Valiente v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC

Valiente v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC

Opinion

 [*583]  H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

In 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) decided to preempt California's meal and rest break rules (MRB rules) with respect to truck drivers subject to federal regulations. In International  [*584]  Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor [**4]  Carrier Safety Administration, we held that the agency's decision was a lawful exercise of its power under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA). 986 F.3d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 2021). We left open, however, the question whether the preemption decision bars plaintiffs from proceeding with lawsuits that commenced before the decision was made. See id. at 858 n.5 ("We . . . do not consider the retroactivity issue."). Today we answer that question in the affirmative.

Because we discussed at length the history of the FMCSA's decision to preempt California's MRB rules in International Brotherhood, 986 F.3d at 846-48, we only briefly recount that history here. Congress passed the MCSA in 1984 to "promote the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles." Id. at 846 (quoting Pub. L. No. 98-554, § 202, 98 Stat. 2832 (originally codified at 49 U.S.C. app. 2501)). ] The Act granted the Secretary of Transportation the authority to decide that "[a] State may not enforce a State law or regulation on commercial motor vehicle safety." 49 U.S.C. § 31141(a), (c). Pursuant to statutory criteria, the Secretary can "void any State law or regulation on commercial motor vehicle safety" that "has no safety benefit or would cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce." City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., 536 U.S. 424, 441, 122 S. Ct. 2226, 153 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2002) (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 31141(a), (c)). The Secretary delegated this preemption authority to the FMCSA. 49 C.F.R. § 1.87(f).

The FMCSA has twice considered whether to preempt California's MRB rules [**5]  in the context of the trucking industry. See Int'l Brotherhood, 986 F.3d at 848. In 2008, the agency rejected a preemption petition from a group of motor carriers because the MRB rules were not related to "commercial motor vehicle safety." Id. (citing Petition for Preemption of California Regulations on Meal Breaks and Rest Breaks for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers; Rejection for Failure to Meet Threshold Requirement, 73 Fed. Reg. 79,204, 79,204-06 (Dec. 24, 2008)). In 2018, two trucking industry groups petitioned the FMCSA to revisit its 2008 decision. Id. This time, the agency granted the petition, deciding on December 28, 2018, that "California may no longer enforce the MRB Rules with respect to drivers . . . subject to [the] FMCSA's . . . rules." California's Meal and Rest Break Rules for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, 83 Fed. Reg. 67,470, 67,480 (Dec. 28, 2018). It is this determination that we ultimately upheld in International Brotherhood.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.