California Tow Truck Associati v. City and County of San Francis
693 F.3d 847
9th Cir.2012Background
- San Francisco adopted two ordinances (Article 30 for tow truck drivers, Article 30.1 for towing firms) creating a permit scheme with multiple prerequisites and fees.
- CTTA challenged the entire permit system as preempted by federal law under 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) (FAAAA) and requested injunctions and declaratory relief.
- The district court held parts of the permit system valid for non-consensual towing but enjoined enforcement for consensual towing and for drivers merely passing through San Francisco, and it remanded to address provision-by-provision analysis.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for a provision-by-provision preemption analysis and for consideration of safety, insurance, and price exceptions, emphasizing ATA I guidance.
- The court also addressed standing and ripeness issues, concluding the challenge to drivers simply passing through was not ripe or had no standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Permit System is preempted under FAAAA as to the entire scheme. | CTTA argues the whole permit scheme is preempted. | City contends some provisions may be saved by safety/insurance/price exceptions. | Remand for provision-by-provision analysis; not yet resolved. |
| Whether the safety exception applies to non-consensual towing. | Safety concerns justify the permit requirements for non-consensual towing. | Safety rationale insufficient or not adequately shown for all provisions. | Safety exception can apply to non-consensual towing; remand to assess specific provisions. |
| Whether the district court failed to analyze the permit provisions provision-by-provision as required. | ATA I requires examining major provisions individually. | Court should consider the scheme as a whole with severability. | Remand to perform provision-by-provision analysis. |
| Whether CTTA lacks standing to challenge drivers merely passing through San Francisco. | CTTA has standing to challenge enforcement of the permit scheme for pass-through drivers. | Challenge to pass-through is not ripe and CTTA lacks standing. | Lacks standing for pass-through challenge; remand if new evidence shows enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, 536 U.S. 424 (U.S. 2002) (safety exception can apply to local ordinances)
- American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-part safety analysis and provision-by-provision approach)
- American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles, 596 F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirmed need to examine provisions individually)
- American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles, 660 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2011) (mixed motives allowed if safety not pre-textual)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 552 U.S. 364 (U.S. 2008) (framework influencing safety exception interpretation)