Opinion
Case No. 2:02CV102 DB
May 30, 2003
ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Betty and Marvin Baker's motion to dismiss. Having considered the parties' briefs as well as the applicable law, the Court issues the following memorandum opinion and order.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2000, defendant Oakland Homes entered into a written contract with plaintiffs for the interstate shipment of Bakers' personal property and household goods from Bozeman, Montana to Springville, Utah. The invoice for transportation of the goods indicated that defendant Oakland Homes was to be billed for payment. The bill of lading and the invoice list defendant Betty Baker as the consignee.
The Bakers' surrendered their property to plaintiff on or around July 28, 2000 for transportation and accepted delivery of their property; the property arrived in Springville on August 3, 2000. Despite delivery of defendant's property in accordance with the bill of lading entered into by both parties, none of the defendants have paid for any of the transportation costs. Plaintiff, therefore, brought suit in an attempt to recover the amount owed.
Plaintiff argues that Mr. and Ms. Baker are jointly and severally liable for the past due transportation charges. Mr. and Ms. Baker argue, however, that they cannot be liable for the amounts owed under the contract because defendant Oakland Homes Corporation was and is solely responsible to pay for the transportation costs.
II. ANALYSIS
In ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court assumes the truth of all well-pleaded facts in plaintiff's complaint and views them in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 118 (1990); Roman v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 542, 543 (10th Cir. 1995). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the issue is not whether plaintiffs will prevail, but whether plaintiffs are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
The law governing the interstate transportation of goods explains that the Bakers are jointly and severally liable for the amounts owed to plaintiff Federal law permits a "consignee to be liable for transportation costs as a matter of law upon his acceptance of the goods from the carrier and regardless of any consignor-consignee contract to the contrary." Empire Petroleum Co., v. Sinclair Pipeline Co., 282 F.2d 913, 916 (10th Civ. 1960); see also Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U.S. 336, 339-41 (1982).
The bill of lading in this case lists Betty Baker as the consignee. Also reflected in the bill of lading is the fact that the Bakers accepted their personal property upon delivery in Springville, Utah on August 3, 2000. Therefore, applying the law to this case, it is clear that Bakers may be jointly and severally liable for the costs incurred to transport their personal property from Montana to Utah. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Defendants motion to dismiss is, therefore, DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.