Fox v. Transam Leasing, Inc.
839 F.3d 1209
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Three independent truckers sued TransAm (TransAm Trucking and TransAm Leasing) on behalf of a class, alleging violations of DOT truth-in-leasing rules related to TransAm’s standard lease.
- TransAm’s lease required lessee-truckers to have a compatible satellite communications unit and imposed a $15/week "satellite communications system usage fee," deductible from driver compensation; employees used the system without charge.
- The district court certified a class for the § 376.12(i) challenge to the $15 fee, granted the truckers partial summary judgment on liability, and denied TransAm summary judgment on damages.
- The truckers sought declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages under the DOT’s private right of action for regulatory violations (49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)).
- On interlocutory appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered whether the $15/week fee violated 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i) (forbidding compulsory purchases from the carrier) and whether the class showed evidence of damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TransAm may require truckers to pay $15/wk for access to TransAm’s satellite system under 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i) | The fee effectively forces truckers to purchase a service from TransAm as a condition of leasing, violating § 376.12(i). | TransAm contended it could charge the fee and relied on § 376.12(h) disclosures and analogies to permissible charge-backs. | Court held fee violated § 376.12(i); truckers entitled to partial summary judgment on liability. |
| Whether § 376.12(h) authorizes the $15 charge-back for satellite service | N/A (plaintiffs argued § 376.12(h) does not validate forced purchases). | § 376.12(h) merely requires disclosure of charge-backs; TransAm argued compliance meant the fee was permissible. | Court held § 376.12(h) is a disclosure rule and does not authorize substantive forced purchases; it does not validate the fee. |
| Whether the class presented admissible evidence of damages from the unlawful fee | Truckers sought damages but did not present specific evidence at summary judgment, arguing damages could be proved at trial. | TransAm argued plaintiffs produced no evidence of actual monetary harm, entitling TransAm to summary judgment on damages. | Court reversed denial of TransAm’s summary judgment on damages: plaintiffs failed to present evidence of actual damages, so summary judgment for TransAm on damages was required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swift Transp. Co. v. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n, 632 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (interpreting truth-in-leasing rules and importance of disclosure vs. substantive limits).
- In re Arctic Express Inc., 636 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 2011) (discussing regulatory purpose to protect independent truckers and remedy bargaining disparities).
- Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 615 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing permissible pass-through of carrier’s statutorily required insurance costs from prohibited compelled purchases).
- Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n v. Landstar Sys., Inc., 622 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010) (addressing burden to prove damages for truth-in-leasing violations).