6/14/14 – CCTA (CDTOA) v. CARB & EPA
The CCTA appeal of Judge England’s ruling is still pending in the Ninth Circuit Court. Read details


1/16/12 – CCTA files a Notice to Appeal with the 9th Circuit Court. View Appeal


12/19/12 – Judges England renders decision. Does not address any elements of our complaint but instead states that “it cannot retain jurisdiction over this action in light of EPA’s approval of the Truck and Bus Regulation as part of California’s SIP”. EPA is now considered an indispensable party to our litigation.
View Decision (130.3 kB 2013-01-17 15:57:28).

9/6/12 – Final hearing on our request for relief under the Supremacy Clause (decision pending shortly).

7/19/12 – Court orders second round of supplemental briefing, at issue is whether EPA’s SIP adoption makes it an indispensable party

5/31/12 – Court orders supplemental briefs regarding EPA adoption of the SIP (Supplemental briefing completed by 7/12/12)

5/21/12 – Court orders on its own motion the case is stayed indefinitely (MSJ still pending)

2/8/12 – Eve of hearing on MSJ, matter ordered submitted without oral argument

1/30/12 – Order denying preliminary injunction

1/18/12 – Hearing on Summary Judgment continued to 2/9/12


12/15/11 – Hearing on preliminary injunction

11/15/11 – CDTOA Motion for preliminary injunction (a secondary lawsuit)

7/5/11 – CDTOA Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ); Hearing originally set for 9/6/11, but continued to 1/26/12 to permit discovery

5/23/11 – NRDC Motion to Intervene Granted

2/11/11 – Complaint filed in Federal Court, Eastern District of California


Filed January 30, 2012
Order Denying Injunction

Filed July 5, 2011
Motion for Summary Judgment

Filed March 1, 2011
First Amended Complaint


Filed August 2016
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. Decision reaffirming truck drivers are exempted from federal overtime.

Filed February 22, 2013
CCTA Amicus in Support of ATA v. LA Ports (130.38 kB 2013-03-14 11:57:58)

Filed February 2013
CTTA Amicus Lawsuits Dan City Tow v Pelkey (251.8 kB 2013-03-15 07:47:24)

Filed December 2019
WSTA Amicus, Ninth Circuit, CA Meal & Rest Break Appeal

Link to Supreme Court Case Site


The California Construction Trucking Association, has been in a political battle to save the independent Owner-operator, and small fleets from California’s agenda on CARB & EPA theories about commercial trucking. The articles below and key dates on court cases are a time line to keep our members and interested parties up to date on our battle.



For Immediate Release – March 4, 2015

Upland, CA. – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision on March 3, 2015 regarding the California Construction Trucking Association (formerly the California Dump Truck Owners Association) ongoing litigation (CDTOA v. Nichols) challenging the legality of the California Air Resource Boards (CARB) burdensome Statewide Truck and Bus regulation banning from California highways all diesel powered trucks not meeting post manufacturing emissions requirements.

Read more

SANDAG Litigation Update

November 19, 2013

From the office of BCF Public Affairs:

Last Fall, your organization joined more than 30 others throughout the state in signing onto an amicus brief in the lawsuit against the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) challenging their adoption of the state’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) under SB 375.

Read more

Update: CCTA’s Legal Challenges to CARB’s Regulations

November 1, 2013

On October 30, CCTA received an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal denying our motion for reconsideration of the ‘en banc’ (full court) petition to review the EPA’s determination and approval of the California State Implementation Plan or SIP. This was a longshot based on the timing issues, as the SIP was ‘stealthily’ filed and approved during our litigation against CARB. Related to this is our petition directly to EPA for reconsideration of the approval of the SIP by EPA – again all ‘surreptitiously’ done during our direct litigation. This challenge is more an exercise of thoroughness than legal utility.

So our main legal action or FAAAA argument claim, stating that state law (CARB regulations) violates federal law is also on Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. Our appeal of Judge England’s order saying that he no longer had authority over the case is still pending and will be appealed ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Truckers Will Continue Legal Battle against CARB and U.S. EPA

UPLAND, Calif., Jan. 22, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA) has filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in its nearly two-year-long legal case against the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) heavy-duty, on-road truck and bus regulation (CDTOA v. CARB, Case No. 2:11-CV-00384-MCE-GGH).

Read more on link below

PR Newswire (


Why We Should Continue to Fight


Based on the December 19th decision from the U.S. Circuit Court in our case “CDTOA(CCTA) v. CARB” (22 months after we filed our original suit), we now have to include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a defendant if we choose to appeal our case. EPA approved the California Air Resources Board (CARB) state implementation plan (SIP) during our suit and it apparently changes the dynamics of the case – that’s at least what the judge said.

We’ve discussed various legal strategies with our attorneys and, on January 10, 2013, told them to proceed and file the Notice of Appeal with the 9th Circuit Court in our legal action against the CARB heavy-duty on-road truck and bus regulation. The Notice of Appeal was officially filed on January 16.

Why We Should Continue to Fight (91.11 kB 2013-01-28 13:57:46)

From CTN Magazine Updates

January 1, 2013 – Executive Director Article

Judge’s Decision Ignores Simple Supremacy Clause Question

I was on the cusp of finishing my January managers’ report just before the Christmas weekend and something happened, so instead of cancelling most of my report, I decided to share it with you.

I was going to begin it like this: “After 23-months we still have no decision in our case against CARB. September 6th was the last hearing date (this one caused by EPA’s politically-timed acceptance of CARB’s state implantation plan (SIP)). At that hearing, Judge England said he would have a decision out ‘shortly.’ The word ‘shortly’ surely doesn’t mean the same to all of us. Impatient with the delay, we sent an appeal letter to the court on November 15 asking for a decision.”

Read more

December 1, 2012 – Executive Director Article

Going on 22-months and still no decision

After the final hearing in early September, U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr., said that he would, “have a decision

Later that day, Joe R. bet me that this was a “political” decision and we would not have it prior to the November 6 election – I took the bet and lost. It cost me $20.

Read more

November 1, 2012 – Executive Director Article

Going on 21-months and still no decision

After the final hearing in early September, Judge England said that he would, “have a decision shortly”. Later that day, Joe R. bet me that this was a “political” decision and we would not have it prior to the November 6 election – strangely I took the bet. It appears to now be a “suckers bet”, as the decision delay is proving very problematic and political to the judge who claims to be a Republican deciding on an extreme liberal Democratic environmental issue. Hmmm…….bye, bye 20-bucks!

I wonder when our Constitution became so subverted in politics that even the local federal court system finds work-arounds and delays. The public health science community (and UC school system) has undermined the scientific integrity in this field of science, why not the political system too.

You can all look for us and this case before the 9th Circuit  Court of Appeals which incidentally is over-turned 75% of the time – thank God! We’ll be there next if we ever get a decision – probably November 7 Haa!

October 2012 – Executive Director Article

Going on 20-months and still no decision.

CalChamber’s Final Tally on Job Killer Bills:

Governor Vetoes Two; Signs Two into Law

Gov. Brown concluded his work on legislation over the last weekend in September, vetoing two more CalChamber member-opposed “job killer” bills in addition to signing two job killer bills into law. A total of four job killers ultimately made it to the Governor’s desk from the 32 that were identified for 2012.

Read More

September 2012 – Executive Director Article

On Thursday, September 6, 2012, we finally had our hopefully “last” hearing in this phase of our lawsuit against CARB in front of U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England, Jr. in Sacramento. The hearing was delayed several times due to the judge’s repeated requests for supplemental briefing from the parties.

At the hearing, the defendants fielded three attorneys: a Deputy Attorney General from the state Department of Justice, the CARB General Counsel, and a high-profile lawyer from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Interestingly, the attorney from the NRDC, Melissa Lin Perrella, spoke 90% of time; counsel from the AG’s office 10% and the lawyer from CARB said nothing. Clearly, the NRDC is running this show for the opposition.

Read More

PLF Case Update – September 2012

Our petition for hearing on CARB’s waiver application for non-road diesel engines was approved in part and denied in part. EPA agreed to hold a hearing on September 20, 2012, but it will be in Washington, D.C., not in Sacramento, as we had requested.

Read More

August 2012 – Executive Director Article

The latest developments in our lawsuit against the CARB On-Road Truck and Bus Rule is more evidence that we are truly fighting a multi-headed monster.

We have taken on CARB and the State of California, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) quickly intervened in the case against us, and now the court seems to be on the verge of inviting the U.S. EPA to join in the case.

Read more

PLF Case Updates – August 2012

In late July, EPA held a hearing in Sacramento regarding the proposed particulate matter standard, at which members of CCTA and others presented testimony regarding the devastating effects those regulations could have on the trucking industry in California. A substantial number of eminent scientists testified at the hearings, stating that the regulations were unnecessary and were based on faulty science.

Ted Hadzi-Antich of Pacific Legal Foundation reports that the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court has rejected numerous challenges to EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare. Pacific Legal Foundation and others plan to appeal the decision.

© Copyright Western States Trucking Association (WSTA). All Rights Reserved