Asarco LLC v. England Logistics Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176784
D. Ariz.2014Background
- ASARCO shipped 55 copper anodes from Hayden, AZ to Amarillo, TX in July 2011; the shipment never arrived and is missing.
- ASARCO sues under the Carmack Amendment against Plumley Trucking, Inc. (PT) and Plumley Logistics, Inc. (PL), and alternatively asserts state-law negligence, negligent hiring/retention, and breach-of-contract claims (against PL/PT and England Logistics/CR England).
- Key factual dispute: whether PL and/or PT acted as a broker or as a motor carrier (i.e., whether they legally bound themselves to transport the load), and whether PL and PT operate as a single, interrelated enterprise.
- Relevant written agreements: a 2010 "Transportation Brokerage Agreement" between England Logistics (EL) and PL (PL signed, EL’s signature blank) and a 2008 agreement listing PT as carrier and CR/EL as broker; agreements contain indemnity and anti-rebroker provisions.
- Procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment. Magistrate judge (by consent) denies summary judgment on Carmack and contract claims where factual disputes exist; grants summary judgment dismissing state-law negligence claims as preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c); grants CR England summary judgment for lack of evidence of involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the Carmack Amendment to PL/PT (broker vs. carrier) | PL/PT functioned as carrier or held themselves out as combined carrier/broker, so Carmack applies | PL is a broker (no motor authority); PT had no involvement or did not accept carriage | Question of fact for jury: summary judgment denied as to Carmack claim against Plumley Defendants |
| Whether the England–Plumley agreements apply to this shipment (and whether ASARCO is third‑party beneficiary) | Agreements (and indemnity) governed the transaction; PL agreed to obligations when doing business with EL | PL says agreement never executed by EL and does not govern broker-to-broker transactions | Question of fact: summary judgment denied on contract claim; ASARCO MPSJ denied |
| State-law negligence/ negligent-hiring claims (preemption under 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)) | Broker/carrier negligence and negligent hiring are ordinary duties enforceable under state law | Claims would regulate broker/ carrier services and thus are preempted by § 14501(c) | Held preempted: summary judgment granted for all defendants on Counts II & III (negligence claims) |
| Liability of C.R. England (separate from England Logistics) | CR may be involved through corporate relationship with EL | CR had no involvement with the shipment | Held: summary judgment for CR England; no evidence of involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment evidence and inferences rule)
- Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (elements for Carmack prima facie case)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (preemption under airline deregulation act/related-to standard)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (preemption analysis and market‑force concerns)
- Hall v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683 (Carmack Amendment exclusivity for interstate‑shipping contract claims)
- Hewlett‑Packard Co. v. Brother’s Trucking Enterprises, 373 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (broker vs. carrier inquiry)
- Chubb Group of Ins. Co. v. H.A. Transportation Systems, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (Carmack and broker distinction)