12 PERCENT LOGISTICS, INC. v. UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN BOARD
1:17-cv-02000
D.D.C.Dec 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs 12 Percent Logistics, Inc. and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition sued the UCR Plan Board and the Indiana Department of Revenue (INDOR) seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction to reopen the 2018 Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) renewal period after the Board postponed its October 1, 2017 start date.
- Plaintiffs previously moved for relief based on a Sunshine Act notice violation; the court denied that motion but ordered disclosure of draft minutes and recordings of the noticed meeting.
- In this second motion Plaintiffs advance a new theory: an implied private right of action under the Unified Carrier Registration Act (49 U.S.C. § 14504a) to compel the Board (and INDOR as its agent) to open registration for 2018.
- Plaintiffs also assert a series of alleged Sunshine Act violations over the Board’s history (public announcement failures, late Federal Register notices, and repetitive boilerplate subject descriptions) and seek an injunction preventing future violations.
- INDOR did not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion; the UCR Board opposed. Plaintiffs asked the court to treat INDOR’s non-response as concession and grant relief against INDOR alone.
- The court denied the motion in full, concluding Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm, and declined to treat INDOR’s non-opposition as a basis for relief against the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs have an implied private right to enforce the UCR Agreement under 49 U.S.C. § 14504a to compel reopening of registration | Plaintiffs: statute implies a private right allowing suit to compel Board to open the registration period and to enjoin INDOR as agent | Board: (implicit) Plaintiffs lack a private right and relief is improper; INDOR opposed not at all | Denied on alternative ground: Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm, so injunction improper; court did not decide implied-right question on merits |
| Whether the prospect of state enforcement for unregistered carriers constitutes irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief | Plaintiffs: risk of criminal/civil penalties and enforcement beginning Jan 1, 2018 creates irreparable injury | Board: risk is speculative; litigation burden and potential enforcement do not equal irreparable harm; states aware of postponement | Held: speculative future enforcement insufficient; no irreparable harm shown |
| Whether historical and ongoing Sunshine Act violations justify an injunction against future violations | Plaintiffs: repeated failures (public announcements, Federal Register notices, boilerplate subject texts) harm public participation and warrant injunction | Board: recent remedial steps (new website posting notices/minutes) mitigate harm; boilerplate harms not shown with proof | Held: remedial measures (website notices) extinguish claimed harms for announcements and Federal Register timing; plaintiffs failed to prove irreparable harm from boilerplate descriptions |
| Whether INDOR’s failure to oppose the motion should be treated as concession and used to grant relief against INDOR (effectively bypassing Board opposition) | Plaintiffs: Local Rule permits treating an unopposed motion as conceded; so court should order INDOR to open registration | UCR Board: opposing party; allowing relief against INDOR would circumvent Board’s opposition and is inappropriate | Held: Court declines to treat INDOR’s non-response as conceding relief; will not grant injunction against INDOR alone to circumvent Board opposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (extraordinary injunctive relief standard)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction factors)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (injunction burden of proof)
- Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Circuit discussion of sliding-scale test for preliminary injunctions)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (irreparable harm as prerequisite for injunction)
- Wisc. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (requirements for proving irreparable injury)
- FTC v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 449 U.S. 232 (litigation expense and annoyance not irreparable injury)
- Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660 (speculative future injury insufficient for injunctive relief)
- CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738 (if no irreparable harm, court need not reach other injunction factors)