12 Percent Logistics, Inc. v. Unified Carrier Registration Plan Bd.
316 F. Supp. 3d 22
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (12 Percent Logistics and SBTC) moved to cancel ten UCR Plan Board subcommittee meetings scheduled for June 3 and 5, 2018, and to hold the Board in contempt for allegedly violating a January 29, 2018 injunction requiring Sunshine Act notice compliance.
- The January 29 order enjoined the Board from holding subcommittee meetings after January 31, 2018 without complying with the Sunshine Act notice requirements, pending appeal.
- Plaintiffs alleged three violations: (1) notices omitted subject-matter details, (2) notices were not submitted to the Federal Register immediately after a May 11 website announcement, and (3) notices were not submitted at least one week before the meetings (i.e., by May 27).
- Defendant showed an initial notice posted to its new website on April 24; agendas posted May 11 (initial) and May 23 (final); DOT transmitted the final public notice on May 25; and the Federal Register published the notice on May 29 (first business day after Memorial Day). The Federal Register notice included meeting times, locations, call-in info, and a URL stating agendas would be available by May 25.
- Plaintiffs failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 7(m)’s meet-and-confer requirement before filing the emergency contempt motion and conceded that omission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board violated the injunction by failing to provide subject-matter in meeting notices | Notices lacked sufficient subject-matter detail | Notices and posted agendas satisfied Sunshine Act notice requirements | Court held plaintiffs failed to prove violation by clear and convincing evidence; no contempt |
| Whether notices were not submitted to the Federal Register “immediately” after May 11 announcement | Board should have filed notice to FR immediately after May 11 website post | Board posted agendas May 11/23, DOT transmitted notice May 25, FR published May 29 (first business day after holiday) | Court credited defendant timeline; no contempt |
| Whether notices were submitted less than one week before meetings (after May 27) | Notices appeared too late for the required one-week lead time (deadline May 27) | DOT transmitted notice May 25; FR publication delay due to Memorial Day created May 29 publication | Court found publication met timing requirements (transmission May 25) and plaintiffs failed to meet burden |
| Procedural sufficiency of plaintiffs' motion | Emergency contempt justified immediate filing | Plaintiffs failed Local Civ. R. 7(m) meet-and-confer; motion procedurally defective | Court denied motion in part because plaintiffs did not meet-and-confer; also denied on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. ZAK Arch. Metal & Glass LLC, 736 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2010) (elements and burden for civil contempt)
- Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (standard for contempt burden-shifting)
- United States ex rel. K & R Ltd. P'ship v. Mass. Hous. Fin. Agency, 456 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006) (meet-and-confer efforts must be substantive for time-sensitive motions)
- Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann, 460 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2006) (denying motions for failure to comply with local meet-and-confer rule)