|
A federal court in California dismissed a party's claims, holding that they could not file a second amended complaint alleging claims subsumed within the scope of the first arbitration award.
In White v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, No. CV 06 6710 CAS PLAX, 2007 WL 926967 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2007), Zeddrick White contracted with Mayflower for delivery of personal items. White filed suit, alleging various claims. As a contract for the interstate common carriage of goods, the case was remanded to federal court due to the application of the Carmack Amendment, the federal statute exclusively governing such activity. The dispute was submitted to arbitration and an award was issued in favor of Mayflower. This Court granted Mayflower's motion to confirm the arbitration award.
However, the Court directed White to file a second amended complaint including claims undecided by the award, as the Court could not determine which of White's claims was undecided. In his second amended complaint, White alleged the identical claims which had been alleged in his first complaint. Mayflower moved to dismiss.
Loss and damages were within the scope of the first arbitration award. Accordingly, the Court dismissed all of White's claims to the extent that they were related to loss and damages. Two of White's remaining claims did not involve loss or damages. However, the Court agreed with Mayflower that the two remaining claims were preempted by the Carmack Amendment. The two claims may have appeared to be separate from loss and damages, but it is well settled law that the amendment is a defense to all common law claims. See Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28 (1936). White's claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|