This was an admiralty action concerning a deal between the plaintiff and non-party Krishna Food Corp (Krishna). The deal was that the plaintiff would provide financing, through a bank facility, to Krishna so that Krishna can purchase food products from an Indian supplier to be shipped to Krishna in New Jersey. The defendant was the shipping carrier. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant intentionally delivered the cargo directly to Krishna without the required proof of payment by Krishna to the plaintiff in the form of endorsed bills of lading. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant knew at the time it issued the bills of lading that it would not comply with the requirement to deliver the cargo to Krishna only upon such proof of payment. The plaintiff alleged that these actions constituted fraud in the execution of a maritime contract or, alternatively, breach of a maritime contract under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 USC § 30701 ff (COGSA) and general maritime law.

The defendant moved for judgment and dismissal on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred.

Held: The defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and the plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff cannot plead around COGSA's one-year statute of limitation, which was surpassed in 2018 at the latest. The plaintiff argues that the three-year statute of limitations applying to maritime torts under 46 USC § 30106 applies and began to run when the plaintiff first discovered the alleged fraud. The Court agrees with the defendant. This is a breach of contract case covered by COGSA and its one-year time limitation. The plaintiff's attempt to creatively plead around this fact, invoking fraud in the execution, is unpersuasive. With respect to its fraud allegation, the plaintiff, at most, pleads that the defendant knew it would breach the terms of the bills of lading when it issued them. However, it does not allege that the defendant misrepresented the very nature of the contract to the plaintiff, thus duping the plaintiff into entering a contract that was significantly different than the ones at issue here. Because the plaintiff does not allege a fraud claim, COGSA, and its one-year time limitation applies to the entire action.

'COGSA represents the codification of the United States' obligations under the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, August 25, 1924, 51 Stat. 233': JCB Sales Ltd v Wallenius Lines 124 F 3d 132, 134 (2d Cir 1997). This Convention was the result of a 'multinational effort "to establish uniform ocean bills of lading to govern the rights and liabilities of carriers and shippers inter se in international trade"': id (quoting Robert C Herd & Co v Krawill Mach Corp 359 US 297, 301, 79 S Ct 766, 3 L Ed. 2d 820 (1959)). COGSA applies to 'every bill of lading or similar document of title which is evidence of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the United States, in foreign trade: 46 USC § 30701 n 9.

COGSA contains a one-year statute of limitations: 'In any event the carrier ... 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': 46 USC § 1303(6).

The plaintiff, despite admitting that COGSA applies, argues that COGSA's one-year statute of limitation does not bar its fraud in the execution claim because: (1) the defendant's conduct amounts to an 'unreasonable deviation' under COGSA's deviation doctrine resulting in the one-year statute of limitations not applying; and (2) the statute does not apply to such a claim because the underlying contract applying COGSA is void ab initio; and (3) the defendant should be estopped from asserting COGSA's one-year limitation period because its conduct was inequitable.

The Court finds that: (1) the plaintiff does not state a claim for fraud in the execution and, therefore, the bills of lading, to which COGSA applies, are not void ab initio; (2) the plaintiff's allegations constitute, at most, a misdelivery to which the COGSA one-year limitation period applies - not an unreasonable deviation or quasi-deviation; and (3) the plaintiff does not allege inequitable conduct that would estop the defendant from relying on COGSA's one-year time limitation. Therefore, the claim is time-barred.