209 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2000), 99-4113, Atlas v. Poplar
|Docket Nº:||99-4113, 99-4145|
|Citation:||209 F.3d 1064|
|Party Name:||In re: Atlas Van Lines, Inc.; In re: Poplar Bluff Transfer Company; In re: Nathan Stout; In re: Gregory Stout, Petitioners. Lanis L. Karnes,Appellee, v. Poplar Bluff Transfer Company;Nathan Stout; Gregory Stout; Atlas Van Lines, Inc.,Appellants.|
|Case Date:||April 06, 2000|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Submitted: December 14, 1999
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Before BEAM, HEANEY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
Atlas Van Lines, Poplar Bluff Transfer Company, Nathan Stout, and Gregory Stout (petitioners) appeal the district court's1 order remanding this case to state court. Alternatively, they seek a writ of mandamus from this court directing the district court to rescind its remand order. Lanis L. Karnes, acting pro se, argues that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order and that even if subject matter jurisdiction is present, the district court correctly remanded the case to state court. Karnes initially filed this action against the petitioners in Missouri state court.
Karnes claimed that she hired the petitioners to move her property from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to Virginia Beach, Virginia, and that, in the course of the move, the petitioners negligently damaged her property. Karnes's complaint alleged several theories of recovery premised exclusively on Missouri law. The petitioners removed this action to federal court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b). As a basis for federal court jurisdiction, they claimed that Karnes's Missouri state law claims are preempted by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. See 49 U.S.C. § 11707. The Carmack Amendment regulates the liability of common carriers engaged in interstate commerce. See Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 503-05 (1913).
Karnes filed a motion to remand this case to state court. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss Karnes's complaint for failure to state a claim governed by the Carmack Amendment, and filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied Karnes's remand motion after finding that the preemptive force of the Carmack Amendment enveloped her state law claims. The district court also denied the petitioners' motions and granted Karnes leave to file an amended complaint asserting federal causes of action based...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP