1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 KATIE WOODRUFF, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04194-JSC

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 8 v. DISMISS

9 ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 4 Defendants. 10

11 12 This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 13 4. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiffs filed a non-opposition statement to Defendants’ motion. (Dkt. No. 14.) 14 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b), this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral 15 argument. For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss 16 Counts 1, 2, and 4. 17 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 18 Plaintiff Matt Childers accepted an offer to work for Meta, Inc., FNA Facebook, Inc. in 19 Redmond Washington. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 6.) At the time, Childers and plaintiff Katie Woodruff 20 resided in Tiburon, California. (Id.) Meta provided a paid relocation package for Plaintiffs. (Id.) 21 Defendants packed and loaded Plaintiffs’ household goods in California and agreed to deliver the 22 possessions to Washington State. (Id. at 7.) However, the truck carrying Plaintiffs’ possessions 23 caught fire enroute to Washington and all items onboard were deemed a total loss. (Id.) Plaintiffs 24 claim a total replacement value of $302,577.11 for the lost items. (Id.) 25 Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Marin County Superior Court. Plaintiffs allege four claims 26 (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence; (3) Strict Liability under

; and (4) 27 Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Defendants removed the case to this Court and moved to 1 DISCUSSION 2 Defendants argue that the Carmack Amendment,

, provides the sole 3 || remedy for Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs do not oppose. 4 Defendants are correct. The Carmack Amendment is the exclusive cause of action for 5 contract claims alleging delay, loss, failure to deliver, or damage to property. Hall v. N. Am. Van 6 || Lines, Inc,

(9th Cir. 2007). This preemption extends to the negligence claim as 7 || well.

. “It is well settled that the Carmack Amendment constitutes a complete defense to 8 || common law claims alleging all manner of harms.” Jd. Thus, the Court grants Defendants’ 9 || motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 4. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motion to 12 dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 4. The hearing scheduled for August 31, 2022, is vacated. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 This Order disposes of Dkt. No. 4. 3 15 Dated: August 26, 2022 16 . JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28