Agro Trading International LLC v. Maersk Line Limited, 2:13-cv-09440

Defendant Maersk Line, Limited removed the case to federal court alleging federal question jurisdiction under COGSA, 46 U.S.C. § 30701 note.
Plaintiff Argo Trading International, LLC filed a FAC in Los Angeles Superior Court asserting cargo damage, negligence/willful conduct, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and bailment claims related to melons shipped from Guatemala to Los Angeles.
Plaintiff alleged melons were delivered damaged on December 10, 2012, seeking at least $187,357.36 in damages.
The Court scrutinized whether COGSA completely preempts the state-law claims, potentially allowing removal under the complete preemption doctrine.
Because the FAC did not specify where the damage occurred in the shipping process or whether the contract invoked COGSA, the Court found lack of complete preemption and remanded to state court.
Procedural posture: this is a remand order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does COGSA completely preempt the claims to allow removal?	Argo argues COGSA completely preempts the state-law claims.	Maersk contends COGSA preemption provides federal jurisdiction.	No complete preemption established; remand proper.
Did the FAC show damage occurred during tackle-to-tackle period to fall within COGSA?	FAC indicates damages but not timing; argues COGSA applicability.	COGSA applies if damage occurred during tackle-to-tackle period.	FAC failed to show tackle-to-tackle timing; insufficient to invoke COGSA.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (establishes limits of federal jurisdiction and removal)
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction)
Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 1998) (complete preemption doctrine exception)