Case 2:08-cv-04920-CAS-CT Document 303 Filed 08/26/10 Page 38 of 57 Page ID #:10040
1
driving or other dangerous activity to the proper authorities.” Am. Trucking, 2009 WL
2
1160212, at *17. While the Ninth Circuit later vacated this ruling and remanded in order
3
for this Court to consider the preemptive effect of 49 U.S.C. § 14506(a), the Court infra,
4
finds that this statute does not preempt the placard requirement. See Am. Trucking II,
5
596 F.3d at 606. Furthermore, the Court finds that the evidence at trial demonstrates that
6
the placard provision falls within the safety exception, as the placard “refers members of
7
the public to a phone number to report concerns regarding truck . . . safety . . . ” See
8
Apr. 22 Tr. at 64-65 (Patterson); Ex. 326. The Court is not persuaded by ATA’s
9
argument that the public may become confused by the placard—and therefore safety
10
would be compromised—if multiple jurisdictions enacted similar requirements, as no
11
witness was aware of any jurisdiction that had enacted such a requirement. See Apr. Tr.
12
at 90-91 (Sandberg). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the provision falls within
13
the ambit of the safety exception to the FAAA Act.
14 15
v.
The Financial Capability Provision
As set forth above, the Court concludes that the financial capability provision does
16
not affect prices, routes, or services. ATA disagrees, and further argues that the
17
financial capability provision does not fall within the ambit of the safety exception. In
18
Am. Trucking I, 559 F.3d at 1056, the Ninth Circuit agreed with ATA, stating:
19
it is not likely that the financial disclosure requirements in both Ports’
20
agreements could be justified under any conceivable safety rationale. Those
21
provisions require disclosures of annual reports, SEC filings, balance
22
sheets, income tax statements, and pending legal actions. The Ports make
23
no effort to explain how a motor carrier’s financial viability touches at all
24
on the safety of the motor vehicle.
25
After the case was remanded, this Court enjoined the provision, finding that “[b]ased on
26
the record before the Court, it cannot conclude that th[is] provision[ is] likely to fall
27
within the safety exception.” Am. Trucking, 2009 WL 1160212, at *9. At trial the
28
evidence demonstrated that the financial disclosure provision may have been enacted, in 38