Florida Transportation Services, inc. v. Miami-Dade County
703 F.3d 1230
11th Cir.2012Background
- Port of Miami stevedore permits are annual; a local ordinance requires competency, safety, financial strength, and need assessments for new permits and renewals.
- Port Director allegedly rubber-stamped renewals for incumbents and denied new entrants (like FTS) from 2003–2005, allegedly violating the ordinance and the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- FTS sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the permitting scheme protected POMTOC’s monopoly and foreclosed interstate competition.
- District court held liability for 2003–2005 denials, granting partial summary judgment to FTS; jury awarded damages for lost profits to 2003–2005.
- Prior years’ proceedings showed only needs assessments in 1999 and 2002; 2003–2005 lacked full application of required criteria; Seaboard Marine and others retained permits even when not providing stevedore services.
- Court affirms district court’s liability ruling and damages; rejects market-participant argument; addresses prudential standing and Pike undue-burden analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dormant Commerce Clause undue burden | FTS argues 2003–2005 practices burden interstate commerce | County says no discriminatory impact and serves local interests | Derivation: undue burden established; violation upheld. |
| Prudential standing | FTS has zone-of-interests within dormant Commerce Clause | County contends no standing | FTS has prudential standing. |
| Market-participant doctrine applies | County is market participant in stevedore services | Doctrine not applicable; County not a provider | Market-participant exception does not apply. |
| Damages and proof of loss | Damages supported by lost profits from prevented entry | Damages speculative without contracts | Damages properly sustained under record evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949) (discriminatory licensing burdens interstate commerce)
- Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Mich. Dep’t of Natural Res., 504 U.S. 353 (1992) (waste import restrictions discriminating against interstate commerce)
- Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 516 U.S. 325 (1996) (in-state vs out-of-state discrimination; tax unjustifiably burdens interstate commerce)
- Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) (local processing requirement discriminates against interstate commerce)
- C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994) (flow-control; discriminatory local processing to restrict outsiders)
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 (1978) (not all-out discrimination when burden falls on some out-of-state firms)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (undue burden balancing test)
- Southern Waste Systems v. City of Delray Beach, 420 F.3d 1288 (2005) (open bidding; not inherently discriminatory)
- Leib v. Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission, 558 F.3d 1301 (2009) (even-handed regulation; no undue burden)
- United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330 (2007) (principles on state and local regulation of commerce)