Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-10-20115/USCOURTS-ca5-10-20115-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

REVISED JANUARY 3, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20115

TRAN ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a NUTRITION DEPOT

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before KING, GARWOOD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Tran Enterprises LLC, doing business as Nutrition

Depot, entered into contracts with defendant-appellee DHL Express (USA), Inc.

for numerous shipments of merchandise to its customers. This appeal concerns

twenty-one shipments delivered between April 3, 2006, and January 31, 2007,

for which DHL failed to remit collect-on-delivery (COD) payments totaling

$21,991.72 to Nutrition Depot. Nutrition Depot alleged Texas common-law

claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conversion, as well

as a claim under the Texas Theft Liability Act, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 13, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

134.001, et seq. Nutrition Depot also asserted that the Carmack Amendment to

the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, applied and prohibited the

limited liability provisions of the contract. DHL removed the case to the district

court below. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court

granted DHL’s motion. Nutrition Depot appeals.

While the district court ultimately found, by a status hearing, that there

were twenty-four contested shipments, the district court’s summary judgment

order that is challenged on appeal dealt only with twenty-one shipments. Of

these twenty-one shipments, the evidence shows that DHL collected COD checks

for only ten. Of the remaining eleven shipments, one check was not collected

because DHL failed to deliver the goods altogether, and the remaining ten

checks simply were not collected by DHL’s employees upon delivery of the

merchandise. All of the shipments were by ground transport save one, to

Honalulu, Hawaii; that air shipment is among the ten for which DHL did collect

a COD check. Nutrition Depot paid a seven dollar fee per shipment for COD

service for twenty of the checks.

1

All twenty-one disputed shipments were governed by a contract of

carriage, which included the Waybill, DHL Express Terms and Conditions of

Carriage, DHL Express Terms and Conditions of Service, DHL Express COD

Service Conditions, and DHL Express Ground Tariff. These Terms and

Conditions state that DHL’s liability is limited to one hundred dollars per

shipment, unless the shipper requests and pays an additional fee for “Shipment

Value Protection.” Nutrition Depot did not request, pay for or obtain Shipment

Value Protection for any of the twenty-one disputed shipments. In recognition

Neither party contests on appeal the district court’s rulings or judgment with respect

1

to the three other shipments not expressly addressed in the district court’s summary judgment

order. Nor does either party attach any significance to the failure to pay the COD seven dollar

fee on one of the ground shipments, or seek to have that shipment treated differently from any

other.

2

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

of its failure to collect some of the checks and Nutrition Depot’s non-receipt of

the collected checks, DHL issued twenty-one settlement checks to Nutrition

Depot each in the amount of one hundred dollars.

The district court found that the Carmack Amendment applied to the

shipments at issue and that all of Nutrition Depot’s state-law claims were

preempted thereunder. The district court further found that the one hundred

dollar limit on liability found in DHL’s Terms and Conditions was valid and

enforceable under the Carmack Amendment. As a result, the district court

granted summary judgment to DHL that its liability was limited to one hundred

dollars per shipment, as provided in the contract of carriage, and that Nutrition

Depot was not entitled to collect attorney’s fees. The district court then held a

status conference to determine exactly how many checks were at issue,

ultimately finding that there were twenty-four contested checks and entering a

final judgment requiring DHL to pay $2,400 to satisfy its liability to Nutrition

Depot. Nutrition Depot now appeals, challenging the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to DHL.

This court reviews a district court’s award of summary judgment de novo.

Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998).

Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issues of material fact exist and

the movant demonstrates it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R.

CIV. P. 56(a); Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 119 (5th Cir. 2007).

This case centers around the applicability and effect of the Carmack

Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706. The only issue that has been properly asserted

by Nutrition Depot on appeal is whether the Carmack Amendment preempts

Nutrition Depot’s state law claims.

Nutrition Depot argues that its state law claims are not preempted by the

Carmack Amendment because they are predicated on harm independent of any

conduct related to the shipping itself. The Supreme Court has held that the

3

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

Carmack Amendment is "comprehensive enough to embrace responsibility for

all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier's duty as to any part

of the agreed transportation...." Georgia, Florida & Alabama Rwy. v. Blish

Milling Co.,36 S.Ct. 541, 544 (1916). The Fifth Circuit has also construed the

preemptive scope of the Carmack Amendment to be sweeping, holding that

“Congress intended for the Carmack Amendment to provide the exclusive cause

of action for loss or damages to goods arising from the interstate transportation

of those goods by a common carrier.” Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769,

778 (5th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (finding that doctrine of complete

preemption applied). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has rejected nearly all state-law

claims regarding loss of or damage to goods in interstate ground shipping as

preempted by the Amendment. See, e.g. Moffit v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 6 F.3d

305, 306-307 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that Carmack Amendment preempted

plaintiff's claims for the tort of outrage, intentional infliction of emotional

distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of

implied warranty, breach of express warranty, violation of the Texas Deceptive

Trade Practices Act, slander, misrepresentation, fraud, negligence, gross

negligence, and violation of common carrier duties under state law).

Nutrition Depot asserts that this case is distinguishable from existing

Carmack Amendment jurisprudence because it does not involve loss or damage

to goods shipped, but instead involves the carrier’s alleged failure to remit COD

payments for goods that were properly delivered. However, the Supreme Court

and Fifth Circuit have found preemption not only in cases where there was

actual damage to the goods shipped, but also when there has been "any failure

to discharge a carrier's duty with respect to any part of the transportation to the

agreed destination." New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk R.R. Co. v. Peninsula

Produce Exch. of Maryland, 36 S.Ct. 230, 232 (1916). See also Air Products &

Chemicals, Inc. v. Ill. Central Gulf R.R. Co., 721 F.2d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 1983);

4

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

Moffit,6 F.3d at 306-07. (Carmack Amendment preempted claims dealing with

failure to ship goods on time); Duerrmeyer v. Alamo Moving and Storage One,

Cor., 49 F.Supp.2d 934, 936 (W.D. Tex. 1999) (Carmack Amendment preempted

state law conversion claim arising out of carrier's placement of household items

in storage due to dispute over transport costs). Here, it is undisputed that the

contract of carriage between Nutrition Depot and DHL respecting COD items

required DHL to pick up Nutrition Depot’s customers’ checks for the goods when

DHL delivered them to the customers and to return such checks to Nutrition

Depot. One court, relying on the breadth of the Supreme Court’s broad

preemption language, has specifically extended the Carmack Amendment to a

case where, as here, a carrier allegedly failed to remit COD payments for

properly delivered goods. See Circle Redmont, Inc. v. Mercer Transportation Co.,

795 So.2d 239, 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) ("although the express language of

the Carmack Amendment only makes reference to the actual loss, damage, or

injury to property during shipping, and thus Mercer's failure to collect C.O.D.

charges does not fall within the literal terms of the amendment, the United

States Supreme Court has interpreted the scope of the Carmack Amendment's

preemption so broadly that such claims necessarily come within its scope."). In

keeping with the foregoing Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent, this

court, like the Circle Redmont court, finds that loss of COD checks constitutes

a failure to discharge the carrier’s duties under the transportation contract, and

as such falls within the reach of Carmack Amendment preemption.

Nutrition Depot further asserts that its conversion and theft claims are

beyond the Carmack Amendment’s broad preemptive reach because these claims

are for“separate harms,” unrelated to the contract of carriage. Nutrition Depot

relies particularly on the First Circuit case of Rini v. United Van Lines, Inc., 104

F.3d 502, 505-06 (1st Cir. 1997), which held that "[l]iability arising from

separate harms–apart from the loss or damage of goods–is not preempted." That

5

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

court listed as examples of separate harms assault by an employee of the carrier

on the shipper, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, explaining that

these harms would be independent from the loss or damage to goods. Id. See

also Gordon v. United Van Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 282, 289 (7th Cir. 1997) (also

finding intentional infliction of emotional distress to be a “separate harm” that

was not preempted). Nutrition Depot asserts that DHL’s alleged conversion of

the COD checks constitutes such a “separate harm,” and cites several cases that

have discussed a “conversion exception” in the context of applicability of limited

liability provisions. See, e.g. Glickfield v. Howard Van Lines, Inc., 213 F.2d 723,

727-28 (9th Cir. 1954); Kemper Ins. Cos. v. Federal Express Corp., 252 F.3d 509,

512 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Deiro v. American Airlines, Inc., 816 F.2d 1360, 1366

(9th Cir. 1987)). We acknowledge that in some circumstances, where a carrier

has intentionally converted for its own purposes the property of the shipper,

traditional true conversion claims should be allowed to proceed and limitations

on liability should be considered inapplicable. See, e.g., Glickfield, 213 F.2d at

727 (requiring proof that the carrier has appropriated the property for its own

use or gain, rather than the simple fact that the property has gone missing);

Nippon Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Holmes Transp. Inc., 616 F. Supp. 610

(S.D.N.Y. 1985) (same). See also Mayflower Transit, Inc. v. Weil, Gotshal &

Manges L.L.P.,2000 WL 34479959 (N.D.Tex.2000) (finding conversion claim to

be outside preemptive scope of Carmack Amendment because stolen jewelry was

not part of goods to be shipped). However, to justify such a conversion claim

exception to the preemptive scope of the Carmack Amendment, the party

asserting such an exception would, we hold, bear the burden of proof at trial.

With respect to an issue on which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof

at trial, if the movant for summary judgment correctly points to the absence of

evidence supporting the nonmovant with respect to such an issue, the

nonmovant, in order to avoid an adverse summary judgment on that issue, must

6

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

produce sufficient summary judgment evidence to sustain a finding in its favor

on the issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986);

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53 (1986); Johnson v. Deep East

Texas Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293, 337 (5th Cir. 2004); Burge

v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363, 374 (5th Cir. 2003).

In the instant case, Nutrition Depot failed to present any summary

judgment evidence that true conversion has occurred, instead merely offering the

fact that it did not receive the checks. DHL provided evidence that some COD

checks were never collected at all, and that all the COD payments it did collect

from Nutrition Depot’s customers were logged in its system and likely sent to

Nutrition Depot shortly after collection. Nutrition Depot produces no evidence

in response indicating that DHL instead converted those checks for its own gain,

citing instead only to its own filings at earlier stages of the case. Nutrition

Depot made no effort at discovery from its customers, or otherwise, to determine

if any of the COD checks had been cashed, and, if so, when or by whom or the

like.

Nutrition Depot’s remaining claims for breach of contract and breach of

fiduciary duty arise directly from the performance of the contract of carriage

since the contracted-for COD shipments include the delivery of the shipment, the

pick-up of the COD check, and the return of the COD check to the shipper.

Accordingly, these claims are preempted by the Carmack Amendment. See Air

Prods., 721 F.2d at 485-86. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s finding that

all of Nutrition Depot’s state law claims are preempted by the Carmack

Amendment.

The other arguments urged by Nutrition Depot are raised in this court for

the first time in its reply brief in this court (and, to some extent, only at oral

argument). These contentions, which relate to the validity of the limited liability

provisions under the Carmack Amendment, and applicability of the Carmack

7

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

Amendment to the one shipment that traveled by air to Honolulu, are not

properly before the court. See, e.g. United States v. Bonilla-Mungia, 422 F.3d

316, 319 (5th Cir. 2005) ("[W]e will not entertain issues first raised by an

appellant in his reply brief."). We will nevertheless briefly touch on each of these

issues to show, first, that they have been waived by Nutrition Depot, and

second, that even had the arguments been properly raised here, they would be

unavailing.

First, while Nutrition Depot did argue before the district court that the

limited liability provisions of the contract are invalid under the Carmack

Amendment, Nutrition Depot did not raise this argument on appeal save in its

reply brief. Even assuming, arguendo, that this argument was properly raised

on appeal, the district court was correct in holding that the shipping contract’s

limitation of liability to one hundred dollars per shipment is indeed valid under

the Carmack Amendment. The Carmack Amendment provides a general rule

that motor carriers transporting property are liable to shippers "for the actual

loss or injury to the property," 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1), but allows for an

exception under which a shipper may “establish rates for the transportation of

property...under which the liability of the carrier for such property is limited to

a value established by written or electronic declaration of the shipper or by

written agreement between the carrier and shipper if that value would be

reasonable under the circumstances surrounding the transportation.” 49 U.S.C.

§ 14706(c)(1)(A). This court has adopted a four-pronged test for determining

whether a contract's limited liability provision is valid under the statute. Under

this test, a carrier may limit its liability if it: “(1) maintains a tariff within the

prescribed guidelines of the Interstate Commerce Commission (now the Surface

Transportation Board); (2) obtains the shipper's agreement as to her choice of

liability; (3) gives the shipper a reasonable opportunity to choose between two

or more levels of liability; and (4) issues a receipt or bill of lading prior to moving

8

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

the shipment." Hoskins, 343 F.3d at 778 (citing Rohner Gehrig Co. v. Tri-State

Motor Transit, 950 F.2d 1079, 1081 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc)).

We agree with the district court that the limited liability provision at issue

in this litigation meets these four requirements, for the reasons given by the

district court. Namely, DHL maintains a ground tariff that is clearly posted on

its internet site; Nutrition Depot agreed to the liability limit following

reasonable opportunity to choose between levels of liability; and Nutrition Depot

received the waybill denoting the terms before the shipment took place. The

crux of Nutrition Depot’s untimely argument concerns the third prong, that it

was not given a meaningful opportunity to choose between levels of protection.

But in creating its online waybills, Nutrition Depot selected ground shipping,

declined the available Shipment Value Protection, and agreed to the Terms and

Conditions of Carriage, Terms and Conditions of Service, COD Service

Conditions, and the Ground Tariff, all of which stated that DHL’s liability was

limited to one hundred dollars per shipment unless Shipment Value Protection

was selected. While Nutrition Depot contends that the labeling of their waybills

as “airbills” undermines the applicability of the limited liability terms to their

shipments, the Terms and Conditions of Service clearly state that "[a] ‘waybill'

shall include any...air waybill...and shall incorporate these Terms and

Conditions" so it is clear that the Terms and Conditions did, in fact, apply.

Thus, even assuming arguendo that this limited liability issue was not waived,

we would affirm the district court’s conclusion that the limited liability

provisions in the contract of carriage between DHL and Nutrition Depot are

valid.

Nutrition Depot also attempts to argue that the Carmack Amendment

does not apply to the one air shipment to Honolulu. However, Nutrition Depot

had argued at all stages of this litigation that the Carmack Amendment applied

to all of the contested shipments, until mentioning in its reply brief before this

9

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20115

court that it would not apply to the air shipment. Because appellants failed to

raise this issue until their reply brief on appeal, it has been waived.

Bonilla-Mungia, 422 F.3d at 319. Furthermore, no injustice is done by declining

to fully address this issue because consideration of this shipment under the

Airline Deregulation Act and federal common law applicable to air shipments

would not result in a different outcome due to the near-identity of the

preemptive effect and limited liability requirements for air and ground

shipments. See Sam L. Majors Jewelers v. ABX, Inc., 117 F.3d 922 (5th Cir.

2

1997).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

For shipments traveling by air, the Airline Deregulation Act preempts state law 2

causes of action aside from routine breach of contract claims. See American Airlines, Inc. v.

Wolens, 115 S.Ct. 817, 824-826 (1995). The breach of contract claim in this case is not

"routine," because the appellant seeks to avoid a limited liability term in the contract, rather

than simply seeking to enforce the contract. See Read-Rite Corp. v. Burlington Air Express,

Ltd., 186 F.3d 1190, 1197 (1999); Trieber & Straub, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 474 F.3d

379, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2007). The Airline Deregulation Act's savings clause does, however,

preserve the pre-existing federal commonlaw remedies against air carriers for lost shipments. 

See Sam L. Majors Jewelers, 117 F.3d at 928; accord Deiro v. American Airlines, Inc., 816 F.2d

1360 (9th Cir. 1987). Under this common law, limited liability is enforceable if there is

reasonable notice to the shipper of the limited liability and fair opportunity to purchase higher

liability. See Read-Rite Corp., 186 F.3d at 1198. This test is highly similar to the

requirements for limited liability enforceability under the Carmack Amendment, and indeed

has been interpreted by some courts as being identical. See, e.g. Kemper Ins. Cos. v. Federal

Express Corp., 252 F.3d 509, 514 (1st Cir. 2001) (“[W]ith respect to the fair opportunity to

declare a higher rate, the constraints on limitation clauses are the same for motor carriers

covered by the Carmack Amendment as they are for air carriers covered by the released value

doctrine.”). Thus, for the reasons already discussed earlier in this opinion for the four-pronged

Carmack Amendment limited liability test, and for the reasons given by the district court, the

limited liability provision in the contract of carriage here is enforceable with respect to air

shipments, as well as with respect to the ground shipments. 

10

 Case: 10-20115 Document: 00511338636 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/04/2011