ExpeditersOnline.com
Try Hours
Bolt Express
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

  1. #1
    Senior Member jjoerger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lake City, FL
    Posts
    2,060
    blackpup likes this.
    Jim and Shayne Joerger
    FedEx Custom Critical D8183

  2. YOU decide your loads, your schedule, your home time with Landstar
    Landstar Express America
    As a "Business Capacity Owner" or BCO with Landstar, you control your business the way YOU want. You select the freight. You set your schedule. You decide on home time. At Landstar, owner/operators are compensated based on a fixed percentage of the revenue generated from the freight they haul. As rates increase, so does your compensation. Landstar is hiring Owner/Operators... Apply now!
     

  3. 1,656343,61115,7
  4. #2
    Senior Moderator davekc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    FL & TN, USA.
    Posts
    13,771

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    They were probably holding off under the illusion that California would come to its senses.
    fleet owner
    29 years
    Panther & Load One


  5. 2,656362,61115,7
  6. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    136

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Quote Originally Posted by davekc View Post
    They were probably holding off under the illusion that California would come to its senses.
    We all are hoping they would. Hope this will help them come to it. The cost to upgrade is a big factor in some not going at all.

  7. 3,656379,61115,7
  8. #4
    Senior Member Tennesseahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dearborn Hts, Michigan.
    Posts
    8,379

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Quote Originally Posted by davekc View Post
    They were probably holding off under the illusion that California would come to its senses.
    My guess is they were waiting for someone to get nailed with the law, so they could get standing by representing him.
    Freedom is free of the need to be free. - Free your mind and your *** will follow.

    When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, looks you crooked in the eye and asks you if ya paid your dues, you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that: "Have ya paid your dues, Jack?" "Yessir, the check is in the mail."Jack Burton



  9. 4,656442,61115,7
  10. #5
    Senior Member zorry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    6,788

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    I have a friend that runs 90% Ca and lives in the LA area.

    He should have jumped on the Govt grants and bought new, or newer.

    He sat by waiting.
    Now he can put $17,000 into a $20,000 truck or retire.

    Or move.

    The people whose choice is "do I load Ca or not" are really not that bad off. At least not comparatively.
    OOIDA # 463 ( Yeah, an old fart ). Expediting....It beats working for a living

  11. 5,656462,61115,7
  12. #6
    Senior Member highway star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Alpena, Mi, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,115

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Cali is no longer on my registration. Simple solution... for me anyway.


    Livin' the dream
    D unit O/O

  13. 6,656557,61115,7
  14. #7
    Moderator Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I'm in the pond, standing on all your pennies
    Posts
    16,948

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    The suit with the best chance of winning is the one filed by California Construction Trucking Association (formerly the California Dump Truck Owners Association) who filed on the basis of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAA).

    In 1980, Congress deregulated the trucking industry by enacting the Motor Carrier Act. In 1994, it sought to preempt state trucking regulations by enacting the FAAA Act. The Act preempts a wide range of state regulation of intrastate trucking, providing that a state “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).

    Congress believed it was necessary to eliminate non-uniform state regulations that had curtailed the expansion of markets and resulted in nefficiencies, creased costs, reduced competition, and inhibition of innovation and technology.

    Because of the FAAA, in November of 2011 a federal district court in California issued a decision, in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122421 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011), holding that motor carriers that transport property are not subject to California’s meal and rest break laws because such laws are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA Act). This was for employees who live and work primarily in California, who mainly loaded appliances onto delivery trucks, took them to the install site, and then installed the appliances. The court found that Congress did in fact intend that the FAAA Act preempt intrastate transportation to avoid unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, and that contrary to the claims of the plaintiffs that they were appliance installers and driving was merely incidental to that task, the judge ruled that the drivers of property hauling vehicles also did installations in addition to hauling property.

    The court held that the FAAA Act preempted the plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims and explained that the proper inquiry is “whether the [meal and rest break law], directly or indirectly, ‘binds the ... carrier to a particular price, route or service and thereby interferes with competitive market forces within the ... industry.’” The court found that California’s meal and rest break laws are related to “routes” because they deprive drivers of the “ability to take any route that does not offer adequate locations for stopping, or by forcing them to take shorter or fewer routes.” The court also held that the meal and rest break laws impacted the company’s “services” because the state-mandated length
    and timing of the meal and rest breaks impacted the “frequency and scheduling of transportation.” The court also explained that California’s meal and rest break laws impacted the company’s prices because of the increased cost of additional drivers, helpers, tractors, and trailers that would be needed to ensure off-duty breaks under California law. The court refused to “allow California to insist exactly when and for exactly how long carriers provide breaks for their employees,” because to do so “would allow other States to do the same, and to do so differently.”

    This case was about meal and rest breaks, but the key here is the, "binds the ... carrier to a particular price, route or service and thereby interferes with competitive market forces within the ... industry."

    That's one heckuva legal precedent.
    Bruno likes this.



    The Doppler Effect means red lights will appear to be green if you drive fast enough.

  15. 7,656623,61115,7
  16. #8
    Senior Moderator davekc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    FL & TN, USA.
    Posts
    13,771

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    That is a interesting angle. I could see where that might work. Or at the very least, increase the odds they can get some relief.
    fleet owner
    29 years
    Panther & Load One


  17. 8,656626,61115,7
  18. #9
    Moderator Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I'm in the pond, standing on all your pennies
    Posts
    16,948

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Quote Originally Posted by davekc View Post
    That is a interesting angle. I could see where that might work. Or at the very least, increase the odds they can get some relief.
    I don't know if you remember, but 20 years ago or so in Ohio, when they raised the tolls on the Turnpike for trucks, a lot of the trucks took to running US 20 across the state instead of the Turnpike. The mayors of all those little towns along US 20 were livid, because of the increased traffic and road wear. Several of them introduced local ordinances prohibiting trucks on that road through their towns. The FAAA said newp. Interferes with interstate commerce.

    “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property.”

    The problem in this case with California is, the EPA got dragged into it, even to the point where the California Construction Trucking Association had to appeal one of the judge's rulings that he no longer has jurisdiction on the matter because the EPA made a ruling when it approved the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) in the first place. The appeal of the judge's order saying that "he no longer had authority over the case" is still pending and will be appealed ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court already agreed to hear the ATA's appeal for the Port of Los Angeles fiasco, which required all kinds of silly local laws applied especially to dryage operators (those who move freight short distances around the port and to short distances outside the port). Among them were prohibiting owner/operators from picking up or delivering to the port. In the first appeal, the Ninth Circuit struck down the port's ban on owner-operators, but ruled the port was allowed to require drayage operators to submit off-street parking plans, properly maintain their trucks, post placards on permitted trucks and demonstrate financial responsibility as part of the plan. The ATA filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in December 2011 to challenge specific parts of the plan, saying they would lead to a patchwork of rules and regulations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ATA. The port, which is an agency of the city of Los Angeles, had argued that it acted as a “market participant” in imposing the requirements, which would exempt it from the FAAAA’s prohibitions. But the court found that the enforcement of the rules did not qualify them for the market-participant exemption.

    That was a big blow using the FAAA as the hammer. The SC has consistently ruled in favor of the FAAA many times. California has for many years had the sole exception on EPA rules where they make their own and aren't subject to the regulations of other states and the EPA. That's why car makers for years have made two versions of their cars, one regular version and the California Emissions version. But even though they have the exception, and the EPA signed off on the SIP in the first place, the FAAA makes things pretty clear about not interfering with anything related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier. And I think that tactic has a better chance of winning than does the OOIDA poor, poor, pitiful me financial burden angle.



    The Doppler Effect means red lights will appear to be green if you drive fast enough.

  19. 9,656643,61115,7
  20. #10
    Senior Member paullud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Utica, NY
    Posts
    5,470

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennesseahawk View Post
    My guess is they were waiting for someone to get nailed with the law, so they could get standing by representing him.
    I think it is just a legal tactic so that they can get this in front of a judge quickly and get an injunction easier.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
    Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it. ~ Richard Lamm

  21. 10,656714,61115,7
  22. #11
    18K Member OntarioVanMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    33,351

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
    I don't know if you remember, but 20 years ago or so in Ohio, when they raised the tolls on the Turnpike for trucks, a lot of the trucks took to running US 20 across the state instead of the Turnpike. The mayors of all those little towns along US 20 were livid, because of the increased traffic and road wear. Several of them introduced local ordinances prohibiting trucks on that road through their towns. The FAAA said newp. Interferes with interstate commerce.

    “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property.”

    The problem in this case with California is, the EPA got dragged into it, even to the point where the California Construction Trucking Association had to appeal one of the judge's rulings that he no longer has jurisdiction on the matter because the EPA made a ruling when it approved the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) in the first place. The appeal of the judge's order saying that "he no longer had authority over the case" is still pending and will be appealed ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court already agreed to hear the ATA's appeal for the Port of Los Angeles fiasco, which required all kinds of silly local laws applied especially to dryage operators (those who move freight short distances around the port and to short distances outside the port). Among them were prohibiting owner/operators from picking up or delivering to the port. In the first appeal, the Ninth Circuit struck down the port's ban on owner-operators, but ruled the port was allowed to require drayage operators to submit off-street parking plans, properly maintain their trucks, post placards on permitted trucks and demonstrate financial responsibility as part of the plan. The ATA filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in December 2011 to challenge specific parts of the plan, saying they would lead to a patchwork of rules and regulations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ATA. The port, which is an agency of the city of Los Angeles, had argued that it acted as a “market participant” in imposing the requirements, which would exempt it from the FAAAA’s prohibitions. But the court found that the enforcement of the rules did not qualify them for the market-participant exemption.

    That was a big blow using the FAAA as the hammer. The SC has consistently ruled in favor of the FAAA many times. California has for many years had the sole exception on EPA rules where they make their own and aren't subject to the regulations of other states and the EPA. That's why car makers for years have made two versions of their cars, one regular version and the California Emissions version. But even though they have the exception, and the EPA signed off on the SIP in the first place, the FAAA makes things pretty clear about not interfering with anything related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier. And I think that tactic has a better chance of winning than does the OOIDA poor, poor, pitiful me financial burden angle.
    Question.....doesn' t Cali consider in part the Federal commerce trade legislation a violation of the Constitution?...Cali has every right to enforce any law within their borders....states rights before federal...

    and would cars/trucks still be spitting out their dirty crap if Cali wasn't forcing the car makers to clean up the emissions?....
    Drive less...Make more...$$$...

    It's not how much you run,
    It's how much you run for... $$$

    “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”
    Thomas Jefferson


  23. 11,656744,61115,7
  24. #12
    Senior Member Tennesseahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dearborn Hts, Michigan.
    Posts
    8,379

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Quote Originally Posted by OntarioVanMan View Post
    Question.....doesn' t Cali consider in part the Federal commerce trade legislation a violation of the Constitution?...Cali has every right to enforce any law within their borders....states rights before federal...

    and would cars/trucks still be spitting out their dirty crap if Cali wasn't forcing the car makers to clean up the emissions?....
    For one, interstate commerce was put into place, so an individual state couldn't leverage its authority upon other states, when it came to trade.

    For two, Cali always takes the lead in socialistic, controlling policy, whether it be some expensive mix of fuel that ends up having the adverse effect, or helping save the habitat of some species of sand flea, at the cost of a farmer's property rights.
    pelicn and psm127_dad like this.
    Freedom is free of the need to be free. - Free your mind and your *** will follow.

    When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, looks you crooked in the eye and asks you if ya paid your dues, you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that: "Have ya paid your dues, Jack?" "Yessir, the check is in the mail."Jack Burton



  25. 12,656752,61115,7
  26. #13
    18K Member OntarioVanMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    33,351

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennesseahawk View Post
    For one, interstate commerce was put into place, so an individual state couldn't leverage its authority upon other states, when it came to trade.

    For two, Cali always takes the lead in socialistic, controlling policy, whether it be some expensive mix of fuel that ends up having the adverse effect, or helping save the habitat of some species of sand flea, at the cost of a farmer's property rights.
    Thanks Hawk...I was just asking a question.....
    Drive less...Make more...$$$...

    It's not how much you run,
    It's how much you run for... $$$

    “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”
    Thomas Jefferson


  27. 13,656755,61115,7
  28. #14
    Senior Member letzrockexpress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shelby, Ohio
    Posts
    2,502

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    Where was OOIDA before this was passed? Detached as usual...
    highway star, Turtle and jjoerger like this.
    "Thank God For The Man Who Put The White Lines On The Highway" M. Stanley

    Nothing behind me, everything ahead of me, as is ever so on the road ~ Kerouac

    "War at its root is about violence ... and the failure of diplomatic means to solve conflicts" ~ Rlent

  29. 14,658472,61115,7
  30. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    619

    Re: CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

    No, California has no right to force out of state vehicles entering the state to conform to their smog equipment laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by OntarioVanMan View Post
    Question.....doesn' t Cali consider in part the Federal commerce trade legislation a violation of the Constitution?...Cali has every right to enforce any law within their borders....states rights before federal...

    and would cars/trucks still be spitting out their dirty crap if Cali wasn't forcing the car makers to clean up the emissions?....

  31. 15,658584,61115,7
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

LinkBacks (?)

  1. 12-11-2013, 11:12 PM
  2. 12-11-2013, 01:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ExpeditersOnline.Com Copyright © 1999-2011 On Time Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ExpeditersOnline.com © is a registered trademark of On Time Media, LLC

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2