schemes.” Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. at 318, 101 S.Ct. 1124. Before the ICCTA deregulated the trucking industry, for example, the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”) — the ICCTA’s predecessor — required motor carriers to file a tariff with the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”) and charge all shippers the tariffed rate. Gaines Motor Lines, Inc. v. Klaussner Furniture Indus., 734 F.3d 296, 302 (4th Cir.2013). But the ICCTA voided nearly all of these tariffs, instead allowing private contracts with shippers. Id. at 302-03 (citing 49 U.S.C. § 14101(b)). While the ICA provided a cause of action to recover unpaid charges, id. at 302 (citing Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 534, 103 S.Ct. 1343, 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983)), the ICCTA did not, id. at 305 (<HOLDING>). Put simply, the ICCTA “does not provide
holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act recognizing private right of action recognizing the cause of action holding that a criminal statute does not provide a corresponding civil cause of action holding the iccta does not provide motor carriers with a federal cause of action when they sue a shipper for unpaid freight charges under a private contract