Does § 14501(c) preempt a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver?

No question identified. : i Q U E S TI O N P R E S E N T E D T h e c o m m o n l a w p er mit s a c a u s e of acti o n f or n e gli g e nt s el ecti o n. F or e x a m pl e, a p er s o n i nj ur e d i n a tr uc k cr a s h h a s a c a u s e of acti o n a g ai n st s o m e o n e t h at n e gli g e ntl y s el ect e d t h e tr uc k dri v er t o tr a n s p ort pr o p e rt y . A f e d er al st at ut e e x pr e s sl y pr e e m pt s st at e l a w s “r el at e d t o a pric e, r o ut e, or s er vic e of a n y m ot or c arri er . . . or a n y m ot or pri v at e c arri er, br o k er, or fr ei g ht f or w ar d er wit h r e s p e ct t o t h e tr a n s p ort ati o n of pr o pert y. ” 4 9 U. S. C. § 1 4 5 0 1(c)( 1) . T h e st at ut e h a s a s af et y e xc e pti o n, pr o vi di n g t h at t h e st at ut e “s h all n ot r estrict t h e s af et y r e g ul at or y a ut h orit y of a St at e wit h r e s p e ct t o m ot or v e hicl e s .” I d. § 1 4 5 0 1(c)( 2)( A). T h e q u e sti o n pr e s e nt e d i s: D o e s § 1 4 5 0 1(c) pr e e m pt a st at e c o m m o n -l a w cl ai m a g ai n st a br o k er f or n e gli g e ntl y s el ecti n g a m ot or c arri er or dri v er ? ii R E L A T E D P R O C E E DI N G S U. S. Di strict C o urt f or t h e S o ut h er n Di strict of Illi n oi s: M o nt g o mer y v. C ari be Tr a ns p ort II, L L C N o. 3: 1 9 -c v-1 3 0 0 J u d g m e nt e nt er e d J a n u ar y 1 1 , 2 0 2 4 U. S. C o urt of A p p e al s f or t h e S e v e nt h Circ uit: M o nt g o mer y v. C ari be Tr a ns p ort II, L L C N o. 2 4 -1 1 9 2 J u d g m e nt e nt er e d J a n u ar y 3, 2 0 2 5 iii T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S P a g e Q u e sti o n pr e s e nt e d . i R el at e d pr oc e e di n g s . ii T a bl e of c o nt e nt s . iii T a bl e of a ut h oriti e s . i v I ntr o d ucti o n . vii O pi ni o n s b el o w . 3 J uri s dicti o n . 3 St at ut or y pr o vi si o n s i n v ol v e d . 4 St at e m e nt of t h e c a s e . 5 I. L e g al b ac k gr o u n d . 5 A. Hi st or y of § 1 4 5 0 1(c) . 5 B. T hi s C o urt’ s d eci si o n s o n § 1 4 5 0 1(c) . 7 C. T h e circ uit s plit . 8 II. F act u al a n d pr oc e d ur al b ac k gr o u n d . 1 1 Ar g u m e nt . 1 2 I. T h er e is a circ uit s plit o n a n i m p ort a nt m att er. .. 1 2 II. T his c as e is a g o o d v e hicl e to r es ol v e t h e s plit . . 1 6 III. T h e S e v e nt h a n d El e v e nt h Circ uits ar e wr o n g. 1 7 C o ncl u si o n . 2 2 A p p e n di x A: O pi ni o n of t h e U nit e d St at e s C o urt of A p p e al s f or t h e S e v e nt h Circ uit ( J a n u ar y 3, 2 0 2 5) . 1 a A p p e n di x B: Or d er of t h e U nit e d St at e s Di strict C o urt f or t h e S o ut h er n Di strict of Illi n oi s ( J a n u ar y 1 1, 2 0 2 4 ) . 1 1 a i v T A B L E O F A U T H O RI TI E S P a g e CA S E S A meric a n Tr uc ki n g Ass’ ns v. Cit y of L os A n geles , 5 6 9 U. S. 6 4 1 ( 2 0 1 3) . 8 As pe n A m. I ns. v. L a n dst ar R a n ger, I nc. , 6 5 F. 4t h 1 2 6 1 ( 1 1t h Cir. 2 0 2 3) .. 1 – 2, 9 – 1 0, 1 3, 1 7 – 1 9, 2 1 Bertr a m v. Pr o gressi ve S. I ns. , N o. 1 9 -C V -0 1 4 7 8, 2 0 2 1 W L 2 9 5 5 7 4 0 ( W. D. L a. J ul y 1 4, 2 0 2 1) . 1 2, 1 6 Brett m a n v. M & G Tr uc k Br o ker a ge, I nc. , 1 2 7 N. E. 3 d 8 8 0 (Ill. A p p. Ct. 2 0 1 9) . 2 1 B uc k v. K u y ke n d all , 2 6 7 U. S. 3 0 7 ( 1 9 2 5) . 5 Ci ot ol a v. St ar Tr a ns p. & Tr uc ki n g, L L C , 4 8 1 F. S u p p. 3 d 3 7 5 ( M. D. P a. 2 0 2 0) . 1 2, 1 5 Cit y of C ol u m b us v. O urs G ar a ge & Wrec ker Ser v., I nc. , 5 3 6 U. S. 4 2 4 ( 2 0 0 2) .