Multistar Industries, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 707 F.3d 1045

Multistar, a hazmat for-hire motor carrier, received an unsatisfactory safety rating after an FMCSA compliance review.
FMCSA proposed a final unsatisfactory rating and ordered Multistar to cease operations if not remediated within 45 days.
Multistar filed a petition for administrative review under 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 challenging certain violations found in the review.
FMCSA denied the administrative-review petition and separately denied Multistar’s upgrade requests under § 385.17.
Multistar challenged the FMCSA decisions in district court, raising substantive and due-process arguments, and the actions were consolidated.
The court held the agency’s final action on the rating, and the related order, valid, but dismissed challenges to violations 5 and 11 as nonfinal; addressed the procedural due process claim and standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FMCSA abused discretion in the unsatisfactory rating and cease-order.	Multistar contends misapplication of certain violations affects the rating.	FMCSA relied on the rating methodology; violations 5 and 11 were nonfinal and did not drive the final rating.	Rating upheld; violations 5 and 11 dismissed.
Whether FMCSA violated due process by denying administrative review without addressing merits of violations 5 and 11.	FMCSA failed to provide a substantive response, threatening Multistar’s rights and upgrades.	FMCSA was not obliged to address every argument if final action did not rely on them; process adequate.	No due-process violation; denial of merits review did not prejudice final action.

Sierra Club v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 862 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1988) (final agency action for judicial review)
Barnes v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2011) (APA review standard; arbitrary or capriciousness)
Darrell Andrews Trucking, Inc. v. FMCSA, 296 F.3d 1120 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (agency must address merits of challenge that could affect rating)
Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (final agency action; judicial review under Hobbs Act)
Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 593 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2010) (consummation of agency decisionmaking; standing)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1978) (procedural due process damages claims; not require merits outcome)
Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1977) (due process not reached where underlying deprivation not challenged)
Simpson v. Young, 854 F.2d 1429 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (agency not required to address every argument)