This case was last updated from PACER on 10/15/2021 at 07:30:41 (UTC).

Kuehne + Nagel Inc. v. Baker Hughes

Case Summary

On October 14, 2021, Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. (hereinafter “K+N” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Andrew Robert Spector attorney at Spector Rubin, P.A., filed a contract lawsuit against Baker Hughes Company (hereinafter “Baker Hughes” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for the alleged false claims of Defendant. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.

 

In the complaint Plaintiff alleged that, “In or about of September of 2020, K+N undertook to provide logistics services as an air freight forwarder within the meaning and context of the Convention by preparing a house airwaybill and retaining the services (on behalf of Defendant) of an underlying direct air carrier to perform the physical movement of cargo. Plaintiff discharged all of its statutory and contractual duties, but it has been asserted by Defendant that through no fault of K+N, the actual underlying air carrier ABSA AEROLINHAS BRASILEIRAS (now known as and hereinafter referred to as “LATAM”) which issued Master Air Waybill 549 MIA 28452830 failed to ensure that the security manifest travelled with the cargo, and as a result the cargo was seized by customs authorities at destination in Brazil.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “At no time was K+N authorized or requested to take any action with Brazilian customs authorities to obtain the release of said cargo. It is axiomatic that where international air transportation is involved, the Convention preempts any common law claims and serves as the sole basis for recovery. However, Defendant has sought to interpose a claim under a global transportation agreement in place between the parties, but which neither covers nor contemplates the type of loss now being asserted. Despite the non-application of said agreement, and the complete discharge of obligations under the convention and contract of carriage by K+N, Defendant is now improperly and further seeking to utilize the dispute resolution process.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “However, while the Plaintiff  asserts that it has no liability, and while Defendant has asserted a claim in excess of $1,700,000.00, Plaintiff’s liability at maximum should be limited to 21 SDRs per kg (the amount provided for under the Convention as well as the Agreement). (At the time of the instant filing the conversion rate would yield a limited amount of $29.60 per kg – the subject waybills reveal a weight of 2182.2 kg for a limited liability of $ 64,593.12 – in the event a recoverable loss was ultimately proven).”

 

The first claim for relief laid down by Plaintiff deals with declaratory relief and the second claim deals with anti-suit (arbitration) injunction.

 

In its prayer for relief Plaintiff has requested the court for a judgment to be rendered in its favor on both a preliminary and permanent basis enjoining any attempts by Defendant to invoke the dispute resolution and arbitration provisions of the Global Agreement for the instant claim, and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-08470

  • Filing Date:

    10/14/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Kuehne + Nagel Inc.

Defendant

Baker Hughes

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Andrew Robert Spector

Attorney at Spector Rubin, P.A.

3250 Mary Street, Ste. 405

Miami, FL 33133

 

Court Documents

#4

(#4) RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Kuehne + Nagel International AG for. Document filed by Kuehne + Nagel Inc...(Spector, Andrew) (Entered: 10/14/2021)

#3

(#3) REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Baker Hughes, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Kuehne + Nagel Inc...(Spector, Andrew) (Entered: 10/14/2021)

#2

(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Spector, Andrew) (Entered: 10/14/2021)

1 #2

Exhibit "B"

1 #1

Exhibit "A"

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Kuehne + Nagel International AG for. Document filed by Kuehne + Nagel Inc...(Spector, Andrew) (Entered: 10/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Baker Hughes, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Kuehne + Nagel Inc...(Spector, Andrew) (Entered: 10/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Spector, Andrew) (Entered: 10/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Baker Hughes. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-25194116)Document filed by Kuehne + Nagel Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit "A", #2 Exhibit "B").(Spector, Andrew) (Entered: 10/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KUEHNE + NAGEL INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Andrew R. Spector