Federal judge approves NRF, NRDC joining ATA-SoCal ports suit

Federal judge approves NRF, NRDC joining ATA-SoCal ports suit A federal judge ruled Thursday that the nation's largest retail trade association and a coalition of three environmental groups will be allowed to sign on to opposite sides of the American Trucking Associations' suit against the Southern California ports' proposed trucking re-regulation plan.
   U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder approved the Aug. 8 request by the National Retail Federation, which represents more than 100 associations of state, national and international retailers, to join the suit in support of ATA's position that an access licensing portion of the ports' $2.4 billion truck plan violates federal interstate commerce laws.
   Snyder also approved the July 31 request by the National Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Coalition for Clean Air to join the suit as co-defendants with the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
   The judge made the decision 'without discussion' and the attorneys representing the NRF and NRDC coalition were not present.
   The NRF and NRDC coalition were to have their requests heard by Snyder Sept. 8 in the U.S. Central District Court's Spring Street Courthouse during a preliminary injunction hearing on the ATA suit. The NRDC even held a Thursday morning media briefing describing the arguments they would make before Snyder on Monday. However, Thursday's rulings officially cancelled the NRF and NRDC coalition's portions of the hearing.
   Snyder is still to hear arguments Monday from ATA on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued against the access license portion of the ports' truck plan. A separate ruling Thursday also approved a time change for the Monday meeting, requested by the court, from 10 a.m. to noon.
   The ports' truck plan, set to take affect Oct. 1, seeks to cut ports-generated diesel pollution by replacing or retrofitting nearly 17,000 local drayage vehicles with cleaner models through ports-supplied grants, incentives and subsidies to local motor carriers. To be eligible for the port funds and to continue working in the ports after Oct. 1, motor carriers must obtain a ports-mandated access license, called a concession agreement. Motor carriers must submit internal business information and agree to other ports-defined criteria in applying for the agreement. For the Port of Los Angeles, this includes agreeing to only hire per-hour employee drivers and not independent owner-operator drivers.
   In addition to 2,300 drivers of pre-1989 model year trucks that would be barred from entering the ports on Oct. 1, two ports-commissioned economic impact studies of the truck plan found that 376 of the more than 1,300 ports-servicing trucking firms would be eliminated under the plan. The studies, conducted last year by noted local economist John Husing, also found that the plan, if fully implemented, would eliminate slightly more than 2,250 back office and support jobs from the local drayage industry.
   ATA, which represents more than 37,000 trucking firms nationwide, filed suit against the two Southern California ports in U.S. Central District Court on July 28 arguing that the ports' access license component violates several federal interstate commerce laws, including the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A week later, ATA asked Snyder to issue a preliminary injunction against the truck plan's access license component citing immediate harm to the trucking industry if the truck plan is implemented.
   In ruling that the NRF can join the suit in support of ATA, Snyder said the trade associations filing 'may be of assistance to the court in the determination of the substantive issues in this case.'
   The judge also dismissed the ports' arguments that the NRF did not file in a timely manner and therefore should not be allowed to join the suit. 'Any defects in the timeliness of the filing of the (NRF) brief are outweighed by the brief's probative value,' Snyder said.
   In affirming the NRDC coalition to join as co-defenders with the ports, Snyder said it met each of a four-part legal test developed by the Ninth Circuit Court to determine the right to intervene in a suit: filing in a timely manner, showing a valid interest related to the case, demonstrating possible harm from the potential outcome of the suit, and showing the existing defendants do not represent the intervenors' interests.
   While attorneys for ATA and the ports are still expected to appear before Snyder on the injunction request, what will be argued depends on what Snyder may do prior to the hearing.
   According to Circuit Court rules, the judge can issue a tentative ruling on the injunction request before the two parties enter the courtroom. The attorneys would be notified about 20 minutes before the hearing and then would argue the merits of the judge's tentative ruling. Snyder could then uphold her tentative ruling, reverse her decision, or take more time to deliberate.
   If the judge decides against issuing a ruling on Monday, court rules provide that she can take up to 120 days to reach a determination. ' Keith Higginbotham