Pearson v. Pick Up & Go Moving International Inc

Plaintiff Pearson contracted with Pick Up & Go Moving International Inc to transport household goods across state lines. After delivery, Pearson discovered extensive damage and missing items. Pearson filed a federal lawsuit asserting claims under the Carmack Amendment, along with state law claims for breach of contract and negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the Carmack Amendment completely preempted all state causes of action and that the complaint failed to adequately plead damages. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an order on April 4, 2023, granting the motion in part and denying it in part. The court found that Pearson had plausibly alleged a prima facie Carmack claim—delivery in good condition, arrival in damaged condition, and quantifiable damages—allowing that federal claim to proceed. Several state law claims were dismissed as preempted. The decision illustrates the strict pleading requirements and broad preemptive scope of the Carmack Amendment in interstate moving disputes.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Carmack Amendment claim, finding that Pearson had sufficiently alleged delivery in good order, arrival in damaged condition, and quantifiable injury. State law claims for breach of contract and negligence were dismissed without prejudice on preemption grounds. The ruling allowed the federal statutory claim for actual loss or injury to goods to proceed.

Whether the Carmack Amendment completely preempts state tort and contract claims against interstate moving carriers; whether the plaintiff adequately pleaded a prima facie case of carrier liability by specifying the condition of goods at origin and destination and the nature and amount of damages; and the extent to which consumer protection laws survive federal preemption in household goods transportation.

The ruling reinforces the powerful preemptive effect of the Carmack Amendment and highlights the difficulties consumers face when pursuing state law remedies in interstate moving disasters. It signals that plaintiffs must meticulously document shipping conditions, damage inventories, and repair or replacement costs at the earliest stage. For the moving industry, it serves as a reminder that federal law governs liability and that carriers may face sustained litigation if they fail to meet their obligations.