Atom Express v. Schuff Steel Co. CA2/7

California Court of Appeal Jan 20, 2015 No. B253374Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's claims for interstate freight charges were barred by the 18-month statute of limitations under 49 U.S.C. section 14705, and that the plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting equitable tolling or demonstrate a reasonable possibility of curing the defect by amendment.

Issues

Whether the 18-month statute of limitations under 49 U.S.C. section 14705 bars the plaintiff's claims for interstate freight charges.
Whether the trial court properly sustained the defendant's demurrer based on the statute of limitations.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the facts alleged in the complaint established that the statute of limitations had run, and Atom Express did not plead facts from which it could be concluded that the statute of limitations was tolled, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer.”

“Accordingly, Atom Express has not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that the statute of limitations defect can be cured by amendment, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.”

Filed 1/20/15 Atom Express v. Schuff Steel Co. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

ATOM EXPRESS, INC., B253374

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC507411) v.

SCHUFF STEEL COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard Fruin, Judge. Affirmed. Prima Law Group, Naveen Madala and Noah K. McCall, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt, Richard J. Wittbrodt, Christopher E. Ng, Sara H. Kornblatt and Molly E. Healy for Defendant and Respondent.

_______________________

Atom Express, Inc. filed suit against Schuff Steel Company as a result of a dispute arising concerning freight delivery charges. Schuff successfully demurred to the complaint, and Atom Express appeals. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2012, Atom Express sued Schuff and others in federal district court to collect unpaid freight fees for delivering large volume steel pipes to Schuff from April through June of 2011.1 Schuff moved to dismiss the action based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Atom Express consented to the dismissal of the action without prejudice, and the court dismissed the case on March 6, 2013, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On April 30, 2013, Atom Express filed a new action in state court against Schuff and others seeking unpaid freight fees and asserting other claims. Schuff demurred to the complaint on, inter alia, statute of limitations grounds. The trial court agreed that Atom Express’s claims against Schuff were barred by the statute of limitations and were otherwise deficient. The court dismissed the complaint against Schuff. Atom Express appeals.

Atom Express v. Schuff Steel Co. CA2/7

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

ATOM EXPRESS, INC., B253374

SCHUFF STEEL COMPANY,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

ZELON, J.

AI Brief