Skip to main content

Perkins v. Adesa US Auction LLC

W.D. Wash.August 21, 2025No. 2:24-cv-02097
Plaintiff WinSurvival Transportation Inc.$54,686.03 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Civil Rights: Jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
default judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Plaintiff Agricultural Logistics LLC obtained default judgment against Survival Transportation Inc. for breach of contract and violation of the Carmack Amendment, awarded $30,530 in damages plus prejudgment interest, $20,437.10 in attorneys' fees, and $3,718.93 in costs. The motion was denied as to individual defendant Hector Wency Segarra Rivera.

What This Ruling Means

**Perkins v. Adesa US Auction LLC - Court Ruling Summary** **What Happened:** This case involved a contract dispute between Agricultural Logistics LLC and Survival Transportation Inc. Agricultural Logistics hired Survival Transportation to provide transportation services, but Survival Transportation failed to fulfill their contractual obligations. The case also involved violations of the Carmack Amendment, which is a federal law governing transportation contracts. When sued, Survival Transportation didn't respond to the lawsuit. **What the Court Decided:** Because Survival Transportation didn't defend themselves in court, the judge awarded a default judgment to Agricultural Logistics. The company was ordered to pay $30,530 in damages for breaking the contract, plus an additional $20,437 in attorney's fees and $3,719 in court costs, totaling over $54,000. However, the court denied the claim against an individual defendant named Hector Segarra Rivera. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling shows that companies must honor their contracts and can face significant financial consequences when they don't. While this case was between businesses, it demonstrates that courts will enforce contract terms and award damages when agreements are broken. Workers can take comfort knowing that legal protections exist when employers or business partners fail to meet their obligations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.