NEWS ALERT:
"...the court finds
the fourth time's a charm."
-- Federal Judge Amit Mehta, January 29, 2018
Moments ago, in the Small Business in Transportation Coalition ("SBTC") v. Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board case ( Case 1:17-cv-02000-APM; Docket Document 67, Filed 01/29/18), a Federal Judge issued an Order stating in part:
"Defendant Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board is hereby enjoined from holding subcommittee meetings of the UCR Board without first complying with the notice requirements of the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b(e), for all subcommittee meetings held after January 31, 2018."
The SBTC has filed numerous requests for a preliminary junction since filing its lawsuit against the UCR Board of Directors last September. In ruling in favor of the SBTC's latest motion, Judge Amit Mehta stated:
"...Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits. The Unified Carrier Registration Act states that "[m]eetings of the board and any subcommittees or task forces . . . shall be subject to the provisions of section 552b of title 5," i.e., the Sunshine Act. 49 U.S.C. § 14504a(d)(4)(D) (emphasis added). The UCR Agreement says the same....
According to Plaintiffs' review of the public record, however, with perhaps one exception, the UCR Board has never complied with the Sunshine Act's public notice requirements with respect to subcommittee meetings... This almost certainly is not by happenstance... As reflected in minutes of the Board's March 3, 2011, meeting, the Board's Chairman, Avelino Gutierrez, believes that "as long as there is no statutory or board explicit authority delegated to the subcommittees to take action on behalf of the board, the Board subcommittee meetings do not have to be noticed...." Chairman Gutierrez's view, which is plainly contrary to law, confirms Plaintiffs' findings that, as a matter of practice, the UCR Board does not publicly notice its subcommittee meetings. Defendant offers no argument or proof to the contrary...
Thus, in view of the uncontested evidence presented, the court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the UCR Board has violated and will continue to violate the Sunshine Act by failing to provide public notice of the Board's subcommittee meetings consistent with the Act's mandates."
Additional matters pertaining to this case are currently the subject of an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals filed by the SBTC (case no: 1:17-cv-02000-APM).
#
