Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00876/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00876-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FLAT CREEK TRANSPORTATION, 

LLC, an Alabama limited liability 

company, 

)

)

) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO. 1:16-CV-876-WKW 

 ) (WO) 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER 

SAFTEY ADMINISTRATION, et al., 

)

) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER

 Before the court is the motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. # 25) filed by 

Plaintiff Flat Creek Transportation, LLC. Plaintiff seeks the following injunctive 

relief against Defendants: (1) that the court “enjoin and prevent Defendants, 

including specifically Defendant [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(“FMCSA”)] and any of its agents, including but not limited to Special Agent Wade 

Houghton, from conducting [on-site compliance review] of Plaintiff . . . recently 

scheduled to commence on March 7, 2017” (Doc. # 25 at 2 ¶ (1)); and (2) that the 

court “enjoin Defendants . . . from conducting or pursuing any further compliance 

or enforcement intervention action of any kind or character against Plaintiff . . . until 

this court can rule on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.” (Doc. # 25 at 2 ¶ (2).) 

 At the March 13, 2017 preliminary injunction hearing, and in its filings, 

Case 1:16-cv-00876-WKW-TFM Document 30 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 3
2 

Plaintiff has made clear that it seeks injunctive relief on grounds that the 

methodology used to select it for a compliance review1

 is flawed. (See, e.g., Doc. # 

25 at 12 ¶ 23 (“As pled in its Complaint, Flat Creek contests the FMSA’s 

demonstrably flawed methodology for purportedly identifying ‘high risk’ motor 

carriers . . . for the purpose of prioritizing motor carriers for compliance 

interventions. Hence, Flat Creek similarly contests, rejects and denies the FMSA’s 

unfair labeling of Flat Creek as a ‘high risk’ carrier and the unwarranted prioritizing 

of Flat Creek for compliance intervention - which, again, is currently being 

improperly utilized as a pretext by the FMCSA to illegally target Flat Creek for the 

purpose of putting Flat Creek out of business.”).) 

 Further, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against any enforcement action, 

including issuance of an operations-out-of-service order (“OOOS” order) because 

Plaintiff fears that any such enforcement action would effectively put it out of 

business before it could pursue administrative remedies challenging the order. 

 Having reviewed the motion and considered the parties’ arguments at the 

preliminary injunction hearing, the court concludes that it cannot grant the requested 

relief without either reviewing the validity of Defendant FMCA’s internal rules for 

identifying “high risk” motor carriers which led to the selection of Plaintiff for a 

compliance review, or enjoining Defendant FMCA from issuing final enforcement 

 

1

 At the preliminary injunction hearing, Plaintiff contended that the notice informing 

Plaintiff of the compliance review and of its obligation to cooperate with that review constituted a 

final order of Defendant FCMSA. 

Case 1:16-cv-00876-WKW-TFM Document 30 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 3
3 

orders against Plaintiff. The Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342, vests original jurisdiction 

in the court of appeals 

to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the 

validity of . . . all rules, regulations, or final orders of the Secretary of 

Transportation issued ... pursuant to part B or C of subtitle IV, 

subchapter III of chapter 311, chapter 313, or chapter 315 of title 49. 

28 U.S.C. § 2342(3)(A). 

 All of the following are “rules, regulations, or final orders of the Secretary of 

Transportation issued ... pursuant to part B or C of subtitle IV, subchapter III of 

chapter 311, chapter 313, or chapter 315 of title 49:” FMCSA’s obligation to 

develop a data system and procedures to support its safety and regulatory activities, 

id. at § 31106, its right to inspect records via a compliance review id. at § 14122, 

and its authority to issue an OOOS order, id. at 521(e)(2)(B)(i);2

 49 C.F.R. § 386.72.3 

Accordingly, the court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to provide the requested 

injunctive relief. 

 Therefore, it is ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. # 

25) is DENIED. 

DONE this 13th day of March, 2017. 

 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

2

 49 U.S.C. 521(e)(2)(B)(i) allows the Secretary of Transportation to impose penalties on, 

and place out of service, a motor carrier that fails to permit inspections of records or property in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 14122. 

3

 49 C.F.R. § 386.72 is a regulation issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapters 141, 311, 313, 

and 315, among other statutes. 

Case 1:16-cv-00876-WKW-TFM Document 30 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 3