Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00505/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00505-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

COMPANY OF AMERICA and

TOMOTHERAPY INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

LEGACY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,

INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 10-00505 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

APRIL 9, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s

questions contained 

herein.

Case 3:10-cv-00505-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Defendant Legacy Transportation Services and third-party defendant United Van Lines,

LLC contend that the offloading, rigging and installation services at issue in this matter

fall within the definition of “transportation” subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, and

are therefore subject to the preemptive ambit of the Carmack Amendment. What

specific legal authority indicates that these services, treated separately in the subject

contract, are indeed encompassed within the definition of transportation?

2. Is Defendant Legacy Transportation Services a carrier or a broker? What evidence is in

the record or can be put in the record to clarify Defendant’s legal status? If there

remains a factual dispute over whether Defendant’s conduct may legally fall under the

ambit of the Carmack Amendment, must the Court remand?

3. How can the Court disregard the contractual agreement that any action relating to the

agreement be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California and

that any suit be brought in the county of Contra Costa?

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00505-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2