Case 2:08-cv-04920-CAS-CT Document 303 Filed 08/26/10 Page 4 of 57 Page ID #:10006
1
Trucking I”) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
2
Court’s September 9, 2008 order, finding instead that the “safety exception” to the
3
FAAA Act likely did not apply to at least some of the provisions of the Concession
4
Agreements. 559 F.3d at 1055-1057. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to this Court
5
for further proceedings. Id.
6
Following the decision in Am. Trucking I, in April 3, 2009, ATA filed a motion
7
for entry of preliminary injunction on counts I and II of the complaint. On April 28,
8
2009, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part ATA’s motion,
9
which enjoined POLA from implementing and enforcing various provisions of the
10
Concession Agreement.3 Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 08-
11
4920 CAS (CTx), 2009 WL 1160212, at * 7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2009). This Court again
12
found that the holding in Castle, 349 U.S. at 61, was inapplicable to the instant case.4 Id.
13
On February 24, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
14
the Court’s April 28, 2009 order with one limited exception, in Am. Trucking Ass’ns
15
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 596 F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 2010) (hereinafter “Am. Trucking
16
II”). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s holding that certain provisions
17
of the Port’s Concession Agreement are preempted by the FAAA Act, and that the
18
preempted provisions of the Concession Agreement are severable. Id. at 605-07. The
19
Ninth Circuit in Am. Trucking II vacated this Court’s finding that the requirement that
20
drayage trucks display identifying placards with a telephone number fell within the
21
motor vehicle safety exception to the FAAA Act, and remanded in order for this Court to
22
consider whether 49 U.S.C. § 14506(a) preempts the requirement. Id. at 606. On
23 24 25 26 27 28
3
Specifically, the Court enjoined POLA from enforcing several provisions currently at issue in the instant action, see infra section II, including the employee driver provision, the off-street parking provision, and the financial capability provision. 4
Upon review, the Ninth Circuit held that “[f]or purposes of a preliminary injunction, we conclude that Castle does not establish the likelihood of ATA succeeding on the merits on this issue. However, this issue is not finally resolved and may be reconsidered in further proceedings for a permanent injunction.” 596 F.3d at 607. 4