Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 08-1331
JLS, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Defendant,
and
DUNCANS MOTEL, INCORPORATED; WILLIAMS TRANSPORT,
Movants,
and
C & H COMPANY; CIMARRON COACH OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED; D &
L LIMOUSINE, INCORPORATED; TAXI LEASING, LIMITED; TAXI
SERVICE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Yellow Cab,
Movants Appellants.
No. 08-1338
JLS, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Defendant,
and
C & H COMPANY; CIMARRON COACH OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED; D &
L LIMOUSINE, INCORPORATED; TAXI LEASING, LIMITED; TAXI
SERVICE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Yellow Cab,
Movants,
and
DUNCANS MOTEL, INCORPORATED; WILLIAMS TRANSPORT,
Movants Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:07-cv-00586)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
In this suit, a motor passenger carrier seeks injunctive
relief and a declaration that its transportation of railroad
employee
different
train
crew
points
transportation
Virginia.
members
along
even
Several
in
motor
vehicles
railroad
lines
constitutes
when
the
moves
companies
now
are
appeal
wholly
the
to
and
from
interstate
within
denial
of
West
their
I.
The
plaintiff,
JLS,
Inc.,
is
motor
passenger
carrier
vehicles
to
and
from
different
points
along
railroad
JLS
planned
subsequently
to
telephoned
proceed
a
on
PSC
that
staff
assumption.
attorney,
who
Counsel
allegedly
advised counsel that JLS would need a permit from PSC in order
3
this
Virginia
action
Public
on
September
Service
19,
Commission
2007,
JLS then
against
the
West
seeking
an
order
(PSC),
wholly
within
West
Virginiaconstitute
interstate
regulation.
The
suit
also
requests
an
injunction
J.A. 24.
more than two weeks before PSCs answer was due, the district
court
extended
PSCs
deadline
for
responding
to
the
summary
Service,
Inc.,
Leasing,
Ltd.,
all
Williams
Transport
doing
moved
and
business
to
as
intervene.
Duncans
Motel,
Yellow
Two
Inc.,
Cab;
more
and
Taxi
companies,
later
filed
We will refer to
Movants
represent
that
they
are
engaged
in
activities
They
and
requirements
and
will
therefore
be
better
able
to
Each
Movant
asserts
that
the
intrastate
their
total
business.
They
further
represent
that
their
Movants
their
affidavits
and
the
Boyes
Affidavit
on
several
motion.
PSC
did
not
file
any
affidavit
thereafter
filed
separate
to
dismiss
with
supporting memoranda.
On
February
11,
the
district
court
denied
all
seven
the
Movants
transportation
will
face
business
if
greater
JLS
obtains
the
for
relief
rail
it
crew
seeks,
to
justify
intervention
as
matter
of
right.
The
district court also ruled that because PSC apparently shared the
6
Movants
ultimate
intrastate
and
goal
of
supporting
characterizing
PSCs
JLSs
jurisdiction,
action
as
presumption
The
that
court
stated
Movants
had
not
alleged
collusion
or
would
be
academic.
J.A.
350.
The
court
further
denying
Westinghouse
their
motions
Elec.
Corp.,
to
542
intervene.
F.2d
214,
See
216
(4th
Virginia
Cir.
v.
1976)
We agree.
Rule 24 does not specify what type of interest a party must have
to intervene as a matter of right, but the Supreme Court has
recognized
that
significantly
F.2d
259,
[w]hat
protectable
261
(4th
Cir.
is
obviously
interest.
1991)
meant
Teague
(quoting
.
v.
is
Bakker,
Donaldson
v.
a
931
United
is
urging,
presumption
arises
that
the
movants
of
interest,
collusion,
or
nonfeasance.
Id.
For this reason, the Supreme Court has described the applicants
burden on this matter as minimal.
plaintiffs
(DOL)
was
the
and
the
defendant.
United
The
8
States
suit
Department
concerned
the
of
Labor
growers
There were
resulted
in
foreign
workers
being
unavailable
or
of
competition
that
Movants
will
have,
and
hence,
the
authority
from
PSCand
which
is
not
subject
to
PSCs
would
be
enormous;
indeed,
it
would
be
virtually
rail-crew
service.
distinguishing
J.A.
Feller,
we
38.
Seeing
conclude
that
no
rationale
Movants
for
interest
is
2002)
(holding
that
transportation
association
could
undoubtedly
gives
petitioner
the
requisite
interest).
JLS does not dispute that this interest would be impaired
if JLS obtained the relief it sought.
issue
of
the
adequacy
of
PSCs
representation
of
Movants
interest.
Movants
have
not
alleged
conflict
of
interest
or
satisfied
burden
their
minimal
of
showing
that
PSCs
Trbovich,
404
U.S.
at
10
538
n.10
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted);
cf.
district
court
erred
would-be
intervenors
Teague,
in
931
finding
superior
F.2d
at
adequate
financial
262
(holding
that
representation
when
resources
created
appear
aligned
with
those
of
particular
private
Movants
than
has
seeking
to
enter
PSC
to
the
facts
JLS
has
conceded
are
contracts
to
provide
rail
crew
move
points
in
different
J.A. 215-A.
states
is
fact
J.A.
154.
conducted
by
Yellow
Cab
were
transportation
of
local
crews,
of Movants affidavits.
JLS also concedes that it is material that Norfolk Southern
and CSX wont enter into contract[s] with JLS if JLS cant
provide complete service, including transportation within West
Virginia.
J.A.
215A.
Movants
have
argued
that
the
Boyes
that
provided
rail
crew
transportation
to
and
from
to
the
district
courts
opinion
one
Movant
received
subcontracting
of
transportation
to
other
entities,
issue
in
this
case.
These
12
factual
challenges
support
significant
advantage
over
PSC
in
their
ability
to
PSC
did
not
present.
For
example,
in
its
memorandum
Renzenberger,
Inc.,
98
Pa.
P.U.C.
87
(Feb.
7,
2003),
as
J.A. 113.
to
JLSs
opposition
to
their
In contrast, in their
motion
to
intervene,
the
housing
or
they
will
be
traveling
from
temporary
In
re
5,
Renzenberger,
2003).
Inc.,
2003
WL
21263616
(Pa.
P.U.C.
May
13
Utah
v.
Wycoff
identified by PSC.
those
of
the
Co.,
344
U.S.
237
(1952),
case
not
present
case.
There,
the
plaintiff
sought
that
interstate,
the
not
plaintiff
intrastate,
could
not
be
commerce.
entitled
to
The
Court
injunctive
the
defendants
which
might
cause
the
irreparable
injury
Id. at 241.
As
on the fact that the Utah PSC had not taken any concrete action
against the declaratory judgment plaintiff.
Court
also
reasoned
that
issuing
declaratory
judgment
proper
federal-state
relationship
because
it
would
that
it
was
doubtful
that
it
had
Id. at 248.
that
the
already discussed.
JLS
case
should
be
dismissed
on
the
grounds
contends
that
Wycoff
is
of
little
relevance
here
Regardless
however,
Movants
of
the
citation
jurisdictional
of
the
case
import
is
still
of
Wycoff,
clearly
these
reasons,
litigation
of
Movants
this
suit
have
has
convincingly
been,
and
shown
that
would
be,
Having
noted
the
difficulty
for
government
entity
in
adequately
at
730,
we
conclude
that
Movants
clearly
met
their
III.
Movants next argue that the district court erred in denying
as
mootdue
Motion
to
to
the
Enlarge
denial
Time.
of
their
Because
motions
we
to
reverse
intervenethe
the
denial
of
IV.
In
intervene
sum,
and
we
we
reverse
remand
the
to
denial
the
of
Movants
district
court
motion
for
to
further
proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
16