New Orleans Stevedoring Co. v. United States

185 Ct. Cl. 604, 1968 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 160, 1968 WL 9157
United States Court of Claims·Decided October 18, 1968·No. No. 53-67·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Mastín G. White pursuant to an order of the court of October 27, 1967, “for the limited and sole purpose of ascertaining and reporting to the court the subsidiary facts and the trial commissioner’s ultimate finding as to whether the contracts upon which plaintiff’s claims are based are maritime in nature and not within the jurisdiction of this court”. The Commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on June 7,1968. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has filed exceptions or briefs to the Commissioner’s opinion and report and the time for so filing has expired pursuant to the rules of the court. The case comes before the court on its own motion and since the court agrees with the Commissioner’s opinion and ultimate finding as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case without oral argument. Therefore, defendant’s motion to transfer or dismiss is allowed in that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1506 (1964), the case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Clerk of this court will forward to the Clerk of said court a certified copy of the record made here.

OFINION OF COMMISSIONER*

White, Commissioner:

The petition in this case was filed on February 27, 1967. In the petition, the plaintiff asks for a judgment against the defendant in the amount of $294,-965.58 under two contracts between the parties.

One of the contracts mentioned in the preceding paragraph provided for the furnishing by the plaintiff to the defendant of car, barge, and truck loading and unloading services and terminal services at New Orleans, Louisiana, and nearby points. The other contract provided for the furnishing of stevedoring services within the same area. The terms of both contracts terminated several years prior to the institution of the present action.

[606] The petition alleges that the plaintiff entered into the contracts on the basis of estimated tonnage figures furnished by the defendant concerning the amount of work that would be involved under the respective contracts; that the tonnage estimated by the defendant did not materialize during the life of the contracts; and that, because the actual tonnage handled under the contracts was substantially less than the tonnage estimated by the defendant, the plaintiff had un-recovered costs that totaled $294,965.58.

Without filing <an answer, the defendant on July 27, 1967 filed a motion asking that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, or, alternatively, that the action be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon Which relief can be granted.

On October 27,1967, the court directed the commissioner to ascertain the subsidiary facts pertinent to the defendant’s motion, and to include an ultimate finding “as to whether the contracts upon which plaintiff’s claims are based are maritime in nature and not within the jurisdiction of this court.”

The parties were afforded an opportunity to present pertinent evidence at a trial session that was held in New Orleans on March 18,1968.

As indicated in the findings of fact, the contracts involved in the litigation were maritime in nature, and the claims asserted in the petition are not within the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the defendant’s motion should be allowed, and that, in the interest of justice, the case should be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1506 (1964).

FINDINGS of Fact

1. The plaintiff entered into two contracts with the defendant: contract No. DA 16-143-400-TC-19 (hereinafter referred to as “contract 19”) and contract No. DA 16-143-400-TC-46 (hereinafter referred to as “contract 46”).

2. Contract 19 was dated October 1,1957. It was negotiated by the Procurement Division, U.S. Army Transportation Terminal Command, Gulf, on behalf of the defendant.

[607]*6073. Contract 19 stated that it was for “Car, barge and truck loading and unloading and Terminal services at New Orleans, La., and nearby points.”

4. The term of contract 19 was originally from October 1, 1957 until September 30,1959, but the term was subsequently extended to March 31, 1960.

5. Contract 19 contained the following provisions (among others) :

ITEM 1 CAE, BAEGE AND TETJCK LOADING AND UNLOADING
a. General. The Contractor [the plaintiff] shall, when called upon by the Contracting Officer, perform efficiently and expeditiously, all work required to unload or load freight cars, truck, or barges, and perform such related services as may be ordered by the Contracting Officer. Such services shall include, but not be limited to, the unloading and loading of cars, barges, or trucks, to and from piers, docks, wharves; the placing or movement of freight or cargo in or about sheds, as directed or required by the Contracting Officer.
b. Contractor's Duties.
(1) Oarloading. Eailroad carloading shall include the preparation of cars for handling cargo, transportation of the cargo from place of rest within three hundred (300) feet of car door, loading within the cars,- and ordinary bracing and securing of the cargo within the cars in accordance with Association of American Eail-road Carloading Eegulations and Joint Army Air Force Eegulations, and sufficient to prevent shifting while in transit. If bracing and blocking shall be beyond normal and carpenters are required or ordered by the Contracting Officer, such additional carpenter work shall be performed by the Contractor at extra labor rates set forth in applicable schedule of CLAUSE 2.
(2) Unloading. Eailroad car unloading shall include the breaking of seals, opening and closing of car doors, removal 'of cargo from the cars to pallet boards and tiering at place of rest, as designated by the Contracting Officer within 300 feet of car door and. within reach of Contractor’s equipment. Upon completion of the unloading, Contractor shall clean the cars of paper, dun-nage, steel and/or wire strapping and chocks, including nails used to secure chocks, from beds of cars. Eemoval [608] of any special bracing shall be done at extra labor rates set forth in applicable schedule of CLAUSE 2.
(3) Truck Loading and/or Unloading. Loading shall include transportation of cargo from place of rest within truck. Unloading shall include removal of cargo within three hundred (300) feet of truck and loading from truck to pallet boards and tiering at place of rest as designated by Contracting Officer within three hundred (300) feet of truck and within reach of Contractor’s equipment. Contractor will be compensated at commodity rates set forth in schedule 1A of CLAUSE 2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

New Orleans Stevedoring Co. v. United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 604, 1968 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 160, 1968 WL 9157 (cc 1968).

185 Ct. Cl. 604 (New Orleans Stevedoring Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related