Month: December 2008

A woman who sold defendant vintage baseball cards for $7,800 and who allegedly filed an insurance claim after defendant buyer said he did not receive the cards can sue the buyer for malicious prosecution for swearing out a complaint that caused her arrest and detention in jail for two weeks, an Alexandria U.S. District Court says.

Defendant buyer contends the complaint does not allege a lack of probable cause. He notes the complaint confirms that he never received the baseball cards he paid for. Based on these facts admitted in the complaint, defendant argues he had probable cause to tell police he never received the goods for which he paid. Assuming the truth of defendant’s version of the facts, his argument that plaintiff ultimately will not be able to prove probable cause has merit.

Looking at the complaint as a whole, the court finds plaintiff has adequately alleged a lack of probable cause. Plaintiff alleged she mailed the baseballl cards on the same day defendant ordered them; that defendant never received the goods shipped to him; that there was some contact between plaintiff and the buyer during which she explained the package had been mailed and an insurance claim had been filed; and that defendant buyer thereafter procured an arrest warrant for plaintiff. Such allegations make it at least plausible that defendant lacked the knowledge of facts and circumstances that could give him probable cause to have plaintiff arrested. Malice can be inferred from the absence of probable cause. Plaintiff has stated a cause for malicious prosecution.

Plaintiff also alleges she was falsely arrested based on wrongful information volunteered by defendant to procure an arrest warrant. The court does not believe plaintiff had to allege that defendant personally arrested her in order to state a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment. Virginia courts, though, do appear to have accepted the proposition that in order to state a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment, a complaint must allege the arrest was made without a lawful warrant or other form of lawful process. Here, the complaint did not allege any problem with the legal form of the warrant or that the arrest was made without a lawful warrant. The court will dismiss plaintiff’s claim for false arrest but give leave to amend.

Plaintiff also brings claims against UPS related to its alleged nondelivery or misdelivery of a package. The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, preempts such common law claims made against a motor carrier. To the extent delivery was made over land, plaintiff can recover against UPS on her breach of contract and negligence claims only through the federal suit provisions of the Carmack Amendment.

The claims against the UPS are dismissed.

Montanile v. Botticelli (Cacheris, J.) No. 1:08cv716, Nov. 25, 2008; USDC at Alexandria, Va. VLW 008-3-533, 16 pp.