its contract permit for the purpose to serve Robinson as a contract carrier. C.H. Robinson at 4. If-there was confusion at Best regarding whether or not Best was operating under a contract or common carrier authority, Best should have applied to the ICC for a determination of its status under 49 U.S.C. § 10925(e) at the time the contract was entered into or executed. The Trustee has focused at length on the shipper’s/broker’s failure to comply with the law of contract carriers and the Supreme Court’s finding in Maislin Indus., U.S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc. that when a carrier fails to file the rates it negotiated in a common carrier case, it is no excuse for a shipper to plead ignorance of this fact in an undercharge proceeding. 497 U.S. 116, 110 S.Ct. 2759, 111 L.Ed.2d 94 (1990) (<HOLDING>). This Court cannot accept the Trustee’s
holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim holding that a defense to an undercharge claim in a negotiated rates case that is based upon the finding that the undercharge claim is an unreasonable practice is not valid holding that an embezzlement claim is not a personal injury tort claim holding that a federal district court may decide whether an activity is an unfair labor practice under the nlra when the matter is raised as a defense to a claim under an independent federal remedy over which the federal district courts do have jurisdiction holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim