Small Bus. In Transp. Coal. v. United States Dep't of Transp.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-883 (CKK) |
| Parties | SMALL BUSINESS IN TRANSPORTATION COALITION, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Small Business in Transportation Coalition (“SBTC”) brings this action against Defendants U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”), Pete Buttigieg in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation (“Secretary”), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”), and Meera Joshi in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of FMCSA[1](collectively “Defendants”). SBTC alleges that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by failing to take action on four separate exemption requests submitted by SBTC and by failing to amend Hour of Service (“HOS”) regulations and to adopt other protective measures in response to disruptions caused by nationwide protests during the summer of 2020. SBTC seeks to compel agency action on outstanding exemption requests and to enjoin Defendants from future similar delays. SBTC also alleges that its exemption requests have been treated differently than requests by similarly situated groups, in deprivation of its First Amendment right to “petition” the government. Defendants moved to dismiss the SBTC's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction because SBTC's challenges to Defendants' action (or lack thereof) fall with the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal court of appeals conferred by the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342. Defendants also argue that certain of SBTC's claims are moot and that others fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Nine months after briefing was completed on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, SBTC recently filed its [42] Third Motion to Amend the Complaint, seeking to add an additional claim alleging that Defendants failed to act on another petition submitted by SBTC in late 2020 and early 2021. As detailed below, SBTC also proposes to remove certain claims related to exemption requests upon which Defendants have acted since SBTC initiated this lawsuit. Defendants oppose SBTC's request to amend the Complaint, except to the extent SBTC agrees to dismiss certain claims.
Upon consideration of Defendants' [38] Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, SBTC's [42] Third Motion to Amend Complaint, the associated pleadings, [2] the relevant legal authority, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and HOLDS-IN-ABEYANCE-IN PART Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, the Court DISMISSES Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also DISMISSES Count 6 of the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted to the extent SBTC seeks to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However the Court shall HOLD-IN-ABEYANCE Count 6 of the Second Amended Complaint, to the extent SBTC seeks to state a claim under § 702 of the APA, and shall require the parties to respond to this Memorandum Opinion, addressing the issues raised by the Court in its discussion, infra Section II(A)(4). The Court shall also DENY Plaintiff's Third Motion to Amend.
Plaintiff SBTC is a 501(c)(6) industry trade group representing “interstate truckers and motor carriers, among other small players in the transportation industry” Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 37.[3] In general terms, SBTC claims that Defendants have delayed or withheld decisions on its applications for exemptions from certain FMCSA regulations, to which SBTC's members are subject. Given the extensive procedural background of this case and SBTC's recent request to introduce a new claim into this litigation, the Court shall first summarize the procedural posture of the case, and then shall provide the relevant statutory and regulatory background and the facts underlying each of SBTC's pending and proposed supplemental claims.
SBTC filed its Original Complaint and Request for a Temporary Restraining Order on April 1, 2020. See Orig. Compl., ECF No. 1. In its Original Complaint, SBTC sought declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Defendants' alleged failure to act on three requests for exemptions from FMCSA regulations submitted by SBTC on behalf of its members. Orig. Compl. ¶¶ 40-69. SBTC also alleged that Defendants engaged in “purposeful discrimination” against its members, depriving SBTC of its “opportunity to petition FMCA on issues and regulations” affecting its members. Orig. Compl. ¶¶ 71-75.
Soon thereafter, on April 27, 2020, SBTC filed its first Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, seeking to compel Defendants to grant or deny one of the exemption requests at issue in the Original Complaint. See Pl.'s (1st) Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 10. In Defendants' Opposition to SBTC's first motion for a preliminary injunction, Defendants indicated that they had taken the actions requested in Plaintiff's motion, rendering the request for a preliminary injunction moot. Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s (1st) Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 20-21, ECF No. 15. The Court, therefore, denied Plaintiff's First Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as moot. See Order, ECF No. 18.
On the same day they filed an opposition to SBTC's first motion for a preliminary injunction, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint. See Defs.' (1st) Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16. That motion was ripe as of June 1, 2020. See Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' (1st) Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 19; Defs.' (1st) Mot. to Dismiss Reply, ECF No. 20
On June 26, 2020, SBTC filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to compel “limited depositions” of FMCSA officials. See Pl.'s (2d) Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 24. The Court denied the motion on June 29, 2020. See Order, ECF No. 25. On the same day, SBTC filed a [26] Motion for Discovery, seeking virtually the same relief as its Second Motion for a Preliminary Injunction-to compel depositions of certain FMCSA personnel pending the Court's decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint. The Court, again, denied SBTC's request. See Order, ECF No. 41.
SBTC next filed its [28] First Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on July 28, 2020. See Pl.'s (1st) Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 28. In that motion, SBTC sought to supplement its Complaint by adding a claim that Defendants violated 49 U.S.C. § 31136(a)(2) by failing to suspend or amend “Hours of Service” regulations in the wake of nationwide protests during the summer of 2020. Id. at 2-3. Defendants opposed SBTC's first motion to amend. See Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s (1st) Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 32.
Before the Court ruled on SBTC's fully-briefed First Motion to Amend the Complaint, SBTC filed a [37] Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, seeking to add an additional claim that Defendants had failed to act on a fourth exemption request submitted by SBTC. See Pl.'s (2d) Mot. to Amend at 2-3, ECF No. 37. In a Minute Order dated September 24, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's later-filed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, but directed that, “this Second Amended Complaint shall be the final operative Complaint” and that the Court “shall not freely grant any further amendments to the Complaint at this point in the litigation.” Minute Order (Sept. 24, 2020) (emphasis added). As a result of the Court's Minute Order, the document entitled the “Second Amended Complaint, ” became the operative complaint in this action.
Defendants filed their now-pending [38] Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on October 8, 2020. SBTC filed its response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 6, 2020, and Defendants filed their reply on November 20, 2020.
Nine months later, on August 20, 2021, SBTC filed a [42] Petition for Reconsideration of Order Directing No. More Amendments to Complaint and Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (“Pl.'s (3d) Mot. to Amend”). SBTC seeks to supplement the Second Amended Complaint by adding a new claim, which is discussed infra Section I(C)(1)(e). SBTC also seeks to remove certain claims from the Second Amended Complaint; the Court shall address in its discussion infra Section I(C)(1) the claims SBTC agrees should be dismissed.
Despite its earlier order indicating that “the Second Amended Complaint would be the final operative complaint in this action” and that it would “not freely grant any further amendments, ” Minute Order (Sept. 24, 2020), the Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motion to amend, “focusing on Plaintiff's proposal to add a new claim.” Minute Order (Aug. 25, 2021). Defendants filed their response to SBTC's Third Motion to Amend on September 3, 2021, indicating that they did not oppose SBTC's request to voluntarily dismiss certain claims-though they disagreed that filing an amended complaint was necessary to do so. See Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s (3d) Mot. to Amend at 3. Defendants, however, oppose SBTC's request to supplement its Second Amended Complaint by adding a new claim. Id. at 3-6.
In its Second Amended Complaint, SBTC alleges that Defendants delayed or failed to act on applications for exemptions to FMCSA regulations pertaining to hours of service and electronic logging devices requirements for commercial motor vehicle drivers, and bond requirements for transportation brokers. Accordingly, a brief discussion of the applicable statutory and regulatory framework related to the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial