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.

Gachau v. RLS Cold Storage

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 24, 2018

EMMANUEL W. GACHAU, Plaintiff,
v.
RLS COLD STORAGE and CHOPTANK TRANSPORT, Defendants.

          EMMANUEL W. GACHAU Appearing pro se

          HARRIS NEAL FELDMAN, PARKER MCCAY P.A. On behalf of Defendant RLS Cold Storage

          ERIC SCOTT THOMPSON, FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK On behalf of Defendant Choptank Transport

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Pro se Plaintiff Emmanuel Gachau brings this action under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58 (FTCA). Before the Court are Defendant RLS Cold Storage's and Choptank Transport's Motions to Dismiss. The Court finding it lacks federal question jurisdiction and that Plaintiff has not properly pleaded diversity jurisdiction, the Court will grant Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

         I.

         The Court takes its facts from Plaintiff's August 31, 2017 Complaint. On September 18, 2015, Plaintiff was hired by Choptank Transport to transport frozen strawberries from Texas to New Jersey. On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff arrived as scheduled at the New Jersey location at 7:00 AM to deliver the load at the RLS Cold Storage facility. Plaintiff checked in and was instructed to unload at door sixteen. Before Plaintiff backed the trailer in, an RLS Cold Storage employee took a picture of the temperature of the refrigerated unit at 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit, of the seal before opening the trailer doors, and of the cargo after opening the cargo doors. The employee then instructed Plaintiff to back the trailer in to be unloaded.

         After waiting 1-1.5 hours, the employee told Plaintiff that the shipment was being rejected due to the high temperature of the product. According to Plaintiff, door sixteen was not a refrigerated part of the warehouse. Plaintiff pleads he later discovered that this part of the building was where RLS Cold Storage stored cardboard boxes and was maintained at room temperature. Plaintiff alleges that, after he complained,

[t]he same RLS staff member who rejected the load then grabbed the bill of lading out of [his] hand and hand wrote with an ink pen “quality” but the original rejection due to high temperature was a photocopy. [T]his was another deliberate act when she realized she got exposed to what she had done. Now she wanted to blame the claim on quality but forgot the bill she handed me was a photocopy.

         Plaintiff pleads that an inspection later occurred, in which Defendants failed to provide necessary evidence to the inspection company. Plaintiff argues: “[C]hoptank Transport vice president and legal affairs boss consealed [sic] and colluded with RLS to holding all the evidence I provided.”

         As a result, Plaintiff alleges his filing of a claim with his insurance company over this incident resulted in his insurance being cancelled and him having to obtain more expensive insurance. Plaintiff further claims this incident required him “to start all over as a new company, ” resulting in “all brokerage companies view[ing him] as new.” He then pleads that he could not pass a Department of Transportation inspection, that he was unable to maintain his equipment, and that, on May 8, 2017, he lost his insurance and his operating authority was revoked by the Department of Transportation. Plaintiff argues this resulted in two months of no income.

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on August 31, 2017. On October 12, 2017, Choptank Transport filed a Motion to Dismiss. On October 30, 2017, RLS Cold Storage also filed a Motion to Dismiss.

         Defendant RLS Cold Storage moves to dismiss, in part for lack of subject matter ...


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.