Court Reinstates Injunction on LA Port Employee Driver Mandate, Pending Appeal
The District Court for the Central District of California has granted the American Trucking Associations’ (ATA’s) motion to reinstate the injunction on the Port of Los Angeles' (POLA’s) Clean Truck Program (CTP) employee driver mandate, pending ATA’s appeal of the Court’s Final Judgment to the Ninth Circuit.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
However, the Court has denied ATA’s motion to reinstate the injunction for four other provisions of the Clean Truck Program Concession Agreement, including the off-street parking provision.
ATA Said Its Members Would Suffer Irreparable Harm
ATA had asked the Court to stay its September 10, 2010 Final Judgment with respect to the last five1 unresolved CTP requirements, pending the outcome of ATA’s appeal of this Final Judgment. ATA argued both that the Court’s ruling on the “market participant” doctrine2 raised serious legal questions and that its members would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, while an appeal was pending.
Court Grants Motion for Employee Drive Mandate, Denies Others
The Court agrees that this case presents serious legal questions concerning the market participant doctrine. Although the Court does not doubt the correctness of its own findings and legal conclusions, it recognizes that the interpretation and application of the market participant doctrine in this case present substantial and novel legal questions.
The Court also finds that absent an injunction while an appeal is pending, motor carriers are likely to suffer irreparable harm due to the employee driver provision. Therefore, the Court grants ATA’s motion with respect to the employee driver provision.
Though the Court found that motor carriers are also likely to suffer irreparable harm due to the off-street parking provision absent an injunction while an appeal is pending, it found that the balance of equities and public interest only tips in ATA’s favor with respect to the employee driver provision, not the off-street parking or other provisions. Therefore, the Court denies ATA’s motion for reinstating the injunction for the other provisions of the Concession Agreement, including the off-street parking provision.
1The five provisions require drayage providers to: (1) use only employee drivers, not contractors driving separately owned vehicles; (2) maintain trucks and retrofit pollution control equipment on a formal schedule per manufacturer specifications and provide documentation to prove the same; (3) post placards giving a phone number to report concerns regarding emissions, safety and security compliance; (4) demonstrate the financial capability to perform the agreement obligations; and (5) provide off-street parking for trucks to use while waiting to serve the port.
2Whereby the Port, acting as a business, can impose requirements on its service providers that a state regulatory authority could not require without infringing federal prerogative.
(See ITT’s Online Archives or 09/16/10 news, 10091649, for BP summary of the District Court’s September 10, 2010 Final Judgment implementing its August 26, 2010 ruling that upheld the POLA’s Clean Truck Program requirements.
See ITT’s Online Archives or 09/27/10 news, 10092718, for BP summary of ATA’s September 24, 2010 filing of a motion to stay the court’s Final Judgment pending appeal.)
Central District Court’s order available by emailing documents@brokerpower.com