DND International, Inc. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
843 F.3d 1153
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- On Jan 27, 2014 DND driver Renato Velasquez crashed into emergency vehicles and another truck; one toll employee died and an officer was seriously injured. The driver’s commercial privileges were revoked as an imminent hazard.
- FMCSA conducted a two-month company-wide compliance review; it found a few violations (three instances of excess hours and three inaccurate duty-status logs) but gave DND a "conditional" safety rating on March 21 and allowed operations to continue.
- DND agreed to safety changes, including installing electronic on‑board recorders (EOBRs) to prevent log falsification; the company operated without incident for months thereafter.
- On April 1, 2014 the FMCSA issued an imminent-hazard out‑of‑service order (IHOOSO) directing DND to halt all trucks within eight hours; DND complied and petitioned for administrative review on April 4.
- An ALJ held a hearing and on April 16 rescinded the IHOOSO and found the agency had violated procedural rights (interpreting a 10‑day ALJ-decision requirement). The FMCSA appealed to the Assistant Administrator.
- Six months later the Assistant Administrator overturned the ALJ on the 10‑day deadline (concluding only a post‑deprivation hearing requirement) but upheld rescission of the IHOOSO on the merits. DND then petitioned this court for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 49 U.S.C. § 521(b)(5)(A) and related regs require an ALJ to issue an initial decision within 10 days of an IHOOSO | DND: statute/regulation requires an ALJ decision within 10 days of issuance; delay violated procedural rights | FMCSA: the agency need only begin post‑deprivation review within 10 days or DND waived the deadline | Court: moot — declined to grant relief on this statutory question because DND already obtained full substantive relief and lacks Article III standing |
| Whether the Assistant Administrator’s contrary statutory construction harmed DND | DND: agency’s legal reasoning removing the 10‑day limit injures regulated parties and warrants review | FMCSA: internal agency determination that did not affect DND after the ALJ decision; agency appeal is intra‑agency process | Court: DND no longer suffered a redressable injury from that interpretation; case dismissed for lack of Article III standing |
| Whether the IHOOSO was substantively justified (imminent hazard) | DND/ALJ: IHOOSO was improper on the merits given limited violations, remediation, and low safety record | FMCSA: field administrator relied on company‑wide violations and concluded imminent hazard warranted immediate halt | Assistant Administrator & ALJ: IHOOSO rescinded on the merits; but the appellate court did not reach merits because of mootness |
| Mootness / exception for "capable of repetition, yet evading review" | DND: implied risk that IHOOSOs and missed deadlines could recur and evade review | FMCSA: DND can sue to compel agency action or seek declaratory relief in future; exception inapplicable | Court: exception not met; case moot and dismissed for want of Article III standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969 (2016) (Article III requirement that a case-or-controversy exist throughout litigation)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013) (mootness and jurisdiction must persist through appeal)
- Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. Bd. of Fire & Police Comm'rs of City of Milwaukee, 708 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2013) (standing elements and concrete adversity)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (standing framework requiring injury, traceability, redressability)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (personal stake and prohibition on advisory opinions)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (case-or-controversy requirement and need for concrete adverseness)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) ("capable of repetition, yet evading review" mootness exception)
- Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009) (courts cannot decide abstract disputes or render advisory opinions)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognition of potential constitutional damages remedy against federal officers where appropriate)