Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00719/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00719-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1 08cv0719 BTM(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA A. LIPPOLD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv0719 BTM(RBB)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.

FATHER & SON MOVING & STORAGE

and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

In an order filed on April 28, 2008, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause why

this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court explained

that although the Carmack Amendment completely preempts state law claims under an

interstate shipping contract alleging delay, loss, failure to deliver or damage to property, it

did not appear from the Complaint that Plaintiff’s claims arose from an interstate bill of lading.

In its response to the OSC, Defendant explains that in August 2006, Plaintiff

requested that her stored property be transported to her new home in Rio Rico, Arizona.

Defendant, as agent for National Van Lines, arranged for National Van Lines to retrieve

Plaintiff’s goods from storage in Van Nuys and transport them to Arizona. Thus, Defendant

argues, Plaintiff’s claims are wholly preempted by the Carmack Amendment.

However, as pointed out by Plaintiff, Plaintiff does not claim that her goods were

damaged during transportation to Arizona. Plaintiff claims that her goods were damaged

Case 3:08-cv-00719-BTM-RBB Document 8 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 2
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 08cv0719 BTM(RBB)

under the contract for storage that the parties entered in 1993. It appears that this contract

was completely separate from the subsequent agreement to transport the goods in interstate

commerce. The cases cited by Defendant, Glass v. Crimmins Transfer Co., 299 F. Supp.

2d 878 (C.D. Ill. 2004) and York v. Day Transfer Co., 525 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D.R.I. 2007) are

distinguishable. In those cases, the storage of goods was incidental to the interstate

transportation of the goods. See also Harris v. Crown Moving, 2007 WL 1724299 (E.D.

Wash. 2007) (“[C]ourts who have dealt with losses sustained during origin storage, as is the

case here, have held that losses sustained during that storage are merely incidental to the

transportation of goods and are covered by the Carmack Amendment.”) According to

Defendant, Plaintiff did not ask for her goods to be delivered to Arizona until 2006.

Therefore, the storage of her goods was not under an interstate bill of lading.

Based on the record before the Court, the Carmack Amendment does not preempt

Plaintiff’s state law claims. Therefore, the Court does not have removal jurisdiction over the

case and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 30, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00719-BTM-RBB Document 8 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 2