Judge to enjoin key aspects of California ports’ concession plans
“We are pleased with the tentative ruling and look forward to Judge Snyder’s final decision later in the week,” said Curtis Whalen, executive director of the Intermodal Motor Carrier Conference (IMCC) of ATA.
The Trucker News Services
4/28/2009
The American Trucking Associations said that today Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, following the March 20 guidance of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, made a tentative ruling to enjoin some of the principal elements of the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles’ concession plans.
Last July, Snyder refused to issue an injunction against the new requirements because of a loophole in federal law that allows states to impose safety requirements on trucks.
Last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the rules had little to do with vehicle safety. The appeals court ruled that a temporary injunction should be granted on the concession plans and remanded the case to District Court.
The truckers argued that the ports cannot require companies to hire drivers as direct employees because it would stop independent owner-operators from working the harbor.
"There's no good reason to kill off the independent trucker except to allow the Teamsters to cut down the number of trucking companies working the ports so they can unionize the drivers more easily," ATA spokesman Clayton Boyce said. "If you want to clean up the port, then ban older trucks that are causing the emissions, not independent owner-operators."
“We are pleased with the tentative ruling and look forward to Judge Snyder’s final decision later in the week,” said Curtis Whalen, executive director of the Intermodal Motor Carrier Conference (IMCC) of ATA.
In the tentative ruling, an ATA news release stated, Snyder ordered an injunction against seven key concessions:
1. The employee mandate of the Los Angeles plan that banned independent owner-operators from the port
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.
Enjoining these concessions came after 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 stated in its news release.
Further, “The Court of Appeals’ decision made very clear that ATA never opposed any of the environmental goals of the Ports’ Clean Trucks Plan, just components that illegally regulated the drayage industry at the Ports,” said Robert Digges Jr., ATA vice president and chief counsel, said.
ATA said that it “has always supported the retirement of older dirty diesel trucks from the ports along with the container fee that assists in the transition. Enjoining these concession plans will not affect the goals of the clean trucks program.”
Port of Long Beach spokesman Art Wong said the tentative ruling means "we can control access to the port but not what truckers do outside of the port."
Associated Press sources contributed to this report.
The Trucker staff may be reached to comment at editor@thetrucker.com.