United States District Court, D. New Jersey
EMMANUEL W. GACHAU, Plaintiff,
RLS COLD STORAGE and CHOPTANK TRANSPORT, Defendants.
EMMANUEL W. GACHAU Appearing pro se
NEAL FELDMAN, PARKER MCCAY P.A. On behalf of Defendant RLS
SCOTT THOMPSON, FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK On behalf of
Defendant Choptank Transport
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
RLS Cold Storage moves to dismiss, in part for lack of
subject matter ...