The town of Yarmouth entered into a transportation contract with the Bay Colony Railroad Corporation whereby Bay Colony was to transport solid waste from the town’s waste transfer station to a facility in Rochester. The town later notified Bay Colony that it would terminate Bay Colony’s lease of certain rail lines, which meant that Bay Colony would no longer be able to transport the town’s waste by rail. A provision in the contract provided that, in the event the lease of the rail line was terminated, the town would permit Bay Colony to continue to transport the waste by “other modes of transportation.” Bay Colony notified the town that it would continue to transport waste by truck rather than rail. The town, however, began transporting its waste with the railroad operating company that was awarded the rail lease. A jury found that the town had committed a breach of the contract. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the town’s affirmative defense that it was barred by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 160, 70A from allowing Bay Colony to transport its waste by truck failed as a matter of law; (2) a permit issued to the town by the Department of Environmental Protection did not render Bay Colony legally unable to perform the contract after it lost its rail lease; and (3) the contract remained in effect at the time of the town’s breach. View "Bay Colony R.R. Corp. v. Town of Yarmouth" on Justia Law

Vargas and Villalobos were driving a tractor-trailer across the country. Villalobos was driving and Vargas was in the sleeper berth when the tractor-trailer rolled over, injuring Vargas. Vargas sued FMI (the motor carrier and trailer owner), Eves (the tractor owner), and Villalobos for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for FMI and Eves, concluding as a matter of law that neither was vicariously liable for Villalobos’s alleged negligence. The court of appeal reversed. Federal law requires motor carriers using leased vehicles to “have control of and be responsible for” such vehicles (49 U.S.C. 14102) in order to “protect the public from the tortious conduct of the often judgment-proof truck lessor operators.” Defendants did not establish as a matter of undisputed fact that the tractor’s owner is entitled to the protection of the “Graves Amendment,” 49 U.S.C. 30106(a), which shields owners of leased vehicles “engaged in the business or trade of renting or leasing motor vehicles” from vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of their lessee’s drivers. View "Vargas v. FMI, Inc." on Justia Law

After the FAA suspended petitioner's license as an airplane mechanic, the NTSB vacated the suspension and found that the FAA's position had been unreasonable and not substantially justified. Petitioner filed suit seeking recovery of legal fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(1). The NTSB denied fee-shifting under the Act because it concluded that petitioner had not "incurred" the fees associated with his legal defense in the license suspension proceedings. The court held that the NTSB's conclusion was arbitrary and capricious where the NTSB should have considered that under the Alabama law of quantum meruit, petitioner was obligated to pay his attorneys for the value of their services. Therefore, petitioner "incurred" fees and may obtain EAJA fee-shifting. The court granted the petition, vacated the decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Roberts v. NTSB" on Justia Law

New York City filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Amtrak was liable for rehabilitation of a bridge carrying a public highway over a parcel of land in the Bronx. In this appeal, the City asserts that a 1996 agreement obligating Amtrak's predecessor to maintain and repair the bridge is a covenant running with the land which survived the land's subsequent Rail Act, 45 U.S.C. 743(b)(2), conveyance made "free and clear of any liens or encumbrances." The City also seeks to recoup payments it made to Amtrak in exchange for Amtrak's removal of electrical equipment attached to the bridge. The district court granted summary judgment to Amtrak on both claims. The district court held that the Rail Act extinguished the obligation and the City was not entitled to recover its already-incurred costs under the narrow theory of restitution it advanced. The court agreed with the district court that the City's claim against Amtrak for the rehabilitation of the bridge should be rejected. The court rejected the City's reformulated restitution claim as an "unjust enrichment" claim because the City failed to file a Rule 59(e) or 60(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "City of New York v. Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp." on Justia Law

Bala, a unionized signal repairman, has worked for PATH since 1990. Signal repairmen of Bala’s seniority get 12.5 paid holidays and 23 paid vacation days per year. Separate from holidays and vacations, Bala took more than 600 sick and personal days through 2008. In 2007, Bala took 82 sick days, compared to the 17 days of sick leave per year typically taken by PATH’s unionized signalmen. PATH warned that if his attendance did not improve formal disciplinary action might be taken. On June 22, 2008, Bala experienced back pain while at home. The next day, Bala’s physician ordered him off work through July. PATH notified Bala of a hearing regarding his absenteeism. After that hearing, PATH suspended Bala for up to six days, without pay. Bala filed a complaint with the U.S. Secretary of Labor, alleging that the suspension was retaliation for taking statutorily protected sick leave, in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20101. The Review Board held that PATH violated the Act, which prohibits railroads from disciplining employees “for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician.” The Third Circuit reversed, holding that only physicians’ orders which stem from on-duty injuries are covered. View "Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Co v. Sec'y, Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

The Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. 20701, provides that “a locomotive … and its parts and appurtenances” must be “in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury.” The Federal Railroad Administration, under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation, has promulgated regulations on the governing standards of care. Canadian Pacific settled lawsuits brought by its employees who had suffered injuries as a result of defective train seats, then brought indemnification, contribution, and breach-of-contract claims against Knoedler Manufacturing, which supplied the seats, and Durham, which tried unsuccessfully to repair the seats. The district court dismissed Canadian Pacific’s claims as preempted by the LIA. The Third Circuit vacated. State law claims of breach of contract, indemnification, contribution based on the LIA are not preempted. To hold that the LIA preempts all breach-of-contract claims would allow, and perhaps encourage, manufacturers to make grand contractual promises to obtain a deal and then breach their duties with impunity. View "Del. & Hudson Ry. Co v. Knoedler Mfrs., Inc" on Justia Law

A package was shipped from a FedEx location in Eureka, California to an address in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The printed address label inadvertently showed an incorrect address, that address being Plaintiff’s address. When the package was delivered, Plaintiff and her eleven-year-old daughter opened the package to find two bags of marijuana. Plaintiff alerted the police. That same day, a man came to Plaintiff’s door asking whether Plaintiff had received a package. As a result of these events, Plaintiff and her minor daughters suffered fear and anxiety. Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children, sued FedEx, alleging invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that FedEx mislabeled and misdelivered the package and that FedEx disclosed Plaintiff’s address to third parties. The case was removed to federal district court. The court granted summary judgment for FedEx, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s three common-law claims were barred by the preemption provision of the ADA. View "Tobin v. Fedex Corp." on Justia Law

A package was shipped from a FedEx location in Eureka, California to an address in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The printed address label inadvertently showed an incorrect address, that address being Plaintiff’s address. When the package was delivered, Plaintiff and her eleven-year-old daughter opened the package to find two bags of marijuana. Plaintiff alerted the police. That same day, a man came to Plaintiff’s door asking whether Plaintiff had received a package. As a result of these events, Plaintiff and her minor daughters suffered fear and anxiety. Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children, sued FedEx, alleging invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that FedEx mislabeled and misdelivered the package and that FedEx disclosed Plaintiff’s address to third parties. The case was removed to federal district court. The court granted summary judgment for FedEx, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s three common-law claims were barred by the preemption provision of the ADA.View "Tobin v. Fedex Corp." on Justia Law

The FAA may “delegate to a qualified private person . . . the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate … and … issuing the certificate,” 49 U.S.C. 44702(d)(1), and may rescind delegation “at any time for any reason.” Airworthiness Representative-Maintenance (DAR-T) authorization to conduct aircraft inspections and issue airworthiness certificates has no expiration. Burdue was appointed as a DAR-T in 2001. In 2013, Burdue’s supervisors were informed of issues related to Burdue’s export certifications. The FAA’s Special Emphasis Investigations Team (SEIT) concluded that Burdue performed multiple aircraft inspections out of his assigned geographic area without authorization and had issued export certificates to aircraft owned by his wife, a conflict of interest. After review of Burdue’s response, Burdue’s certificate was revoked, both “for cause,” 14 C.F.R. 183.15(b)(4) and under the discretionary-revocation provision, 14 C.F.R. 183.15(b)(6). An Appeal Panel affirmed. Burdue brought a Bivens action, claiming due process violations and wrongful termination, then filed statutory claims in the Sixth Circuit. The district court stayed the Bivens proceedings. The Sixth Circuit declined to review the statutory claims because the FAA’s decision is committed to agency discretion and declined to review the constitutional claims that belong in the district court View "Burdue v. Fed. Aviation Admin." on Justia Law

MileagePlus, United’s frequent flyer program, rewards customers with free flights and seat upgrades. Its Rules have always allowed United to change the terms of the program unilaterally, without notice. In 1997 United announced a new Million-Mile Flyer status: Lifetime Premier Executive status. “Mileage Plus members who have earned a total of one million paid flight miles on United will retain the benefits and privileges of Premier Executive status for life.” After merging with Continental, United changed the status levels and moved the Million-Mile Flyers from Premier Executive status to the new system. United decided that the Premier Gold level was equivalent, but Gold customers receive only a 50% bonus on miles flown, not 100%, and do not have regional and system-wide upgrades that Million-Mile Flyers previously received. Lagen enrolled in MileagePlus in 1993 and became a Million-Mile Flyer in 2006 after switching his airline loyalty from British Airways. He sued for breach of contract under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)(A). The district court granted United summary judgment, finding that no rational trier of fact could conclude that United had a distinct Million-Mile Flyer program that was not part of MileagePlus, subject to unilateral change. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Lagen v. United Cont'l Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law