Dees V. Coleman Am. Moving Servs
No Shepard’s Signal™ As of: January 30, 2018 2:28 PM Z Dees v. Coleman Am. Moving Servs. United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division October 26, 2017, Decided; October 26, 2017, Filed CIVIL ACTION 17-0292-WS-N Reporter 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177321 *; 2017 WL 4838845 contract to move the plaintiffs' property, damaged that MARK DEES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLEMAN property but have refused to pay for the damage as per AMERICAN MOVING SERVICES, INC., et al., the parties' contract. No other wrongdoing of any kind is Defendants. alleged. Claims are asserted for bad faith, breach of contract, fraud, negligence and wantonness. (Doc. 1 at Core Terms 7-12). The complaint seeks an award of compensatory and punitive damages but does [*2] not demand any punitive damages, damages, amount in controversy, particular amount. emotional distress damages, removal, plaintiffs', settlement offer The defendants removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Although the complaint asserts Counsel: [*1] For Mark Dees, Janie Dees, Plaintiffs: only state-law claims, the defendants argue that those Robert D. Keahey, Robert David Keahey, Jr., LEAD claims are completely preempted by the Carmack ATTORNEYS, Grove Hill, AL. Amendment, thereby furnishing federal question For Coleman American Moving Services, Inc., Allied jurisdiction.1 Van Lines, Inc., Defendants: Robert C. Black, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, The Black Law Firm, L.L.C., Dothan, AL. DISCUSSION Judges: WILLIAM H. STEELE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. This Court has already held that, in light of the Supreme Court's analysis expressed in Beneficial National Bank Opinion by: WILLIAM H.
[Show full text]