Russell v. Moving Proz LLC
2:24-cv-02449
| D. Kan. | Dec 2, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Sydni Russell hired Moving Proz LLC to transport her household belongings from Kansas to Louisiana.
- During the move, a Moving Proz truck, operated by its driver, was in an accident in Arkansas, resulting in damage, destruction, and loss of Russell’s property.
- Moving Proz repacked some items, abandoned others at the accident site, and made the final delivery without notifying Russell of the abandoned belongings.
- Russell refused to sign final delivery paperwork after learning of the mishandled move.
- Plaintiff brought state-law contract and tort claims, as well as a federal claim under the Carmack Amendment, seeking damages and attorney’s fees.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the state-law claims as preempted by federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Carmack Amendment preempts Russell’s state-law contract and tort claims | The complaint does not clearly establish Moving Proz was acting as a "carrier" under the Carmack Amendment, so preemption is not proper | Moving Proz was a carrier as it accepted responsibility for transporting goods; thus Carmack preempts state-law claims | Carmack Amendment preempts plaintiff's state-law claims; those claims dismissed |
| Whether Russell’s alleged losses are tied to property damage covered by Carmack | State-law claims are not preempted in all circumstances | Claims seek recovery for loss or damage to property, which is covered by Carmack | All claims for loss/damage to shipped property are preempted |
| Whether the request for attorneys’ fees survives | Fees are not preempted and are allowed in some circuits | Carmack does not allow for attorney’s fees here; Kansas law does not provide a basis for them | No Kansas law or contractual basis for fees; request dismissed |
| Determination of carrier status based on complaint | Defendant did not own the truck; agents, not defendant itself, at fault; complaint doesn't use the word "carrier" | Carrier status is functional, not dependant on label or truck ownership | Defendant was a carrier under Carmack because it accepted responsibility to transport for compensation |
Key Cases Cited
- Coplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., 784 F.3d 1335 (10th Cir. 2015) (preemption is an affirmative defense on which the defendant has the burden of persuasion)
- Smith v. United Parcel Serv., 296 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of state-law claims as preempted by the Carmack Amendment)
- A.T. Clayton & Co., Inc. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 901 F.2d 833 (10th Cir. 1990) (state requirement for attorney’s fees not preempted by Carmack where supported by specific Oklahoma statute)