Rivas v. Rail Delivery Service, Inc., No. 03-55447.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtTashima
Citation423 F.3d 1079
PartiesMiguel Osmar RIVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAIL DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Tobias Renteria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K & R Transportation Inc., a California corporation; Adriana Vasquez; Robert A. Curry, Sr., Defendants-Appellees. Salvador Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RWA Trucking Company, Inc.; Andy Asman, Defendant-Appellees. Wilfredo Pineda, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harbor Express Inc., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Decision Date08 September 2005
Docket NumberNo. 03-55450.,No. 03-55447.,No. 03-55452.,No. 03-55449.
423 F.3d 1079
Miguel Osmar RIVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RAIL DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Tobias Renteria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
K & R Transportation Inc., a California corporation; Adriana Vasquez; Robert A. Curry, Sr., Defendants-Appellees.
Salvador Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RWA Trucking Company, Inc.; Andy Asman, Defendant-Appellees.
Wilfredo Pineda, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Harbor Express Inc., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-55447.
No. 03-55452.
No. 03-55450.
No. 03-55449.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted November 3, 2004.
Filed September 8, 2005.

Page 1080

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1081

Stephen Glick, Kumetz & Glick, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Greg P. Stefflre, Robert W. Sanders, Stefflre & Sanders, Long Beach, CA, for defendants-appellees Rail Delivery Service, Inc., Harbor Express, Inc. and RWA Trucking, Inc.

Neil S. Lerner, Sands Lerner, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellee K & R Transportation, Inc.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Mariana R. Pfaelzer, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 98-0392 MRP, CV 98-0290 MRP, CV 98-0393 MRP, CV 98-0397 MRP.

Before: TASHIMA, FISHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:


These consolidated appeals involve four cases in which the district court granted a permanent injunction under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA"). The district court found that Defendant motor carriers had entered into past contracts with Plaintiffs that did not comply with one of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations promulgated pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act; the injunction directed Defendants to comply. Plaintiffs in all four cases appeal the court's injunction as too narrow, claiming that it should have required Defendants' compliance with four additional regulatory provisions. Plaintiffs also appeal the court's denial of attorneys' fees. In addition, Plaintiff Renteria appeals a grant of summary judgment to Defendant K & R Transportation on Renteria's claims based on violations of the California Insurance Code. We conclude that Plaintiffs lacked standing because: (1) the regulatory violations for which they sought injunctive relief caused them no injury, depriving them of Article III standing; and (2) the ICCTA would have an impermissible retroactive effect if it conferred standing to bring claims for damages on the basis of contracts executed before the ICCTA's effective date. We therefore vacate the district court's judgments and remand for dismissal of the cases for lack of jurisdiction.

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs are owner-operators who have contracted with Defendant motor carriers to transport goods for Defendants. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into written agreements at different times between 1991 and 1995. In December 1997, Plaintiffs filed complaints in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that: (1) Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants by operation of law under the requirements imposed by the ICCTA and the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, notwithstanding contractual provisions identifying the owner-operators as independent contractors, and that Defendants had unlawfully denied Plaintiffs the benefits of employees; (2) Defendants failed to comply with federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations, thereby breaching fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs; and (3) Defendants sold insurance to Plaintiffs without a license permitting them to do so under California law.

These cases were removed to federal district court. The district court twice denied motions to remand the cases to state court. The district court ruled that there is no private cause of action for damages under the ICCTA for violations

Page 1082

of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations unless the plaintiff first obtains an agency order. This ruling eliminated Plaintiffs' ICCTA claims for damages, leaving ICCTA claims for injunctive relief and state law claims. It then granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs' employment status claims, concluding that compliance with federal law did not preclude owner-operators from being independent contractors. The court also granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs' unlawful sale of insurance claims.

The cases proceeded to trial on Plaintiffs' remaining ICCTA claims for injunctive relief to remedy violations of the Truth in-Leasing regulations. The court first tried the issue of whether the written agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendants substantially complied with the regulations. The court determined that the Defendants failed substantially to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1), which requires leases to state that the motor carrier assumes complete responsibility for the operation of the hauling equipment for the duration of the lease. It granted Plaintiffs injunctions under 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(1). The judgments prohibited each Defendant from using equipment it did not own to haul goods unless it entered into a written agreement that complied with 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1) and denied Plaintiffs' requests for attorneys' fees.

Legal Background

In 1979, the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") promulgated the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, which exist in substantially the same form today at 49 C.F.R. Part 376. Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Arctic Express, Inc., 270 F.Supp.2d 990, 992 (S.D.Ohio 2003) (citing Global Van Lines, Inc. v. ICC, 627 F.2d 546, 549(D.C.Cir.1980)). Until 1996, the ICC could bring civil actions to enforce the regulations, which require that leases between motor carriers and owner-operators contain certain provisions. Id. at 992-93. The ICCTA terminated the ICC as an agency as of January 1, 1996. Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995), codified at 49 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq. The ICCTA allows...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Rodriguez v. Rwa Trucking Co., B241727
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 2013
    ...duties to plaintiff; and (3) defendants sold insurance to plaintiff without a license. ( Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv. (9th Cir.2005) 423 F.3d 1079, 1081.) On January 16, 1998, defendants removed the case to federal court; on September 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit held plaintiff lacked article......
  • Rodriguez v. Rwa Trucking Co., B241727
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 2013
    ...duties to plaintiff; and (3) defendants sold insurance to plaintiff without a license. (Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv. (9th Cir.2005) 423 F.3d 1079, 1081.) On January 16, 1998, defendants removed the case to federal court; on September 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit held plaintiff lacked article ......
  • Rodriguez v. RWA Trucking Co., B241727
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 2013
    ...duties to plaintiff; and (3) defendants sold insurance to plaintiff without a license. ( Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv. (9th Cir.2005) 423 F.3d 1079, 1081.) On January 16, 1998, defendants removed the case to federal court; on September 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit held plaintiff lacked United ......
  • GEO Grp., Inc. v. Newsom, Case No.: 19-CV-2491 JLS (WVG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • October 8, 2020
    ...suffice to satisfy the usual injury-in-fact requirement of standing." U.S. Supp. Br. at 8 (citing Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv., Inc. , 423 F.3d 1079, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2005) ). Defendants rejoin that "[t]he standing requirement 493 F.Supp.3d 930 applies to claims brought by the United State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Rodriguez v. Rwa Trucking Co., B241727
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 2013
    ...duties to plaintiff; and (3) defendants sold insurance to plaintiff without a license. ( Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv. (9th Cir.2005) 423 F.3d 1079, 1081.) On January 16, 1998, defendants removed the case to federal court; on September 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit held plaintiff lacked article......
  • Rodriguez v. Rwa Trucking Co., B241727
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 2013
    ...duties to plaintiff; and (3) defendants sold insurance to plaintiff without a license. (Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv. (9th Cir.2005) 423 F.3d 1079, 1081.) On January 16, 1998, defendants removed the case to federal court; on September 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit held plaintiff lacked article ......
  • Rodriguez v. RWA Trucking Co., B241727
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 2013
    ...duties to plaintiff; and (3) defendants sold insurance to plaintiff without a license. ( Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv. (9th Cir.2005) 423 F.3d 1079, 1081.) On January 16, 1998, defendants removed the case to federal court; on September 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit held plaintiff lacked United ......
  • GEO Grp., Inc. v. Newsom, Case No.: 19-CV-2491 JLS (WVG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • October 8, 2020
    ...suffice to satisfy the usual injury-in-fact requirement of standing." U.S. Supp. Br. at 8 (citing Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv., Inc. , 423 F.3d 1079, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2005) ). Defendants rejoin that "[t]he standing requirement 493 F.Supp.3d 930 applies to claims brought by the United State......
  • 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