Pietro Culotta Grapes Ltd. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SHUBB, District Judge.
Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that plaintiffs’ state law causes of action are preempted by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Cb
The following facts are undisputed by the parties. Defendants Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation and San Joaquin Valley Railroad (collectively referred to as “defendants”) are in the business of transporting freight by railroad. Plaintiffs Pietro Culotta Grapes Ltd. and P.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Edward and Nancy Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc., and 291 Sisser Brothers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Hughes Aircraft Company National Union Fire Insurance Company v. North American Van Lines, Inc., and Does 1-100, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Johnny R. Austad and Dorothy Austad, His Wife v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Frank H. Smith v. United Parcel ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- All World Professional Travel Services, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- Richter v. North American Van Lines, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2000
- Alitalia v. Arrow Trucking Co.District Court, D. Arizona · 1997
- Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Burlington & Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.