District court had removal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s interstate-shipping contract claim arising from carrier’s failure to deliver goods
January, 2007
By
Marilyn Raia
Hall v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
476 F.3d 683 (9th Cir 2007)
Eva Hall and North American Van Lines entered into a contract under which North American would transport Hall's household goods from San Francisco, California to Montana. A dispute arose concerning the amount to be charged for the service, which Hall alleged the carrier orally agreed would be $6,144. Hall filed a complaint in state court against North American claiming (1) breach of contract for refusing to transport her goods and demanding excess charges, (2) fraudulent concealment, and (3) conversion.
North American removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming Hall's cause of action was framed as a cause of action under the 1906 Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. The District Court denied Hall's motion to remand and, upon the carrier's separate motion, dismissed all of her claims. Hall appealed.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Carmack Amendment is the exclusive cause of action for contract claims alleging delay, loss, failure to deliver, or damage to property. The Court of Appeals recognized that the presence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the "well pleaded complaint" rule, and acknowledged that Hall's complaint, which relied on state law, did not contain a well-pleaded federal claim on its face. However, said the court, under the "artful pleading doctrine, a well-pleaded state law claim presents a federal question for jurisdictional purposes when a federal statute has completed pre-empted a particular area of law." The Ninth Circuit rejected Hall's contention that her contract claim is not completely pre-empted because it arose from the carrier's refusal to deliver her property rather than loss or damage to her property, citing Moffit v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 6 F.3d 305, 306-306 (5th Cir. 1993) and Duerrmeyer v. Alamo Moving & Storage One, Corp., 49 F.Supp.2d 934, 936 (W.D. Tex. 1999). Thus, removal jurisdiction was properly established over Hall's entire case and dismissal was proper because all of her state law claims were pre-empted by federal law.