Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 8 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Washington, D.C.

On August 16, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision that affirmed the District Court’s denial of class certification in the railroad fuel surcharge antitrust case. This lengthy litigation began over 12 years ago as a putative class action against the four major U.S. railroads – BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company – for allegedly conspiring to set rail fuel surcharges in violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act.

contentpilot/introduction

The District Court had denied class certification in a decision issued October 10, 2017, but the plaintiff class representatives appealed that decision and the District Court stayed its proceedings pending appeal to the D.C. Circuit. With that appeal now decided, the District Court is free to move forward with consideration of the merits of the claims of the remaining plaintiffs (i.e., the entities that were proposed as class representatives). However, the District Court’s 2018 stay decision requires the plaintiffs and defendants to submit a “status report and recommendation(s) concerning further proceedings” within 45 days of the eventual D.C. Circuit’s decision. At this point, it is unknown what the plaintiffs and defendants will recommend.

core/paragraph

Based on the next action taken by the District Court, the recent D.C. Circuit’s decision could require affected rail shippers to take action to preserve their claims. Such claims could be substantial for many rail shippers given that the alleged conspiracy coincided with a dramatic increase in fuel prices during the proposed class period of July 1, 2003 through December 31, 2008. Any company that shipped large volumes of goods by rail and paid fuel surcharges directly to one or more of the defendant railroads in this class period is potentially affected.

core/heading

Please contact Thompson Hine’s Fuel Surcharge team with any questions regarding this important litigation:

Karyn A. Booth 202.263.4108 <a href="mailto:Karyn.Booth@ThompsonHine.com">Karyn.Booth@ThompsonHine.com</a>

Sandra L. Brown 202.263.4101 <a href="mailto:Sandra.Brown@ThompsonHine.com">Sandra.Brown@ThompsonHine.com</a>

Daniel Ferrel McInnis 202.263.4110 <a href="mailto:Dan.McInnis@ThompsonHine.com">Dan.McInnis@ThompsonHine.com</a>

Jeff Moreno 202.263.4107 <a href="mailto:Jeff.Moreno@ThompsonHine.com">Jeff.Moreno@ThompsonHine.com</a>

Robert F. Ware 216.566.5783 <a href="mailto:Rob.Ware@ThompsonHine.com">Rob.Ware@ThompsonHine.com</a>

David A. Wilson 202.263.4161 <a href="mailto:David.Wilson@ThompsonHine.com">David.Wilson@ThompsonHine.com</a>

David E. Benz 202.263.4116 <a href="mailto:David.Benz@ThompsonHine.com">David.Benz@ThompsonHine.com</a>

This advisory bulletin may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgment of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.

This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.

https://admin.thompsonhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Transportation_Update_-_Appeals_Court_Affirms_Denial_of_Fuel_Surcharge_Class_Certification.pdf

Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Fuel Surcharge Class Certification

Services