Law Office of Guy Levy, Inc. v. Moishes Moving Systems

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAW OFFICE OF GUY LEVY, INC., Case No.: 21-cv-1212-L (AGS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING ORDER TO 13 v. REMAND [ECF NO. 3] 14 MOISHE’S MOVING SYSTEMS, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 Defendant Moishe’s Moving Systems LLC removed this action from state court 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1441, and 49 U.S.C. § 14706. On July 9, 2021, this 19 Court remanded the action to state court finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over 20 Plaintiff’s Complaint which contained only state law claims. [ECF No. 3.] On July 12, 21 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Amend or Correct the order of removal, arguing that 22 the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. §14706 completely preempts state law claims, citing 23 Hall v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2007). 24 Upon further review, Plaintiff’s state law claims appear to fall under the 25 preemptive power of the Carmack Amendment. In Hall, the Ninth Circuit held that “the 26 Carmack Amendment is the exclusive cause of action for interstate-shipping contract 27 28 1 || claims alleging loss or damage to property.” /d. at 688. Here, Plaintiff alleges contract 2 ||claims for loss or damage to property pursuant to an interstate-shipping agreement. 3 Defendant has now successfully met its burden of establishing that this Court has 4 jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 5 377 (1994) (citations omitted)(The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests 6 || with the party asserting jurisdiction.) 7 Accordingly, the Order of removal is VACATED. This Order does not preclude a 8 || motion to remand, should Plaintiff choose to file one. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: July 15, 2021 11 12 Wy James Le 3 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28