[Federal Register: July 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 41507]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30jy07-39]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
[Docket No. 07-05]
K.E.I. Enterprise dba KEI Logix v. Greenwest Activewear, Inc.;
Greenwest Activewear, Inc. v. K.E.I. Enterprise dba KEI Logix and Great
White Fleet, Ltd.; Notice of Filing of Cross-Complaint
Notice is given that a cross-complaint has been filed with the
Federal Maritime Commission (``Commission'') by Greenwest Activewear,
Inc. (``Cross-Complainant'') against K.E.I. Enterprise dba KEI Logix
(``KEI Logix'') and Great White Fleet, Ltd. (``Great White'')
(collectively, ``Cross-Respondents'') in this proceeding noticed at 72
FR 32,666. Cross-Complainant alleges that Cross-Respondents violated
the Shipping Act of 1984 by failing to establish, observe and enforce
just and reasonable practices in connection with its shipments of
fabric to Guatemala. 46 U.S.C. 41102(c). Cross-Complainant is demanding
that Cross-Respondents pay its claim of $152,152.90 for loss of cargo
plus attorneys fees. In the alternative, Cross-Complainant asks that
its request for damages be offset ``by the amount of freight charges
claimed by KEI Logix less the amount of KEI Logix invoice relative to
the lost shipment * * * and the difference paid to them.''
Cross-Complainant asserts that it booked the transport of fabric in
August 2006 with KEI Logix from Port Hueneme, California, to
Villanueva, Guatemala. KEI Logix and Great White issued separate bills
of lading as through bills to the aforementioned ports in California
and Guatemala. Great White issued its bill of lading depicting KEI
Logix as the shipper. Cross-Complainant alleges that the cargo was
stolen while in transit by an inland carrier in Guatemala booked by
Great White. In September 2006, Cross-Complainant filed its claim of
$152,152.90 for the stolen cargo with KEI Logix, who then presented the
claim to Great White for disposition.
Cross-Complainant contends that Great White wrongfully denied the
claim by evoking force majeure pursuant to an inland bill of lading
that Cross-Complainant believes was never produced. Moreover, Cross-
Complainant asserts that Great White failed to prove that the goods
were released in Guatemala with the customary escort and security
practices required of all carriers for that particular area.
Cross-Complainant alleges that it negotiated the disposition of its
claim directly with KEI Logix and continued to do business with the
company. Cross-Complainant contends that in May 2007, KEI Logix not
only breached the agreement reached by the parties for the disposition
of the claim, but also refused to deliver three containers in transit
unless Cross-Complainant immediately paid the full amount of its
outstanding invoices. Cross-Complainant alleges that KEI Logix did this
to recoup the money that it owed to Cross-Complainant in their
agreement. Accordingly, to mitigate its prospective damages
attributable to KEI Logix's breach, Cross-Complainant asserts that it
had no alternative but to tender three checks totaling $101,019.08 for
the release of its containers, then to place a stop-payment order on
them. Cross-Complainant claims that it offered to reissue the checks
and to pay $2,500 in attorneys fees, but KEI Logix declined the offer.
Cross-Complainant requests that the Commission require Cross-
Respondents to pay reparations of $152,152.90 for the stolen cargo plus
attorneys fees, and to mitigate damages relative to freight charges.
Additionally, Cross-Complainant requests that any hearings be conducted
in either Washington, DC at the Federal Maritime Commission or in Los
Angeles, California.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-3692 Filed 7-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P