Campbell

dissenting.

This exercise in statutory interpretation forces us to confront the fact that the most literal interpretation of a phrase is not always the most natural and reasonable one. For that reason, I cannot agree with the majority’s interpretation of 49 U.S.C. § 14708 (d).

That subsection awards attorney fees to a shipper prevailing in a lawsuit against a carrier only if

49 U.S.C. § 14708 (d)(3)(A)-(B). On the majority’s reading, § 14708(d)(3)(A) applies even when no arbitration occurs at all because the shipper elects to head straight into court. In its insistence that this reading of § 14708(d)(3)(A) is not only preferable but unambiguously correct, the majority adheres to a decontextualized literalism that even the staunchest defenders of textualism eschew. See Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation 24 (1997) (“[T]he good textualist is not a literalist....”); Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 242 , 113 S.Ct. 2050 , 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“When someone asks, ‘Do you use a cane?,’ he is not inquiring whether you have your grandfather’s silver-handled walking stick on display in the hall.”).

I do not deny that it is possible to read the…

This appeal involves the awarding of attorney’s fees to shippers who successfully sue carriers of household goods under the Carmack Amendment. The appellants in this case are moving companies. They assert that there is no statutory basis to support the district court’s award of an attorney’s fee to shippers who brought a court action without first engaging in available arbitration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

I

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Plaintiffs Edward and Susan Campbell contracted with defendants Kachina Moving and Storage, Inc., Mayflower Transit, Inc., Gates Moving and Storage, Inc. and Allied Van Lines, Inc. (collectively “carriers”) to transport their household goods from Arizona to Florida. The goods were damaged during the move. The plaintiffs sued the carriers in state court, and the defendants removed the suit on the basis of federal question jurisdiction arising under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706 . See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1337 , 1445(b). A jury in the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding over $15,000 in compensatory and $31,000 in emotional distress damages.

The…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD CAMPBELL, Husband;  SUSAN CAMPBELL, Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. No. 04-15969

ALLIED VAN LINES INC.; GATES

MOVING & STORAGE INC.; KACHINA  D.C. No.

CV-01-00139-WWE

MOVING & STORAGE, INC., an

OPINION

Arizona corporation; MAYFLOWER TRANSIT, INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendants-Appellants.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Warren W. Eginton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2005—San Francisco, California

Filed June 7, 2005

Before: Robert R. Beezer, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Beezer; Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain COUNSEL

Daryl Manhart, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A., Phoenix, Arizona, for the defendants-appellants. 6518 CAMPBELL v. ALLIED VAN LINES Gregory E. Good, Good & Associates, P.C., Tucson, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

OPINION

BEEZER, Circuit Judge:

This appeal involves the awarding of attorney’s fees to shippers who successfully sue carriers of household goods…