Peters et al v. Liberty Bell Moving Group et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Plfs are GRANTED to and including 3/31/2020, to file an amended complaint that complies with the FRCP and the requirements set out in this Order; (2) Dft Liberty's 2 motion to dism iss is DENIED without prejudice to reassert any arguments that may be relevant to the amended complaint; and (3) Plfs are DIRECTED to show cause, on or before 3/31/2020, why their action against Dft Direct Van Lines, should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) FRCP. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/5/2020. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENDALL PETERS and SHARON
DANNEN-PETERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LIBERTY BELL MOVING GROUP
and DIRECT VAN LINES
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:19-CV-182-WKW
[WO]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Defendant Liberty Bell Moving Group’s motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim and for improper venue. (Doc. # 2.) A review of that
motion and Plaintiffs’ response to it (Doc. # 16) reveals that this action, which arises
out of the interstate transportation of household goods, needs a roadmap. Defendant
Direct Van Lines Services, Inc., the motor carrier that transported and allegedly
damaged and lost Plaintiffs’ personal property, has been off the map for more than
eleventh months without any service (of process).
Plaintiffs and Liberty are
operating with a map, but the jurisdictional coordinates are wrong. The parties are
making little progress on the litigation roadway. A repleading of the complaint to
update the roadmap, as well as proper service, will go a long way in aiding the
navigation of this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege that, in March 2018, they contracted with Defendant Liberty
Bell Moving Group (“Liberty”) and Direct Van Lines Services, Inc. (“Direct Van
Lines”) to move their personal belongings 834 miles from Fairfax, Virginia, to
Coffee County, Alabama. When Direct Van Lines showed up belatedly with the
delivery, many of Plaintiffs’ belongings were lost or damaged. Plaintiffs sued
Liberty and Direct Van Lines for breach of contract in the Circuit Court of Coffee
County, Alabama. Liberty promptly removed the action, contending that a federal
question existed based upon the complete preemptive effect of the Carmack
Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“ICCTA”),
49 U.S.C. § 14706, or, alternatively, under the preemption provision of the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).1
Denying Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, the court found that removal jurisdiction was
proper under the Carmack Amendment. (Doc. # 13.) Liberty now moves to dismiss
the claim against it for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for improper venue
based on a contractual forum-selection clause.
II. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this Order is to give the parties step-by-step directions on how
to get this case back on the litigation route. Plaintiffs must file an amended
1
Hereafter, 49 U.S.C. § 14706 is referred to as the “Carmack Amendment,” and 49 U.S.C.
§ 14501(c)(1) is referred to as “FAAAA.”
2
complaint alleging proper grounds for jurisdiction and claims that comply with
notice pleading. They also must serve Direct Van Lines or risk the dismissal of this
defendant.
First, a prior order established the jurisdictional highway (Doc. # 13), but
Plaintiffs have not amended their complaint to reflect the circumstances. In their
complaint, Plaintiffs allege a state-law, breach-of-contract claim against Direct Van
Lines. But, as previously explained, Direct Van Lines is a carrier to which the
Carmack Amendment applies. See Essex Ins. Co. v. Barrett Moving & Storage, Inc.,
885 F.3d 1292, 1300 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he Carmack Amendment preempts statelaw claims against interstate motor carriers who ‘provide motor vehicle
transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under [the Interstate Commerce Act]’
and replaces those state-law claims with its strict-liability provision.”). The breachof-contract claim against Direct Van Lines is to be replaced by the Carmack
Amendment claim, which confers federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs never filed
an amended complaint. The complaint remains in its original format.
Second, Plaintiffs must replead the breach-of-contract claim against Liberty.
Plaintiffs plead that Liberty is a broker. (See Doc. # 1-1, ¶ 7 (alleging that Liberty
is “the brokerage company that contracted the business out to Plaintiffs” and “is . . .
responsible and liable for the damaged and missing property”).) The Carmack
Amendment “does not apply to brokers”; it only applies to carriers. Essex Ins. Co.,
885 F.3d at 1300.
While Liberty advanced the FAAAA as an alternative
3
jurisdictional route for removal, there is caselaw that this Act does not preempt statelaw, breach-of-contract claims against brokers. See Chatelaine, Inc. v. Twin Modal,
Inc., 737 F. Supp. 2d 638, 642–43 (N.D. Tex. 2010) (finding that the FAAAA
preempted state-law claims arising from the interstate transportation of goods other
than for breach of contract). Liberty cites no authority to the contrary; its briefing is
silent on this point. Hence, the state-law, breach-of-contract claim against Liberty
remains, but the jurisdictional route is 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiffs must amend the
complaint to add § 1367 as a jurisdictional basis.
Third, the parties’ briefing has uncovered that two contracts are at issue, not
one as implied by the complaint. (See Doc. # 2-1, 2-2.) As Liberty points out, and
as Plaintiffs acknowledge, there was an interstate bill of lading between Kendall
Peters and Direct Van Lines, and there was a Binding Moving Estimate between
Kendall Peters and Liberty. Plaintiffs must specify which contracts are the bases for
which claims.
Fourth and relatedly, Plaintiffs must identify the basis for Plaintiff Sharon
Dannen-Peters’s claims. There is no mention of her in the contracts.
Fifth, Liberty represents that it is now named Relocate US, LLC, but that it
was formerly known as Liberty Moving Group, LLC. Plaintiffs should explore
whether Liberty needs a new description in the complaint.
Sixth, the Binding Moving Estimate contains a forum-selection clause, which
Liberty has invoked. (Doc. # 2.) Plaintiffs gave short shrift to the forum-selection
4
clause. (Doc. # 16, at 7.) Because the state-law, breach-of-contract claim against
Liberty is not preempted, Liberty’s enforcement of the forum-selection clause
appears to stand on solid footing. Cf. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal–Beloit
Corp., 561 U.S. 89, 98 (2010) (stating in dicta that, “if [the Carmack Amendment’s]
terms apply to the bills of lading here, the cargo owners would have a substantial
argument that the Tokyo forum-selection clause in the bills is preempted by
Carmack’s venue provisions”).
Plaintiffs must amend the complaint to identify (1) a short and plain statement
of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the
Carmack Amendment claim against Direct Van Lines, showing that each Plaintiff is
entitled to relief, and (3) a short and plain statement of the state-law, breach-ofcontract claim against Liberty (with Liberty’s correct legal name), showing that each
Plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Liberty’s motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice. However,
should Liberty reassert its venue argument, Plaintiffs should be prepared to respond.
The court will not extend deadlines further, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Finally, Plaintiffs must address the status of Direct Van Lines.
5
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Plaintiffs are GRANTED to and including March 31, 2020, to file an
amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
requirements set out in this Order;
(2)
Defendant Liberty’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 2) is DENIED without
prejudice to reassert any arguments that may be relevant to the amended complaint;
and
(3)
Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to show cause, on or before March 31, 2020,
why their action against Defendant Direct Van Lines, should not be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE this 5th day of March, 2020.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?