Home/C.D. California/TADMS, INC. v. Consolidated Freightways

TADMS, INC. v. Consolidated Freightways

619 F. Supp. 385, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16725
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 16, 1985
Docket83-2879 BG (Bx), 83-4008 RG (Bx) and CD-84-1250 BG (Bx)
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 619 F. Supp. 385 (TADMS, INC. v. Consolidated Freightways) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
TADMS, INC. v. Consolidated Freightways, 619 F. Supp. 385, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16725 (C.D. Cal. 1985).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

GADBOIS, District Judge.

This court, having read and considered the stipulated set of facts and all written material offered by the parties in support of their positions in this case, and having heard and considered the oral arguments of the parties in support of their positions, orders that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants and that the plaintiff take nothing.

BACKGROUND:

This case comprises three consolidated cases that were submitted for consideration and decision by this court on a stipulated statement of facts. This stipulation of facts, with a few important additions, is set forth below virtually verbatim:

INTRODUCTORY FACTS

This case involves the interpretation of a single item contained in the tariffs of the defendant carriers. The issue in the case is whether or not a tariff printing error has resulted in plaintiff's right to a lower freight charge for certain transportation services. If the plaintiff is correct, then it is entitled to the amounts prayed for in the complaints. If the plaintiff is not correct, it is entitled to nothing. In simple words this is an all or nothing case.

The following facts are established:

1. At all times relevant hereto, defendant, Consolidated Freightways (hereinafter “CF”), was and is a motor common carrier and at all times was acting within the scope of the authority issued to it by the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”).

2. At all times relevant hereto, defendant, Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. (hereinafter “Watkins”), was and is a motor common carrier and at all times was acting within the scope of the authority issued to it by the ICC.

3. At all times relevant hereto, Pacific Intermountain Express Co. (“PIE”) and Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. (“Ryder”), were motor common carriers and at all times were acting within the scope of the authority issued to them by the ICC. On or about June 11, 1983, PIE and Ryder were merged, and the surviving corporation and the successor in interest to the rights and the liabilities of PIE and Ryder is defendant Ryder/PIE Nationwide Inc. (“Ryder/PIE”), a motor common carrier operating within the scope of authority issued to it by the ICC.

4. At all times relevant hereto, defendants, CF, Watkins, and Ryder/PIE were authorized to transport commodities in in *387 terstate commerce described in Item No. 84260 of the National Motor Freight Classification which are described as follows:

“Games and toys N.O.I.”

5. At all times relevant hereto, defendants CF, Watkins, and Ryder/PIE were participating carriers in the following tariff publications:

a. National Motor Freight Classification 100 Series, Item No. 84260;
b. Tariff I.C.C. RMB 226-A, published by Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc.;
c. Tariff I.C.C. RMB 120 series, published by Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc.

6. The shipments which are the subject matter of this action originated at the following points:

a. Whamo Mfg. — San Gabriel, California;
b. Revelle, Inc. — Venice, California;
c. Placo Products Company — Torrance, California;
d. Tomy Corporation — Carson, California.

7. San Gabriel, Venice, Torrance and Carson, California, are western territory points listed in Tariff I.C.C., RMB 120.

8. Tariff I.C.C., RMB 120 assigns group number w800 to western territory points in, inter alia, San Gabriel, Venice, Torrance and Carson, California.

9. The destinations for the shipments which are the subject matter of this action are eastern territory points listed in Tariff I.C.C., RMB 120.

10. Eastern territory points which are the subject matter of this action are assigned group numbers from 2000 through 8854. There were no shipments to eastern groups 8855 through 9675. The western and eastern geographical groups which are of concern to this litigation are as set forth in RMB 120, Item No. 201 as follows:

rules
GROUP COVERAGE — APPLICATION OF
(1) Opposite each point named in either Section 3 or Section 4 of this tariff a group number is provided. Rates or charges named in this tariff or named in tariffs made subject to this tariff are shown as applicable either from and to specifically named points, or from and to group numbers. Where the latter is the case, the group numbers referred to are those shown in Section 3 or 4 of this tariff.
(2) Group numbers used for points in Western Territory named in Section 3 of this tariff are numbers W100 thru W998. The states in which such group numbers are used are indicated below:
Western Groups States in Which Used Western Groups States in Which Used W100 thru W199 Montana Wyoming W600 thru W698 Arizona ' Utah Colorado Wyoming
W200 thru W398 British Idaho Nevada Columbia Oregon
California Washington W700 thru W798 Arizona
W400 thru W598 Idaho Oregon W800 thru W899 California Nevada Montana Utah
(3) Group numbers used for points in Eastern Territory named in Section 4 of this tariff are numbers 2000 thru 9699. The states in which such group numbers are used are indicated below:
Eastern Groups States in Which Used Eastern Groups States in Which Used
2000 thru 2099 Colorado Wyoming 7500 thru 7899 Connecticut New Hampshire
Nebraska Delaware New Jersey
District of New York
2100 thru 2199 Nebraska Wyoming Columbia Pennsylvania
Kentucky Rhode Island
2200 thru 2299 Colorado Nebraska Maine Vermont
Kansas Maryland Virginia Massach. West Virginia
2300 thru 2699 Kansas Nebraska
2700 thru 2999 Iowa Missouri 8000 thru 8199 Florida S. Carolina
Kansas Nebraska Georgia Tennessee
N. Carolina Virginia
*388 3000 thru 3499 Iowa N. Dakota Minnesota S. Dakota 8200 thru 8399 Alabama N. Carolina
Nebraska Florida Tennessee
3500 thru 3599 Minnesota Wisconsin Georgia Kentucky Virginia
3600 thru 3699 Michigan (Upper) Wisconsin 8400 thru 8799 Alabama Louisiana Florida Mississippi Georgia Tennessee
4000 thru 4899 Illinois Minnesota Kentucky Iowa Missouri Wisconsin

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

Related

Pacificorp v. Northwest Pipeline GP
879 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (D. Oregon, 2012)
Balthazar v. Verizon Hawaii, Inc.
123 P.3d 194 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2005)
Cooper v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (In Re Bulldog Trucking, Inc.)
173 B.R. 517 (W.D. North Carolina, 1994)
Dan Barclay, Inc. v. Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.
761 F. Supp. 194 (D. Massachusetts, 1991)
Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. Felsway Corp. (In Re Oneida Motor Freight, Inc.)
86 B.R. 344 (D. New Jersey, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 F. Supp. 385, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tadms-inc-v-consolidated-freightways-cacd-1985.