60 So. 3d 426
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- DHL contracted with the State of Florida to provide courier services with surcharges tied to fuel price increases above a base price.
- New York residents Grupp and Moll filed a circuit court qui tam action under Florida False Claims Act alleging DHL billed aviation fuel surcharges when shipments did not travel by air and diesel surcharges for ground deliveries were charged despite costs borne by DHL's independent contractors.
- Copies of the complaint were served on appropriate state officials under Florida law; the State declined to intervene and the case proceeded in the circuit court.
- DHL moved to dismiss on the grounds of federal preemption under the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA); the circuit court denied the motion.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of prohibition, holding the action is preempted and directing dismissal; the court conducted de novo review of legal questions and concluded lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over the preempted claim.
- The court applied Morales and Wolens to conclude the qui tam suit relates to DHL’s rates, routes, or services and resembles preempted consumer-fraud actions rather than a permissible contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do ADA/FAAAA preempt the qui tam suit? | Grupp/Moll contend the suit regulates false claims and is not a pricing statute. | DHL/WF argue the suit relates to prices, routes, or services—within preemption. | Yes; preempted under ADA/FAAAA. |
| Does the market participant exception apply to defeat preemption? | State acts as market participant and thus may regulate under True exception. | State actions here deter false claims, not a market participation contract. | No; exception inapplicable; preemption stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (broad 'relating to' preemption of state enforcement actions targeting rates/routes/services)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (preemption of fraud/deceptive practices claims; breach of contract claims may survive)
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (treble damages indicate punitive deterrence, not amelioration of liability)
- Rittman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (de novo standard for legal questions in related context)
- Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2005) (courts view federal preemption as jurisdictional in certain questions)
- Am. Mar. Officers Union v. Merriken, 981 So.2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (illustrates jurisdictional approach to preemption in Florida courts)