On 28 March 2019, Ebomwonyi initiated this action against Sea Shipping Line (SSL) in the Western District of Texas, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1332 as a basis for federal court jurisdiction. In his original complaint, Ebomwonyi alleged that he entered into a contract with SSL, pursuant to which SSL was to ship four vehicles from Texas to Nigeria. But, according to Ebomwonyi, due to SSL's negligence, there was a delay in transportation of the cargo that led him to travel to Lagos, Nigeria, to retrieve his goods and pay for demurrage. He further implied that he had covered the costs of demurrage because SSL had promised to refund them.

On 9 May 2019, SSL moved to dismiss the action, arguing that: (1) Ebomwonyi was not a party to its bill of lading and therefore did not have a right to assert a claim under it; (2) the applicable bill of lading exempted SSL from liability; and (3) there was no cognisable claim against a carrier for its bad faith failure to settle a claim. SSL's house bill of lading (HBOL), that it maintained was the applicable bill of lading, lists Olowookere - not Ebomwonyi - as the shipper and Jacob Emmanuel as the consignee. But the HBOL number is SRB180079, not 963374259; the latter - the bill of lading number referenced in Ebomwonyi's complaint - is provided as the booking number. The HBOL also lists Houston, Texas, as the point of loading; Tincan, Lagos, Nigeria, as the point of discharge; a Maersk vessel as the export carrier; and four vehicles as the relevant cargo.

Significantly, the HBOL expressly exempts SSL from responsibility for any delay in the delivery of cargo to the destination port:

The Carrier shall not be liable in any capacity whatsoever for any delay, non-delivery, or mis-delivery ... while the goods are not in his actual custody. The Carrier does not undertake to deliver the goods at destination at any particular time or to meet any particular market or use and assumes no liability whatsoever for any direct or indirect loss or damage thereby caused to the merchant.

The District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Ebomwonyi leave to amend his complaint to specify which bill of lading was at issue and to state which provision of the bill of lading was violated. On 9 September 2019, Ebomwonyi filed an amended complaint, which added Olowookere as a plaintiff. Thereafter, the Western District of Texas transferred the matter to this District based on a forum selection clause in the HBOL. SSL and Maersk Lines (Maersk) then filed their motions to dismiss. SSL argues that: (1) the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred; (2) SSL is not liable for damages due to any delay; (3) SSL has no duty to settle claims; (4) SSL did not owe a special duty of care to the plaintiffs under the Restatement of Torts; (5) Ebomwonyi is not a party to the contract of carriage and has no right to assert a claim against SSL; (6) Olowookere’s claims should be dismissed because he did not sign the amended complaint, and Ebomwonyi has not alleged that he has the authority to assert claims on his behalf; and (7) Olowookere improperly intervened without leave of court. Maersk argues that the action is time-barred.

Held: The Court:

• dismisses Olowookere from the action, without prejudice to any relief he seeks to bring on his own behalf or through counsel;
• dismisses all claims against Maersk as time-barred;
• dismisses Ebomwonyi’s breach of contract claim against SSL; and
• converts SSL’s motion to dismiss the delay and storage cost claims into a motion for summary judgment and grants SSL summary judgment as to those claims.

As the claims against Maersk concern 'a carrier engaged in the carriage of goods ... from a ... port in the United States', the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 USC §§ 1300-1315, applies. Section 1303(6) of COGSA provides that '[t]he carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered'. That is the case here. In the amended complaint, Ebomwonyi alleges that he and SSL entered into an agreement on 2 February 2018, pursuant to which Maersk would provide a vessel to transport Ebomwonyi’s cargo. He also alleges that, on 23 May 2018, an incident occurred, apparently relating to the storage costs incurred after the cargo arrived in Nigeria. But he did not name Maersk as a defendant until he filed the amended complaint on 9 September 2019 - over sixteen months later. Thus, the claims against Maersk are dismissed as time-barred under COGSA’s statute of limitation.

That leaves Ebomwonyi’s claims against SSL. Liberally construed, the amended complaint asserts three claims against SSL: (1) that the shipment of the cargo did not arrive on time; (2) that SSL was responsible for storage costs, commencing from the date of delivery to Nigeria, to 28 May 2019; and (3) that SSL agreed to pay Ebomwonyi for the storage costs but failed to do so. SSL moves to dismiss these claims on various grounds.

Ebomwonyi’s breach of contract claim is plainly deficient. In short, Ebomwonyi does not identify a contract that SSL breached. It follows that his breach claim is dismissed. The delay and storage costs claims are more complicated, if only because the Court must address a threshold issue: whether it may consider the HBOL and arrival notice on a motion to dismiss, as they are neither attached to the amended complaint nor incorporated by reference into it. The Court concludes that it cannot, as there is no indication that Ebomwonyi possessed either document, let alone that he 'relied upon [the documents'] terms and effect[s]' when drafting the amended complaint. The Court concludes that SSL’s motion to dismiss should be converted into a motion for summary judgment. The delay claim fails for any one of three reasons: first, the arrival notice shows that the cargo actually arrived early; second, the plain language of the HBOL bars any claim against a carrier for any delay in the shipment of cargo; and third, the HBOL provides that any claim against a carrier must be brought within one year of the date of delivery, which Ebomwonyi failed to do as the cargo arrived at Port Tincan, Lagos, Nigeria on 5 March 2018, but the claim was not brought until 28 March 2019. The storage costs claim also fails in light of the HBOL, which expressly provides that the merchant, not the carrier, is responsible for any costs incurred for storing cargo at the destination port. Thus, whatever costs that Ebomwonyi incurred in Nigeria after the cargo was delivered, the HBOL permitted SSL to 'arrange for storage' at the 'risk and expense of the Merchant'.