Source: http://cabadvantage.com/articles/apex-compounding-pharm-llc-v-best-transp-servs/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 13:03:10+00:00

Document:
Apex Compounding Pharm. LLC v. Best Transp. Servs.
APEX COMPOUNDING PHARMACY LLC, Plaintiff, v. BEST TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Best Transportation Services Inc. (“Best”) (DE 56) and Plaintiff Apex Compounding Pharmacy LLC (“Apex”) (DE 59). Apex’s motion is also directed at Katherine Rodriguez, who was named as a defendant but has not appeared in this action. Best has also filed a motion to strike Exhibit 4 from Apex’s designation of evidence in support of its motions (DE 70).
Apex’s amended complaint seeks damages from Katherine Rodriguez for gross negligence, fraud, and conversion, and alleges a breach of contract action against Best as well as respondeat superior liability for Rodriguez’s gross negligence, fraud, and conversion.
B. Best’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
(1) transportation provided entirely in a municipality, in contiguous municipalities, or in a zone that is adjacent to, and commercially a part of, the municipality or municipalities . . ..
Both 49 U.S.C. § 13506 and § 14706 are found in Title 49, Subtitle IV, Part B.
(d) All of any municipality any part of which is withing the limits of the [*4] combined area defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section . . ..
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Dyer, Indiana, and all of the Chicago suburbs to which the prescriptions were to be delivered are municipalities some part of which are no more than twenty miles beyond the municipal limits of Chicago, so that they are all within the zone adjacent to and commercially a part of Chicago. The delivery addresses in Chicago itself are obviously within the zone. Because the transportation of the prescriptions occurred entirely within the zone defined by the regulation, the transportation falls within the exemption of § 13506(b)(1). Consequently, the Carmack Amendment does not apply to the transportation of the prescriptions from Dyer, Indiana, to Chicago, Lansing, Oak Lawn, Park Forest, and Crete, Illinois. For that reason, Best’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.
Best asks the Court to strike Apex’s Exhibit 4 in support of its motion for summary judgment. The exhibit is entitled “Damages Calculation.” It is a list of various substances, followed by information regarding strength, quantity, and pricing. It is not authenticated. Even so, since the Exhibit plays no [*5] part in the Court’s decision on the motion for summary judgment, the Court will deny the motion to strike as moot.
Because Apex’s summary judgment submissions utterly fail to convince the Court that there are no genuine issues of material fact for trial and that it should prevail as a matter of law on any of its claims, the Court must deny its motion for summary judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of Defendant Best Transportation Services Inc. for summary judgment (DE 56) is DENIED; its motion to strike (DE 70) is DENIED AS MOOT. The motion of Plaintiff Apex Compounding LLC for summary judgment (DE 59) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on August 20, 2018.
Next Next post: Nikolaychuk v. Nat’l Cas. Co.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 13506
 § 14706
 § 13506
 v.