Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03906/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03906-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARETA NEWLAND,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3906 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO REMAND AND GRANTING

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC., and MOTION TO DISMISS

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion to remand the complaint and defendant’s motion to dismiss the

complaint came on for hearing before this court on August 9, 2006. Plaintiff, Areta

Newland (“plaintiff”), appeared through her counsel, Karen Kissler. Defendant, Allied Van

Lines, Inc. (“defendant”), appeared through its counsel, Venessa Martinez. Having read

the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal

authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion to remand

the complaint, and GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, for the reasons

stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows.

1. Under the artful pleading doctrine, plaintiff’s state law claims for negligence

and breach of contract state prima facie claims under the federal Carmack

Amendment. See 49 U.S.C. § 14796. The Carmack Amendment provides a

remedy where, as here, common carriers are allegedly responsible for the

loss of, and/or damage to property resulting from the transportation of such

property in interstate commerce. The statute also preempts state law on

claims covering interstate carrier shipments. See, e.g., Hunter v. United Van

Lines, 746 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1985)( “[A] state law claim may be

Case 4:06-cv-03906-PJH Document 13 Filed 08/17/06 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

recharacterized as a federal claim ... when the state law claim is preempted

by federal law and when it is apparent from a review of the complaint that

federal law provides plaintiff a cause of action to remedy the wrong he asserts

he suffered.”).

2. Since plaintiff’s complaint states causes of action under federal law, federal

jurisdiction exists, and removal by defendant to federal court was proper. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand the complaint is DENIED. 

3. Since, as noted above, the Carmack Amendment preempts plaintiff’s state

law claims, defendant is correct that plaintiff’s complaint – limited only to the

two causes of action for negligence and breach of contract – must be

dismissed. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. North American Van Lines, Inc.,

970 F.2d 609, 613 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

4. The dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff, however, who is given leave to

amend her complaint in order to state a proper claim under the Carmack

Amendment. Any amended complaint must be filed within 20 days of the

date of this order.

5. The parties are further ORDERED to attend a case management conference 

on November 9, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The parties shall submit a joint case

management conference statement no later than November 2, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03906-PJH Document 13 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2