Port Drivers Federation 18, Inc. v. All Saints
757 F. Supp. 2d 463
D.N.J.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are independent truck owners who lease equipment and services to All Saints, which transports St. George cargo in NY/NJ and warehouse-to-customer routes.
- In 2010 the court granted summary judgment finding multiple lease provisions violated the Truth in Leasing Regulations and entered a broad injunction.
- Plaintiffs allege All Saints has not complied with the injunction, offering noncompliant leases or proposals.
- The court evaluates whether All Saints took reasonable steps toward compliance and whether any violations are merely technical or inadvertent.
- This matter concerns various regulated lease terms: insurance, contractor insurance, workers’ compensation, charge-backs, compensation, arbitration, and addenda.
- The court ultimately finds substantial compliance with minor, curable language changes and declines contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the proposed lease satisfy insurance obligations? | Plaintiffs contend the lease lacks public insurance obligation | All Saints asserts Section 11(B) suffices and policy exists | Not violated; need precise public insurance language; language amended |
| Is Schedule B and contractor insurance compliant under 376.12(g)? | Schedule B ambiguous; requires specific bobtail insurance | Schedule B explicitly limits to bobtail/non-trucking insurance | Compliant; Schedule B clear about required insurance |
| Does the workers' compensation provision violate 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i)? | Lease forces purchase of workers' comp from All Saints or a third party | Lease allows third-party purchase; does not force All Saints product | Not a violation; provision provides alternative options |
| Does the charge-back provision comply with 376.12(h) regarding items and calculation? | Inclusion of 'etc' and lack of itemized calculation violates regulation | Provisions specify expenses and that deductions match amounts advanced | Compliant; deductions equal amounts advanced and invoices support validity |
| Is arbitration provision permissible and does it divest jurisdiction or violate the FAA? | Arbitration could mask regulatory violations and affect court order | Arbitration addresses only contractual disputes; not a divestiture of jurisdiction | Arbitration clause permissible; jurisdiction not divested; needs cost considerations addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshak v. Treadwell, 595 F.3d 478 (3d Cir.2009) (clear three-element standard for civil contempt; ambiguities resolved in movant’s favor)
- John T. ex rel. Paul T. v. Delaware Cnty. Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545 (3d Cir.2003) (resolve ambiguities in order; good faith not a defense to civil contempt)
- F.T.C. v. Lane Labs-USA, Inc., 624 F.3d 575 (3d Cir.2010) (good faith compliance evaluated; technical or inadvertent violations allowed)
- Blair v. 283 F.3d 608, 283 F.3d 608 (3d Cir.2002) (arbitration clause cost considerations and unconscionability standards)
- Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 189 N.J. 28 (2006) (arbitration cost-shifting and statutory rights considerations in New Jersey)
- Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 317 F.3d 646 (6th Cir.2003) (cost-splitting in arbitration contracts discussed)