Peterfai v. USA Logistics Inc.
3:23-cv-01695
S.D. Cal.Jun 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, Laszlo G. Peterfai and Sarah Jane Peterfai, allege they were defrauded by moving companies and individuals associated with their interstate move from California to Texas in 2022.
- Plaintiffs claim they were provided with misleading low-cost moving estimates, forced to pay much larger sums after their property was loaded on moving trucks, and threatened with loss or destruction of property if demands were not met.
- After final delivery, Plaintiffs discovered most items were damaged or missing, and the insurance claim process offered them inadequate compensation.
- Plaintiffs assert claims under federal RICO, California RICO, the Carmack Amendment, and various state law theories (conversion, fraud, negligence, unfair competition).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on various grounds, including preemption, failure to state a claim, insufficient specificity, and limitations based on the Bill of Lading.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and allowed leave to amend for some claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incorporation of Bill of Lading | Bill of Lading not authenticated by defendants; dispute over accuracy | Terms of Bill govern and limit damages | Court declined to incorporate; dispute precludes considering it at motion to dismiss stage |
| RICO and CA RICO Claims | FAC now states specific facts and predicate acts | Plaintiffs did not plead sufficient detail or continuity; failed Rule 9(b) | Dismissed both federal and CA RICO claims for lack of specificity and pattern of racketeering |
| Preemption under Carmack Amendment | Some claims (fraud-based) are independent and survive preemption | All state/common law claims against carriers are preempted | Most state claims preempted as to Carrier Defendants but not as to Non-Carrier Defendants |
| Conversion Claim (Non-Carrier Defendants) | Defendants wrongfully interfered/withheld property | Plaintiffs did not allege wrongful dominion/unjust enrichment | Sufficiently pleaded against Non-Carrier Defendants; motion to dismiss denied |
| Constructive Fraud (Hercules) | Hercules owed fiduciary duty as broker/agent for Plaintiffs | No fiduciary duty or alleged relationship | Sufficient to allege claim in alternative; not dismissed |
| Claims against Individual Defendants | Agents liable for their own tortious acts | Not enough detail tying individuals to wrongdoing | Claims survive motion to dismiss at this stage |
| Claims against Rado | — | No specific factual allegations | All claims against Rado dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Pleading standard plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (No dismissal unless no cognizable claim)
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (Dismissal proper only if no legal theory or insufficient facts)
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (Scope of material considered on 12(b)(6))
- United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep’t, AFL-CIO, 770 F.3d 834 (RICO elements)
- Campbell v. Allied Van Lines Inc., 410 F.3d 618 (Carmack Amendment preemption)
- Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683 (Carmack as exclusive remedy for interstate shipment claims)
- N.Y., New Haven & Hartford RR Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128 (Federal preemption for interstate carrier liability)
- Graham-Sult v. Clainos, 756 F.3d 724 (Elements of conversion claim)