This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.

Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (Find CTA9 Rule 36-3)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Robert GENDLER; Yorkys Ramirez, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants,

v.

ALL PRO VAN LINES, Defendant-counter-claimant.

Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.FN*

FN* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. SeeFed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Filed Jan. 8, 2009.

MEMORANDUM FN**

FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Robert Gendler and Yorkys Ramirez appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of All Pro Van Lines. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and affirm.

The facts of the case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.

To the extent that Gendler and Ramirez sue for failure to deliver goods and intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of failure to deliver goods, the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1), preempts their claims. See  White v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 543 F.3d 581, 586 (9th Cir.2008). To the extent Gendler and Ramirez sue for fraud, the Carmack Amendment provides a complete defense to their claims. See  id. at 584.

AFFIRMED.