Trucking Unlimited v. California Motor Transport Co.

This is an action by one group of trucking companies against another seeking treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, 15 U. S.C. §§ 1-27. All are common carriers regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and require licenses from these agencies to operate.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among defendants to restrain and monopolize the highway common carriage business in California and elsewhere by a jointly financed, widely publicized program of opposing, before the two commissions and the courts, all applications by actual or potential competitors for the issuance, transfer, or registration of operating rights. The district court dismissed the action on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b) (6). 1 For purposes of this appeal, we must accept all the allegations of the complaint as true, 2A Moore, Federal Practice ff 12.08, at 2266-67; and we can affirm only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff[s] can prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim which would entitle [them] to relief.” Conley v.…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent.

Section 1063 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that no highway common carrier may operate without a certificate from the Public Utilities Commission “declaring that the public convenience and necessity require such operation.” In order to exercise its judgment implementing the broad statutory standard of “public convenience and necessity” in an individual case, the Public Utilities Commission is largely dependent upon information provided by the applicant and competing carriers. See Peninsula Motor Express, 49 Cal. P.U.C. 807 (1950). The activities of defendants in supplying this information to the Commission is thus lawful.

In my view, the activities of the Public Utilities Commission in the implementation of the broad statutory standard is one akin to policy making. The participation of the defendants in this policy making process, through their opposition to the grant of certificates or transfers of certificates is in my opinion protected from Sherman Act liability by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Noerr and Pennington, despite the assumption, arising from the posture of this case, that defendánts have…

432 F.2d 755 1970 Trade Cases P 73,354 TRUCKING UNLIMITED et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 22462. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 5, 1970. Michael N. Khourie (argued), J. Stanley Pottinger, Broad, Busterud & Khourie, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants. 1 Boris H. Lakusta (argued), E. Myron Bull, Jr., David J. Marchant, Graham & James, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for Pacific Intermountain Express. 2 John MacDonald Smith, San Francisco, Cal. for Pacific Motor Trucking co. 3 W. D. Bensen, Jr., Lubbock, Tex., for T.I.M.E. Freight, Inc. 4 Before HAMLIN and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, * District Judge. BROWNING, Circuit Judge: 5 This is an action by one group of trucking companies against another seeking treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, 15 U.S.C. 1-27. All are common carriers regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and require licenses from these agencies to operate. 6 The complaint alleges a conspiracy among defendants to restrain…