Jeffrey A. Prussin v. Bekins Van Lines, LLC
5:13-cv-02874
N.D. Cal.Feb 3, 2015Background
- Prussins planned to move from New York to Florida using Bekins; TCM packed and initially stored their belongings in Amityville, NY.
- Planned destination changed to California; belongings remained in TCM’s Amityville warehouse until Bekins picked them up in December 2009 for interstate transport.
- Plaintiffs allege damages or loss to property upon unpacking in California; defendants dispute damages.
- Prussins sue Bekins and TCM for negligence and Carmack Amendment violations; TCM moves for partial summary judgment arguing it is a broker, not a carrier.
- Court applies summary judgment standard; Rule 56(d) continuance request by plaintiffs is denied, but summary judgment is deemed inappropriate on the Carmack issue.
- Court recognizes the Carmack Amendment applies to carriers and preempts state claims against carriers, but not to brokers; material facts remain as to whether TCM acted as a broker or carrier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Carmack preemption apply to brokers? | TCM is a broker; Carmack preempts state claims against carriers only. | Carmack does not apply to brokers; cannot preempt negligence claims against TCM. | Carmack preemption does not apply to brokers. |
| Is TCM a broker or a carrier for the Prussins’ move? | TCM held out as Bekins; acted as or with Bekins in interstate transport. | TCM was an intrastate moving/storage company and a local booking agent for Bekins, not an interstate carrier. | Material fact dispute; triable issue on TCM’s broker vs. carrier status. |
| Did TCM hold itself out as interstate carrier or Bekins equivalent? | Evidence shows Bekins and TCM were blended; emails and contracts indicate joint responsibility. | Evidence shows TCM simply arranged within New York; Bekins performed interstate carriage. | Material fact dispute; issue for jury whether TCM held itself out as Bekins. |
| Should the court grant Rule 56(d) discovery continuance? | Discovery would clarify TCM’s status and preemption implications. | Discovery not justified; no need for delay. | Rule 56(d) continuance denied; however summary judgment still inappropriate on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. NNR Aircargo Service (USA), Inc., 201 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (Carmack Amendment liability framework for carriers)
- Read-Rite Corp. v. Burlington Air Express, Ltd., 186 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 1999) (preemption scope under Carmack; carriers vs. brokers)
- Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1900) (definition of carrier under Carmack preemption framework)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard for proving absence of triable issues)
- Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden-shifting on summary judgment; evidence required)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden for moving party to show absence of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts; genuine issue standard for summary judgment)