Schneider Electric USA, Inc. et al v. Landstar Inway, Inc.

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Amended Complaint by Defendant Landstar Inway, Inc; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Amended Complaint by Defendant East River Lumber & Grain, Inc. In doing so, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs contract claim. This case shall proceed on the basis of Count Two of the Amended Complaint, for damages pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 3/28/2012. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., :
A/K/A SQUARE D COMPANY,
:
et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
LANDSTAR INWAY, INC.,
:
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:

NO:

1:11-CV-00801

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss (docs. 10, 17), Plaintiffs’ Responses in Opposition (docs.
14, 20), and Defendants’ Replies (docs. 19, 22).
indicated

herein,

the

Court

GRANTS

For the reasons

Defendants’

motion,

and

DISMISSES Count One of the Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Schneider Electric U.S.A., Inc. entered into a
transportation contract with Landstar Inway Inc. to move electrical
equipment, which was damaged in transit after the equipment became
untarped.

After the delivery, Plaintiffs filed this action, and

then amended their Complaint so as to assert a breach of contract
claim as well as a claim under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. §
14706 (doc. 7).

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’

contract claim, contending such claim is preempted by the Carmack
Amendment (docs. 10, 17).
Plaintiffs have responded that their contract claim is
not preempted because they pleaded that 1) Landstar was a bailee or

warehouseman, and 2) their claim for breach of contract for
attorneys’ fees and costs is separate and distinct from the harm to
the allegedly damaged equipment at issue (doc. 14).

Landstar

replies, citing the Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith, of this Court,
who stated in 2006 in an identical case that, “[t]he applicable
definition

of

encompasses
relating

to

‘transportation,’

storage,
damage

as
to

well

as

shipped

preempted.” (doc. 19, quoting

[in

the

Carmack

shipment”
goods

such

while

Amendment]

that

stored

“claims

are

also

Hemsath v. J. Herschel Kendrick

Moving and Storage, No. 1:06-CV-04, 2006 WL 1000189 *2 (S.D. Ohio
April 14, 2006)).

Defendants further reply that Plaintiffs’ claim

for breach of contract for attorney’s fees and costs cannot be
considered separate and distinct from the alleged delivery, loss
of, or damage to the equipment (Id.).

In Defendants’ view,

Plaintiffs failed to plead that such claims are separate and
distinct, and in any event such claims would arise from a breach of
contract claim, which is clearly preempted (Id.).
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds Defendants’
position well-taken that Plaintiffs’ contract claim is preempted by
the Carmack Amendment.
491

(1913).

The

Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S.

contract

at

issue

in

this

dispute

is

a

transportation contract, and it is inconceivable that any of
Plaintiffs’ claims in this matter fall outside of the scope of the
Carmack Amendment. This case is about damaged goods that travelled

2

in interstate commerce, and it falls squarely within the Carmack
Amendment, which preempts state law claims.

W.D. Lawson & Co. v.

Penn. Central Co., 456 F.2d 419, 421 (6th Cir. 1972)(“As to the. .
.issue. . .[of] whether or not the Carmack Amendment preempted
common law suits. . . we hold that it did.”), Hemsath, 2006 WL
1000189 *1 (S.D. Ohio April 14, 2006), Great West Cas. Co. v.
Flandrich, No. 2:07-CV-1002, 2009 WL 824719 *8 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31,
2009).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss

Count

One

of

Amended

Complaint

DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ contract claim.

(docs.

10,

17),

and

This case shall proceed on

the basis of Count Two of the Amended Complaint, for damages
pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2012

s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

3