Lamm v. Bekins Van Lines Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding federal claim that plaintiffs sought to add by amendment after removal did not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction on district court because of the general rule set out above
• finding no complete preemption under the Carmack Amendment and citing to numerous cases ruling on both sides of the issue
• noting that Alabama-law outrage claim would not be preempted because plaintiff’s allegations stemmed from witnessing “the drunken, brawling behavior” of the shippers’ employees, which happened independently of whether there was any actual damage to the goods at issue
• finding no congressional intent to completely preempt state law in the Carmack Amendment, thus no removal jurisdiction exists
• discussing the distinctiveness of plaintiffs’ emotional distress and outrage claims from those involving actual damage to goods
• “All of this textual evidence convinces this court that Congress did not intend to establish complete preemption of state-law claims by the Carmack Amendment[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).