Opinion ID: 31600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: is unquestioned, CrossRoad has failed to dem-

Text: Nunn, Yoest is a shipping broker that ar- onstrate that Union Pacific failed to live up to ranges rail transportation under the business any of its provisions. name CrossRoad Carriers (“CrossRoad”). It acts as an intermediary, arranging for the CrossRoad alleges that Union Pacific shipment of its clients’ cargo on third-party rail breached the agreement by failing timely to carriers. In August 1997, CrossRoad entered perform its obligations. The principal feature into an agreement with Union Pacific Railroad of the agreement was the Union Pacific (“Union Pacific”) that set shipping rates and Revenue Incentive Plan Provision (“incentive provided for the payment of rebates to Cross- plan”), which obligated UPRR to pay a rebate Road based on the volume of shipping it to CrossRoad based on the aggregate amount arranged through UPRR. of business CrossRoad brought to UPRR in excess of $2.2 million per year. The contract CrossRoad alleges that as a result of Union does not, however, reference any specific rePacific’s merger with Southern Pacific Rail- quirements or obligations with respect to the road, there was a deterioration in Union Pa- delivery of CrossRoad’s shipments, but, incific’s service and performance. CrossRoad stead, provides that such shipments are asserts that its shipments were delayed, mis- governed by the terms of the applicable handled, and misplaced, and that Union Pacific shipping order and certain external documents, failed to deliver freight according to the times particularly UP System Exempt Circular 20B. provided on its schedules. CrossRoad became so dissatisfied that it elected to ship its cargo Circular 20B provides that “[c]arriers will on other carriers. transport the shipment in accordance with the plan of service specified on the shipping order, In October 1998, CrossRoad sued Union with reasonable dispatch but not on any Pacific and its parent company, Union Pacific particular train or schedule.” It may be true Corporation (“UPC”), for breach of contract that this provision imposes on UPRR an obliagainst Union Pacific and for fraud and negli- gation to make reasonably timely delivery of gent misrepresentation against Union Pacific any particular shipment which it has agreed to and UPC. Almost three years later, the district deliver. CrossRoad, however, does not claim court entered summary judgment against damage or delay to particular freight. Instead, CrossRoad on all claims. We review a sum- it contends that its brokerage business was unmary judgment de novo. Bridgmon v. Array dermined by Union Pacific’s generally bad perSys. Corp., 325 F.3d 572, 576 (5th Cir. 2003). formance.