1999 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-20-1999

Holt Cargo Sys Inc v. DE River Port Auth

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 98-1047,98-1262

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1999

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1999 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Holt Cargo Sys Inc v. DE River Port Auth" (1999). 1999 Decisions. Paper 12.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1999/12
Filed January 20, 1999 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Nos. 98-1047 and 98-1262 

HOLT CARGO SYSTEMS, INC.; ASTRO HOLDINGS, INC.; 

HOLT HAULING AND WAREHOUSING SYSTEM, INC., 

 Appellants 

v. 

DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY; PORTS OF 

PHILADELPHIA AND CAMDEN; PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL 

PORT AUTHORITY 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civ. No. 94-cv-07778) 

District Judge: Honorable Norma L. Shapiro 

Argued October 30, 1998 

BEFORE: SLOVITER, GARTH, and MAGILL,* Circuit 

Judges 

(Filed: January 20, 1999) 

_________________________________________________________________ 

* Hon. Frank J. Magill, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the 

Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. 
 Larry R. Wood, Jr. 

 Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz 

 18th & Arch Streets 

 3000 Two Logan Square 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 

 Paul R. Rosen (Argued) 

 Bruce S. Marks 

 Spector, Gadon & Rosen, P.C. 

 1635 Market Street 

 Seven Penn Center - 7th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 Attorneys for Appellants in 

 Appeal No. 98-1047 

 John M. Elliott 

 Henry F. Siedzikowski (Argued) 

 Timothy T. Myers 

 Eric J. Bronstein 

 Elliott Reihner Siedzikowski & Egan, 

 P.C. 

 925 Harvest Drive 

 Union Meeting Corporate Center V 

 Blue Bell, PA 19422 

 Attorneys for Appellee, 

 Delaware River Port Authority 

 in Appeal No. 98-1047 

 Richard A. Sprague 

 Geoffrey C. Jarvis 

 Charles J. Hardy 

 Deborah B. Miller 

 Sprague & Sprague 

 135 South 19th Street 

 Suite 400 Wellington Building 

 Philadelphia, PA 10103 

 Attorneys for Appellee, 

 The Port of Philadelphia and 

 Camden, Inc. In No. 98-1047 

 2 
 Paul R. Rosen (Argued) 

 Jeffrey M. Goldstein 

 Brooke C. Madonna 

 Jonathan M. Peterson 

 Spector, Gadon & Rosen, P.C. 

 1635 Market Street 

 Seven Penn Center - 7th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 Attorneys for Appellants in 

 Appeal No. 98-1262 

 John M. Elliott 

 Henry F. Siedzikowski (Argued) 

 Timothy T. Myers 

 Eric J. Bronstein 

 Elliott Reihner Siedzikowski & Egan, 

 P.C. 

 925 Harvest Drive 

 Union Meeting Corporate Center V 

 Blue Bell, PA 19422 

 Attorneys for Appellee, 

 Delaware River Port Authority 

 in Appeal No. 98-1262 

 Richard A. Sprague 

 Geoffrey C. Jarvis 

 Charles J. Hardy 

 Tracy M. Schaeffer 

 Sprague & Sprague 

 135 South 19th Street 

 Suite 400 Wellington Building 

 Philadelphia, PA 10103 

 Attorneys for Appellee, 

 The Port of Philadelphia 

 and Camden,Inc. 

 In Appeal No. 98-1262 

 Francis X. Crowley 

 Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley 

 Rose Tree Corporate Center 

 3 
 1400 North Providence Road 

 P.O. Box 1210, Suite 301 

 Media, PA 19063 

 Patrick J. O'Connor 

 Karl L. Prior 

 Cozen & O'Connor 

 The Atrium 

 1900 Market Street 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 Attorneys for Appellee, 

 Philadelphia Regional 

 Port Authority 

 In Appeal No. 98-1262 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

GARTH, Circuit Judge: 

Plaintiffs Holt Cargo Systems, Inc. ("Holt Cargo"), Astro 

Holdings, Inc. ("Astro"), and Holt Hauling & Warehousing 

System, Inc. ("Holt Hauling") (collectively "Holt"), brought 

this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against 

the Delaware River Port Authority ("DRPA"), the Port of 

Philadelphia and Camden, Inc. ("PPC"), and the 

Philadelphia Regional Port Authority ("PRPA") (collectively, 

"Port Authorities"). Holt charged the Port Authorities with 

conspiring to drive Holt out of business, and alleged that 

the Port Authorities' actions denied Holt of substantive Due 

Process and Equal Protection of the laws. Holt operates 

various marine terminals in the Port of Philadelphia and 

Camden, including the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal. 

Holt's case was built around alleged "predatory acts" 

taken by the Port Authorities, some of which are related to 

Holt's lease of the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal ("Packer 

Terminal") from PRPA in 1990 ("Amended Packer Lease"). 

Other acts alleged involved the Port Authorities' unrelated 

efforts to prevent Holt from keeping current or obtaining 

new business. Among other things, the Amended Packer 

Lease gave Holt the right to develop other parcels of land at 

 4 
Piers 96 South, 98 South, and 100 South subject to PRPA's 

existing leases with third parties, and Holt alleges that it 

was wrongly denied the right to develop those parcels. Holt 

alleges that its inability to develop the parcels caused its 

overall development plan for its terminal, which was to 

include a dedicated passenger terminal, to be thwarted. 

Holt further alleges that various other non-defendant 

entities and individuals conspired with the Port Authorities, 

including the South Jersey Port Corporation ("SJPC"), 

Pasha Auto Warehousing ("Pasha"), a lessee of"Pier 96 

South," and the "executive directors" of PRPA, PPC, DRPA, 

and SJPC.1 

After the parties had exchanged thousands of pages of 

documents over several years of discovery, the District 

Court entered summary judgment on behalf of the 

defendant Port Authorities on the only claims left before the 

District Court -- alleged constitutional denials of

substantive Due Process and Equal Protection. Holt Cargo 

Sys., Inc. v. Delaware River Port Auth., 20 F. Supp. 2d 803 

(E.D. Pa. 1998). The District Court previously had 

dismissed Holt's Admiralty Act claims, Shipping Act claims, 

antitrust claims, contract claims, and PPC's counterclaim 

against Holt for violations of the Amended Packer Lease. 

Holt refiled similar claims with the Federal Maritime 

Commission ("FMC") under these non-constitutional 

theories, and the FMC action is currently pending. Holt 

Cargo Systems, Inc. v. DRPA, Federal Maritime Commission, 

No. 96-13. The District Court also previously granted PPC's 

motion to dismiss Holt's claim for violation of procedural 

Due Process, see 1997 WL 714843, and Holt has not 

appealed that ruling. 

In the instant case, Holt appeals from the District Court's 

final order of March 23, 1998, which granted summary 

judgment on Holt's Equal Protection and Substantive Due 

_________________________________________________________________ 

1. In 1992, after years of competition, Pennsylvania and New Jersey 

entered an interstate compact, signed into law by Congress and the 

President under the Interstate Compact Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, S 10, 

cl. 3 ("Amended Compact"). The Amended Compact created DRPA, and 

SJPC and PRPA would eventually cease to exist in favor of DRPA. PPC is 

a subsidiary of DRPA. 

 5 
Process claims in favor of the Port Authorities. Holt filed a 

timely notice of appeal. The district court had subject 

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. SS 1331, 1343; 

this Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

S 1291. 

Voluminous briefs and a comprehensive appendix were

filed with us on appeal. We then had an extensive oral 

argument at which counsel were heard. We are persuaded 

that the injuries alleged to have been suffered by Holt do 

not stem from a constitutional violation. We will therefore 

affirm the judgment of the appeal in No. 98-1262 for 

substantially the reasons stated in the thorough opinion of 

the District Court. Holt Cargo Sys., Inc. v. Delaware River 

Port Auth., 20 F. Supp. 2d 803 (E.D. Pa. 1998). 

We will also dismiss the appeal in 98-1047, but our

dismissal will be without prejudice to the parties raising 

this issue before the FMC if they so desire. The subject of 

Holt's appeal in 98-1047 involved Holt's allegation that a 

particular memorandum, known as the "Curran Memo," 

was privileged from disclosure. The record does not disclose 

that the District Court had the unredacted Curran Memo 

before it. In affirming the District Court's summary 

judgment, we are of the view that the issue of the Curran 

Memo privilege raised in 98-1047 has become moot. 

A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 

 6