Three Company Names, One Move, and No One Who Will Say Who Employed the Movers

This story follows a California consumer through an intrastate move involving at least three company names, none of which would confirm who actually employed the people handling her belongings. The consumer has since reported the companies to multiple federal authorities, the California Bureau of Household Goods, two state attorneys general, the mover's bank, and the mover's insurance carrier. Two state investigations are now active. The consumer's name has been changed to protect her privacy.

In July 2026, the consumer received an estimate through Coastal Moving Services (DOT 4090919, Boca Raton FL, 229 NCCDB complaints) for a move within California, from Ramona to a new home. The estimate was $2,903 and a deposit of $1,600 was demanded. No visual inspection of the household goods was conducted.

Coastal is a Florida-based broker with zero trucks. It is the #4 most-complained moving company in the FMCSA database. Its owner, Robert Castro, was served with an investigative subpoena by the Florida Attorney General on November 12, 2025. He did not comply. The FL AG petitioned for a court order to compel compliance on January 30, 2026. Co-owner Stephen Barbuto was subpoenaed the same day and also did not comply.

The consumer did not know any of this when she booked. She did not even realize they were a broker and not an actual mover.

On July 26, 2026, the movers arrived. They were not from Coastal. One crew member identified themselves as LoadRans (DOT 3729978, CA, 12 trucks, 166 NCCDB complaints, 47 hostage loads) and the driver did not know what company he worked for.

The LoadRans crew immediately attempted to more than double the estimate, despite the consumer taking fewer items than originally listed. The explanation: certain items like the piano could not be stacked to the top of the truck, so the unused vertical space above unstackable items would be charged as additional volume. The consumer objected to loading the items into the truck and then providing a new estimate.

The crew also attempted to add packing and material charges. The consumer objected.

At pickup, the consumer was asked to pay by cash or Zelle. She declined. She was then required to complete paperwork authorizing credit card payment. For the delivery balance, she was told payment was required by cash or money order only.

The bill of lading was documentation for an interstate move. The move was within California and subject to California laws. The consumer was not provided with an intrastate contract, which would have involved not-to-exceed pricing, consumer booklets, and options for insurance. The movers would also have had to list a valuation of the goods transported, which they did not do.

The consumer was never asked to declare the value of her household goods. She was told she should select the $0.60-per-pound option because the other insurance protection was too expensive, but was never provided a price or quote for either Actual Cash Value or Full Value Protection. She had no information from which to compare the cost of the available protection options.

The document presented to her was interstate paperwork despite the move occurring entirely within California. California Max 4 contains documentation and billing requirements, while BHGS tells consumers that additional charges generally must correspond to additional services requested by the consumer and documented through a Change Order.

After pickup, the consumer could not determine where her belongings were, who had them, or when they would be delivered.

She was initially told items would be loaded over the weekend and delivered one to two days later. Then told they would be loaded Wednesday and delivered one to two days after that. Then told they would be loaded the next day. Each call produced a different timeline.

She had no warehouse address. No reliable contact information for whoever physically held her goods. No documentation explaining the relationship between Coastal, LoadRans, and whoever would eventually deliver.

This is the chain-of-custody gap that affects every broker-arranged move. Between pickup and delivery, the consumer's belongings exist in an information void. No tracking number. No GPS. No record of who touched what.

When the truck finally arrived for delivery, it was labeled 'KF Moving.' Not Coastal. Not LoadRans. Again, it was a third company name the consumer had never heard of. When she questioned the driver, he told her to stop asking questions.

Two people unloaded. One was a Russian driver. The other was a man named Keith, hired off Craigslist when the scheduled mover could not make it. Keith said he was 'a friend of the individual who had originally been expected to unload' and was filling in. He did not appear to be part of a regularly assigned crew. Keith was also instructed by the driver not to answer any of the consumer's questions, including whether this was the truck that transported the items from Los Angeles.

The consumer was not provided documentation identifying the employer of either person or explaining the relationship between KF Moving, LoadRans, and Coastal.

A shuttle charge was imposed at delivery. The delivery address had been provided in advance. Despite having the location beforehand, a large truck was used and a shuttle charge was assessed after the fact. The consumer asked for documentation and the DOT number of the semi that supposedly transported the goods, and they refused to provide this information. The final invoice did not contain the shuttle amount and the company refused to provide a final invoice or receipt. The consumer wrote the shuttle figure onto the invoice by hand, a detail she documented to prevent the carrier from claiming she agreed to a pre-printed charge.

The consumer has documented physical damage to her Steinway piano that was not present before the move. She has photographs showing the damage, including chipped and gouged wood and damage to the lower portion of the piano.

At delivery, she observed that the piano had been stacked on top of other customers' belongings. The crew left the piano in the garage rather than moving it into the residence, stating that they were unable to lift it with two people. It remains there.

She contacted both Coastal Moving Services and LoadRans regarding the piano and requested information and resolution. Coastal provided three different excuses. The first: it did not fit into the truck and was not part of the estimate (not true; the piano was on the estimate and in the truck). The second: she did not ask the movers to put it into the house (not true, and absurd). The third: she declined a new written estimate. She was never provided with a new written estimate.

The consumer did not accept the loss. She reported the companies to every authority she could find, and then invented new approaches that nobody had tried before.

Florida Attorney General: Received a response from Sophia Fatigato, Financial Investigator, Consumer Protection Division. The response stated: 'our office cannot share any information relating to the capacity of an ongoing investigation.' This language confirms an active investigation into Coastal.

California Bureau of Household Goods: An investigator was assigned and is actively requesting additional information from the consumer as of August 2026.

FBI: Filed a report.

IRS: Reported suspected unreported income. The company demanded cash, provided no final invoice or receipt, and did not list the final charge on the Bill of Lading. The consumer believes the company is not reporting income.

The mover's bank: The consumer called PNC Bank, Coastal's bank, and reported the fraud. The bank 'seemed very happy to have the info.' Banks have BSA/AML obligations to investigate and report suspicious activity. A cash-only moving operation with no invoices is a red flag for money laundering.

The mover's insurance carrier: The consumer contacted the insurance company, though 'they keep thinking I'm trying to file a claim' rather than report fraud.

This consumer's approach, reporting to the bank and the IRS, is something most victims never think to do. It attacks the fraud operation's financial infrastructure rather than its regulatory status.

Twenty years ago, the same consumer was scammed by a different moving company who took advantage of her having the flu and not being present for the loading. She paid for the movers to load her furniture and boxes. Upon arrival, they committed a hostage load by trying to charge $3,000 for packing tape and bubble wrap.

She reported to the California Public Utilities Commission, the attorney general, and the company's insurance carrier (Progressive). Progressive sent investigators to the company's location and discovered an empty building. The company 'went down fast.'

The case became a criminal prosecution. In March 2013, a Santa Clara County grand jury charged eight individuals connected to ASAP Relocations Inc for running a household goods fraud scheme from 2005 to 2012 under six company names. The operation used the same playbook the consumer is experiencing today: lowball estimates, phony fees after loading, cash demands, storage threats. Two defendants were sentenced (6 months incarceration and $200K+ restitution for one, 5 years probation and $160K restitution for another). Five defendants, including the owner Roni Hayon, fled to Israel and remain DOT OIG wanted fugitives.

She knows the playbook because she lived it before. The difference between then and now: the regulatory environment has gotten worse, not better. FMCSA cancelled its hostage load compensation policy in 2020. The agency has closed zero broker enforcement cases since September 2024. The consumer who succeeded 20 years ago through state regulators and insurance company pressure is now applying the same tactics to a system that is less responsive than it was two decades ago. California Bureau of Household Goods has been very responsive, but they lack authority for criminal and civil prosecution for fraud.

In September 2026, Tracy Cortina, Special Investigator at the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Household Goods and Services, provided the consumer with a written update.

Cortina confirmed that the Bureau is pursuing licensing issues with both LoadRans and KF Moving. She also confirmed that Coastal Moving Services LLC 'is required to be licensed with our Bureau if they broker an intrastate move,' and stated: 'I am also addressing that with them.'

LoadRans offered $250 for the piano delivery. The investigator noted she cannot force or compel a business to refund, but the engagement itself is significant: a state investigator is actively working three enforcement threads from a single consumer case.

KF Moving LLC was incorporated in California in March 2024. Its principal, Khilola Fayzullaeva, is listed as registered agent. The company operates a warehouse at 1601 Perrino Place, Los Angeles. KF Moving does not appear to hold federal FMCSA authority, which would make it an unlicensed carrier if operating interstate moves.

This case has now generated active enforcement in two states: Florida AG investigating Coastal (confirmed by Sophia Fatigato), and California BHG investigating LoadRans, KF Moving, and Coastal's unlicensed intrastate brokering.

The consumer continued investigating on her own and discovered the structural link between LoadRans and KF Moving.

KF Moving LLC (California entity 202461613034, formed March 27, 2024) lists its FMCSA address as 1601 Perrino Place, Suite C, Los Angeles, CA 90023. LoadRans historically operated from 1601 Perrino Place, Suite D, the same warehouse property, adjacent suites.

KF Moving's registered agent is Khilola Fayzullaeva, at 552 N Hobart Blvd Apt 201, Los Angeles. KF Moving's FMCSA profile shows it is NOT AUTHORIZED for interstate operations, lists carrier operation as intrastate only, but simultaneously lists household goods among cargo carried. It has 2 trucks, 2 drivers, a 50% vehicle out-of-service rate (national average 22%), and a 42% driver out-of-service rate (national average 6.7%).

LoadRans itself was previously cited as UNLICENSED under California Business and Professions Code 19237 on January 17, 2024 and fined $500. The company continued operating.

The consumer also documented that LoadRans used interstate paperwork for what was an intrastate California move. Interstate bills of lading are governed by FMCSA. Intrastate California moves are governed by the Bureau of Household Goods and Services. Using the wrong paperwork may have been an attempt to avoid California state jurisdiction.

The picture is now clear: Coastal (FL broker, under FL AG investigation) dispatched to LoadRans (previously cited as unlicensed in CA, $500 fine), which used a truck labeled KF Moving (adjacent suite at the same warehouse, NOT AUTHORIZED by FMCSA, 50% vehicle failure rate). Three companies, one warehouse property, one consumer left to piece it together.

While under active CA BHGS investigation for using interstate paperwork on an intrastate move, LoadRans continued the same practice in its claims process.

In September 2026, LoadRans aggressively called the consumer to pressure her into filing a damage claim through their process. A LoadRans representative told the consumer the claim must be filed 'within 90 days from the date of delivery.' This is the interstate federal deadline. The correct deadline for a California intrastate household goods move, as stated by CA BHGS, is nine months.

LoadRans also claimed the consumer 'elected the lower level of protection' ($0.60 per pound) on July 26, 2026, and attached the interstate bill of lading as proof. The consumer documented that she was told the $0.60/lb option was the one to select because 'the other insurance/protection was too expensive,' but was never given a price or quote for either Actual Cash Value or Full Value Protection. Under the informed waiver standard established in Nipponkoa v. Atlas Van Lines (687 F.3d 780, 7th Circuit 2012), a carrier must give the consumer a 'reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability.' Being told one option is 'too expensive' without being given pricing is not informed waiver.

The consumer refused to discuss by phone, demanded written-only communications, corrected the jurisdiction and deadline, rejected the $250 offer, rejected the interstate bill of lading, and preserved all claims and remedies. Her written response stated: 'Nothing in this communication constitutes acceptance of the interstate Bill of Lading, the asserted limitation of liability, the $250 offer, or a waiver or release of any rights or remedies.'

A company pressuring a consumer to file a claim under the wrong law, using the wrong deadline, citing a waiver that may not meet the informed consent standard, while simultaneously being investigated by the state regulator for the same jurisdictional violations, is not resolving a dispute. It is creating a record designed to limit its liability.

This case illustrates why California's state-level regulation matters. Under the CA BHGS system, intrastate movers must follow a state-published maximum rate tariff, provide legally binding estimates, and answer to an agency that assigns investigators and enforces. LoadRans attempted to dodge this system by using interstate paperwork on an intrastate move, placing the transaction under FMCSA jurisdiction where enforcement is nonexistent. BHGS caught it. See: California Shows What HHG Regulation Looks Like When It Works.

The consumer hired Coastal. LoadRans issued the bill of lading. A KF Moving truck showed up at pickup and delivery. A man named Keith, hired off Craigslist, was filling in for someone else and helped unload. He did most of the unloading while the other man stood around or moved slowly.

No documentation explains which company employed the movers. No documentation explains the relationship between the three company names. No entity has accepted responsibility for the disputed charges.

Coastal is under FL AG investigation. LoadRans has 166 complaints, 47 hostage loads, and a prior unlicensed citation from CA BHGS. KF Moving operates from the adjacent suite at LoadRans' warehouse, has no federal authority, and half its vehicles fail roadside inspections. The consumer is left to reconstruct which company did what, without the documentation that federal law requires carriers to provide.