tow-truck operators intended by Congress. On the other hand, some federal and state courts that have considered the towing industry, and in particular the preservation or storage of a vehicle after it has been towed, have held that state causes of action relating to storage and disposition of towed vehicles are not preempted by the Act. See, e.g., Rhode Island Public Towing Ass’n, Inc. v. State, (No. CV-96-454 ML, Feb. 28, 1997) (D.R.I.1997) (not published in F.Supp.) (concluding “that the regulation of storage rates is not sufficiently related to a price, route, or service of a tow truck” and therefore the state regulation of those rates was not preempted by § 14501(c) (emphasis added)); CPF Agency Corp. v. Sevel’s 24. Hour Towing Serv., 132 Cal.App.4th 1034, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 (2005) (<HOLDING>). See also Ware v. Tow Pro Custom Towing &
holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel holding trial court abused its discretion by not extending the time for service where the statute of limitations had run and where service had been achieved at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations holding that state statute imposing limitations on liensalepreparation fees had only a remote relationship to towing companys price route or service and thus did not come within the purview of the preemption provision of  14501c