Viswanathan v. Moving USA Inc, 2:15-cv-02015

Viswanathan contracted with Moving USA to transport household goods from North Carolina to Nevada; agreed price escalated and at pickup driver demanded an increased payment, which he paid to avoid being homeless.
Shipment was delayed from end of August 2013 to October 19, 2013; items were lost and damaged (suitcase, 12 boxes, refrigerator, buffet table), and some boxes bore duplicate labels causing double billing.
Plaintiff submitted multiple claims and demand letters to Moving USA and Moving On Up; defendants did not respond. Plaintiff alleges losses totaling roughly $1,590–$2,160 depending on submissions.
Plaintiff sued in Nevada state court asserting the Carmack Amendment claim plus state-law claims: negligence/failure to transport; overcharging; fraud (double-labeling/omissions); nuisance; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants moved to dismiss (construed as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings). Court granted extension to respond and treated the motion under Rule 12(c).
Court held that the Carmack Amendment preempts the state-law claims arising from interstate shipment loss, delay, overcharges, and related torts, and dismissed claims 2–5 with leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state-law claims are preempted by the Carmack Amendment	Viswanathan argued at least some state claims (claim 4) are not covered because they do not arise from loss/damage	Defendants argued Carmack is the exclusive remedy for interstate shipping loss, damage, delay, and related billing/fraud claims	Carmack preempts all challenged state-law claims; dismissal granted with leave to amend
Whether Carmack applies to overcharge/ billing claims	Viswanathan contested applicability for some claims; sought leave to amend and argued carrier status not proven	Defendants asserted Carmack preempts overcharge and improper-billing claims	Court held Carmack preempts overcharge claim; carrier status adequately alleged in complaint
Whether fraud/ conversion-type claims survive Carmack preemption	Viswanathan contended fraud/double-labeling claims arise independently	Defendants argued Carmack preempts fraud claims tied to delivery conditions or failure to deliver	Court held fraud/conversion claims arising from delivery/misrepresentations are preempted by Carmack
Whether emotional-distress and nuisance claims survive	Viswanathan alleged non-communication and deprivation causing distress and nuisance	Defendants argued these claims stem from same conduct as loss/delay and are preempted	Court held nuisance and IIED claims arising from delay/loss are preempted

Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2007) (Carmack is the exclusive remedy for interstate-shipping claims for loss, damage, delay, and preempts related state-law claims)
White v. Mayflower Transit, L.L.C., 543 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2008) (Carmack preempts common-law negligence and tort claims arising from interstate shipments)
Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (Rule 12(c) standards are functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts making liability plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content allowing reasonable inference of liability)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are to be liberally construed)