Archie Overton v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARCHIE OVERTON; S. PATRICK No. 18-16610
MENDEL,
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02166-EMC
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2020**
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Archie Overton and S. Patrick Mendel appeal pro se the district court’s
dismissal of their action under the Federal Motor Carrier Act and California law
against members of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), Uber
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Technologies, Inc., and other defendants. We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim, and we review the denial of leave to amend
for an abuse of discretion. Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225,
1228 (9th Cir. 2019); Great Minds v. Office Depot, Inc., 945 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2019). We review de novo the district court’s rulings regarding constitutional
standing. Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d 1264, 1270 (9th Cir. 2019), cert.
denied, 2020 WL 283288 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2020) (No. 19-706). We affirm the district
court’s judgment.
The district court correctly concluded that Overton and Mendel lacked
Article III standing to seek invalidation of the CPUC’s licensing scheme for
“transportation network companies,” or “TNCs,” as preempted by the Federal
Motor Carrier Act. See Planned Parenthood of Greater Wash. & N. Idaho v. U.S.
Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 946 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Article III
standing requires injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability.”). First, appellants
did not sufficiently allege an injury-in-fact in any imminent federal enforcement of
Federal Motor Carrier Act registration requirements on Uber drivers such as
themselves. Second, appellants did not show that any federal enforcement would
be caused by the CPUC. Third, appellants did not plausibly allege that invalidation
of the TNC statue would redress their alleged harm because, whether or not
California administers a TNC program, the federal requirements would still exist.
2
We affirm the district court’s conclusion that 49 U.S.C. § 49505, a Federal
Motor Carrier Act prohibition against state collection of fees on interstate
passenger transportation, does not preempt California’s assessment of “PUCTRA”
fees on passenger carriers pursuant to Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 421, 431. See Cal.
Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Azar, 940 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2019) (standard for express
preemption); McClellan v. I-Flow Corp., 776 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015)
(standard for conflict preemption). PUCTRA fees are assessed only on intrastate
transportation, and the Federal Motor Carrier Act applies only to interstate
transportation. See 49 U.S.C. § 13501; Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 424(b).
As to appellants’ claims against the Uber defendants, the district court
properly held that appellants lacked standing, based on fear of federal prosecution
or other theories, to allege that Uber was operating as a motor carrier under the
Federal Motor Carrier Act without registration in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 14707.
See Planned Parenthood, 946 F.3d at 1108. The district court also did not err in
concluding, alternatively, that plaintiffs’ registration claim failed on its merits.
Uber is not a “motor carrier” required to register under the Federal Motor Carrier
Act because it does not own, rent, or lease vehicles. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 13102(14),
13902(a). Further, assuming Uber is a “broker” under the Act, registration is
required only for brokers for transportation of property, as opposed to
transportation of passengers. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 13102(2) (defining broker),
3
13904(a) (registration requirement applies to “a broker for transportation of
property”).
The district court properly dismissed Overton and Mendel’s state law claims
against Uber for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, indemnification, violation
of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and fraud. Insofar as these claims are
premised on the notion that Uber was operating without proper authority as a
motor carrier or broker under federal law, they lack merit because appellants failed
to state a claim that Uber violated the registration requirements of the Federal
Motor Carrier Act. Insofar as the state law claims are premised on the notion that
Uber was operating as a TNC or a “transportation charter-party carrier” (“TCP”)
without proper authority under California law, the claims lack merit because, when
the district court entered judgment, CPUC Decision 18-04-005, requiring Uber
Technologies, Inc., to register as a TCP and TNC, was not yet final and non-
appealable.
The district court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the action
without leave to amend. See Great Minds, 945 F.3d at 1112.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
4