Jessep v. Jacobson Transp. Co., Inc.

Decision Date02 December 2003
Docket NumberNo. 03-2005.,03-2005.
Citation350 F.3d 739
PartiesAl JESSEP, Appellant, v. JACOBSON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.; Shelley Capehart, in her official and individual capacity, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Al Jessep, Amarillo, TX, pro se.

Counsel who represented the appellee was R. Saffin Parrish-Sams and Terrence D. Brown, Clive, IA.

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Al Jessep (Jessep) appeals the district court's1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action alleging breach of contract and violation of 49 U.S.C. § 14103. We affirm.

Jessep, an owner-operator of a semi tractor-trailer, entered into an "Independent Contractor Standard Agreement" (lease) with Jacobson Transportation Company (Jacobson), a carrier of goods and freight. Jessep agreed to lease his vehicle to Jacobson and to provide transportation services in exchange for payment according to a compensation schedule. Paragraphs 3 and 6E of the lease expressly provide that the qualified driver/contractor will load, transport, deliver, unload, or assist in unloading accepted freight. Pursuant to paragraph 6L of the lease, Jessep agreed to abide by Jacobson's Policy and Procedure Manual (manual), which provides that if a driver rejects a load offer, the offer will be rescinded, the driver will be moved to the bottom of the dispatch board, and the driver will not be paid for bounce miles—miles driven in an empty truck between loads. The manual also provides that a driver who rejects a load offer is subject to possible disciplinary action or lease cancellation.

On September 17, 2001, Jacobson assigned Jessep a "driver assist" load to be picked up in Fort Worth, Texas, and delivered to Michaels Stores, Inc., in Little Rock, Arkansas. Jessep told Jacobson's dispatcher, Shelley Capehart (Capehart), he would not assist in unloading the freight, although he was not refusing the load. Capehart responded that "refusing to unload is the same thing as refusing the load." She informed Jessep that, if he refused the load, he would go to the bottom of the dispatch list and would not be paid for bounce miles to his next load. Jessup did not accept the "driver assist" load. Later that morning, Capehart dispatched another load to Jessep, which he accepted, but Jacobson did not pay Jessep for his bounce miles.

Jessep filed the instant action in December 2001, and Jacobson terminated its lease with Jessep on April 29, 2002. In his third amended complaint, which added Capehart as a defendant, Jessep alleged Jacobson and Capehart had breached the lease and had coerced or attempted to coerce him to unload freight in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 14103(b), which states:

b. Coercion prohibited.—It shall be unlawful to coerce or attempt to coerce any person providing transportation of property by motor vehicle for compensation in interstate commerce ... to load or unload any part of such property onto or from such vehicle or to employ or pay one or more persons to load or unload any part of such property onto or from such vehicle; except that this subsection shall not be construed as making unlawful any activity which is not unlawful under the ... Norris-LaGuardia Act.

Jessep sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and this appeal followed.

We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, as well as the district court's interpretation of a contract, see ABC Elec., Inc. v. Neb. Beef, Ltd., 249 F.3d 762, 766 (8th Cir.2001), and a federal statute; see Norwest Bank of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Owner–operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n Inc. v. Supervalu Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 11 Agosto 2011
    ...grant of summary judgment, as well as the district court's interpretation of ... a federal statute.” Jessep v. Jacobson Transp. Co., Inc., 350 F.3d 739, 741–42 (8th Cir.2003).1. Section 14103(a)'s Plain Language Whether, under § 14103(a), the shipper or receiver reimbursing a trucker's lump......
  • U.S. v. Underwood
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 22 Abril 2004
    ... ... and Melvin Samples, a surveyor with HGM Associates, Inc., who testified that Carpenter's house was within 1000 feet ... ...
  • Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 15 Diciembre 2011
    ...statute.’ ” Owner–Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Supervalu, Inc., 651 F.3d 857, 862 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting Jessep v. Jacobson Transp. Co., 350 F.3d 739, 741–42 (8th Cir.2003)). “The purpose of the FDCPA is to ‘eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors,’ ... and debt ......
  • U.S. v. Maswai, 04-3901.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 22 Agosto 2005
    ...court erred in denying her motion. We review the district court's interpretation of the statute de novo. Jessep v. Jacobson Transp. Co., Inc., 350 F.3d 739, 742 (8th Cir.2003). Maswai contends that the government's evidence was discovered as the result of her abusive husband's letter to Sen......
  • 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