Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 26, 2022

Woodruff v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:22-cv-04194
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissContractTort
In one sentence

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.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Woodruff v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-04194
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.