FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZEDDRICK F. WHITE, 

No. 07-55528 Plaintiff-Appellant,

D.C. No.

v.  CV-06-06710-CAS

MAYFLOWER TRANSIT, L.L.C., OPINION Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 26, 2008*

Filed September 12, 2008

Before: Jerome Farris, Robert R. Beezer, and

Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Beezer

*The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

12727
COUNSEL

Zeddrick F. White, pro se appellant. 

Gregg S. Garfinkel and Brent M. Finch, Stone, Rosenblatt &

Cha, Woodland Hills, California, for the appellee.

OPINION

BEEZER, Circuit Judge: 

Zeddrick White (“White”) appeals pro se the district

court’s order granting Mayflower Transit, L.L.C.’s

(“Mayflower”) motion to dismiss his second amended complaint. We affirm. 

I

This case arises out of an agreement between White and

Mayflower, in which Mayflower agreed to ship White’s per12730 WHITE v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT
sonal effects from New York to Los Angeles. White was dissatisfied with Mayflower’s delivery, claiming that several of

his items were missing or damaged. The parties agreed to

binding arbitration of the claims for loss and damage to

White’s goods. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Mayflower,

but White believed that the arbitrator had been biased against

him. White filed a complaint against Mayflower in state court,

alleging “contractual fraud (forgery), insurance coverage,

general negligence, property damage and intentional infliction

of emotional distress.” 

Mayflower removed the case to federal court, arguing that

White’s claims were exclusively governed by the Carmack

Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.

§ 14706. White moved to remand. The district court denied

White’s motion, holding that Mayflower had properly

removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(b). 

Mayflower then moved to confirm the arbitration award.

The court granted the motion, holding that White had failed

to present evidence of actual bias on the part of the arbitrator.

The court later directed White to file a second amended complaint setting forth any claims not precluded by the arbitration

award. 

White filed a second amended complaint containing the

same allegations as his first complaint. Mayflower moved to

dismiss White’s second amendment complaint. The court

granted the motion, holding that all of White’s claims fell

within the scope of a final and binding arbitration award. The

court also construed White’s complaint as containing two possible causes of action for fraud/forgery and improper billing/

overcharging. The court held that the Carmack Amendment

preempted these claims and dismissed White’s complaint with

prejudice. 

II

White argues that the district court lacked removal jurisdiction over this case. We disagree. 

WHITE v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT 12731
[1] The Carmack Amendment is a federal statute that provides the exclusive cause of action for interstate shipping contract claims, and it completely preempts state law claims

alleging delay, loss, failure to deliver and damage to property.

Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 687-88 (9th Cir.

2007). If a plaintiff brings a contract action against an interstate carrier for any of these reasons, and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, then the defendant may properly

remove the case to federal court. Id. at 688-89. White sued

Mayflower for property damage and admitted that the amount

in controversy exceeds $10,000. The district court properly

exercised removal jurisdiction over this case. 

III

White argues that his claims for property damage do not

fall within the scope of a final and binding arbitration award.

White also argues that his remaining claims are neither barred

nor preempted by the Carmack Amendment. We disagree. 

A

[2] We review de novo a district court’s order confirming

an arbitration award. Schoenduve Corp. v. Lucent Tech., Inc.,

442 F.3d 727, 730-31 (9th Cir. 2006). We will affirm unless

the award can be vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed

by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Id. The FAA allows

a district court to vacate an arbitration award if there is evidence of partiality. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2). The burden is on the

moving party to show an arbitrator’s partiality by presenting

evidence of either nondisclosure or bias. Woods v. Saturn Distrib. Corp., 78 F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1996). 

[3] In opposing Mayflower’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, White summarily stated that “there was clearly

some prejudice and bias” on the part of the arbitrator. White

submitted no evidence specifically supporting this statement

and he raised no additional reasons for why the district court

12732 WHITE v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT
should refrain from confirming the arbitration award. The district court properly confirmed the arbitration award, which is

a final and binding ruling that precludes White from relitigating his claims for “contractual fraud,” “insurance coverage”

and “property damage.” See 9 U.S.C. § 9. 

B

[4] The Carmack Amendment constitutes a complete

defense to common law claims against interstate carriers for

negligence, fraud and conversion, even though these claims

may not be completely preempted. Hall, 476 F.3d at 689. The

Carmack Amendment bars White’s claims for “general negligence,” as well as his possible claims for fraud/forgery and

improper billing/overcharging. 

C

White’s only remaining claim is for intentional infliction of

emotional distress. We have never addressed whether and

under what circumstances the Carmack Amendment preempts

a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See

Hunter v. United Van Lines, 746 F.2d 635, 643-44 (9th Cir.

1984) (declining to decide the issue). The United States

Supreme Court makes clear that in enacting the Carmack

Amendment, “Congress superseded diverse state laws with a

nationally uniform policy governing interstate carriers’ liability for property loss.” N.Y., New Haven & Hartford Ry. Co.

v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 131 (1953). “Almost every detail

of [interstate common carrier liability] is covered so completely that there can be no rational doubt but that Congress

intended to take possession of the subject, and supersede all

state regulation with reference to it.” Adams Express Co. v.

Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 505-06 (1913). 

[5] Given this guidance, four circuits have discussed the

issue whether and under what circumstances the Carmack

Amendment preempts a claim for intentional infliction of

WHITE v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT 12733
emotional distress. Two circuits have articulated rules that

focus on conduct. The Eleventh Circuit holds that “only

claims based on conduct separate and distinct from the delivery, loss of, or damage to goods escape preemption.” Smith v.

United Parcel Serv., 296 F.3d 1244, 1248-49 (11th Cir. 2002)

(emphasis added). Applying this rule, the Eleventh Circuit

held that the Carmack Amendment preempted a plaintiff’s

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because

the claim arose solely from the defendant’s transportation and

delivery services. Id. at 1249 (noting that if the defendant had

intentionally injured plaintiffs, the plaintiff’s claim would not

have been preempted). Similarly, the Fifth Circuit held that

the Carmack Amendment preempted a claim for intentional

infliction of emotional distress when the plaintiff alleged only

that a moving company failed to timely deliver its belongings.

Moffit v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 6 F.3d 305, 306 (5th Cir.

1993). To hold otherwise, the Fifth Circuit reasoned, would

have defeated Congress’ purpose of creating uniform legislation to govern interstate shipping contracts. Id. at 307. 

[6] In contrast, two circuits have articulated rules that focus

on harm. The First Circuit has stated, without deciding, that

“a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress alleges

a harm . . . that is independent from the loss or damage to

goods and . . . would not be preempted.” Rini v. United Van

Lines, Inc., 104 F.3d 502, 506 (1st Cir. 1997) (emphasis

added). Relying on this dicta, the Seventh Circuit held that a

plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress

was not preempted when the plaintiff alleged “liability on a

ground that [was] separate and distinct from the loss of, or the

damage to, the goods . . . .” Gordon v. United Van Lines, Inc.,

130 F.3d 282, 289 (7th Cir. 1997). 

[7] Although the Seventh Circuit adopted the First Circuit’s

language focusing on harm, the Seventh Circuit’s holding in

Gordon was actually motivated by the defendant’s conduct.

Id. at 283, 290. The Seventh Circuit was troubled by the fact

that the defendant lied to the plaintiff and engaged in a “four12734 WHITE v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT
month course of deception pertaining to [their] nondelivery.”

Id. Indeed, a rule focusing on harm to the exclusion of conduct would contradict the Supreme Court’s statement that

“[t]he words of the statute ‘are comprehensive enough to

embrace all damages resulting from any failure to discharge

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

to the agreed destination.’ ” Se. Express Co. v. Pastime

Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28, 29 (1936) (per curiam); see also

Ga., Fla. & Ala. Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190,

196 (1916). 

[8] We hold that the Carmack Amendment preempts a

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress to the

extent that it arises from the same conduct as the claims for

delay, loss or damage to shipped property. In this case,

White’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress

is preempted because it is based solely on the same conduct

giving rise to his claims for property damage. 

IV

White’s claims for property damage fall within the scope of

a final and binding arbitration award. The Carmack Amendment provides a complete defense to White’s claims for negligence, fraud and improper billing, and it preempts White’s

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

AFFIRMED. 

WHITE v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT 12735