US v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Confer., Inc.
Citation | 467 F. Supp. 471 |
Decision Date | 20 March 1979 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 76-1909A. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN MOTOR CARRIERS RATE CONFERENCE, INC., Motor Carriers Traffic Association, Inc., North Carolina Motor Carriers Assoc., Inc., National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Robert M. Silverman, Robert N. Dempsey, Judy L. Goldstein, Antitrust Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Joen Grant, Washington, D. C., William L. Harper, U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Paul Rodgers, Nat. Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Comm'rs, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
J. Raymond Clark, L. C. Warren, Washington, D. C., for Motor Carriers Traffic Ass'n, Inc.
Allen I. Hirsch, Ellis Arnall, Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Atlanta, Ga., for Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc.; Homer S. Carpenter, Rice, Carpenter & Carraway, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Charles L. Gowen, King & Spalding, Chas. Shaffer, Jr., Michael Eric Ross, Atlanta, Ga., for N. C. Motor Carriers Ass'n, Inc.
Alabama Service Commission, Susan Beth Farmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., Georgia Public Service Commission, R. Douglas Lackey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., Tennessee Public Service Commission, William C. Koch, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., Eugene W. Ward, Gen. Counsel, Tennessee Public Service Commission, Nashville, Tenn., Mississippi Public Service Comm., Bennett E. Smith, Jackson, Miss., North Carolina Utilities Commission, Maurice W. Horne, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Utilities Commission, Raleigh, N. C., David H. Coburn, Counsel for NMFTA, Rea, Cross & Auchincloss, Washington, D. C., Paul Rodgers, Charles A. Schneider, William R. Nusbaum, Washington, D. C., John Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., Homer S. Carpenter, Arlington, Va., Charles D. Gray, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Assn. of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae.
On November 17, 1976 the United States filed a complaint under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4,1 to enjoin the continuing violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.2 The three rate bureau defendants, Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. ("SMCRC"), Motor Carriers Traffic Association, Inc. ("MCTA"), and North Carolina Motor Carriers Association, Inc. ("NCMCA"), represent common carriers before the regulatory commissions of the States of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee. On behalf of their members, the defendants publish tariffs containing proposed rates for intrastate for-hire transportation of general commodities. The complaint alleges that the defendants and their co-conspirators have engaged in a continuing conspiracy to fix these rates within the five subject states. The parties completed discovery following the court's ruling, on July 4, 1977, on the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's motion to strike certain affirmative defenses. United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., 439 F.Supp. 29 (N.D.Ga. 1977). As a part of that order, we invited the Attorneys General of the States of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee and North Carolina "to participate in the instant action by filing briefs, memoranda, or evidence which may be a critical aid in the ultimate resolution of the issues presented ...." Id. at 52. The action is presently before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons set forth below, we GRANT the government's motion for summary judgment and DENY the summary judgment motions filed by the defendants.
Discovery in this action has led to the development of a substantial record. While the parties vigorously dispute the significance of the facts in the record, they do not dispute the facts themselves, and have filed extensive stipulations of fact. The statement of the case which follows will review first, the regulatory schemes in the five subject states; second, the operations of the defendants in formulating and publishing intrastate rates before the state commissions; and finally, the procedures followed by the commissions in reviewing the proposed rates. The regulatory schemes of the various states differ somewhat, and we will survey each separately. As the rate formulation practices are similar among the defendant conferences, and as the review mechanisms are similar among the commissions, we will describe these by reference to the North Carolina example. To the extent that there is a dispute among the parties, we will of course view the facts in a light most favorable to the defendants. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962).
Alabama — Under Alabama law, all non-exempted motor carriers are subject "to control, supervision and regulation by the Alabama Public Service Commission." Title 48, Ala.Code § 301(3). That authority includes regulation of intrastate commerce "except insofar as the same may be in conflict with the provisions of the constitution of the United States and the acts of congress" in force in 1940 or thereafter enacted. Title 48, Ala.Code § 301(4). The powers and duties of the Alabama Public Service Commission are set forth in Title 48, Ala.Code § 301(5), and include:
Alabama Code § 301(17) further places concomitant duties on the common carriers with respect to rates, fares, and charges, including, inter alia:
These provisions illustrate a common pattern among the subject states: motor carriers are required to cooperate for the limited purpose of establishing joint rates, i. e., rates covering a shipment in which one carrier operates over only part of the route and another carrier serves the remainder. In this fashion, a shipper is able to obtain a single price for a shipment involving more than one carrier. On the other hand, Alabama does not require that two carriers providing identical service along the same route charge identical prices, or confer as to the prices each will charge.
Mississippi — The regulation of motor common carriers operating in intrastate commerce within Mississippi was vested in the Mississippi Public Service Commission by the Motor Carrier Regulatory Act of 1938. The public policy expressed by the 1938 Act substantially paraphrases the National Transportation Policy, see 49 U.S.C. preceding §§ 1, 301, 901 and 1001, and provides that the purpose of the regulation of motor common carriers is to ensure "reasonable charges . . . without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, and unfair or destructive competitive practices . . .."
Mississippi law comes the closest to requiring uniform rates to be charged by competing carriers serving the same route. Rule 39d(4) of the Mississippi Public Service Commission provides:
Where two or more freight rates are published to apply on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Highfield Water Co. v. Public Service Com'n
...to a private party. See also Duke & Co., Inc. v. Foerster, 521 F.2d 1277 (3d Cir. 1975). United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Confer., Inc., 467 F.Supp. 471, 484 (N.D.Ga.1979). A final problem in interpreting Lafayette is determining how, if at all, the standard for exemptions diff......
-
HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT, ETC. v. PA. HORSE RACING
...follows that they must be permitted to confer and to agree upon the fees they wish to propose. United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., 467 F.Supp. 471, 485 (N.D.Ga.1979). It is vital to the effective functioning of the Commission that it be informed by the jockeys an......
-
U.S. v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc.
...competitor. The parties have cited no cases in which courts have invoked Noerr-Pennington to immunize price fixing among competitors. 467 F.Supp. at 484-85 (citation Indeed the Court's discussion in the Noerr case itself lends support to the trial court's conclusion "that the defendants' ac......
-
Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston
...95 S.Ct. 2004, 2015, 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975); see also, Cantor v. Detroit Edison Company, supra; United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Conference, Inc., 467 F.Supp. 471, 481-83 (N.D.Ga.1979); cf. California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., supra, 445 U.S. at 105,......
-
Table of Cases
...844 (9th Cir. 1991), 201 United States v. Schmidt, 711 F.2d 595 (5th Cir. 1983), 201 United States v. S. Motor Carriers Rate Conference, 467 F. Supp. 471 (N.D. Ga. 1979), 26 United States v. S. Motor Carriers Rate Conference, 702 F.2d 532 (5th Cir. 1983), 26 United States v. Stewart, 433 F.......
-
Iowa. Practice Text
...Transportation Regulation Board, Iowa Department of Transportation (1979). 34. See United States v. S. Motor Carriers Rate Conference, 467 F. Supp. 471 (N.D. Ga. 1979), aff’d , 672 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1982), reversed , 471 U.S. 48 (1985) (summary judgment for the government reversed on the g......
-
Development of the Doctrine
...states’ public service commissions actively supervised the rate 124. Id. at 53. 125. United States v. S. Motor Carriers Rate Conference, 467 F. Supp. 471, 487 (N.D. Ga. 1979). The defendants also argued that their collective formulation and submission of rates to regulatory agencies were pr......