Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, SOUTHERN DIVISION MASTERCRAFT INTERIORS, LTD. Plaintiff, v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * CIVIL ACTION NO: RDB-03-1580

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending is the Motion to Dismiss of the Defendant ABF Freight Systems, Inc. ("ABF"). Plaintiff Mastercraft Interiors,

Ltd. ("Mastercraft") sued the Defendant in a four-count Complaint, alleging Breach of Contract (Count I), misrepresentation (Count II), negligent misrepresentation (Count III), and unjust enrichment/restitution (Count IV) in the overcharging of shipping costs. The issues have been fully See

briefed by the parties, and no oral argument is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2001).

For the reasons stated below,

ABF's Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Accordingly, Counts II, III, and IV of Plaintiff's

Complaint shall be dismissed, as these causes of action under state law are preempted by federal law. With respect to Count I,

alleging Breach of Contract, the motion is DENIED, and the Plaintiff's case shall proceed. BACKGROUND The facts are recited in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, as they must be for purposes of this Motion to

Dismiss. 1999).

See DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 505 (4th Cir.

Mastercraft regularly purchased furniture from a Mastercraft paid

furniture manufacturer in El Monte, California.

the furniture manufacturer for the shipping directly, but ABF, a motor carrier, actually performed the shipping service. In December 2000, the furniture manufacturer raised its shipping prices. In response, Mastercraft spoke directly with Mastercraft

ABF to procure shipping services at a lower cost.

alleges that as a result of these conversations, ABF promised that Mastercraft could save money by shipping directly with ABF, and that ABF would charge less than $3,000.00 per truck load. In reliance on such promises, Mastercraft ceased shipping through the furniture manufacturer, and began shipping directly with ABF. Mastercraft alleges that the invoices sent to

Mastercraft for the shipping services did not indicate whether the particular items for which the charges were levied constituted a truck load, or more, or less, than a truck load. Nevertheless, in reliance on the alleged oral agreement, Mastercraft paid the invoices. At some point later, Mastercraft realized that its shipping costs had increased after commencing business directly with ABF, and believed that ABF was not charging the rates allegedly orally agreed upon. Mastercraft alleges that it immediately protested

the charges to ABF, by demanding that ABF return the overcharges 2

and by refusing to pay the pending invoices. Mastercraft commenced this suit on May 30, 2003, alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment under state law. On

June 26, 2003, Defendant ABF filed this Motion to Dismiss all counts of the Complaint, arguing that the Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA"), 42 U.S.C.

Download Masterraft Interiors v. ABF Freight Systems (Opinion).pdf

Maryland Law