District Court Grants Bid to Amend Complaint in Spat Over Customs Broker Contract
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted importer JAS Supply's motion to amend its complaint in a spat over a customs broker contract involving a shipment of 19 containers of alcohol wipes from China. Judge Tana Lin said that the amended complaint cured the defects in the original complaint and disagreed with the defendants, Radiant Global Logistics and Radiant Customs Services, that the amendments were futile (JAS Supply v. Radiant Customs Services, W.D. Wash. #2:21-01015).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
JAS had contracted Radiant to serve as its customs broker to properly import the alcohol wipes. However, the FDA detained the wipes, which Radiant "failed to adequately communicate" to JAS, the court said. JAS took Radiant to court, arguing that the broker breached its contract and acted negligently in relation to the detained shipments.
Radiant replied that its liability is limited to only $200, moving to stay discovery pending the outcome of its summary judgment motion. The court previously denied this bid, finding that a motion to dismiss would have been more appropriate for the defendants' claims. The court called out deficiencies in JAS's complaint, which the company tried to cure in its response to Radiant's motions to stay discovery and for summary judgment. JAS sought leave to file an amended complaint against Radiant alleging the limitations provision is procedurally and substantively unconscionable and that its "tort claims are either independent or pled in the alternative from its contract claims."
The district court granted the motion in its April 19 order. Radiant argued against the amended complaint only on the grounds that the amendments are futile. The court disagreed, finding that the amendments relate to its claims. "The Court finds that the amendments cure the defects in the original Complaint that surfaced during motion briefing, as pointed out in its order denying Defendant's motion to stay discovery," the opinion said.