## Facts

- In 2009, Distribuidora Internacional Alimentos (Distribuidora) hired Amcar Forwarding, Inc. (Amcar) to load and transport merchandise from Miami, Florida, to Guatemala City, Guatemala.
- Under the parties’ arrangement, Amcar issued a bill of lading describing the shipment, loaded the merchandise into a container, and arranged transportation to Guatemala.
- The face of the bill of lading included the phrase “Shipper’s Load and Count.”
- After arrival in Guatemala, customs authorities seized the merchandise because the bill of lading allegedly contained inaccurate information about the quantity of goods.
- The seizure caused delivery to be delayed for several months.
- Distribuidora sued Amcar in federal court, alleging Amcar violated the Federal Bills of Lading Act (Pomerene Act) by issuing a bill of lading with inaccurate cargo information and causing resulting damages.
- Amcar moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the “Shipper’s Load and Count” language barred liability and that one or more Amcar entities were not proper defendants based on their alleged lack of contractual status on the bill of lading.

## Issues

1. Does the presence of “Shipper’s Load and Count” on a bill of lading require dismissal of a shipper’s Federal Bills of Lading Act claim at the pleading stage when the shipper alleges the defendant issued the bill and loaded the cargo?
2. Can claims proceed past a Rule 12(b)(6) motion against an affiliated freight entity when the complaint plausibly alleges that entity’s involvement in the shipment and bill-of-lading conduct?

## Decision

- The court denied Amcar’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that, taking the complaint’s allegations as true, the “Shipper’s Load and Count” notation did not defeat the pleaded Federal Bills of Lading Act claim as a matter of law at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- The court allowed the claims to proceed against the Amcar defendants, rejecting dismissal arguments premised on whether an affiliated entity was formally a party to the bill of lading at this stage of the case.
- The court directed defendants to file an answer by the specified deadline, permitting the case to continue on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and assesses whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief.
- A “Shipper’s Load and Count” statement on a bill of lading does not necessarily eliminate potential liability at the pleading stage where the plaintiff alleges the defendant prepared or issued the bill of lading and was responsible for the loading and quantity description.
- Under the Federal Bills of Lading Act, a plaintiff may state a claim by alleging that an issuer of a bill of lading provided an inaccurate description of the goods and that the inaccuracy caused compensable harm.
- Dismissal based on an entity’s alleged non-party status to the bill of lading is generally not warranted where the complaint plausibly alleges that the entity participated in the relevant bill-of-lading or shipment conduct giving rise to the claimed statutory violation.

## Conclusion

Distribuidora alleged that Amcar issued a bill of lading with an inaccurate quantity description and that, despite “Shipper’s Load and Count” language, Amcar loaded the goods and arranged carriage; after customs seized the shipment in Guatemala and delivery was delayed for months, Distribuidora sued under the Federal Bills of Lading Act. The court denied Amcar’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the pleaded facts were sufficient to state a claim and that the asserted defenses did not justify dismissal at the pleading stage.


Distribuidora Internacional Alimentos v. Amcar Forwarding, Inc., 2011 WL 902093 (2011)