Preview
CAUSE NO.
WINLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC., INTHE DISTRICT COURT OF
d/b/a SUPER TIRE
FORT BEN COUNTY, TEXAS
BEST BAY LOGISTICS, INC. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
Plaintiff Winland Intem tional, Inc. d/b/a Super Tire (“Winland” or “Plaintiff’) files this
Original Petition against Defendant Best Bay Logistics, Inc., and in support of its causes of action
would respectfully show the Court as follows:
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Winland intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 190.4.
PARTIES
Winland is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Texas.
Best Bay Logistics, Inc. Best Bay”) is a foreign corporation with its principal
office in Chicago, Illinois. Best Bay’s motor carrier operating authority number is MC 937032,
with a registered physical address of 125 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. However,
Best Bay does not maintain a registered agent for the service of process in Texas Consequently,
Best Bay may be served through the Texas secretary of state pursuant to
5.251 at 125 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case because the amount
in controversy exceeds the Court’s minimum jurisdictional requirements.
ROUTED TO CouRT 4/26/24 ke
RT'DTOD.CLERK 4/29/2024 ER
5. Venue is proper in Fort Bend County, Texas under TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 15.002(a)(1) because a substantial part of the event or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted
occurred in Fort Bend County. Specifically, Best Bay agreed to perform their obligations of
delivery in Fort Bend County, Texas, and Best Bay failed to do so.
FACTS
6 On or around September 30, 2023, Winland contacted Best Bay, a national freight
broker, to transport a load of tires from Ontario, California to Missouri City, Texas. Winland had
previously done business with Best Bay, and Best Bay periodically reached out to Winland to
solicit its freight and broker services.
7 Best Bay touts itself as a nationwide logistics professional with an expansive carrier
network that provides affordable pricing. Through its 30,000+ approved carriers, Best Bay
represents that it has conducted due diligence, including but not limited to monitoring authority
and insurance coverage, and vetting of the carriers that it connects with customers to transport
shipments. Best Bay also represents its carriers value the integrity of its customers’ shipments and
provides assurances that it offers the “most reliable” freight delivery services.
8 In response to Winland’s request for transport, Best Bay purportedly brokeredJP
Freight (“JP”), who then hired Upper King of Kings Transportation (“Upper King”) to transport
Winland’s cargo from Califomia to Texas. The load was scheduled for pick up on September 30,
2023 in Ontario, California to be delivered to Missouri City, Texas by October 3, 2023. The driver
Best Bay assigned to pick up the load was either “Jose” or, based on the information from the site
where the load was picked up in California, an individual named Alexander Lara with an
Oklahoma trailer license plate of #7388JY and a California tractor truck license plate of #9G 53801.
9 The truck did not arrive in Missouri City, Texas on October 3, 2023, as promised,
and Winland was unable to obtain information or clarity from Best Bay concerning the
Page 2of 6
whereabouts of its shipment, the identity of the driver, or the expected date of receipt of the
shipment in Missouri City, Texas. Ultimately, the load of tires was never delivered to Winland.
10. When the load did not arrive, Best Bay allegedly made inquiries to JP regarding the
load. Best Bay subsequently determined the load had been “stolen.”
11. The load of tires was valued at more than $100,000.
12. Days after the load was lost and/or stolen, Best Bay represented that it would assist
Winland with the recovery of its load or assist with the payment of the claim in the event the load
could not be recovered. To date, after frequent communications and demands for payment, Best
Bay has failed to pay Winland’s claims. In addition to sums paid for the shipment by Winland to
Best Bay, Winland has also been unable to recover the value of the freight cargo that was never
delivered in accordance with the agreement between Winland and Best Bay. Winland submits that
Best Bay is liable for these pecuniary losses, as well as all subsequent monetary damages and
losses suffered by Winland as a result of these events.
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
13. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as
if set forth verbatim.
14, Winland hired Best Bay to locate a reliable carrier to transport its load. Best Bay
brokered the load through a carrier that it selected (JP) who did not deliver the load to Winland as
it was required.
15. Best Bay breached the contract by, including but not limited to:
a. Failing to locate a reliable and/or qualified carrier to transport Winland’s
load.
b. Failing to recover the load.
Page 3of 6
Failing to follow Best Bay’s carrier-verification protocols when dispatching
Winland’s shipment.
Failing to deliver the load to Winland in Missouri City, Texas, per the
express agreement between the parties.
Failing to conduct adequate due diligence regarding the carrier, JP, to
properly vet the logistics company and ensure that it was legitimate and
capable of performing the services that Winland contracted with Best Bay to
perform.
16. As a proximate cause of Best Bay’s breach, Winland suffered actual damages
consisting of the loss of its load of tires.
17. All conditions precedent to Winland’s recovery of damages have been satisfied or
have occurred.
COUNT I - IMPLIED CONTRACT/QUANTUM MERUIT/UNJUST ENRICHMENT
18. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated hereby reference as if
set forth verbatim.
19. Best Bay was aware that Winland was relying on it to locate a reliable carrier to
transport its load and relied on Best Bay to broker the load at an agreed upon rate with a reliable
and qualified carrier. Because the load was never delivered to Winland, Best Bay has been unjustly
enriched.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
20. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as
if set forth verbatim.
21. Best Bay made the aforementioned representations to Winland within the course of
its business. Best Bay made such representations in the course of transactions in which they had
an interest. Best Bay’s misrepresentations were misstatements fact that Winland relied upon in
selecting Best Bay to broker the transport of its load. Best Bay did not use reasonable or ordinary
Page 4of 6
care in making such representations. Winland justifiably relied on Best Bay’s representations. Best
Bay’s negligent misrepresentations proximately caused injury to Winland.
DAMAGES
22. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as
if set forth verbatim.
23. Because of Best Bay’s failure to perform its obligations, Winland is entitled to
recover the value of the lost load, approximately $100,000.00.
24. Pursuantto Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 38.001, et seq. of the, Winland
is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.
25. Winland also seeks all other damages allowed under Texas law including but not
limited to actual damages, special damages, consequential damages, statutory remedies, interest,
attomeys' fees, court costs, benefit of the bargain damages, common law damages, and all other
damages sustained in the past and in the future that were a producing or proximate cause of
Armmstrong’s acts or omissions or wrongful conduct.
RIGHT TO AMEND
27. These allegations against Best Bay are made acknowledging that this lawsuit is still
in investigation and discovery. As further investigation and discovery are conducted, additional
facts will likely be uncovered that may and probably will necessitate further, additional, and/or
different allegations, including the potential of adding and/or dismissing parties to the case. The
right to do so, under Texas law, is expressly reserved.
JURY DEMAND
28. Winland hereby asserts its right under the Texas Constitution and demands a trial
by jury and herewith tenders the appropriate fee.
Page Sof 6
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Winland respectfully requests that Best Bay
be cited to appear and answer herein, and that judgment be entered in Winland’s favor and against
Defendant for the following:
a. actual damages;
b special damages;
attorneys’ fees and expenses;
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
costs of court; and
such other and further relief, legal or equitable, to which Winland is justly
entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Tosy B. FULLMER, L.L.C.
By (s/ Toby B. Fullmer
TOBY B. FULLMER
TBA #24043667
toby@fullmerlegal.com
P.O. Box 22355
Houston, Texas 77227
713/355-4357 Office
713/961-0384 Facsimile
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
WINLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC,
d/b/a SUPER TIRE
Page Gof 6
Preview
CAUSE NO. WINLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC., INTHE DISTRICT COURT OF d/b/a SUPER TIRE FORT BEN COUNTY, TEXAS BEST BAY LOGISTICS, INC. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Plaintiff Winland Intem tional, Inc. d/b/a Super Tire (“Winland” or “Plaintiff’) files this Original Petition against Defendant Best Bay Logistics, Inc., and in support of its causes of action would respectfully show the Court as follows: DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN Winland intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 190.4. PARTIES Winland is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Texas. Best Bay Logistics, Inc. Best Bay”) is a foreign corporation with its principal office in Chicago, Illinois. Best Bay’s motor carrier operating authority number is MC 937032, with a registered physical address of 125 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. However, Best Bay does not maintain a registered agent for the service of process in Texas Consequently, Best Bay may be served through the Texas secretary of state pursuant to 5.251 at 125 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case because the amount in controversy exceeds the Court’s minimum jurisdictional requirements. ROUTED TO CouRT 4/26/24 ke RT'DTOD.CLERK 4/29/2024 ER 5. Venue is proper in Fort Bend County, Texas under TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(1) because a substantial part of the event or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted occurred in Fort Bend County. Specifically, Best Bay agreed to perform their obligations of delivery in Fort Bend County, Texas, and Best Bay failed to do so. FACTS 6 On or around September 30, 2023, Winland contacted Best Bay, a national freight broker, to transport a load of tires from Ontario, California to Missouri City, Texas. Winland had previously done business with Best Bay, and Best Bay periodically reached out to Winland to solicit its freight and broker services. 7 Best Bay touts itself as a nationwide logistics professional with an expansive carrier network that provides affordable pricing. Through its 30,000+ approved carriers, Best Bay represents that it has conducted due diligence, including but not limited to monitoring authority and insurance coverage, and vetting of the carriers that it connects with customers to transport shipments. Best Bay also represents its carriers value the integrity of its customers’ shipments and provides assurances that it offers the “most reliable” freight delivery services. 8 In response to Winland’s request for transport, Best Bay purportedly brokeredJP Freight (“JP”), who then hired Upper King of Kings Transportation (“Upper King”) to transport Winland’s cargo from Califomia to Texas. The load was scheduled for pick up on September 30, 2023 in Ontario, California to be delivered to Missouri City, Texas by October 3, 2023. The driver Best Bay assigned to pick up the load was either “Jose” or, based on the information from the site where the load was picked up in California, an individual named Alexander Lara with an Oklahoma trailer license plate of #7388JY and a California tractor truck license plate of #9G 53801. 9 The truck did not arrive in Missouri City, Texas on October 3, 2023, as promised, and Winland was unable to obtain information or clarity from Best Bay concerning the Page 2of 6 whereabouts of its shipment, the identity of the driver, or the expected date of receipt of the shipment in Missouri City, Texas. Ultimately, the load of tires was never delivered to Winland. 10. When the load did not arrive, Best Bay allegedly made inquiries to JP regarding the load. Best Bay subsequently determined the load had been “stolen.” 11. The load of tires was valued at more than $100,000. 12. Days after the load was lost and/or stolen, Best Bay represented that it would assist Winland with the recovery of its load or assist with the payment of the claim in the event the load could not be recovered. To date, after frequent communications and demands for payment, Best Bay has failed to pay Winland’s claims. In addition to sums paid for the shipment by Winland to Best Bay, Winland has also been unable to recover the value of the freight cargo that was never delivered in accordance with the agreement between Winland and Best Bay. Winland submits that Best Bay is liable for these pecuniary losses, as well as all subsequent monetary damages and losses suffered by Winland as a result of these events. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth verbatim. 14, Winland hired Best Bay to locate a reliable carrier to transport its load. Best Bay brokered the load through a carrier that it selected (JP) who did not deliver the load to Winland as it was required. 15. Best Bay breached the contract by, including but not limited to: a. Failing to locate a reliable and/or qualified carrier to transport Winland’s load. b. Failing to recover the load. Page 3of 6 Failing to follow Best Bay’s carrier-verification protocols when dispatching Winland’s shipment. Failing to deliver the load to Winland in Missouri City, Texas, per the express agreement between the parties. Failing to conduct adequate due diligence regarding the carrier, JP, to properly vet the logistics company and ensure that it was legitimate and capable of performing the services that Winland contracted with Best Bay to perform. 16. As a proximate cause of Best Bay’s breach, Winland suffered actual damages consisting of the loss of its load of tires. 17. All conditions precedent to Winland’s recovery of damages have been satisfied or have occurred. COUNT I - IMPLIED CONTRACT/QUANTUM MERUIT/UNJUST ENRICHMENT 18. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated hereby reference as if set forth verbatim. 19. Best Bay was aware that Winland was relying on it to locate a reliable carrier to transport its load and relied on Best Bay to broker the load at an agreed upon rate with a reliable and qualified carrier. Because the load was never delivered to Winland, Best Bay has been unjustly enriched. COUNT III - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 20. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth verbatim. 21. Best Bay made the aforementioned representations to Winland within the course of its business. Best Bay made such representations in the course of transactions in which they had an interest. Best Bay’s misrepresentations were misstatements fact that Winland relied upon in selecting Best Bay to broker the transport of its load. Best Bay did not use reasonable or ordinary Page 4of 6 care in making such representations. Winland justifiably relied on Best Bay’s representations. Best Bay’s negligent misrepresentations proximately caused injury to Winland. DAMAGES 22. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth verbatim. 23. Because of Best Bay’s failure to perform its obligations, Winland is entitled to recover the value of the lost load, approximately $100,000.00. 24. Pursuantto Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 38.001, et seq. of the, Winland is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. 25. Winland also seeks all other damages allowed under Texas law including but not limited to actual damages, special damages, consequential damages, statutory remedies, interest, attomeys' fees, court costs, benefit of the bargain damages, common law damages, and all other damages sustained in the past and in the future that were a producing or proximate cause of Armmstrong’s acts or omissions or wrongful conduct. RIGHT TO AMEND 27. These allegations against Best Bay are made acknowledging that this lawsuit is still in investigation and discovery. As further investigation and discovery are conducted, additional facts will likely be uncovered that may and probably will necessitate further, additional, and/or different allegations, including the potential of adding and/or dismissing parties to the case. The right to do so, under Texas law, is expressly reserved. JURY DEMAND 28. Winland hereby asserts its right under the Texas Constitution and demands a trial by jury and herewith tenders the appropriate fee. Page Sof 6 REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Winland respectfully requests that Best Bay be cited to appear and answer herein, and that judgment be entered in Winland’s favor and against Defendant for the following: a. actual damages; b special damages; attorneys’ fees and expenses; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; costs of court; and such other and further relief, legal or equitable, to which Winland is justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Tosy B. FULLMER, L.L.C. By (s/ Toby B. Fullmer TOBY B. FULLMER TBA #24043667 toby@fullmerlegal.com P.O. Box 22355 Houston, Texas 77227 713/355-4357 Office 713/961-0384 Facsimile ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF WINLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC, d/b/a SUPER TIRE Page Gof 6