Justia Transportation Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and one of its members, seek review of regulatory guidance issued by the FMCSA, which exempts from federal accident-reporting regulations certain accidents involving commercial motor vehicles known as attenuator trucks. The court dismissed the petition for lack of an Article III case or controversy because petitioners have failed to identify a concrete and particularized injury that would give them standing to proceed. View "OOIDA v. US Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Central Transport violated the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), when it employed him as a "switcher" at its St. Louis terminal. The district court granted summary judgment to Central Transport. The FLSA exempts “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service” under the Motor Carrier Act (MCA), 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(1). Based on the Supreme Court’s controlling precedents, the court concluded that, if an employee spends a substantial part of his time participating in or directing the actual loading of a motor vehicle common carrier’s trailers operating in interstate or foreign commerce, the Secretary of Transportation has the authority to regulate that employee’s hours of service and the MCA Exemption applies, regardless of the employee’s precise role in the loading process. Because the summary judgment record conclusively establishes that a substantial part of plaintiff's time during the relevant period was spent loading Central Transport trailers for interstate transportation, the MCA Exemption applies in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. Central Transport Int'l" on Justia Law

When Chrysler Group, LLC filed with the Montana Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division a notice of intent to establish an additional Chrysler-Jeep dealership in Billings, Lithia Motors, Inc. filed an administrative protest. The Department sustained Lithia’s protest. Rimrock Chrysler, Inc. sought judicial review, but the district court dismissed the petition on the grounds of mootness and lack of a justiciable controversy. While Rimrock’s appeal was pending, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that section 747 of the United States Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 preempted state regulation of new dealerships issued under certain dealership protest laws. The Montana Supreme Court dismissed Rimrock’s appeal. On remand, Rimrock moved to vacate the Department’s administrative decision and to dismiss the the judicial review proceeding on the ground that section 747 preempted Montana dealer protest laws and deprived the state of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the administrative claim. The district court denied Rimrock’s motion and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s order denying Rimrock’s motion to vacate and to dismiss, holding that Rimrock waived its section 747 preemption defense when it entered into the settlement agreement; and (2) reversed the district court’s order dismissing Rimrock’s petition for judicial review, holding that Rimrock’s petition involved a justifiable controversy, and the court erred in concluding otherwise. View "Rimrock Chrysler, Inc. v. Lithia Motors, Inc." on Justia Law

Ohio tollways assess a toll only when a driver exits a highway. Illinois’ toll system assesses periodic tolls as a driver continues on the highway and allows drivers to use electronic transponders. At each toll plaza, Illinois has full‐speed lanes for transponder users and lanes for drivers who stop and pay cash. If a driver without a transponder uses a transponder lane, there is a seven‐day grace period for payment online or by mail, without incurring a fine, after which the car's owner incurs a $20 fine per violation. If an owner incurs three fines in two years, the tollway sends a notice, showing the date, time, and location of each violation, and explaining the right to contest the violations at a hearing. Toll evasion is a strict liability and vicarious liability offense. Transponder users are granted a second grace period: After notice is mailed, transponder users have until the due date on the notice to pay their missed tolls and update their account information to avoid fines. In December 2013, an Ohio resident drove to Chicago. He alleges that there was no signage informing him of how Illinoisʹ toll system worked, and that he did not understand the signage at the toll plazas. Plaintiff used the transponder lanes and missed three tolls before he realized his mistake. He called the tollway authority and was told that no violations appeared in the database. Weeks later, he received notice of the violations and his right to a hearing. Plaintiff paid $64.50, then filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging equal protection and due process violations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, applying the rational basis test. View "Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth." on Justia Law

The Department of Motor Vehicles found that Raymond’s Auto Repair, LLC had overcharged for the use of its rotator truck to recover a damaged vehicle prior to the actual towing of that vehicle. The hearing officer ordered Raymond’s to pay a $600 restitution fee. The trial court vacated the reimbursement order, holding that state regulation of the pretowing recovery services at issue was subject to federal preemption. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that state regulation of pretowing recovery services, such as Raymond’s use of the rotator truck in this case, was not preempted by federal law. View "Raymond's Auto Repair, LLC v. Comm’r of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

The Department of Motor Vehicles found that Plaintiff, a towing service, had overcharged for the nonconsensual towing of a motor vehicle trailer and ordered Plaintiff to pay restitution in the amount of $12,787 to the trailer’s insurer. In so finding, the Department rejected Plaintiff’s claim that Connecticut’s statutes and regulations regarding nonconsensual towing services are preempted under 49 U.S.C. 14501(c)(2)(C). The trial court reversed in part, concluding that the fees charged by Plaintiff were not subject to state regulation. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment with respect to the determination that state regulation of fees charged for pretowing recovery services provided in connection with a nonconsensual towing is preempted by federal law, holding that state laws regulating the fees charged for recovery services performed in connection with a nonconsensual towing are not preempted by federal law. View "Modzelewski's Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. Comm’r of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action alleging that Defendants committed fraud and negligence when performing and evaluating a random drug test that Plaintiff was required to take as an airline pilot. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions of New York law to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court accepted the questions and answered (1) drug testing regulations and guidelines promulgated by the Federal Aviation administration and the Department of Transportation do not create a duty of care for drug testing laboratories and program administrators under New York negligence law; and (2) a plaintiff may not establish the reliance element of a fraud claim under New York law by showing that a third party relied on a defendant’s false statements resulting in injury to the plaintiff. View "Pasternack v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of the Board's denial of his request to reopen the Board's 1999 benefits determination. The court concluded that the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. 231g, grants the court jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying requests to reopen initial benefits determinations. The court concluded, however, that the Board’s decision to deny petitioner's request to reopen was reasonable where it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that there were no errors in the allocation of petitioner's earnings that, if corrected, would have given him insured status at the time of the decision. Further, petitioner provided little to no explanation of how his initial decision contained a clerical error or an error that appears on the face of the evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Stovic v. RRRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against various municipalities and their employees under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-25, after municipal and state personnel had accessed plaintiff’s personal information approximately sixty times between 2003 and 2012. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims without prejudice but allowed her to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff instead requested that the district court enter final judgment dismissing her case with prejudice. Then plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision without receiving the judgment she requested. The court concluded that, because plaintiff did not obtain a final judgment following the district court’s dismissal of her complaint with leave to amend, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Sapp v. City of Brooklyn Park" on Justia Law

Trailer Transit contracts with shippers for the movement of cargo, then contracts with independent drivers, who provide the rigs that carry the cargo, promising those 71% “of the gross revenues derived from use of the equipment leased herein (less any insurance related surcharge and all items intended to reimburse [Trailer Transit] for special services, such as permits, escort service and other special administrative costs.” In a class action, about 1,000 drivers claimed that Trailer Transit made a profit on its “special services” and owes 71% of that profit to the drivers. The district court rejected that argument. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining: “That just isn’t what the contract says. Drivers are entitled to 71% of the gross charge for “use of the equipment” (the rigs), but the contract does not provide for a share of Trailer Transit’s net profit on any other part of the bill.” View "Walker v. Trailer Transit, Inc." on Justia Law