Opinion ID: 615540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Carmack Amendment

Text: The Carmack Amendment governs the terms of interstate shipment by domestic rail and motor carriers. See Regal-Beloit, 557 F.3d at 990. [6] Carmack was enacted in 1906 as an amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. See id. It has since been amended repeatedly, but its purpose has always been to relieve cargo owners `of the burden of searching out a particular negligent carrier from among the often numerous carriers handling an interstate shipment of goods.' Kawasaki, 130 S.Ct. at 2441 (quoting Reider v. Thompson, 339 U.S. 113, 119, 70 S.Ct. 499, 94 L.Ed. 698 (1950)). Part of the relief guaranteed to shippers was the right of the shipper to sue the carrier in a convenient forum of the shipper's choice. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 537 F.2d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1976). When interpreting Carmack: Our analysis begins, as it must, with the text of the statute in question. Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278, 1285 (9th Cir.2005). Under the plain meaning rule, [w]here the language [of a statute] is plain and admits of no more than one meaning the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion. Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863, 878 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)). Campbell v. Allied Van Lines Inc., 410 F.3d 618, 620-21 (9th Cir.2005) (alteration in original). Carmack's statutory scheme is clearly intended to protect shippers from being forced to submit to foreign arbitration as a condition of contracting with a carrier of household goods. To begin with, Carmack expressly prohibits carriers of household goods from contracting around the statute's requirements. See 49 U.S.C. § 14101(b)(1) (A carrier providing transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 may enter into a contract with a shipper, other than for the movement of household goods described in section 13102(10)(A), to provide specified services under specified rates and conditions.). It is undisputed that AVL is a carrier of household goods and therefore prohibited from contracting around Carmack's conditions. One of these inalienable requirements is that the shipper be permitted to sue in certain venues when a dispute arises. Carmack provides that, when suing the delivering carrier, [a] civil action ... may be brought ... in a district court of the United States ... in a judicial district ... through which the defendant carrier operates. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(d)(1). Or, when suing the carrier alleged to have caused the damage, [a] civil action ... may be brought ... in the judicial district in which such loss or damage is alleged to have occurred. Id. § 14706(d)(2). These provisions assure the shipper a choice of forums as plaintiff. See Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 252, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 158 L.Ed.2d 529 (2004) (`Statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.') (quoting Park `N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 194, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985)). [7] The requirement that the shipper not be forced to select a forum at the time of contracting is confirmed by Carmack's own arbitration provision. Section 14708 mandates that motor carriers offer arbitration to shippers of household goods shipped collect-on-delivery. 49 U.S.C. § 14708(a), (f). Such arbitration, however, is permissible only when the shipper agrees to arbitrate after the dispute arises. See id. § 14708(b)(6) (The carrier must not require the shipper to agree to utilize arbitration prior to the time that a dispute arises.). Moreover, if a shipper elects to arbitrate, an oral presentation of the dispute may be required only if all parties to the dispute expressly agree to such presentation, id. § 14708(b)(7), so the shipper cannot be required to appear in an inconvenient forum even if he chooses arbitration. These provisions operate together to protect the shipper from being forced to arbitrate his claims as a condition to contracting with a household carrier. Thus, under the plain meaning of the statute, after a dispute arises the shipper may either accept a carrier's offer to arbitrate or decline arbitration and sue in one of Carmack's enumerated venues. At the time of contracting, however, a carrier of household goods may not force the shipper to relinquish his right to sue in one of those venues. AVL's foreign arbitration clause would allow AVL to compel Smallwood to arbitrate, probably in the UAE. We have held that foreign arbitration clauses are but a subset of foreign forum selection clauses in general. See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. M.V. DSR Atl., 131 F.3d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The parties' foreign arbitration clause plainly contravenes Carmack's directive that Smallwood have recourse in the enumerated venues unless he agrees to arbitrate elsewhere after the dispute arises. AVL raises a final argument based on analogy to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. § 30701. COGSA is a regulatory regime for ocean carriage akin to the Carmack regime for motor and rail carriage. The Supreme Court has held that COGSA permits foreign forum selection clauses, see Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 541, 115 S.Ct. 2322, 132 L.Ed.2d 462 (1995), and we have extended that rule to foreign arbitration clauses, see Fireman's Fund, 131 F.3d at 1339. Sky Reefer and COGSA, however, are inapposite here. Whereas Carmack explicitly guarantees shippers certain venues to seek recourse against their carriers, COGSA only generally prohibits ocean carriers from using contracts relieving [their] liability for loss or damage to or in connection with the goods, arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this section, or lessening such liability. COGSA, § 3(8), 46 U.S.C. § 30701 note (quoted by Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. at 534, 115 S.Ct. 2322). Sky Reefer interpreted COGSA's prohibition on contracts lessening liability to apply only to the liability explicitly articulated in COGSA and not to extend to procedural issues affecting the shipper's ease of recovery. See 515 U.S. at 534-35, 115 S.Ct. 2322 (emphasizing the phrase duties and obligations provided in this section). Because Carmack expressly prohibits carriers of household goods from contracting around its venue provisions, and because Smallwood does not rely on a general prohibition on lessening carriers' liability, Sky Reefer and its interpretation of COGSA § 3(8) are inapposite to our interpretation of Carmack. [8] For the foregoing reasons we agree with the district court's interpretation of § 14706. Foreign arbitration clauses, except as provided in § 14708, are unenforceable under Carmack because they necessarily involve limiting shippers' choice of venues enumerated in the statute.