Flat Creek Transportation, LLC v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
923 F.3d 1295
11th Cir.2019Background
- Flat Creek Transportation, an interstate commercial carrier hauling non-hazardous refrigerated goods, sued FMCSA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging targeted compliance reviews and the agency’s data/methodology.
- FMCSA uses the Safety Measurement System (SMS) and MCMIS data to score carriers; a “High Risk” designation (which increases likelihood of on-site compliance reviews) requires no onsite investigation in prior 18 months and scoring at/above the 90th percentile on two specified metrics for two consecutive months.
- Flat Creek alleged FMCSA obtained information during a review of a related company (Liberty Express), thereafter planned an unannounced Flat Creek compliance review, and relied on flawed MCMIS data that produced false indicators and harassment; it identified prior Notices of Violation and a 2015 unfavorable review but conceded none produced a less-than-Satisfactory safety rating.
- While the district-court jurisdictional motion was pending, FMCSA conducted the challenged on-site compliance review; FMCSA initially downgraded Flat Creek to Conditional but then removed an incorrectly included violation and restored a Satisfactory rating.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (citing the Hobbs Act allocation to courts of appeals); the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the alternate ground that Flat Creek lacked Article III standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: injury in fact from a non-final/contested compliance review and threatened future biased reviews | Flat Creek: the Conditional downgrade and ongoing agency bias created a concrete, imminent injury (risk of High Risk designation, future invasive reviews, and potential operational termination) | FMCSA: no concrete, particularized, or imminent injury—downgrade was not final and was later reversed; alleged future harms are speculative and not imminent | No standing: Past downgrade caused no cognizable injury (rating ultimately Satisfactory); alleged future harm is speculative and not imminent |
| Ripeness / Pre-enforcement relief against compliance review | Flat Creek: sought to enjoin upcoming compliance review as pre-enforcement relief | FMCSA: review proceeded and any pre-enforcement claim is now moot or non-justiciable | Pre-enforcement claim failed—review occurred and resulting Satisfactory rating removes cognizable injury |
| Jurisdictional route: Hobbs Act exclusivity to courts of appeals | Flat Creek: district court could decide the challenge | FMCSA: exclusive appellate-court jurisdiction over such agency orders | Court: declined to decide Hobbs Act question because lack of standing is dispositive |
| Use of extra-record facts in jurisdictional review | Flat Creek: district court impermissibly considered post-complaint facts when dismissing | FMCSA: courts may consider undisputed extra-complaint facts relevant to jurisdiction | Court: acceptable to consider undisputed post-filing fact that rating was restored; dismissal on standing remains proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes Article III standing elements: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized; actual or imminent)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (standing must persist through all stages of litigation, including appellate review)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (allegations of possible future injury do not establish standing)
- Ezzell Trucking, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 309 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (dismissing similar carrier challenge for lack of standing)