Stone | Dean’s Transportation and Logistics Practice Group represents many of the nation’s largest motor carriers and their insurers. Our attorneys are responsible for some of the most significant published decisions in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – decisions which afford legitimate common carriers, and their van line affiliates, the full protections embodied within the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. Stone & Dean’s attorneys are recognized experts in this field and routinely speak at regional and national transportation law conferences. The team also provides claims handling training and cost containment techniques to insurers, third party claims administrators, van lines, and mom-and-pop moving and storage companies. We currently represent the interests of our transportation industry clients in all Federal and State Courts in the following matters:
- Cargo Loss and Damage Claims
- Employment Law Claims
- Intellectual Property Rights
- Tariff Charge Claims
- Agency Disputes
- Carriers/Warehouseman Liens
- PUC/DOT Compliance
- Commercial Freight Claims
- Carrier/Warehouseman Security Issues
- Personal Injury and Property Damage
Stone & Dean attorneys are responsible for obtaining, and preserving, significant victories for its Transportation and Logistics clients. The following is a sampling of the results:
- White v. Mayflower Transit, L.L.C., 543 F.3d 581, (9th Cir.(Cal.) Sep 12, 2008), holding, in a matter of first impression, that a shipper’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is preempted by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act;
- Hall v. North American Van Lines, Inc, 476 F.3d 683, (9th Cir.(Cal.) Jan 29, 2007), holding that a shipper’s claim for damages against a motor carrier are “completely preempted” by the Carmack Amendment for the purposes of determining a federal court’s removal jurisdiction;
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 616 F.Supp.2d 1003, (C.D.Cal. Apr 14, 2009), granting summary judgment and holding that a writing that fails to identify a shipment with the requisite degree of specificity does not constitute “substantial performance” of the claims filing regulations embodied within the Code of Federal Regulations;
- Steiner v. Horizon Moving Systems Inc., 568 F.Supp.2d 1084, (C.D.Cal. Jul 25, 2008), holding that a removal filed well into the litigation is appropriate where discovery reveals the federal question basis of same and that a shipper’s claim for a violation of the Insurance Code is preempted by the Carmack Amendment;
- Sompo Japan Ins. Co. of America, Inc. v. VIP Transport, Inc., 568 F.Supp.2d 1080, (N.D.Cal. Jul 24, 2008), granting client’s Motion to Dismiss and adopting a broad definition of the term “delivery” for the purpose of determining the application of the Carmack Amendment;
- Farrah v. Monterey Transfer & Storage, Inc., 555 F.Supp.2d 1066, (N.D.Cal. May 23, 2008), holding that the shipper’s intent, rather than the actual location of the shipment, governs the application of the Carmack Amendment; and
- Moore v. La Habra Relocations, Inc., 501 F.Supp.2d 1278, (C.D.Cal. Aug 08, 2007), holding that a disclosed household goods agent cannot be held individually responsible for damages caused during an interstate move.
Our attorneys have handled over 1,500 transportation related lawsuits and claims during their respective legal careers and remain on the cutting edge of making, and applying, transportation law.
