|
|
|
|
|
On April 29 Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, following her tentative ruling of April 27, 2009 issued a final order immediately enjoining the principal elements of the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles’ Concession Plans.
In the ruling, Judge Snyder enjoined seven concession requirements that would illegally regulate interstate commerce at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles:
1. The employee mandate that banned independent owner-operators from the Port of Los Angeles;
2. The driver hiring preferences of both plans;
3. The motor carrier financial capability requirements of both plans;
4. The driver health insurance mandate of the Long Beach plan;
5. The designated routes and parking restrictions of both plans;
6. The contractual tie-in of the clean truck tariffs mandated by both plans; and
7. The concession fees of both plans.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District unanimously ruled in favor of ATA on March 20 and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court, indicating that the judge should grant ATA an injunction against all or part of the Concession Plans. ATA has always supported the retirement of older dirty diesel trucks from the Ports along with the container fee that assists in the transition.
“The Court did indicate that certain of the aspects of each plan were sufficiently safety-related so as to not be pre-empted. Many of the elements that were not enjoined were not challenged by the ATA in light of the fact that they are based on independently existing safety regulations,” said Robert Digges Jr., ATA Vice President and Deputy Chief Counsel.
ATA’s lawsuit successfully challenged the Concession Plans of both Ports, including Los Angeles’ ban of independent owner-operator drivers. Local officials and organized labor supported this provision because forcing drivers to work for larger companies allows unions to more easily organize the drayage industry at the Port. ATA challenged provisions that did nothing to improve the environmental or safety conditions.
"Based on the holding of the Ninth Circuit, and because it appears that this provision is addressed to concerns unrelated to motor vehicle safety, the Court finds that ATA is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the provisions of POLA Concession agreement dealing with the independent operator phase-out are pre-empted under the FAAA Act, and do not fall within the scope of the safety exception,” said Judge Snyder.
Regarding the parking restrictions in both plans, Judge Snyder stated that “based on the arguments of the parties and the holding of the Ninth Circuit, it appears that the parking provisions contained within the Concession agreements are insufficiently related to motor vehicle safety so as to fall within the safety exception. Therefore, the Court finds that these provisions are likely to be pre-empted, and that they must be enjoined.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|