OOIDA Attorneys Tell Federal Court How AB 5 Hurts Independent Truckers and Violates Their Constitutional Rights
AB 5 discriminates against and imposes substantial burdens on independent interstate truckers and therefore violates the dormant Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, Paul Cullen, Jr. of The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, explained to a federal judge in San Diego on behalf of the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (“OOIDA”). OOIDA alleges that California’s worker classification statute, Cal. Labor Code § 2775 (commonly known as AB 5), cannot be legally enforced against the interstate trucking industry because it prevents carriers from using leased independent owner-operators, harming those truckers and the industry as a whole.
While the parties were briefing the challengers’ motions for preliminary injunction (requests to prevent enforcement of the law against truckers during the pendency of the lawsuit) this summer, the judge exercised the court’s authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) to consolidate the hearing on the injunction motions and the full trial on the merits. This streamlined procedure eliminated many of the usual pretrial steps, including discovery (like depositions). Instead, the parties (and the court) agreed to delay the August hearing, giving the parties time to file final trial briefs and responses and to submit additional written evidence, including statements from industry participants affected by AB 5’s elimination of the leased owner-operator model.
The court conducted this consolidated hearing on November 13, 2023, where attorneys for OOIDA and the other challengers described both AB 5’s legal issues and the practical effects of eliminating a business model critical to the industry. The defendants—including the state of California and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters—argued that because these workers can still operate in California as employee drivers or motor carriers with their own authority, the law does not impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. During the hearing the judge in this case, The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, focused his questions to the parties on the practical effect of their legal arguments.
The court will now decide whether AB 5 violates independent owner-operators’ constitutional rights and cannot be enforced against the interstate trucking industry.
For more in-depth coverage of AB 5 and this lawsuit, check out CullenLaw’s analysis here. The caption of the case is California Trucking Association v. Bonta, Case No. Case 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-DEB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. For further information, please contact Paul D. Cullen, Jr. (paul@cullenlaw.com) or Charles S. Stinson (charles@cullenlaw.com).
Copies of the parties’ trial briefs can be found at the links below:
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.’s Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law;
California Trucking Association’s Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law;
State Defendants’ Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law;
State Defendants’ Opposition to CTA’s and OOIDA’s Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law;
International Brotherhood of Teamsters’ Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law;