l C orp. 369 F. 3d 745, 764 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). C o n sid e rin g th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial, $129, 269. 50 i n damages r emai ns t he mostr el i abl e ca l cul at i on avai l abl e. C al m odal ca n n o t con v incin g lysh o w that R o ad m aster o w es a d iffe ren t am o u n t, an d w e the ref o re a f f i r m.