Northern Air Cargo v. United States Postal Service
756 F. Supp. 2d 116
D.D.C.2010Background
- Plaintiffs NAC, Everts, and Lynden seek a TRO and preliminary injunction to stop the Postal Service from tendering nonpriority mainline bypass mail to PenAir on five rural Alaska routes.
- The Postal Service determined PenAir satisfied the Prior Service and Capacity Requirement of 39 U.S.C. § 5402(g)(1)(A)(iv)(II) as of December 3, 2010, allowing interim tender of bypass mail.
- This case follows a 2009 action where the Court held the Postal Service exceeded its authority by permitting PenAir to receive bypass mail before meeting the 12-month, 7,500+ pound capacity threshold; injunction was issued then pending PenAir’s compliance.
- PenAir submitted a new application in October 2010; the Postal Service found compliance but noted potential injunction issues and sought clarification from the Court.
- After the Court denied the Postal Service’s clarification motion in December 2010, the Postal Service began tendering bypass mail to PenAir on December 6, 2010.
- Plaintiffs filed an emergency contempt motion in the 2009 action and the instant action for TRO/preliminary injunction; the Court held expedited briefing and a December 21, 2010 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have substantial likelihood of success on the merits | PenAir failed to meet the 12-month, 7,500+ lb capacity requirement before selection. | PenAir satisfied the requirement by counting 12 months of mainline service prior to the December 3, 2010 decision; bypass-mail flights are not segregated by bypass status. | Uncertain likelihood of success on merits. |
| Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction | Significant, irrecoverable revenue losses occurred while PenAir bypassed mail prior to injunction; ongoing harms will recur. | Economic losses are not per se irreparable and must show a great harm; plaintiffs failed to prove the magnitude of impact on each airline’s overall business. | Irreparable harm not shown to be sufficiently great. |
| Whether the injunction serves the public interest | Public interest favors compliance with federal law and preventing ultra vires actions. | With uncertain merits, the public interest does not plainly favor injunctive relief; halting PenAir could disrupt Alaskan service. | Public interest weighs against an injunction given uncertain merits. |
| Whether granting relief would unduly prejudice PenAir or other carriers | PenAir should not be permitted bypass-mail under current injunction risk; retaliation against plaintiffs’ market. | PenAir would suffer significant losses if injunction issued; harms would be equalized by market competition. | Harm to parties is neutral; does not favor injunctive relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court, 2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (Supreme Court, 2008) (emphasizes standards for interim relief)
- Ark. Dairy Coop. Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Agric., 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (sliding-scale approach to interim relief factors)
- Serono Labs., Inc. v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (standard for evaluating likelihood of success and related factors)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (guidance on irreparable harm and preliminary relief)
- Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (irreparable harm requires the injury to be great and actual)
- Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. FDA, 733 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D.D.C. 2010) (context for irreparable harm and economic loss in injunctions)