Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Apex Compounding Pharmacy LLC v. Best Transportation Services, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

August 20, 2018

APEX COMPOUNDING PHARMACY LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
BEST TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Joseph S. Van Bokkelen United States District Judge

         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).

         A. Undisputed Material Facts

         Best operates a for-hire delivery service that is registered with the United States Department of Transportation. Apex manufactures and sells specialized prescription medication. Apex had an agreement with eight customers to deliver prescriptions for medication to them. Apex engaged Best to pick up the prescriptions at Apex's location in Dyer, Indiana, and deliver them to the customers in Chicago and various Illinois suburbs of Chicago, namely: Lansing, Oak Lawn, Park Forest, and Crete. Katherine Rodriguez, as agent for Best, picked up the prescriptions. Apex claims that the eight customers never received their medications, but does not direct the Court to any admissible evidence to support its claim.[1] Virtually none of the materials Apex refers to in support of its version of the facts actually do support the claimed facts.[2]

         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.

         Best's argument is that, because the delivery from Indiana to Illinois was an interstate shipment, the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a), provides the exclusive remedy for shippers seeking to recover against carriers for the loss of property and pre-empts all state law claims. Best maintains that because Apex did not allege a claim under this federal law, its amended complaint should be dismissed. Apex counters that the Carmack Act does not apply because of the exemption created by 49 U.S.C. § 13506(b)(1), which provides:

(b) Exempt unless otherwise necessary.-Except to the extent the Secretary or Board, as applicable, finds it necessary to exercise jurisdiction to carry out the transportation policy of section 13101, neither the Secretary nor the Board has jurisdiction under this part over-
(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.

         Best and Apex argue about whether Lake County, Indiana, and Cook County, Illinois, are areas that fall within the exemption created by § 13506, but a federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 372.233, removes this issue from debate by establishing the boundaries of “a zone that is adjacent to and commercially a part of” Chicago as follows:

The zone adjacent to, and commercially a part of Chicago, IL, within which transportation by motor vehicle, in interstate . . . commerce . . . is partially exempt under 49 U.S.C. 13506(b)(1), includes and is comprised of all points as follows:
(a) The municipality of Chicago, IL, itself;
(b) All points within a line drawn 20 miles beyond the municipal ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.