Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/355317048/US-Chamber-of-Commerce-v-City-of-Seattle
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:23:13+00:00

Document:
Ruling dismissing Chamber of Commerce challenge to Seattle ordinance allowing drivers for ride-hailing companies to unionize.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 42.
26 companies fall within the definition of driver coordinator as that term is used in the Ordinance.
1 Sherman Antitrust Act, is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, violates 42 U.S.C.
3 violates the Washington Public Records Act.
6 the injunction, defendants filed this motion seeking dismissal of all of the Chambers claims.
11 challenges implicate the Courts subject matter jurisdiction and are considered under Fed. R.
12 Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Where defendants challenge the adequacy of plaintiffs claims under Fed. R.
requested that the Court defer ruling on the motion to dismiss until the Ninth Circuit resolves the appeal.
26 resolve any of the issues raised in defendants motion, the request for a stay or continuance is denied.
2 Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (quoting Lujan v.
4 sometimes bring suit on behalf of its members even if it has not itself suffered an injury in fact.
9 Commn, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977).
12 relief . . . against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws . . . . 15 U.S.C.
23 regardless of whether monetary or injunctive relief is sought.
25 association from seeking an injunction against actions that cause antitrust injury to its members.
7 1380 and n.2. In Fin. & Sec. Prods. Assoc. v. Diebold, Inc., 2005 WL 1629813, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
must prove it has or will suffer antitrust injury itself. This alone is dispositive.
14 litigation disagree whether Cargill has displaced the associational standing analysis of Hunt.
11 members as long as it satisfies the Hunt test.
The Citys ripeness argument is considered below.
5 satisfied. 432 U.S. at 343.
24 issue here. The Citys ripeness objection is therefore overruled.
4 suggests that it was intended to restrain state action or official action directed by a state.
11 policy must be actively supervised by the State itself. Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Assn v.
20 state policy forthrightly stated and clear in its anticompetitive purpose); New Motor Vehicle Bd.
19 regulations with anticompetitive effects in the for-hire transportation sphere.
25 determine if suppression of competition is the foreseeable result of what the statute authorized.
26 foreseeable, they were expressly authorized.
program to the restraints of the federal antitrust laws.
7 S. Motor Carriers, 471 U.S. at 64-65.
11 other requirement adopted to ensure safe and reliable for hire vehicle transportation service.
24 hire [and taxicab] transportation service within their boundaries for specified purposes.
4 said for the manufacturer of the GPS device the driver uses or the mechanic who fixes her car.
Technologies argument that it is purely a technology company, not a transportation company.
transportation service in San Francisco. Id. at 1141-42.
reach of prior legislative enactments.
4 they permit and control. N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Fed. Trade Commn, __ U.S.
14 exclusive driver representative (EDR) for that driver coordinator. SMC 6.310.735.E and F.
26 and has no support in the case law.
6 driver coordinator for further negotiations.
10 that furthers the interests of safety, reliability, and economy in for-hire transportation services.
23 EDR based on a petition and statements of interest from qualifying drivers. SMC 6.310.735.L.
17 marks and alterations omitted).
25 Court need not consider the Citys unilateral action argument.
3 combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.
14 establish a conflict between the Ordinance and any state law.
24 Court will not consider an argument first raised in reply.
25 In the specific factual context of this case, an express statutory exemption may also apply.
26 collusive organization of labor for purposes of collective bargaining does not violate the Act.
12 where they intercede in the relationships between employees and employers. Babler Bros., Inc.
5 first instance to the National Labor Relations Board. Id. at 244-45.
22 numerous factors such as the degree of control the coordinator exercises. See NLRB v. United Ins. Co.
26 associational standing to pursue the Garmon preemption claim. Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343.
4 Machinists, 427 U.S. at 146-47 (quoting Local 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union v.
9 stand. Machinists, 427 U.S. at 148-49.
12 controlling case law, the Court turns to the language of the statute and its legislative history.
21 bargaining activities, and inconsistent with our policy to protect the rights of employers. H.R.
actual negotiations and adoption of working conditions to the parties, without government interference.
26 law, as is the case with public employees and agricultural workers.
9 for any reason, he does not trust. H.R. Rep. No. 80-245, at 17 (emphasis in original).
18 the meaning of employee at that time.
23 purposes of the Act as well as the interests of both labor and management. See Beasley, 416 U.S.
25 would arise regardless of whether supervisors unionized under the NLRA or under state law.
7 same for preemption purposes.
3 the promotion of safety and reliability.
13 not be characterized as a fee authorized under the municipalitys police power (Id. at 370-73).
16 choosing other funding sources.
10 unlawful under Washington law. Count Six therefore fails as a matter of law.
13 bald assertion that the driver coordinators records are public records subject to the statute.
14 privilege. No such deprivation has been shown.
26 will have to use the third-party injunction procedures set forth in the act. RCW 42.56.540.
4 pending in the companion case, Clark v. City of Seattle, C17-0382RSL.
6 Dated this 1st day of August, 2017.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.