Justia Transportation Law Opinion Summaries

California officials challenged a determination by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) that California’s meal and rest break (MRB) rules, as applied to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles, were preempted by federal law. The MRB rules require employers to provide drivers with specified meal and rest periods during the workday. The FMCSA concluded that these state rules regulated commercial motor vehicle safety, were more stringent than federal hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, and imposed requirements not found in federal law.Previously, in 2019, the American Bus Association petitioned the FMCSA to preempt California’s MRB rules for passenger-carrying drivers. After public notice and comment, the FMCSA issued a final order in 2020 preempting these rules, finding they added no measurable safety benefit beyond federal HOS rules, were incompatible with federal regulations, and placed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. California officials petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the FMCSA’s preemption decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the FMCSA’s action under the highly deferential standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. It held that its earlier decision in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 986 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2021), foreclosed California’s main arguments and confirmed that the FMCSA had authority to preempt the MRB rules. The court also held that the FMCSA’s determination that the MRB rules imposed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce was supported by the administrative record and not arbitrary or capricious. The petition for review was denied, and the FMCSA’s preemption determination was upheld. View "PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CAL. V. FMCSA" on Justia Law

The case concerns a fatal helicopter crash during a sightseeing tour in Hawaii, resulting in the deaths of all aboard, including the plaintiffs’ daughter. The helicopter, manufactured by Robinson Helicopter Company in 2000, had its main rotor hub and blades replaced with new, identical parts from Robinson in December 2018, which was over eighteen years after the helicopter’s initial delivery. The plaintiffs alleged that defects in the replaced rotor hub and blades caused the crash, and brought claims for negligence, strict products liability, and failure to warn.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii heard the case first. Robinson invoked the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), which generally bars actions against manufacturers eighteen years after delivery of the aircraft. The plaintiffs argued for exceptions under GARA’s “rolling provision”—which restarts the repose period for newly replaced parts—and the “fraud exception”—which removes the bar if the manufacturer concealed or misrepresented material information to the FAA. The district court granted summary judgment for Robinson, holding that the rolling provision did not apply because the replacement parts were not substantively altered from the originals, and that the plaintiffs failed to plead fraud with the necessary specificity. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to further amend their complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in requiring a “substantive alteration” for the rolling provision to apply, as GARA only requires that a new part replaces an old one. The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in part and remanded for a new causation analysis regarding the replaced parts. However, the court affirmed the lower court’s determinations that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for the fraud exception and that denying leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion. View "MCAULIFFE V. ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY" on Justia Law

Two former residents of Libby, Montana developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos. The exposure was linked to asbestos-containing vermiculite transported by BNSF Railway Company from a nearby mine. Between 1922 and 1990, BNSF was required by federal law to ship this vermiculite to and from its Libby railyard. Evidence showed that asbestos dust escaped from sealed railcars during transit and switching operations, eventually accumulating in and around the railyard. Both plaintiffs resided or spent considerable time near the railyard during the relevant period.This litigation began when the personal representatives of the decedents’ estates brought negligence and strict liability claims against BNSF in the United States District Court for the District of Montana. BNSF moved for summary judgment on the strict liability claims, arguing that it was protected by the common carrier exception, but the district court denied the motion. After a jury trial, the jury found for BNSF on negligence but for the plaintiffs on strict liability, awarding compensatory damages. The district court subsequently denied BNSF’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the strict liability claims, prompting BNSF’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of Montana law de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred by applying the common carrier exception too narrowly. The appellate court concluded that BNSF’s transportation of asbestos-containing vermiculite, including the resulting accumulation of asbestos dust, was conducted pursuant to its federally mandated duty as a common carrier. Montana law, including recent precedent from the Montana Supreme Court, supported applying the common carrier exception to shield BNSF from strict liability in these circumstances. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for BNSF. View "Wells v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Three California-based truck drivers who worked for a national transportation company challenged the legality of their employer’s compensation system. The drivers alleged that the company’s pay plan, which combined hourly wages with a bonus based on certain activities, violated California’s Labor Code by failing to properly compensate for nonproductive time and by not reimbursing necessary business expenses, such as personal cell phone use. They also claimed the company failed to provide accurate wage statements and sought penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law.After the case was removed from state court, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification and granted summary judgment to the employer on most claims. The court found that the pay plan qualified for a statutory “safe harbor” because it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked, with additional bonuses for certain activities, and thus did not require separate compensation for nonproductive time. The court also found no evidence that the employer knew or should have known about any off-the-clock work. The only claims that proceeded to trial were for failure to reimburse business expenses. At trial, the jury found in favor of the employer, and the court entered judgment accordingly, also awarding costs to the employer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the employer’s pay plan met the requirements of California Labor Code § 226.2(a)(7)’s safe harbor, as it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked and provided additional bonuses. The court also found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding off-the-clock work or wage statement violations, and it upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and award of costs. View "WILLIAMS V. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC." on Justia Law

Oregon Coast is a non-profit corporation that operates tourist trains on a portion of track in Oregon that is owned by the Port of Tillamook Bay, a federally regulated railroad authorized by the Board. In 2014, the State sent Oregon Coast a cease and desist order, alleging that Oregon Coast’s repair work was violating a state “removal-fill law,” which, among other things, requires a state permit for the removal of any amount of material from waters designated as Essential Salmonid Habitat. Oregon Coast filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the removal-fill law is preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), 49 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., which governs federal regulation of railroads. The court concluded that the repair work done by Oregon Coast under its agreement with the Port falls under the Board’s jurisdiction because the work is done under the auspices of a federally regulated rail carrier and is sufficiently related to the provision of transportation over the interstate rail network. The State’s removal-fill law is preempted as applied to this work, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings because the district court’s rulings on the preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and declaratory relief were all premised on this incorrect legal determination. View "Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad, LLC v. State of Oregon Department of State Lands" on Justia Law

After BNSF suspended an employee, BMWED filed a complaint against BNSF alleging that BNSF's disciplinary actions interfered with and subverted the Railway Labor Act's (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151-188, grievance and arbitration processes, and sought a declaration that BNSF’s actions violated the RLA. BNSF subsequently filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin BMWED from proceeding with a threatened strike. The district court ruled in favor of BNSF, concluding that the dispute was minor and subject to mandatory arbitration, and enjoining the threatened strike. BMWED filed an interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the subsequent entry of the final judgment in the case mooted the question of the procedural propriety of the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the district court properly applied the ConRail test (Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives. Ass’n ) and properly concluded that the parties' dispute is a minor one. The court rejected BMWED's attempts to sidestep the ConRail framework by claiming that the distinction between minor and major disputes does not apply to the case. Rather, the court concluded that this is a dispute that fits squarely within the major/minor framework from the RLA and ConRail. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bhd. of Maint. of Way v. BNSF" on Justia Law