HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIERS'BUREAU v. United States, Civ. No. 47646.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation288 F. Supp. 641
PartiesHOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIERS' BUREAU, Allied Van Lines, Inc., North American Van Lines, Inc., United Van Lines, Inc., Bert Hussey, dba Hussey's, A. L. Chipman, dba Goodwin Moving and Storage, United California Express and Storage Co., dba U. C. Express and Storage Co., and Von Der Ahe Van Services, Inc., dba Bentley's, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.
Docket NumberCiv. No. 47646.
Decision Date16 December 1968

288 F. Supp. 641

HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIERS' BUREAU, Allied Van Lines, Inc., North American Van Lines, Inc., United Van Lines, Inc., Bert Hussey, dba Hussey's, A. L. Chipman, dba Goodwin Moving and Storage, United California Express and Storage Co., dba U. C. Express and Storage Co., and Von Der Ahe Van Services, Inc., dba Bentley's, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.

Civ. No. 47646.

United States District Court N. D. California.

June 10, 1968.

Judgment Affirmed December 16, 1968.


288 F. Supp. 642

Rice, Carpenter & Carraway, Washington, D. C., Silver, Rosen & Kerr, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Warren H. Saltzman, San Francisco, Cal., and Herbert Burstein, New York City, for Movers' and Warehousemen's Assn. of America, plaintiff in intervention.

Berol, Loughran & Geernaert, Handler, Baker & Greene, San Francisco, Cal., for National Furniture Warehousemen's Assn., defendant in intervention.

Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., Morrison, Foerster, Holloway, Clinton & Clark, San Francisco, Cal., for Am. Trucking Assn. Inc.

Robert C. Stetson, Menlo Park, Cal., for Consolidated Freightways Corp.

Chickering & Gregory, San Francisco, Cal., for Garrett Freightways Inc., Navajo Freight.

Before BROWNING, Circuit Judge, and SWEIGERT and BURKE, District Judges.

Judgment Affirmed December 16, 1968. See 89 S.Ct. 477.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an action before a statutory three-judge court 28 U.S.C. §§ 1336, 2284, 2321-2325 to annul and set aside a Report and Order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Report, Kingpak, Inc., Investigation of Operations, 103 M.C.C. 318 (1967), was principally concerned with the legality of door-to-door container services provided by non-regulated freight forwarders of used household goods. In substance, the Commission held that the parties under investigation were performing their services in accord with all the criteria of a freight forwarder as that term is defined in section 402(a) (5) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1002(a) (5). The Commission properly deferred to another proceeding consideration of whether these freight forwarders were relieved of the duty of compliance with part IV of the Act 49 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1022 by reason of the exemption in section 402(b) (2) 49 U.S.C. § 1002(b) (2) for freight forwarders who limited their operations to the handling of used household goods.

A freight forwarder is one who in the ordinary course of business assembles and consolidates small shipments into a single lot, assumes responsibility for the transportation of such property from a point of receipt to a point of destination, utilizes the services of carriers by rail, water or motor vehicle to help accomplish the movement, breaks the consolidated shipment up into its component parts, and distributes the goods to their destination point.

Since the original shipments are usually small, the customer is charged on the basis of freight rates applicable to less-than-truckload or less-than-carload shipments. The freight forwarder, who consolidates multiple small shipments into one large one, secures the cheaper transportation rate applicable to full truckload or carload lots. The spread between the two freight rates accounts for his gross profit.

The plaintiffs are all motor carriers of household goods certificated under part II of the Act. The forwarders involved in this proceeding compete with the plaintiffs by offering a service in

288 F. Supp. 643
which household goods are transported from door to door in one container. The goods are stowed into the container at the point of origin, are moved from household to terminal by local warehousemen or motor vehicle operators, are transported overland by rail or truck common carriers and overseas by ocean vessels, are further moved from terminal to household by local warehousemen and motor vehicle operators, and are finally removed from the container at the point of destination. This door-to-door container service eliminates the necessity of rehandling the lading in transit, thus resulting in a more economical rate

The great preponderance of traffic handled by these freight forwarders consists of the household effects of military personnel moving to and from overseas duty stations. Because of the geographical dispersion of such shipments, the practice of the Department of Defense in tendering shipments to approved forwarders on a rotation basis, and the need for expedited deliveries, the forwarder rarely has sufficient traffic at any one time to permit it to effect consolidation of shipments originating in its own service. Instead a practice has developed whereby two or more freight forwarders secure the economies available in full carload or truckload freight rates by combining their single shipments onto the same truck or car. This combining of shipments is referred to as joint-loading.

Section 402(a) (5) requires that a freight forwarder assemble and consolidate or provide for the assembly and consolidation of property entrusted to him for transit. The Commission concluded that joint-loading, being the substantial equivalent of consolidation, satisfies the statutory requirement. Such an interpretation by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the very statute which it enforces is entitled to great weight and should not be lightly interfered with by this court in the absence of compelling reasons. See United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 549, 60 S.Ct. 1059, 84 L.Ed. 1345 (1940); I.C.C. v. Allen E. Kroblin, Inc., 113 F.Supp. 599, 623 (N. D.Iowa, 1953), aff'd, 212 F.2d 555 (8th Cir....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Towne Services House. Goods Transp. Co. v. United States, Civ. A. No. A-70-CA-114.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • July 14, 1971
    ...requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act. The Kingpak decision was sustained in Household Goods Carriers Bureau v. United States, 288 F.Supp. 641 (N.D.Calif.1968), affirmed per curiam 393 U.S. 265, 89 S.Ct. 477, 21 L.Ed.2d 426. As a result of the Kingpak decision, the Commission has issu......
  • Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke, No. 72-1110.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1973
    ...difference between the two freight rates accounts for his gross profit. Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. United States, N.D.Cal.1968, 288 F. Supp. 641, 642, aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 265, 89 S.Ct. 477, 21 L.Ed.2d 426; see also Acme Fast Freight, Inc. v. United States, S.D.N.Y.1940, 30 F......
  • Global Van Lines, Inc. v. United States, No. 259-65
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • March 17, 1972
    ...the administrative decision in Kingpak, Inc., was upheld by a 3-judge court in Household Goods Carrier's Bureau v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 641 (N.D.Cal.1968), affirmed, 393 U.S. 265, 89 S.Ct. 477, 21 L.Ed.2d 426 In Kingpak, Inc., 103 M.C.C. at p. 325, the ICC described a freight forward......
  • Bullocks Express Transp. v. Xl Specialty Ins., No. 2:01-CV-00589 PGC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • August 2, 2004
    ...of the journey by common carrier at the lower truckload ... rate."); Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. United States of America, 288 F.Supp. 641, 642 (D.C.Cal.1968) 2. International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 812 F.2d 786, 788-89 (2d Cir.1987); see also Schnei......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Towne Services House. Goods Transp. Co. v. United States, Civ. A. No. A-70-CA-114.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • July 14, 1971
    ...requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act. The Kingpak decision was sustained in Household Goods Carriers Bureau v. United States, 288 F.Supp. 641 (N.D.Calif.1968), affirmed per curiam 393 U.S. 265, 89 S.Ct. 477, 21 L.Ed.2d 426. As a result of the Kingpak decision, the Commission has issu......
  • Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke, No. 72-1110.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1973
    ...difference between the two freight rates accounts for his gross profit. Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. United States, N.D.Cal.1968, 288 F. Supp. 641, 642, aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 265, 89 S.Ct. 477, 21 L.Ed.2d 426; see also Acme Fast Freight, Inc. v. United States, S.D.N.Y.1940, 30 F......
  • Global Van Lines, Inc. v. United States, No. 259-65
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • March 17, 1972
    ...the administrative decision in Kingpak, Inc., was upheld by a 3-judge court in Household Goods Carrier's Bureau v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 641 (N.D.Cal.1968), affirmed, 393 U.S. 265, 89 S.Ct. 477, 21 L.Ed.2d 426 In Kingpak, Inc., 103 M.C.C. at p. 325, the ICC described a freight forward......
  • Bullocks Express Transp. v. Xl Specialty Ins., No. 2:01-CV-00589 PGC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • August 2, 2004
    ...of the journey by common carrier at the lower truckload ... rate."); Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. United States of America, 288 F.Supp. 641, 642 (D.C.Cal.1968) 2. International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 812 F.2d 786, 788-89 (2d Cir.1987); see also Schnei......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT