Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Swift Transportation Co.
632 F.3d 1111
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Swift is a federally regulated interstate motor carrier; OOIDA and former owner-operators Belcher and Mayfield allege Truth-in-Leasing violations under 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a).
- Plaintiffs sued over Swift’s lease forms prior to 2003 (Old Form) not disclosing mark-ups on charge-backs; Swift amended leases effective January 1, 2003 (Revised Lease) to disclose charge-backs and some costs.
- District court held Old Form violated § 376.12(h) and that Revised Lease complied with disclosure but did not require itemization of profits; damages and restitution/disgorgement were denied.
- The district court certified that Swift’s Revised Lease complied with § 376.12(h) and denied injunctive relief given ongoing compliance; plaintiffs appealed and Swift cross-appealed on statute-of-limitations timing.
- This Ninth Circuit review addresses whether the Revised Lease satisfies disclosure and documentation requirements, and whether damages, restitution, disgorgement, or injunctive relief are available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 376.12(h) requires full itemization of costs and profits | OOIDA argues full costs/profits must be disclosed. | Swift argues disclosure of items and calculation method suffices; profits need not be itemized. | Revised Lease complies; full itemization not required for all variable fees. |
| Whether the documentation provision requires itemized profits | Owners-operators need documents showing profits/mark-ups to verify validity. | Final price suffices; documentation should allow verification of the charge. | Documentation satisfied; no obligation to itemize profits. |
| Whether plaintiffs may recover restitution or disgorgement under § 14704(a)(1) | Courts may award restitution/disgorgement for past violations. | Statute authorizes injunctive relief only; not restitution/disgorgement. | Restitution and disgorgement not permitted under § 14704(a)(1). |
| Whether plaintiffs proved actual damages under § 14704(a)(2) | Undisclosed mark-ups constitute damages. | Actual damages require proof of monetary loss; mere overcharging is insufficient. | No actual damages proven; damages awarded were improper. |
| Whether injunctive relief was appropriate given current compliance | Past violation warrants ongoing injunctive relief. | No ongoing violation since Revised Lease complies; injunctive relief unwarranted. | No abuse of discretion; injunctive relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- OOIDA v. Landstar System, Inc., 622 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010) (disclosure of variable-rate charge-backs; flat-fee vs. variable-rate differences)
- Fulfillment Services, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2008) (actual damages requirement under § 14704(a)(2))
- OOIDA v. New Prime, Inc., 339 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2003) (damages under § 14704(a)(2); review of statutory damages standard)
- OOIDA v. Swift Transp. Co., 367 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2004) (preliminary injunction standard and equitable considerations)
- Landstar System, Inc. v. Landstar in Am., Inc. (Landstar II), 622 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010) (interpretation of § 376.12(h); disclosure vs. cost itemization; injunctive relief limits)