Joe Solo v. United Parcel Service Co.
819 F.3d 788
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Joe Solo and BleachTech sued UPS on behalf of a nationwide class, alleging UPS overcharged customers for declared-value liability coverage by charging for the first $100 of coverage that UPS’s published rates represented would be provided at no additional charge.
- The dispute turns on the interpretation of UPS’s Shipping Contract/Service Guide fee chart: one line item shows $0.00 for declared values $0.00–$100.00 and a $0.85 per $100 charge for declared values $100.01–$50,000. Plaintiffs read the chart to mean UPS should not charge for the first $100 increment; UPS interprets “total value declared” to include the first $100.
- Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, declaratory relief, a claim under 49 U.S.C. § 13708(b) (prohibiting a person from causing a motor carrier to present false or misleading billing information), and unjust enrichment (in the alternative).
- The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) as a matter of law, accepting UPS’s interpretation of the Service Guide and rejecting the § 13708(b) and unjust enrichment theories.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 13708(b) claim but reversed dismissal of breach of contract and unjust enrichment (remanding for further proceedings), holding the Service Guide language is at least ambiguous and thus a fact question for the jury; it also allowed unjust enrichment to be pleaded in the alternative and deferred FAAAA preemption resolution to the district court on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract: interpretation of Service Guide fee chart | The $0.85 per $100 charge applies only to $100.01–$50,000 increments, so UPS should not charge for the first $100 that the chart indicates is free | “Total value declared” plainly means the entire declared amount, so the $0.85 calculation may include the first $100 increment | Reversed dismissal — reasonable minds could differ; provision is at least ambiguous and is a question of fact for the jury |
| Unjust enrichment (alternative pleading and preemption) | Plaintiffs may plead unjust enrichment in the alternative if UPS may deny contractual privity with some shippers (third-party retailers); unjust enrichment is not categorically preempted by FAAAA here | Contract existence precludes unjust enrichment; alternatively, state-law unjust enrichment claims may be preempted by FAAAA | Reversed dismissal as to pleading; unjust enrichment allowed in the alternative; FAAAA preemption not decided on appeal and left to district court on remand |
| 49 U.S.C. § 13708(b) (truth-in-billing cause of action) | Service Guide is a “document” reflecting an actual charge; UPS (or an affiliate/employee) caused a motor carrier to publish misleading information | The statute forbids a "person" from causing a motor carrier to misrepresent rates; a carrier cannot be alleged to have caused itself to mislead under § 13708(b) | Affirmed dismissal — complaint failed to plausibly allege a distinct “person” caused a separate “motor carrier” to present misleading billing; self‑causation insufficient |
| Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard and use of documentary terms incorporated by reference | Allegations that UPS acknowledged overcharges and issued refunds support that plaintiffs’ interpretation is plausible and warrants discovery | Contract language is unambiguous; court may resolve interpretation as a matter of law at 12(b)(6) stage | Court accepts factual allegations as true for pleading purposes and finds ambiguity; dismissal improper for breach claim, but § 13708(b) lacked sufficient factual predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard explained)
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) (court may consider documents incorporated by reference on a motion to dismiss)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (airline contract claims not preempted by federal deregulation where suit enforces carrier’s own promises)
- Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 134 S. Ct. 1422 (2014) (duty-based common-law claims that impose state policy obligations can be preempted by federal deregulation statute)