Mercedes-Benz Price-Fixing Suit Against Auto Shippers Turns Back to New Jersey Court
U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler on Wednesday rejected pre-emption claims and ordered that the lawsuit against Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, K Line America, Matsui O.S.K., Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistcs AS and Kawasaki Kaisha Ltd. be moved back to Bergen County Superior Court.
December 13, 2018 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
Addressing what he said was an unsettled question on pre-emption, a federal judge in New Jersey has rejected a move by a conglomeration of the world's largest international container carriers—facing a price-fixing lawsuit by Mercedes-Benz USA—to have the lawsuit heard in federal court rather than state court.
U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler on Wednesday rejected pre-emption claims and ordered that the lawsuit, filed by Mercedes against the group of defendants—Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, K Line America, Matsui O.S.K., Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistcs AS and Kawasaki Kaisha Ltd.—be moved back to Bergen County Superior Court, where it was originally filed.
According to the decision, Mercedes used the carriers in the import of its cars and light trucks. The carriers use “roll on, roll off” services, more commonly known as “RoRo” services, to ship Mercedes vehicles to various ports of entry into the United States.
The Mercedes lawsuit alleges that the defendants frequently met in secret to set shipping prices, divvy up ports of entry, and rig bids. The automaker claims that the defendants violated the New Jersey Antitrust Act, and it asserted common-law claims of tortious interference and violation of the doctrine of good faith and fair dealing.
The defendants removed the lawsuit to U.S. District Court, citing the complete pre-emption of federal law, specifically the federal Shipping Act of 1994, which governs and regulates international shipping. The companies said the Shipping Act has an “unusually powerful preemptive force.”
But Chesler noted that the Shipping Act provides for disputes to be resolved by the Federal Maritime Commission, not the federal trial courts, and cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Beneficial Mutual Bank v. Anderson, which said federal pre-emption cannot be “so powerful as to displace entirely any state cause of action.”
Chesler posed the legal question as: “can complete preemption operate to remove a state law action where, as here, the federal statute in question has powerful preemptive force but requires that disputes be resolved in a forum other than a federal district court?”
“Defendants do not cite, and the Court's own research has not uncovered any Supreme Court or Third Circuit authority addressing this nuance in a complete preemption analysis conducted according to the standard articulated in Beneficial National Bank,” Chesler wrote, pointing to a 2005 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Sullivan v. American Airlines. There, the court ruled that the federal Railway Labor Act didn't pre-empt state law defamation claims by airline employees against airlines.
Chesler said he was “presented with a near-identical situation in this action, in which the Shipping Act is presumably the basis for the Court's jurisdiction and yet would require that the Court dismiss the action because sole authority to handle the dispute is vested in the Commission.
“For the same reasons articulated by the Second Circuit in Sullivan, this Court finds that the standard for complete preemption has not been met in this case,” he wrote.
He added, “Powerful as it may be, the Shipping Act simply does not create an exclusive federal cause of action which the controversy set forth in the Complaint could 'arise under' and which could originally have been filed in federal court.”
Chesler also rejected the defendants' diversity claim, saying all defendants have ready access to New Jersey's courts.
Chesler did, however, reject Mercedes' requests for attorney fees and costs in fighting the attempt to move the case to federal court.
Chesler said he had to consider whether the defendants' attempted move was “objectively meritless.”
“In its discretion, the court declines to award attorney's fees and costs,” he said. “Defendants' removal was no objectively unreasonable. Removal was based on the strong federal interest in the dispute at issue.”
Mercedes' lead attorney, John Fornaciari, of the Washington, D.C., office of Baker & Hostetler, was unavailable for comment.
Steven Kaiser, of the Washington office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, one of the defendants' lead attorneys, declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClass-Action Suit Filed Against Jaguar for Claims of Defective Windshields in Land Rover Defender
Law Firm Accused of Raiding Trust Account to Pay for Fraudster's Birthday Party, Expenses
4 minute readNew Jersey Supreme Court Finds E-Scooter Riders Are Not 'Pedestrians,' Not Entitled to PIP Benefits
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1SEC Chair Gary Gensler to Resign on Trump's Inauguration Day
- 2How I Made Partner: 'Develop a Practice Area You Really Care About ,' Says Jennifer Gniady of Stradley Ronon
- 3Indian Billionaire Gautam Adani Indicted in Brooklyn for Alleged Orchestration of $250 Million Bribery Plot
- 4St. Ivo: Patron Saint of Lawyers
- 5Eagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250