Massachusetts Delivery Assoc. v. Coakley, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Massachusetts Delivery Assoc. v. Coakley, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2307

MASSACHUSETTS DELI VERY ASSOCI ATI ON,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

MARTHA COAKLEY,At t orney General of t he Commonweal t h of Massachuset t s,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Deni se J . Casper , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Ri ppl e* and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d C. Casey, wi t h whomChr i st opher B. Kaczmarek, St ephen T.Mel ni ck, and Li t t l er Mendel son, P. C. wer e on br i ef f or appel l ant .

Kat e Comer f ord Todd, St even P. Lehot sky, Nat i onal ChamberLi t i gat i on Cent er , I nc. , J ames C. Rehnqui st , Kat e E. MacLeman,Wi l l i amM. J ay, and Goodwi n Procter LLP on br i ef f or t he Chamber ofCommerce of t he Uni t ed St ates of Amer i ca, ami cus cur i ae.

Wesl ey S. Chused and Looney & Gr ossman LLP on br i ef f orMassachuset t s Mot or Tr anspor t at i on Associ at i on, ami cus cur i ae.Pet er Sacks, St at e Sol i ci t or , wi t h whom Mar t ha Coakl ey,

At t or ney Gener al of Massachuset t s, and Pi er ce O. Cr ay, Kat e J .Fi t zpat r i ck, and Dougl as S. Mar t l and, Assi st ant At t or neys Gener al ,wer e on br i ef f or appel l ee.

*Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/25

Scot t L. Nel son, Adi na H. Rosenbaum, and Publ i c Ci t i zenLi t i gat i on Gr oup on br i ef f or Publ i c Ci t i zen, I nc. , ami cus cur i ae.

Har ol d L. Li cht en, Shannon Li ss- Ri or dan, Cat her i neRuckel shaus, and Nat i onal Empl oyment Law Proj ect on br i ef f orMassachuset t s Empl oyment Lawyer s Associ at i on and t he Nat i onalEmpl oyment Law Proj ect , ami ci cur i ae.

Sept ember 30, 2014


3/25

LYNCH, Chief Judge. The Feder al Avi at i on Admi ni st r at i on

Aut hor i zat i on Act ( "FAAAA") pr eempt s any st at e l aw " r el at ed t o a

pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce of any mot or car r i er . . . wi t h r espect t o

t he t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. " 49 U. S. C. 14501( c) ( 1) . I n a

pr evi ous appeal i n t hi s case, we hel d, cont r ar y t o t he di st r i ct

cour t , t hat abst ent i on under Younger v. Har r i s, 401 U. S. 37 ( 1971) ,

was not appr opr i ate and r emanded. Mass. Del i ver y Ass ' n v. Coakl ey,

671 F. 3d 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( her ei naf t er , "MDA I " ) . The quest i on

now pr esent ed i s whether t he expr ess pr eempt i on pr ovi si on of t he

FAAAA preempts one pr ong of t he Massachuset t s I ndependent

Cont r act or St at ut e, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148B( a) ( 2) , whi ch

r equi r es t hat wor ker s per f or m a ser vi ce "out si de t he usual cour se

of t he busi ness of t he empl oyer " t o be cl assi f i ed as i ndependent

cont r act or s. The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Sect i on 148B( a) ( 2)

escapes FAAAA pr eempt i on. Fi ndi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

suf f i ci ent l y credi t t he br oad l anguage and l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of

t he FAAAA' s expr ess pr eempt i on pr ovi si on, we reverse and r emand.

I . Backgr ound

The Massachuset t s Del i ver y Associ at i on ( "MDA") i s a non-

pr of i t t r ade or gani zat i on r epr esent i ng same- day del i ver y compani es

i n Massachuset t s. The MDA f i l ed t hi s act i on f or a decl ar at i on t hat

t he "B Prong" of Sect i on 148B i s pr eempt ed by t he FAAAA, and f or an

i nj unct i on bar r i ng t he At t or ney Gener al f r om enf or ci ng i t agai nst

t he MDA' s member s. The MDA used one member company, X Pr essman

-3-


4/25

Tr ucki ng & Cour i er , I nc. ( "Xpressman") , as an exempl ar f or t he

pur poses of t hi s l i t i gat i on.

Li ke other members, Xpr essman r el i ed heavi l y on

i ndependent cont r act or s t o pr ovi de same- day del i ver y ser vi ces t o

i t s cust omers i n Massachuset t s and t hr oughout New Engl and. Roughl y

58 cour i er s pr ovi de del i ver y ser vi ces f or Xpr essman' s cl i ent s as

i ndependent cont r act or s. Xpr essman' s i ndependent cont r act or s ar e

pai d f or each compl et ed del i ver y, r at her t han by t he hour or week,

and t hey do not r ecei ve benef i t s such as heal t h i nsurance or

r et i r ement . Xpr essman has onl y 6 f ul l - t i me and 2 par t - t i me

empl oyees t o over see i t s admi ni st r at i ve and war ehouse f unct i ons.

No empl oyees per f or m cour i er f unct i ons.

However , Xpr essman argues t hat , under Massachuset t s l aw,

i t i s r equi r ed t o desi gnat e t he cour i er s as empl oyees r at her t han

as i ndependent cont r act or s. Sect i on 148B sets up a t hr ee- par t t est

t o di f f er ent i at e empl oyees f r om i ndependent cont r act or s, as

f ol l ows:

For t he pur pose of t hi s chapt er and chapt er151, an i ndi vi dual per f or mi ng any ser vi ce,except as aut hor i zed under t hi s chapt er , shal lbe consi der ed t o be an empl oyee under t hosechapt er s unl ess:

( 1) t he i ndi vi dual i s f r ee f r om cont r ol

and di r ect i on i n connect i on wi t h t heperf ormance of t he ser vi ce, both underhi s cont r act f or t he per f or mance ofser vi ce and i n f act ; and

-4-


5/25

( 2) t he ser vi ce i s per f or med out si de t heusual cour se of t he busi ness of t heempl oyer ; and,

( 3) t he i ndi vi dual i s cust omar i l y engagedi n an i ndependent l y est abl i shed t r ade,

occupat i on, pr of essi on or busi ness of t hesame natur e as t hat i nvol ved i n t heservi ce per f or med.

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148B( a) ( 2004) . The MDA argues t hat t he

cour i er s wi l l al ways f ai l t he "B Pr ong, " or t he second r equi r ement ,

of Massachuset t s' s t est f or i ndependent cont r act or s, si nce t hese

cont r act or s per f or m del i ver y ser vi ces wi t hi n t he usual cour se of

busi ness f or t he del i ver y compani es.

The l egi sl at i ve pur pose of Sect i on 148B i s " t o prot ect

empl oyees f r ombei ng depr i ved of t he benef i t s enj oyed by empl oyees

t hr ough t hei r mi scl assi f i cat i on as i ndependent cont r act or s. " MDA

I , 671 F. 3d at 36- 37 ( quot i ng Somer s v. Conver ged Access, I nc. , 911

N. E. 2d 739, 749 ( Mass. 2009) ) . An "empl oyee" cl ass i f i cat i on under

Sect i on 148B t r i gger s l egal r equi r ement s on the "empl oyer s" under

var i ous wage and empl oyment l aws. 1 See i d. at 36. I f an empl oyi ng

ent i t y i mpr oper l y cl assi f i es an empl oyee as an i ndependent

cont r act or under Sect i on 148B, a var i et y of sanct i ons i s avai l abl e.

1 The par t i es di sput e whi ch Massachuset t s st at ut es ar et r i gger ed by the cl assi f i cat i on of a cour i er as an empl oyee,i nst ead of an i ndependent cont r act or . We pr evi ousl y not ed t hat t hecl assi f i cat i on was r el evant f or chapt er s 62B, 149, 151, and 152 oft he Massachuset t s General Laws. MDA I , 671 F. 3d at 36. TheAt t or ney Gener al di sagr ees wi t h our i ncl usi on of chapt er s 62B and152, but concedes t he r emai ni ng chapt er s are appl i cabl e.

-5-


6/25

I d. at 37. Act i ons f or f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h Sect i on 148B can be

pur sued by t he Commonweal t h, or by t he empl oyees t hemsel ves. I d.

Accor di ng t o t he MDA, bei ng f or ced t o t r eat t he cour i er s

as empl oyees, r at her t han i ndependent cont r act or s, "woul d

pr of oundl y al t er Xpr essman' s busi ness model as wel l as t he pr i ces,

r out es and servi ces i t of f er s cust omer s. " Xpr essman has pr ovi ded

evi dence as t o t he changes t hat woul d ensue t o recr ui t i ng,

i nt ervi ewi ng, and hi r i ng; t he need f or human r esour ces management ;

and t he i ncr eased compensat i on, f r i nge benef i t s, and t axes. I t

pr ovi ded evi dence t hat r out es woul d al so change si nce cour i er s

t r eat ed as empl oyees woul d have t o dr i ve t o and f r om Xpr essman' s

f aci l i t y, woul d have l ess f l exi bi l i t y t o accept shor t r out es, and

coul d not dr i ve t he l ong r out es wi t hout a mandat or y br eak.

Fi nal l y, Xpr essman cont ends t hat i t woul d no l onger be abl e t o

pr ovi de on- demand servi ces wi t h empl oyees. "Al l t ol d, conver t i ng

i ndependent cont r act or - cour i er s t o empl oyees woul d near l y doubl e

Xpr essman' s l abor cost s . . . annual l y. "

The FAAAA expr ess l y preempts cer t ai n st at e l aws r el at i ng

t o mot or car r i er s. Speci f i cal l y, t he FAAAA st at es:

Except as provi ded i n par agr aphs ( 2) and ( 3) ,a St at e, pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of a St at e, orpol i t i cal aut hor i t y of 2 or mor e St at es may

not enact or enf or ce a l aw, r egul at i on, orot her pr ovi si on havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect ofl aw r el at ed t o a pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce ofany mot or car r i er ( ot her t han a car r i eraf f i l i at ed wi t h a di r ect ai r car r i er cover edby sect i on 41713( b) ( 4) ) or any mot or pr i vat e

-6-


7/25

car r i er , br oker , or f r ei ght f or war der wi t hr espect t o t he t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y.

49 U. S. C. 14501( c) ( 1) ( 2005) .

The MDA moved f or summar y j udgment , ar gui ng t hat t he

FAAAA pr eempt s t he B Prong, t he second r equi r ement , of Sect i on

148B. The At t orney General cr oss- moved f or summary j udgment on al l

count s, ar gui ng t hat t he case does not pr esent a j ust i ci abl e case

or cont r oversy. I n t he event t hat summary j udgment was not gr ant ed

i n her f avor , t he At t orney General argued t hat t he FAAAA does not

pr eempt Sect i on 148B and asked f or addi t i onal di scover y pur suant t o

Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( d) . The At t or ney Gener al

subsequent l y moved t o compel addi t i onal deposi t i on t i me under

Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 30( d) ( 1) , and t he f ur t her

pr oduct i on of document s.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound a j ust i ci abl e case or

cont r over sy and deni ed t he At t or ney Gener al ' s cr oss- mot i on f or

summar y j udgment on t hi s gr ound. The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t he

FAAAA does not preempt Sect i on 148B, and di smi ssed t he MDA' s

pr eempt i on cl ai ms on t he mer i t s. Fi nal l y, t he di st r i ct cour t

deni ed as moot t he At t orney General ' s mot i on t o compel si nce i t

sought i nf or mat i on sol el y r el at ed to t he now- di smi ssed pr eempt i on

cl ai ms. The MDA appeal ed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s hol di ng.

-7-


8/25

I I . J ust i ci abi l i t y

I n her br i ef , t he At t or ney Gener al ar gues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n r ul i ng t hat t he MDA al l eged a j ust i ci abl e

case or cont r over sy. The At t or ney Gener al f ai l ed t o cr oss- appeal

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng on t hi s i ssue. Gener al l y, "[ a] par t y

who negl ect s t o f i l e a cr oss- appeal may not use hi s opponent ' s

appeal as a vehi cl e f or at t acki ng a f i nal j udgment i n an ef f or t t o

di mi ni sh t he appeal i ng par t y' s r i ght s t her eunder . " Suei r o Vzquez

v. Tor r egr osa de l a Rosa, 494 F. 3d 227, 232 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( quot i ng Fi guer oa v. Ri ver a, 147 F. 3d 77, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) .

Her e, however , we wi l l r evi ew t he At t or ney Gener al ' s ar gument si nce

i t concer ns our own j ur i sdi ct i on as wel l . See, e. g. , Uni t ed

Seni or s Ass' n, I nc. v. Phi l i p Mor r i s USA, 500 F. 3d 19, 23 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) .

The At t or ney Gener al ar gues t hat t he "MDA essent i al l y

seeks an advi sor y opi ni on on whether one pr ong of sect i on 148B' s

t hr ee- pr ong t est i s pr eempt ed. " Ther e i s no di sput e t hat i n or der

t o cl assi f y i t s cour i er s as i ndependent cont r act or s, t he MDA must

sat i sf y al l t hr ee pr ongs of t he Massachuset t s st at ut e. The MDA has

made no showi ng, however , as r el ates t o Prong A or Prong C. Even

i f we hol d Prong B pr eempt ed, accor di ng t o the At t orney General ,

t he cour i er s may st i l l be cl assi f i ed as empl oyees.

The di vi de between a val i d decl ar at or y j udgment and an

i nval i d advi sor y opi ni on can be narr ow. See MedI mmune, I nc. v.

-8-


9/25

Genent ech, I nc. , 549 U. S. 118, 127 ( 2007) . "Basi cal l y, t he

quest i on i n each case i s whet her t he f act s al l eged, under al l t he

ci r cumst ances, show t hat t her e i s a subst ant i al cont r over sy,

bet ween par t i es havi ng adver se l egal i nt er est s, of suf f i ci ent

i mmedi acy and real i t y t o war r ant t he i ssuance of a decl ar at or y

j udgment . " I d. ( quot i ng Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oi l Co. , 312

U. S. 270, 273 ( 1941) ) .

The MDA' s compl ai nt al l eges t hat " [ b] ecause many MDA

members engage i ndependent cont r actor del i ver y dr i ver s or cont r act

wi t h ent i t i es t hat engage i ndependent cont r act or del i ver y dr i ver s,

t hey ar guabl y vi ol at e t he St at ut e and t hi s pl aces t hem i n per i l of

an enf or cement act i on and ci vi l act i ons by pr i vat e par t i es. " Thi s

per i l i s not r emot e or specul at i ve as evi denced by t he thr ee MDA

member s who wer e def endant s i n st at e ci vi l sui t s brought by pr i vat e

par t i es f or mi scl assi f i cat i on under Sect i on 148B. See MDA I , 671

F. 3d at 39.

A deci si on on Pr ong B woul d l i f t a bar t o cour i er s'

cl assi f i cat i on as i ndependent cont r act or s even i f i t does not

concl usi vel y r esol ve t hei r cl assi f i cat i on. I n Weaver ' s Cove

Energy, LLC v. Rhode I sl and Coast al Resour ces Management Counci l ,

589 F. 3d 458 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) , we hel d t hat a pl ai nt i f f coul d

chal l enge t wo r egul at or y bar r i er s i n t he pr ocess of obt ai ni ng

aut hor i zat i on f or a Li qui f i ed Nat ur al Gas t er mi nal , even i f mor e

r emai ned. See i d. at 467- 69. Resol ut i on of t hese t wo r equi r ement s

-9-


10/25

woul d be nei t her "advi sor y" nor " i r r el evant , " we hel d, si nce t hey

"woul d cease t o be bar r i er s t o ul t i mat e appr oval of t he pr oj ect . "

I d. at 469. Li kewi se, r evi ew of Pr ong B i s not advi sor y si nce i t

st ands as a bar r i er t o i ndi vi dual cour i er s' cl assi f i cat i on as

i ndependent cont r act or s.

I I I . Pr eempt i on

The MDA chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f or mul at i on of

t he pr eempt i on t est under t he FAAAA and i t s appl i cat i on t o Sect i on

148B. Si nce f eder al pr eempt i on i s a quest i on of s t at ut or y

const r uct i on, we r evi ew t hese i ssues de novo. Di Fi or e v. Am.

Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 646 F. 3d 81, 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

"Congr essi onal i nt ent i s t he pr i nci pal r esour ce t o be

used i n def i ni ng t he scope and ext ent of an expr ess preempt i on

cl ause. " Br own v. Uni t ed Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 720 F. 3d 60, 63 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) . We must " f ocus f i r st on t he st at ut or y l anguage, ' whi ch

necessar i l y cont ai ns t he best evi dence of Congr ess' pr e- empt i ve

i nt ent . ' " Dan' s Ci t y Used Car s, I nc. v. Pel key, 133 S. Ct . 1769,

1778 ( 2013) ( quot i ng CSX Transp. , I nc. v. East er wood, 507 U. S. 658,

664 ( 1993) ) . We may al so consi der t he cl ause' s pur pose, hi st or y,

and t he sur r oundi ng st atut ory scheme. Br own, 720 F. 3d at 63.

The FAAAA st at es: " [ A] Stat e . . . may not enact or

enf or ce a l aw . . . r el at ed t o a pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce of any

mot or car r i er . . . wi t h r espect t o t he t r anspor t at i on of

pr oper t y. " 49 U. S. C. 14501( c) ( 1) ( emphasi s added) . The f i r st

-10-


11/25

phr ase, " r el at ed t o a pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce, " i s bor r owed f r om

t he ear l i er Ai r l i ne Der egul at i on Act ( "ADA") and i nt er pr et ed

i dent i cal l y. See Rowe v. N. H. Mot or Tr ansp. Ass' n, 552 U. S. 364,

370 ( 2008) . The second phr ase, "wi t h r espect t o t he t r anspor t at i on

of pr oper t y, " i s uni que t o t he FAAAA. See Dan' s Ci t y, 133 S. Ct .

at 1778.

We hol d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i ncor r ect l y appl i ed t he

f i r st cl ause, and i ncor r ect l y i nt er pr et ed t he second cl ause. I t

r ead t he f i r st cl ause t oo nar r owl y, and t he second cl ause t oo

br oadl y. We consi der each i n t ur n.

A. Rel at ed t o a Pr i ce, Rout e, or Ser vi ce

1. Br oad St andard

To t r i gger preempt i on under t he FAAAA, a st at e l aw must

"r el at e[ ] t o a pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce" of a mot or car r i er . 49

U. S. C. 14501( c) ( 1) . "The phr ase ' r el at ed t o' . . . embr aces

st at e l aws ' havi ng a connect i on wi t h or r ef er ence t o' car r i er

' r at es, r out es, or ser vi ces, ' whet her di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y. "

Dan' s Ci t y, 133 S. Ct . at 1778 ( quot i ng Rowe, 552 U. S. at

370) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Under t hi s r ubr i c, a st at e

st at ut e i s pr eempt ed i f i t expr essl y ref er ences, or has a

si gni f i cant i mpact on, car r i er s' pr i ces, r out es, or ser vi ces. See

Mor al es v. Tr ans Wor l d Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 504 U. S. 374, 388 ( 1992) .

The " r el at ed t o" t est i s pur posef ul l y expansi ve. I n

Mor al es, t he Cour t f i r st expl ai ned t hat a st at ut e r el at es t o

-11-


12/25

pr i ces, r out es, or ser vi ces i f i t "ha[ s] a connect i on wi t h or

r ef er ence t o" t he same. 504 U. S. at 384. The Cour t hel d t hat

gui del i nes gover ni ng ai r l i nes t r i gger ed pr eempt i on under t he ADA

because t hey expr essl y r ef er enced f ar es, but al so because t hey had

a "f or bi dden si gni f i cant ef f ect upon f ar es. " I d. at 388.

Congress used t he same l anguage as f ound i n t he ADA when

wr i t i ng t he FAAAA and i nt ended t o i ncor por at e t he Mor al es Cour t ' s

"br oad pr eempt i on i nt er pr et at i on. " Rowe, 552 U. S. at 370 ( quot i ng

H. R. Conf . Rep. 103- 677, at 83 ( 1994) , r epr i nt ed i n 1994

U. S. C. C. A. N. 1715, 1755) . As such, t he Cour t has appl i ed t he same

sweepi ng t est t o t he " r el at ed t o" l anguage i n t he FAAAA. I d. at

370- 71. I n Rowe, t he Cour t hel d t hat a Mai ne l aw r egul at i ng t he

del i ver y of t obacco t o cust omer s wi t hi n t he st ate was preempt ed

under t he FAAAA, i n par t , because i t had a " ' si gni f i cant ' and

adver se ' i mpact ' i n r espect t o t he f eder al Act ' s abi l i t y t o achi eve

i t s pr e- empt i on- r el at ed obj ect i ves. " I d. at 371- 72.

Recent l y, t he Supr eme Cour t hi ghl i ght ed the br eadt h of

t he t est when i t hel d t hat a common l aw cl ai m f or br each of an

i mpl i ed covenant "r el at es t o" ai r l i nes' pr i ces, r out es, or

ser vi ces. Nor t hwest , I nc. v. Gi nsber g, 134 S. Ct . 1422, 1430- 31

( 2014) . The Cour t ' s anal ysi s f ocused not on t he cl ai m i n t he

abst r act , but on t he under l yi ng f act s. See i d. The Cour t f ound

t hat t he cl ai m "cl ear l y has such a connect i on" si nce i t sought

r espondent ' s r ei nst at ement i n Nor t hwest ' s f r equent f l yer pr ogr am.

-12-


13/25

I d. at 1430. " [ T] he Nor t hwest pr ogr am i s connect ed t o t he

ai r l i ne' s ' r at es' because t he pr ogr am awar ds mi l eage cr edi t s t hat

can be r edeemed f or t i cket s and upgr ades. " I d. at 1431. "The

pr ogr am i s al so connected t o ' ser vi ces, ' i . e. , access t o f l i ght s

and t o hi gher ser vi ce cat egor i es. " I d.

Ther e i s, however , a necessar y l i mi t t o t he scope of

FAAAA pr eempt i on. We have pr evi ousl y noted t hat " count l ess st ate

l aws have some r el at i on t o t he oper at i ons of ai r l i nes and t hus some

pot ent i al ef f ect on t he pr i ces char ged or ser vi ces pr ovi ded. "

Di Fi or e, 646 F. 3d at 86. St at e l aws whose ef f ect i s onl y " t enuous,

r emote, or per i pheral " ar e not pr eempt ed. See Rowe, 552 U. S. at

371 ( quot i ng Mor al es, 504 U. S. at 390) . I n Mor al es, t he Cour t t hus

di smi ssed concer ns t hat t he ADA woul d pr eempt st at e l aws agai nst

gambl i ng or pr ost i t ut i on. 504 U. S. at 390. I n Rowe, t he Cour t

suggest ed t hat a "st at e r egul at i on t hat br oadl y pr ohi bi t s cer t ai n

f or ms of conduct and af f ect s, say, t r uckdr i ver s, onl y i n t hei r

capaci t y as member s of t he publ i c ( e. g. , a pr ohi bi t i on on smoki ng

i n cer t ai n publ i c pl aces) " woul d not be pr eempt ed. 552 U. S. at

375.

The At t or ney Gener al ar gues f or a cat egor i cal r ul e

agai nst pr eempt i on of "backgr ound" l abor l aws, dr awi ng on cer t ai n

cases. The At t or ney Gener al pr of f er s "a sensi bl e r ubr i c" t o

conf i ne FAAAA pr eempt i on: "backgr ound st ate st atut es ar e not

pr eempt ed i f t hey ar e gener al l y appl i cabl e and not di r ect ed t o a

-13-


14/25

par t i cul ar ar ea of f eder al aut hor i t y. " Thus, "gener al St at e

empl oyment st atut es and ot her St ate backgr ound l aws [ are] per se

' t enuous' and ' r emot e. ' " Accor di ng t o t he At t or ney Gener al ,

"Sect i on 148B' s def i ni t i on of ' empl oyee' i s t he qui nt essent i al

' backgr ound l aw' t hat appl i es t o ever y i ndust r y i n the Commonweal t h

and t hat ar i ses i n an ar ea - - gener al empl oyment l aw - - t hat i s

separ at e and di st i nct f r omt he r egul at i on of i nt er - f i r mcompet i t i on

t hat concer ned Congr ess i n t he FAAAA. "

Some cour t s have i ndeed used t he l anguage of "backgr ound"

l aws as a shor t hand f or l aws t hat are f ound t o be t oo t enuous,

r emot e, or per i pher al t o car r i er s' pr i ces, r out es, or ser vi ces t o

sat i sf y t he " r el at ed t o" t est . Whi l e we have never used t hat

l anguage and do not f i nd such l anguage par t i cul ar l y hel pf ul , we

descr i be t he cases.

I n Di l t s v. Penske Logi st i cs, LLC, No. 12- 55705, 2014 WL

4401243 ( 9t h Ci r . Sept . 8, 2014) , f or exampl e, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t

f ound t hat "gener al l y appl i cabl e backgr ound r egul at i ons t hat ar e

sever al st eps r emoved f r om pr i ces, r out es, or ser vi ces, such as

pr evai l i ng wage l aws or saf et y regul at i ons, ar e not pr eempt ed. "

I d. at *7. These l aws may have some ef f ect on pr i ces, r out es, or

ser vi ces, but t hat ef f ect i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o t r i gger f eder al

pr eempt i on. See i d. The Ni nt h Ci r cui t deter mi ned t hat

Cal i f or ni a' s meal and r est br eak l aws wer e "br oad l aws appl yi ng t o

hundr eds of di f f er ent i ndust r i es wi t h no ot her f or bi dden connect i on

-14-


15/25

wi t h pr i ces, r out es, and ser vi ces. " I d. ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The Ni nt h Ci r cui t concl uded

t hat " [ t ] he FAAAA does not pr eempt Cal i f or ni a' s meal and r est br eak

l aws as appl i ed to Def endant s, because t hose st at e l aws ar e not

' r el at ed t o' Def endant s' pr i ces, r out es, or ser vi ces. " I d. at *10.

The At t or ney Gener al al so r el i es on S. C. J ohnson & Son,

I nc. v. Tr anspor t Cor p. of Amer i ca, I nc. , 697 F. 3d 544 ( 7t h Ci r .

2012) . 2 Ther e, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t consi der ed t he pl ai nt i f f s'

cl ai ms f or f r audul ent mi sr epr esent at i on by omi ssi on, conspi r acy to

commi t f r aud, cr i mi nal conspi r acy t o vi ol at e Wi sconsi n' s br i ber y

st at ut e, and Wi sconsi n' s st at e equi val ent of t he f eder al

r acket eer i ng st at ut e. I d. at 557- 58. The Sevent h Ci r cui t hel d

t hat t he f i r st t wo cl ai ms wer e pr eempt ed, as a mat t er of l aw, si nce

t hey "r el at e suf f i ci ent l y t o r at es, r out es, or ser vi ces. " I d. at

557. The l at t er t wo cl ai ms were not pr eempt ed si nce t hey were t oo

t enuousl y rel at ed t o t he r egul at i on of t he pr i ces, r out es, and

2 A di st r i ct cour t i n t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of I l l i noi sr ecent l y ci t ed S. C. J ohnson & Son, I nc. v. Tr anspor t Cor por at i on ofAmer i ca, I nc. when hol di ng t hat a st at e l abor l aw, whi ch i ncl udedt he def i ni t i on of an i ndependent cont r actor , was not pr eempt edunder t he FAAAA. Cost el l o v. BeavEx I nc. , No. 12 C 7843, 2014 WL1289612, at **3, 5- 7 ( N. D. I l l . Mar . 31, 2014) . The cour t f oundt hat t he I l l i noi s Wage Payment and Col l ect i on Act ( " I WPCA") " f i t s

t he mol d of a ' backgr ound l aw. ' " I d. at *6. "The l aw appl i es t oal l empl oyer s and empl oyees i n I l l i noi s and l ays out gui del i nesf or , among ot her t hi ngs, pay per i ods, deduct i ons f r om wages, andavenues t o pur sue i n t he event of empl oyment di sput es. " I d. Li keal l economi c r egul at i on, t he I WPCA may "pl ay[ ] a rol e i n set t i ngt he mar ket pr i ce, " but "[ t ] hi s i s not suf f i ci ent t o suppor tpr eempt i on. " I d. ( ci t i ng S. C. J ohnson, 697 F. 3d at 558) .

-15-


16/25

ser vi ces of t he t r ucki ng i ndust r y. I d. at 558- 60. The Sevent h

Ci r cui t char act er i zed t hem as "st at e l aws of gener al appl i cat i on

t hat pr ovi de t he backdr op f or pr i vat e or der i ng. " I d. at 558.

Phr ased another way, t hey were "backgr ound l aws" t hat af f ected t he

cost s of i nput s t o mar ket t r ansact i ons, such as l abor , capi t al , or

t echnol ogy. I d. " [ L] aws t hat r egul at e t hese i nput s oper at e one or

mor e st eps away f r om t he moment at whi ch t he f i r m of f er s i t s

cust omer a ser vi ce f or a par t i cul ar pr i ce. " I d.

The At t or ney Gener al ' s proposed const r uct , however , r uns

count er t o Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent br oadl y i nt er pr et i ng t he

"r el at ed t o" l anguage i n FAAAA. I n t he f i r st ar t i cul at i on of t he

t est , t he Mor al es Cour t di smi ssed t he i dea t hat a st at e st at ut e

must r egul at e or speci f i cal l y addr ess t he ai r l i ne i ndust r y i n or der

t o be pr eempt ed. 504 U. S. at 385- 86. "Besi des cr eat i ng an ut t er l y

i r r at i onal l oophol e ( t her e i s l i t t l e r eason why st at e i mpai r ment of

t he f ederal scheme shoul d be deemed accept abl e so l ong as i t i s

ef f ect ed by t he par t i cul ar i zed appl i cat i on of a gener al st at ut e) ,

t hi s not i on si mi l ar l y i gnor es t he sweep of t he ' r el at i ng t o'

l anguage. " I d. at 386. The er r or of t he At t or ney Gener al ' s t est

i s per haps best hi ghl i ght ed by the Cour t ' s r ecent deci si on

concer ni ng a st at e l aw cl ai m f or br each of an i mpl i ed covenant of

good f ai t h and f ai r deal i ng. See Nor t hwest , 134 S. Ct . at 1430- 31.

Thi s gener al l y appl i cabl e st at e common l aw cl ai m woul d f ai l t he

-16-


17/25

At t or ney Gener al ' s " sensi bl e r ubr i c, " and yet , t he Cour t f ound t hat

i t "cl ear l y" sat i sf i ed t he "r el at ed t o" t est, i d. at 1430.

I n addi t i on, t he At t or ney Gener al ' s const r uct i s not

suppor t ed by t he j ur i spr udence i n t hi s ci r cui t . I n Di Fi or e, we

r ecogni zed t hat some cases woul d f al l beyond t he scope of FAAAA

pr eempt i on, but never suggest ed a cat egor i cal r ul e. See 646 F. 3d

at 87. Mor e r ecent l y, i n Bower v. Egypt ai r Ai r l i nes Co. , 731 F. 3d

85 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , we hel d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s common l aw t or t

cl ai ms of i nt er f er ence wi t h cust odi al r el at i ons, negl i gence,

negl i gent i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di st r ess, and l oss of f i l i al

consor t i um wer e pr eempt ed by the ADA si nce t hey r el at ed

suf f i ci ent l y t o t he ser vi ce of an ai r car r i er . I d. at 93, 98. We

not ed t hat a "st at e l aw may be pr eempt ed even i f i t i s i ndi r ect l y

or gener al l y appl i cabl e. " I d. at 95.

Fi nal l y, t he At t or ney Gener al ' s const r uct i s cont r adi ct ed

by t he ver y cases on whi ch she r el i es. The Sevent h Ci r cui t

di scl ai med any not i on of "a si mpl e al l - or - not hi ng quest i on. " See

S. C. J ohnson, 697 F. 3d at 550. " [ I ] nst ead, t he cour t must deci de

whet her t he st at e l aw at i ssue f al l s on t he af f i r mat i ve or negat i ve

si de of t he pr eempt i on l i ne. " I d. A car ef ul anal ysi s of t wo of

t he cl ai ms at i ssue showed t he l abel of "backgr ound" t o be

war r ant ed gi ven t hei r t enuous ef f ect on pr i ces, r out es, and

servi ces. See i d. at 558- 60. The Sevent h Ci r cui t f ound t wo ot her

cl ai ms, f or f r audul ent mi sr epr esent at i on by omi ssi on and conspi r acy

-17-


18/25

t o commi t f r aud, suf f i ci ent l y r el at ed t o r at es, r out es, or ser vi ces

t o t r i gger pr eempt i on, despi t e t hei r gener al appl i cabi l i t y. I d. at

557.

Fur t her , i n Di l t s, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t r ecogni zed t hat

gener al l y appl i cabl e st at ut es, "br oad l aws appl yi ng t o hundr eds of

di f f er ent i ndust r i es, " coul d be pr eempt ed i f t hey have a " f or bi dden

connect i on wi t h pr i ces, r out es, and servi ces. " See 2014 WL

4401243, at *7 ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed) . "[ T] hat i s, " t he Ni nt h

Ci r cui t speci f i ed, "t hose t hat do not di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y

mandat e, pr ohi bi t , or ot her wi se r egul at e cer t ai n pr i ces, r out es, or

servi ces [ ] ar e not pr eempt ed by t he FAAAA. " I d.

We r ef use the At t or ney Gener al ' s i nvi t at i on t o adopt such

a cat egor i cal r ul e exempt i ng f r om pr eempt i on al l gener al l y

appl i cabl e st ate l abor l aws. As evi denced by Nort hwest , we must

car ef ul l y eval uat e even gener al l y appl i cabl e st at e l aws f or an

i mper mi ssi bl e ef f ect on car r i er s' pr i ces, r out es, and ser vi ces.

The cour t must engage wi t h t he r eal and l ogi cal ef f ect s of t he

st at e st at ut e, r at her t han si mpl y assi gni ng i t a l abel .

2. Appl i cat i on of t he FAAAA t o Sect i on 148B

The MDA ar gues t hat Sect i on 148B' s ef f ect i ve ban on t he

use of i ndependent cont r act or s r ender s i t pr eempt ed under ei t her a

f aci al or an as- appl i ed chal l enge. The MDA ar gues that t he FAAAA

pr eempt s Sect i on 148B on i t s f ace due to i t s l ogi cal ef f ect on t he

same- day del i ver y i ndust r y as a whol e. Si nce i ndi vi dual cour i er s

-18-


19/25

necessar i l y act wi t hi n t he usual cour se of t he busi ness of t hei r

empl oyer s, t hey must be deemed empl oyees. As such, Sect i on 148B

"ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t s mot or car r i er s f r omengagi ng t hei r cour i er s

as i ndependent cont r act or s. "

The MDA' s ami cus cur i ae, 3 t he Chamber of Commer ce, ar gues

t hat " [ a] st at e l aw speci f yi ng who must pr ovi de the ser vi ce - - an

empl oyee of t he car r i er - - i s no di f f er ent f r om r egul at i ng t he

ser vi ce i t sel f . " The At t or ney Gener al cont est s t he MDA' s

char act er i zat i on of t he l aw as one t hat bans t he use of i ndi vi dual

i ndependent cont r act or s. 4

The MDA al so ar gues t hat t he FAAAA preempt s Sect i on 148B

due t o i t s i mper mi ssi bl e ef f ect on t he pr i ces, r out es, and ser vi ces

of Xpr essman. Pr eempt i on i s i mpl i cat ed i f t he st at ut e has a

f or bi dden si gni f i cant ef f ect on even one mot or car r i er . See N. H.

Motor Transp. Ass ' n v. Rowe, 448 F. 3d 66, 72- 73 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ,

af f ' d on other gr ounds sub nom. Rowe v. N. H. Motor Transp. Ass ' n,

552 U. S. 364 ( 2008) . Accor di ng t o Xpr essman, t he r e- cl assi f i cat i on

3 We expr ess our appr eci at i on t o t he sever al ami ci f or t hei rassi st ance.

4 At or al ar gument , t he At t orney Gener al ar gued t hat Sect i on148B di d not oper at e as a bar t o t he cl assi f i cat i on of i ndi vi dual

cour i er s as i ndependent cont r act or s so l ong as t he del i ver y companyar r anged del i ver i es, and t he cour i er per f or med t he del i ver i es.Thi s par ses t he i ssue t oo f i nel y. On t he f act s present l y r ef l ect edi n t he r ecor d, t he cour i er s del i ver packages f or del i ver ycompani es. There can be no di sput e t hat t hey act i n t he cour se ofbusi ness f or t he del i ver y compani es, even i f one per f or ms t hedel i ver i es and t he ot her ar r anges t he del i ver i es.

-19-


20/25

of i t s 58 i ndependent cour i ers as empl oyees woul d change the rout es

of f er ed t o cust omer s, woul d pr ecl ude on- demand del i ver y ser vi ces,

and woul d dr ast i cal l y i ncr ease Xpr essman' s cost s and t hus i t s

pr i ces. The At t or ney Gener al ar gues t hat t he MDA "mi sst at es or

over st at es" t hi s ef f ect.

The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Sect i on 148B' s "connect i on

t o pr i ces, r out es and ser vi ces i s i nsuf f i ci ent f or t he FAAAA

. . . t o pr eempt i t . " The di st r i ct cour t char acter i zed Sect i on

148B as a gener al l y appl i cabl e wage l aw, and not ed, " [ t ] hat a

r egul at i on on wages has t he potent i al t o i mpact cost s and t her ef or e

pr i ces i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o i mpl i cat e pr eempt i on. " The di st r i ct

cour t wor r i ed t hat " t o f i nd t he ' FAAAA pr eempt s wage l aws because

t hey may have an i ndi r ect i mpact on [ a mot or car r i er ] ' s pr i ci ng

deci si ons amount s t o an i nvi t at i on t o i mmuni ze i t f r om al l st at e

economi c r egul at i on. ' "

I n so hol di ng, t he di st r i ct cour t made sever al cri t i cal

er r or s. Fi r st , a st at ut e' s "pot ent i al " i mpact on car r i er s' pr i ces,

r out es, and ser vi ces can be suf f i ci ent i f i t i s si gni f i cant , r at her

t han t enuous, r emot e, or per i pher al . We have pr evi ousl y r ej ect ed

t he cont ent i on t hat empi r i cal evi dence i s necessary t o war r ant

FAAAA pr eempt i on, and al l owed cour t s t o "l ook[ ] t o t he l ogi cal

ef f ect t hat a par t i cul ar scheme has on t he del i ver y of ser vi ces or

t he set t i ng of r at es. " Rowe, 448 F. 3d at 82 n. 14. Second, t hi s

l ogi cal ef f ect can be suf f i ci ent even i f i ndi r ect, as descr i bed

-20-


21/25

above. Far f r om i mmuni zi ng mot or car r i er s f r omal l st at e economi c

r egul at i ons, we ar e f ol l owi ng Congr ess' s di r ect i ve t o i mmuni ze

mot or car r i er s f r om st at e r egul at i ons t hat t hr eat en t o unr avel

Congr ess' s pur posef ul der egul at i on i n t hi s ar ea. Fi nal l y, t he

di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o consi der t he i mpact of t he st at ut e on

car r i er s' r out es and ser vi ces, and not mer el y t hei r pr i ces.

"Ul t i mat el y, " t he di st r i ct cour t hel d, "t he St at ut e' s

ef f ect on Xpr essman' s l abor cost s i s i mmat er i al . " "Even i f t he

i mpact was ' si gni f i cant , ' . . . t hi s woul d not change t he f act t hat

t he St at ut e does not r el at e t o t he ' movement of pr oper t y. ' " I n

essence, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat i t s hol di ng t hat Sect i on

148B di d not meet t he second r equi r ement , "wi t h r espect t o the

t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y, " obvi at ed t he need t o i nvest i gat e i t s

pot ent i al success on t he f i r st r equi r ement . Si nce we concl ude t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n i t s i nt er pr et at i on of t he second

sect i on of t he FAAAA, a det er mi nat i on on t he f i r st r equi r ement i s

now necessar y.

We expr ess no vi ew on t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . I n opposi t i on t o t he MDA' s mot i on f or

summary j udgment , t he At t orney General had argued t hat i t needed t o

conduct addi t i onal di scover y i n or der t o devel op f act s necessar y t o

i t s opposi t i on. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( d) . The di st r i ct cour t di d

not r each t he Rul e 56( d) mot i on. The di st r i ct cour t ought t o

deci de t hi s mat t er i n t he f i r st i nst ance and det er mi ne whet her t he

-21-


22/25

At t orney General has met her bur den of est abl i shi ng t he need f or

addi t i onal di scover y under Rul e 56( d) .

B. Wi t h Respect t o t he Tr anspor t at i on of Pr oper t y

The FAAAA preempts st at e l aws " r el at ed t o a pr i ce, r out e,

or ser vi ce of any mot or car r i er . . . wi t h r espect t o t he

t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. " 49 U. S. C. 14501( c) ( 1) ( emphasi s

added) . The di st r i ct cour t i nt er pr et ed t he second phr ase as

i mposi ng an i ndependent , and severe, r equi r ement f or FAAAA

pr eempt i on. The di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat , " [ u] nl i ke t he ADA,

FAAAA pr eempt i on appl i es onl y [ ] t o st at e st at ut es r egul at i ng t he

' t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. ' " Si nce Sect i on 148B "has a br oad

appl i cat i on t o a swat h of st at e wage and hour l aws, whi ch, i n t ur n,

appl y t o al l empl oyees r egar dl ess of t he under l yi ng i ndust r y, " t he

di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat Sect i on 148B f ai l ed t o r el at e

suf f i ci ent l y t o t he t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y.

I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed

heavi l y on t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecent deci si on i n Dan' s Ci t y, 133

S. Ct . 1769. Ther e, t he Cour t consi der ed st at e l aw cl ai ms based on

a New Hampshi r e st atut e t hat r egul ated t he r emoval , st orage, and

di sposal of abandoned motor vehi cl es af t er t hey had been t owed, i d.

at 1776, and concl uded t hat t he st ate l aw cl ai ms were not pr eempt ed

under t he FAAAA, i d. at 1775. The Cour t noted t hat t he phr ase,

"wi t h r espect t o t he t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y, " i n t he FAAAA was

a "conspi cuous" addi t i on t o t he ADA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on. I d. at

-22-


23/25

1778. The Cour t st at ed t hat t he second phr ase " ' massi vel y l i mi t s

t he scope of pr eempt i on' or der ed by t he FAAAA. " I d. " [ F] or

pur poses of FAAAA pr eempt i on, i t i s not suf f i ci ent t hat a st at e l aw

r el at es t o t he ' pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce' of a mot or car r i er i n any

capaci t y; t he l aw must al so concer n a mot or car r i er ' s

' t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. ' " I d. at 1778- 79.

The di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul e mi sr eads t he i mpor t of Dan' s

Ci t y. Whi l e Dan' s Ci t y st at ed onl y t hat t he l aw must "concer n" a

mot or car r i er ' s t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y, t he di st r i ct cour t

r equi r ed t he l aw t o "r egul at e" t he mot or car r i er ' s t r anspor t at i on

of pr oper t y. Such a st r i ct r eadi ng of t he second phr ase woul d

ef f ect i vel y nul l i f y t he expansi ve r eadi ng of t he f i r st phr ase. A

gener al st at ut e, whose ef f ect was i ndi r ect but si gni f i cant , woul d

no l onger be pr eempt ed. Al t hough t he Cour t expr essed i t s

under st andi ng t hat t he second phr ase " l i mi t s" t he scope of FAAAA

pr eempt i on, i t gave no i ndi cat i on t hat t he second phr ase i n f act

over r ul es al l ear l i er pr ecedent on t he f i r st phr ase. Wi t hout a

cl ear st at ement f r om t he Cour t , we cannot assume that i t s opi ni on

i nt ended t o do so.

I nst ead, we underst and Dan' s Ci t y t o ensure t hat FAAAA

pr eempt i on does not appl y when a st ate st atut e concer ns motor

car r i er s i n mat t er s unr el at ed t o t he t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y.

I n Dan' s Ci t y, t he Cour t acknowl edged t hat a t ow t r uck qual i f i es as

a mot or car r i er , but st r essed t hat t he st at ut e di d not af f ect t he

-23-


24/25

oper at i on of t ow t r ucks. 133 S. Ct . at 1776 n. 1, 1779. I nst ead,

t he st at ut e r egul at ed t he di sposal of vehi cl es af t er t hei r

t r anspor t at i on by t owi ng had ended. I d. at 1779. The Cour t st ated

"i t i s not suf f i ci ent t hat a st at e l aw r el at es to t he ' pr i ce,

r out e, or ser vi ce' of a mot or car r i er i n any capaci t y; t he l aw must

al so concer n a mot or car r i er ' s ' t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. ' " I d.

at 1778- 79 ( emphasi s added) .

Thi s i nter pret at i on of t he second phrase l i mi t s t he scope

of FAAAA pr eempt i on, as noted by t he Cour t i n Dan' s Ci t y. The

second phr ase excl udes f r om FAAAA pr eempt i on any st ate l aw t hat

af f ect s a mot or car r i er ' s pr i ces, r out es, or ser vi ces out si de t he

cont ext of t he t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. The scope of FAAAA

pr eempt i on woul d be f ar br oader i f i t encompassed st ate st at ut es

t hat af f ect ed mot or car r i er s i n any capaci t y. I nst ead, t he FAAAA

i s car ef ul l y t ai l or ed t o pr eempt onl y t hose st at ut es t hat af f ect a

mot or car r i er ' s t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. Thi s excl udes, f or

exampl e, st at ut es t hat af f ect a mot or car r i er ' s t r anspor t at i on of

passenger s, st at ut es t hat af f ect a mot or car r i er ' s t r anspor t at i on

of gar bage, or , l i ke i n Dan' s Ci t y, st at ut es t hat r el at e t o mot or

car r i er s af t er t he t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y has ended.

The f act s of t hi s case ar e a f ar cr y f r om Dan' s Ci t y.

Sect i on 148B gover ns t he cl assi f i cat i on of t he cour i er s f or

del i ver y ser vi ces. I t pot ent i al l y i mpact s t he ser vi ces t he

del i ver y company pr ovi des, t he pr i ces char ged f or t he del i ver y of

-24-


25/25

pr oper t y, and t he r out es t aken dur i ng t hi s del i ver y. The l aw

cl ear l y concer ns a mot or car r i er ' s "t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. "

The di st r i ct cour t must address on r emand whet her t hi s ef f ect on

del i ver y compani es' pr i ces, r out es, and ser vi ces r i ses t o t he

r equi si t e l evel f or FAAAA pr eempt i on.

I V. Concl usi on

The FAAAA preempts st at e l aws t hat " r el at e t o" t he

pr i ces, r out es, or ser vi ces of a mot or car r i er "wi t h r espect t o t he

t r anspor t at i on of pr oper t y. " We r ever se and r emand t o t he di st r i ct

cour t t o det er mi ne, consi st ent wi t h t he pr i nci pl es el uci dat ed i n

t hi s opi ni on, whet her Sect i on 148B sat i sf i es t he br oad pr eempt i on

t est based on a r evi ew of t he f ul l r ecor d.

So order ed.

-25-

Documents

Massachusetts Delivery Assoc. v. Coakley, 1st Cir. (2014)