Fox v. Transam Leasing, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–3203,15–3203 |
| Citation | 839 F.3d 1209 |
| Parties | Candace Fox ; Anthony Gillespie; Charles Schreckenbach, Plaintiffs Counter Defendants–Appellees, v. Transam Leasing, Inc.; Transam Trucking, Inc., Defendants Counterclaimants–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Christopher M. McHugh (Shannon D. Johnson and Kendra D. Hanson with him on the briefs), Seigfreid Bingham, P.C., Kansas City, Missouri, for Defendants Counterclaimants–Appellants.
Gregory Leyh, Law Office of Gregory Leyh, P.C., Gladstone, Missouri (Richard F. Lombardo, Kathleen K. Woods, Gregory P. Forney, and Daniel M. Runion, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, Kansas City, Missouri, with him on the brief), for Plaintiffs Counter Defendants–Appellees.
Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and B ACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs, three independent truckers representing themselves and a class of similarly situated truck drivers (“truckers”), contend that Defendants TransAm Trucking, Inc. and TransAm Leasing, Inc. (collectively “TransAm”) violated the Department of Transportation's truth-in-leasing regulations by requiring the truckers, who lease their trucks and driving services to TransAm, to pay TransAm $15 each week to use TransAm's satellite communications system. This $15 usage fee violates 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i), which precludes a motor carrier like TransAm from requiring a trucker “to purchase or rent any products, equipment, or services from the authorized carrier as a condition of entering into the lease arrangement.” We, therefore, affirm partial summary judgment for the truckers. That ruling will support the truckers' requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. But the truckers also asserted a claim for damages, which the district court certified as a class action. Because the truckers failed to present any evidence of their damages resulting from the unlawful usage fee, however, the district court should have entered summary judgment for TransAm on that damages claim. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), therefore, we AFFIRM the district court in part and REVERSE in part.
Congress regulates leases between independent truckers and federally regulated motor carriers like TransAm, requiring, among other things, that the leases be in writing and specify their duration and the compensation that the carrier will pay the trucker. See 49 U.S.C. § 14102(a) ; see also Owner–Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Swift Transp. Co., 632 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 2011). Congress has tasked the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) with further regulating these leases; the DOT does so through its Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and its truth-in-leasing regulations, 49 C.F.R. Pt. 376. See Swift Transp., 632 F.3d at 1113.1
In re Arctic Express, 636 F.3d at 796 (internal quotation marks, alterations omitted); see also Lease and Interchange of Vehicles, 43 Fed. Reg. 29,812 (July 11, 1978).
This case involves allegations that TransAm has undertaken abusive practices that the truth-in-leasing regulations preclude. Plaintiffs, three independent truckers, sued TransAm on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated truckers. The truth-in-leasing claim at issue here is but one of a number of claims that the truckers have asserted against TransAm. As a general overview of this litigation, the truckers have alleged that TransAm recruited independent drivers by falsely representing, among other things, how much money drivers could make as independent truckers leasing their trucks and driving services to TransAm, rather than driving as TransAm employees; once recruited, TransAm leased semi-tractors to the independent truckers, with an option for the truckers eventually to buy their vehicles; the truckers in turn leased the vehicles, plus their driving services, back to TransAm; and, contrary to its promises, TransAm limited the amount of money that the independent truckers made.
Based on these allegations, the truckers asserted two claims alleging that TransAm had violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making false representations to the truckers to entice them to contract with TransAm, and thirteen claims alleging that the terms of TransAm's standard agreement to lease truckers' vehicles and driving services violated the DOT's truth-in-leasing regulations.2 TransAm, in turn, asserted counterclaims alleging that the truckers had breached their contracts with TransAm.
The only claim at issue in this interlocutory appeal is the truckers' claim that TransAm violated the truth-in-leasing regulations—specifically 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i) —by requiring the truckers to pay TransAm $15 each week to use TransAm's satellite communications system. Such a system has a variety of uses in the trucking industry, including providing a means of communication between the carrier and the truckers, route planning, keeping automated records of drivers' hours and state fuel taxes, and monitoring the temperature of any refrigerated trailer being hauled.
TransAm purchases its satellite communications system from third-party vendors. According to TransAm, it pays $25 per week per driver for its system.
In order to access TransAm's system, TransAm's standard lease requires that a trucker's vehicle (Aplt. App. 571 ¶ 1(b).)
[R]egardless of whether the Contractor furnishes a compatible satellite communications unit in the Equipment or borrows a compatible unit from Carrier hereunder, Contractor shall pay to Carrier a satellite communications system usage fee in the amount of fifteen dollars ($15.00) per week. Carrier may deduct any and all such amounts payable by Contractor under this subparagraph 1(b) from the compensation otherwise payable to Contractor hereunder.
(Id.(emphasis added); see also id. 578 ¶ 15(b) ().) Drivers who work as TransAm's employees also use its satellite communications system, but they do not pay a fee.
The district court certified the class—all persons who since November 2, 2008, had leased trucks from TransAm and then leased their vehicles and driving services back to TransAm—but only for the truckers' claim challenging the $15 fee for using TransAm's satellite communications system. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment on that claim. The district court granted the truckers' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, ruling the $15 fee violated 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i).
TransAm also moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that, even if its $15 usage fee technically violated § 376.12(i), the truckers could not prove they were entitled to damages as a result of that violation. The district court denied TransAm summary judgment on the question of damages. TransAm appeals both decisions.
Rule 56(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires a court to “grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” We review the district court's summary judgment decisions de novo. See United States v. Supreme Ct. of N.M., 839 F.3d 888, 907–08, 2016 WL 5946021, at *13 (10th Cir. June 7, 2016). “Where, as here, we are presented with cross-motions for summary judgment, we must view each motion separately, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Id.(internal quotation marks omitted).
Not only must a carrier specify this in its lease agreements, but the carrier must also “adhere[ ] to and perform[ ]” this lease provision, id.§ 376.12 ; that is, the carrier cannot actually require truckers “to purchase or rent any products, equipment, or services from the authorized carrier as a condition of entering into the lease arrangement.”3
In defending its $15 usage fee, TransAm relies on a second truth-in-leasing regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h), which states:
Charge back items. The lease shall clearly specify all items that may be initially paid for by the authorized carrier, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overton v. Uber Techs., Inc.
...regulations [is to] protect independent truckers from motor carriers' abusive leasing practices." Fox v. Transam Leasing, Inc. , 839 F.3d 1209, 1211 (10th Cir. 2016). Section 14102 has no relevance here because it applies only to motor carriers transporting property (not passengers), and it......
-
C. Pepper Logistics v. Lanter Delivery Sys.
...Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc. (AZ), 632 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 2011). The Tenth Circuit in Fox v. Transam Leasing, Inc. explained that “Congress regulates leases independent truckers and federally regulated motor carriers . . ., requiring, among other things, that......
-
McGovern v. George Wash. Univ.
...own motion.") (citing 10A Charles Alan Wright et al., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2720 (1973) ); see also Fox v. Transam Leasing, Inc ., 839 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2016) ("Where, as here, we are presented with cross-motions for summary judgment, we must view each motion separately,......
-
Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. YRC, Inc.
...similarly involve either the federal truth-in-leasing regulations or similar statutory provisions. See, e.g., Fox v. Transam Leasing, Inc., 839 F.3d 1209, 1218 (10th Cir. 2016) (discussing damages claim for violation of federal truth-in-leasing regulations found in 49 C.F.R. Part 376); Owne......