Litchfield v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. C2-99-965.

• Decision Date: 10 July 2000
• Docket Number: No. C2-99-965.
• Citation: 136 F.Supp.2d 756
• Parties: Patricia LITCHFIELD d.b.a. Midwest Productions, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

136 F.Supp.2d 756

Patricia LITCHFIELD d.b.a. Midwest Productions, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.

No. C2-99-965.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

July 10, 2000.

William D. Kloss, Vorys, Sator, Seymour and Pease, Columbus, OH, for plaintiff.

John W. Zeiger, Timothy R. Bicker, Zeiger & Carpenter, Columbus, OH, Charles M. Shaffer, Jr., Scott L. Marrah, David L. Green, King & Spaulding, Atlanta, GA, for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

SARGUS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 2) and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. # 6). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand her state law conversion claim. In light of this disposition, the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant UPS, is rendered moot.

I.

This action was originally filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court as one for conversion under state common law. The action was removed to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331; 1441. The Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's claim arises under the Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1994 ["FAAA"], 49 U.S.C. § 41713.

Plaintiff, Patricia Litchfield, d.b.a. Midwest Productions, asserts that the Defendant, United Parcel Service ["UPS"] removed checks contained within packages sent by and to the Plaintiff and that UPS then deposited these funds into various corporate accounts. Plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Midwest Productions, a business that conducts and coordinates charitable fund-raising efforts for various businesses and organizations. (Complaint at ¶ 1). During November of 1996, Plaintiff was hired to coordinate fund-raising efforts across several midwestern states for A & S Productions. (Id. at ¶ 4). In order to transmit contributions collected by Plaintiff, A & S provided a UPS account (No. 7E-77E7); this account was opened in the name of Midwest Productions. All shipping bills were directed to A & S Productions. (Id. at ¶ 6).

In June of 1997, Plaintiff began receiving complaints from its sub-contractors who had not received their commission for funds raised and submitted to Plaintiff. (Complaint at ¶ 10). During the course of these conversations, Plaintiff learned that it had not received the funds in question and that a number of packages sent via UPS appeared to have had been "lost." (Id.). Plaintiff and its contractors then initiated traces on the missing packages; these traces indicated that UPS was holding approximately 12 packages sent to or from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 11).

In August of 1997, UPS employee Donald Palmer informed Plaintiff's contractors that it would not release the packages and would continue to seize shipments unless $10,000 was paid towards Account No. 7E-77E7. (Complaint at ¶ 12). Mr. Palmer further stated that UPS had a right to open and inspect the packages, and indicated that he knew the packages in question contained checks. (Id.). The initial 12 packages were subsequently released to Plaintiff, after action taken by her lawyer. (Id. at ¶ 13).

Beginning in late 1997, however, UPS resumed seizing packages being sent to or from Plaintiff. (Complaint at ¶ 14). Plaintiff repeatedly requested return of the missing packages. (Id. at ¶ 17). During this time, UPS opened 11 packages, removed the checks contained within, endorsed the checks and deposited them into its corporate accounts. (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15). According to the Complaint, at no time did UPS have permission from the Plaintiff or its contractors to convert these funds. (Id). The total funds allegedly converted equal $5400. (Id. at ¶ 15).

Plaintiff filed suit in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on August 25, 1999. (Defendant's Notice of Removal at ¶ 1). Defendant subsequently removed the action to this Court on September 27, 1999 on the basis that Plaintiff's claim is preempted by federal law. Plaintiff disputes this contention and seeks remand of her claim. The Defendant seeks dismissal on the basis that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a basis for relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court will first consider the propriety of removal to this Court.

II.

A. Removal Standard and the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

28 U.S.C. § 1441 governs removal of actions from state to federal court. The statute provides in relevant part:

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant ... to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending ....

(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties ....

28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Removal jurisdiction exists where the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the claim. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). The removing party bears the burden of establishing that removal was proper. Ahearn v. Charter Township of Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 451, 453-54 (6th Cir.1996). It is well-established that, as master of his complaint, a plaintiff may avoid federal question jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law. Id. at 456. However, a cause of action under federal law exists for purposes of original jurisdiction and removal, if the plaintiff's "well-pleaded complaint" presents a federal issue. Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). Thus, the Court's review of the propriety of removal is based upon the complaint. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537, 59 S.Ct. 347, 83 L.Ed. 334 (1939); Cromwell v. Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp., 944 F.2d 1272, 1277 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1233, 113 S.Ct. 2, 120 L.Ed.2d 931 (1992).

A defense based upon preemption of plaintiff's claims by federal law does not appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, and thus, is an improper basis for removal. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). However, an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule exists when the federal law gives rise to "complete preemption." Warner v. Ford Motor Co., 46 F.3d 531, 534 (6th Cir.1995). Under this doctrine, the preemptive force of a statute may be so extraordinary that it "converts an ordinary state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule." Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. at 65, 107 S.Ct. 1542. This doctrine is narrowly interpreted. Id.

B. Application

Defendant in the case at bar asserts that Plaintiff's state law conversion claim is actually a "failure to deliver" claim within the purview of the preemptive provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 ["FAAA"]. The FAAA states, in pertinent part:

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State ... may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier ... when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle ....

49 U.S.C.A. § 41713(b)(4)(A) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff, however, asserts that the foregoing language was taken directly from the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 ("ADA"). Consequently, in seeking remand of her claim, Plaintiff looks to the scope of preemption under the ADA which, as the Court will explain below, holds that state actions which have only a tenuous relation to prices, routes, or services are not preempted. Additionally, Plaintiff relies upon the ADA savings clause in support of her motion to remand. The savings clause states that "[a] remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law." 49 U.S.C. § 40120(c). In order to assess the propriety of removal of Plaintiff's claim to this Court, the Court must first consider the preemptive scope of the FAAA and the impact of the ADA on this analysis.

The FAAA preemption provision is, indeed, virtually identical to that contained in the ADA. While the United States Supreme Court has not considered the FAAA provision, the Court has twice ruled on the scope of the ADA preemption provision. The Supreme Court first considered the scope of preemption under the ADA in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992). Focusing on the statutory language of "relating to," the Court concluded that the statute expressed "a broad preemptive purpose." The Court held that any state actions "having a connection with or reference to ... `rates, routes or services'" were preempted. Id. at 384, 112 S.Ct. 2031 (emphasis added). The Morales Court noted, however, that "some state actions may affect [airline fares] in too tenuous, remote or peripheral a manner" as to have a preemptive effect. Id. at 390, 112 S.Ct. 2031.

Two years later, the Supreme Court held that the ADA did not prohibit state court enforcement of contracts between private parties and airline carriers. American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995). In particular, the Court stated: "[W]e do not read the ADA's preemption clause ... to shelter airlines from suits alleging no violation of state-imposed obligations, but seeking recovery solely for the airline's alleged breach of its own, self-imposed undertakings." Id. at 228, 115 S.Ct. 817. In determining the relation of state action to rates, routes, or services, the Wolens Court found that "services" could not be delineated based on characterizing the action...