MARTIN v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.
3:21-cv-13363
| D.N.J. | Jan 20, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Noam Martin bought goods from an overseas merchant (Brickshop Holland) shipped to New Jersey by DHL Express (DHLE). DHLE contracted with the merchant to transport the goods.
- After the goods entered the U.S., DHLE sent notice to Martin demanding payment of import duties (warning that parcels would be returned if unpaid) and later delivered the package after payment.
- Martin alleges DHLE included an undisclosed, uniform $17 “service charge” in the duty demand that was not reimbursement for any government duty but additional profit.
- Martin filed a putative class action first asserting statutory/common-law claims; after a preemption challenge he amended to allege a breach-of-contract claim based on DHLE’s emails and website forming an agreement to deliver in exchange for reimbursement of duties.
- DHLE moved to dismiss, arguing the claim is preempted by the ADA and FAAAA because it relates to DHLE’s prices/services and is in substance a fraud/unjust-enrichment claim; the court held the FAC alleges misrepresentation/unjust enrichment tied to pricing and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend denied as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAC falls within the breach-of-contract exception to ADA/FAAAA preemption | Martin: DHLE’s emails/website constituted an offer; by reimbursing duties recipients accepted a private contract limited to reimbursement of duties; charging the $17 exceeded that contract | DHLE: The claim attacks DHLE’s rates/services (duty+service fee) and is therefore preempted; the claim is really fraud/unjust enrichment | Court: The allegations amount to a misrepresentation about pricing (a price/service issue) and are preempted; the contract-exception does not save the claim |
| Whether the FAC plausibly alleges a breach of contract | Martin: He performed by paying the demanded charge; DHLE promised delivery in exchange for reimbursement | DHLE: Martin does not allege DHLE failed to perform; charging a fee is not nonperformance | Court: No plausible breach — charging the disputed fee is not a failure to perform; the allegations more closely mirror fraud/unjust enrichment |
| Whether leave to amend should be allowed | Martin: Previously amended after an initial dismissal motion | DHLE: Dismissal is appropriate and amendment would be futile | Court: Amendment would be futile; dismissal granted and file closed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply Twombly/Iqbal framework to pleadings)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (ADA preemption bars state laws related to price, route, or service)
- Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (private contract claims are not necessarily preempted)
- Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (2014) (preemption scope; DOT enforcement remedies discussed)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (FAAAA trucking preemption interpreted analogously to ADA)
- Volt Info. Scis. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989) (interpretation of private contracts is a matter of state law)
- Woytas v. Greenwood Tree Experts, Inc., 206 A.3d 386 (N.J. 2019) (elements of breach of contract under New Jersey law)
- Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc., 70 A.3d 544 (N.J. 2013) (contract formation requires offer, acceptance, consideration)