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 KATHRYN A. SOMERSET PARKER MCCAY P.A. On behalf
of Defendant RLS Cold Storage
SCOTT THOMPSON FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK On behalf of Defendant
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff Emmanuel Gachau brings this Motion to Reopen
following the Court's dismissal of his case. For the
reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion,
as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Court takes its facts from its April 24, 2018 Opinion. 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.”
further alleges that after filing a claim with his insurance
company over this incident, his insurance was cancelled and
him had 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. On April 24, 2018, the Court granted
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
Court's April 24, 2018 Opinion, the Court concluded that
Plaintiff failed to plead federal question or diversity
subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, while Plaintiff
attempted to plead federal question jurisdiction under the
Federal Trade Commission Act, the Court concluded there was
no private right of action under the Act. Plaintiff did not
plead any other federal cause of action or other substantial
federal issue that could be the basis for federal question
jurisdiction. Plaintiff further did not plead diversity, and
the Court noted its serious doubts regarding the $2, 500, 000
amount in controversy asserted by Plaintiff. The Court
granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, dismissed the
complaint without prejudice, and allowed Plaintiff an
opportunity to move to reopen his case. Plaintiff was
instructed to attach a proposed amended complaint to such
motion. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion to Reopen.
Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen. The Court
begins by noting Plaintiff did not attach a proposed amended
complaint to his motion, as instructed by this Court. The
Court will not deny the motion for this procedural defect
alone. However, Plaintiff's arguments to reopen his case
fail to show that Plaintiff would be able to sufficiently
plead subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under federal question
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court begins with
federal question jurisdiction.
Motion to Reopen argues this Court has federal question
jurisdiction based on his claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
However, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 does not support a private
cause of action. See Kaul v. Christie, No. 16-2364,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102007, at *49 n.29 (D.N.J. June 30,
2017); McCann v. Falato, No. 14-4896, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 144526, at *7 (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2015); Hooten
v. Greggo & Ferrara Co., No. 10-776, 2012 U.S. ...