Minute Order Foren (O97) ~

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Name of Assi ul i 3 Sitting Judge if Oth
mmc Aaa ue Milton I, Shadur io su i Oe
CASE NUMBER 03 C2178 DATE 4/4/2003
CASE T&B ‘Tube Company, Inc. Vs. Pegasus Transporiation Group
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the purty filing the mation, c.g,, pluintiff, defenduntt. 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) stato brielly the nature

of the motion being presented.
MOTION: re presented]

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) oO Filed motion of [ use Jisting in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) a Answer brief to motion duc . Reply to answer brief due _.

(4) a Ruling/Hearing on______set for al :

(3) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on __ set for at.

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] |sct for/re-set for]on_ __set for a :

(7) Oo ‘Trial[sct for/re-sct for] on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) a ‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agrecment/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) OlLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP4i(ay(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(io) +4 [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Because the viability of '&B’s claim depends
on such purported transportation broker liability, it is essential that &B’s counsel promptly provide an
accurate identification of the source of such claimed liability. Té&B is ordered to file in this Court's
chambers an appropriate amendment to the Complaint on or before April 18, 2003, together with a bricf
memorandum citing cases supporting its position, failing which this Court will be constrained to dismiss
this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

al) ff [For further detail sce order allached to the original minute order.

No notiess required, advised in open courl. Document
Number

No notices required.

umber otis

PR OY 2003

date docketedt

o | Notices mailed by judge’s statf,

>

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form, TD Pe tena,

oO
Copy to judge/mugistrate judge. of f
|— iano
eourtroora ane mild wotion
SN deputy’s sw
initials
Date/time reccived in
central Clerk’s Ottive uly Apt iis



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DOCKETED

T & B TUBE COMPANY, INC., an

Illinois corporation, APR 0-7 2003
Plaintiff, }
Vv. No. 03 € 2178
PEGASUS TRANSPORTATION GROUP,
INC., a Texas Corporation )
Defendants. }
MEMORANDUM_ORDER
Pegasus Transportation Group, Inc. ("Pegasus") has filed its

Answer to the Complaint brought against it by T & B Tube Company,
Inc. ("T & B”) under the purported auspices of the Carmack
Amendment.' This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address
some problems posed by both Pegasus' Answer and T & B's Complaint.

As for Pegasus, its Answer {{2, 3, 5 and 6 border on the
absurd. Its counsel are in the habit of concluding each of those
paragraphs with a statement that "All other allegations in
Paragraph -- of Plaintiff's Complaint are denied,” even though
what has gone before has dealt fully with the corresponding
allegations in the Complaint. Accordingly that quoted sentence is
stricken from each of the just-identified paragraphs.

As to T & B, it has mysteriously cited statutory provisions

that have nothing to do with its claim. Thus Complaint 413 cites

1Al1 Title 49 provisions will be cited simply “Section -.”



to Section 11707, when it appears instead that the statute that T
& B really seeks to invoke is Section 14706(a)(1). Even more
critically, Complaint 414 cites Section 10924(b) and (e) as the
basis for extending Carmack Amendment liability to transportation
brokers such as Pegasus, but this Court's U.S.C.A. volume
(including the 2002 pocket part) contains no such section at all.
Because the viability of T & B's claim depends on such
purported transportation broker liability, it is essential that T
& B's counsel promptly provide an accurate identification of (and
predicate for) the source of such claimed liability. T & B is
ordered to file in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course
being transmitted to Pegasus' counsel) an appropriate amendment to
the Complaint on or before April 18, 2003, together with a brief
memorandum citing (but not arguing) cases supporting its
position,? failing which this Court will be constrained to dismiss

this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Cl. 6 oto

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 4, 2003

°complaint 9410 and 11 characterize as Pegasus' “agent” the
common carrier with which Pegasus made the transportation
arrangements on T & B's behalf. That seems to be at odds with the
normal concept of an agent as opposed to an independent
contractor, and T & B's submission must address that subject as
well.