416 F.Supp.3d 1290
W.D. Okla.2019Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Loyd was severely injured in a collision with a tractor‑trailer driven by Robiet Leon Carrazana and operated by Salazar d/b/a RAS Trucking.
- Plaintiff sued AG Source, Inc. (AGS), a freight broker, alleging negligent hiring/negligent brokering for selecting Salazar despite a DOT "Conditional" rating and prior safety violations.
- AGS moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on grounds that federal statutes preempt state tort claims: the ICCTA (49 U.S.C. §14501(b)) and the FAAAA (49 U.S.C. §14501(c)).
- The Amended Complaint did not allege whether the brokered shipment was intrastate or interstate.
- The court found AGS failed to show ICCTA preemption (§14501(b)) because that provision is limited to intrastate services and the complaint lacked facts establishing intrastate brokering.
- The court held Loyd’s negligent‑brokering claim is expressly preempted by the FAAAA (§14501(c)(1)) and is not saved by the FAAAA safety exception (§14501(c)(2)(A)); AGS was dismissed and the case proceeds against the carrier and driver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §14501(b) (ICCTA) preempts Loyd's negligent‑brokering claim | Loyd did not explicitly plead intrastate activity; omission curable; broker liability not covered by ICCTA | AGS: §14501(b) bars state laws relating to broker services and thus preempts the claim | Denied: §14501(b) targets intrastate services; AGS failed to show the brokerage was intrastate from the pleadings |
| Whether §14501(c)(1) (FAAAA) preempts the negligent‑brokering claim | Loyd: common‑law tort protects highway safety and should not be displaced | AGS: brokering is a service related to transportation; negligent brokering directly relates to broker services and is preempted | Granted: claim is expressly preempted by §14501(c)(1) because it relates to broker services in arranging carriage of property |
| Whether §14501(c)(2)(A) (safety exception) saves the negligent‑brokering claim | Loyd: safety exception should cover negligent brokering because it protects motoring public from unsafe carriers | AGS: exception concerns safety regulations "with respect to motor vehicles," not duties about selecting carriers | Denied: exception is limited to regulations concerning motor vehicles; negligent brokering targets carrier selection (indirect) and thus is not within the exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading‑standard: plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading‑standard: factual plausibility)
- Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (U.S. 2013) (focus on statutory text to identify preempted domain)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1992) (preemption inquiry begins with congressional language and ordinary meaning)
- Rowe v. N.H. Motor Trans. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (U.S. 2008) (FAAAA scope analyzed using ADA precedent)
- Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (U.S. 2014) (state common‑law rules can fall within airline preemption)
- City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (U.S. 2002) (safety‑exception preserves traditional state police power over safety)
- Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 1998) (ADA did not preempt ordinary personal‑injury tort claims)