Woodruff v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04194
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Woodruff v. Atlas Van Lines, Judge Corley granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss three claims because federal law exclusively governs lost or damaged shipments.
Katie Woodruff and Matt Childers, whose breach-of-contract, negligence, and good-faith-and-fair-dealing claims were dismissed, and Atlas Van Lines, Inc. and the other defendants, who obtained dismissal of those claims.
What happened
In Woodruff v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Katie Woodruff and Matt Childers said movers lost their household belongings when the truck carrying them caught fire during relocation from California to Washington. They claimed the items were worth $302,577.11.
The defendants argued that the federal Carmack Amendment was the only remedy for the alleged loss and that it displaced the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted the motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 4: breach of contract, negligence, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The opinion does not state a disposition for Count 3.
The detailed version
- Woodruff v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-04194
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 26, 2022
Background
Matt Childers accepted a job with Meta, Inc., formerly Facebook, Inc., in Redmond, Washington. At the time, Childers and Katie Woodruff resided in Tiburon, California. Meta provided the plaintiffs with a paid relocation package.
The defendants packed and loaded the plaintiffs’ household goods in California and agreed to deliver them to Washington. The truck carrying the belongings caught fire while traveling to Washington, and the items on board were treated as a total loss. The plaintiffs alleged that the replacement value of the lost items was $302,577.11.
The plaintiffs filed suit in Marin County Superior Court, asserting four claims: breach of contract; negligence; strict liability under 49 U.S.C. § 14706; and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 4. The plaintiffs filed a statement indicating that they did not oppose the motion.
Legal issue
The defendants argued that the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, provides the exclusive cause of action for the plaintiffs’ claims. The court explained that the Carmack Amendment is the exclusive remedy for contract claims involving delay, loss, failure to deliver, or damage to property. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court also concluded that this preemption extends to negligence claims and that the Amendment provides a complete defense to common-law claims alleging these types of harms.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 4. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and stated that the order disposed of the motion at Docket No. 4. The opinion does not state a disposition for Count 3, the strict-liability claim under 49 U.S.C. § 14706.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.