49 U.S.C. § 14707

Private enforcement of registration requirement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—If a person provides transportation by motor vehicle or service in clear violation of section 13901–13904 or 13906, a person injured by the transportation or service may bring a civil action to enforce any such section. In a civil action under this subsection, trial is in the judicial district in which the person who violated that section operates.(b)Procedure.—A copy of the complaint in a civil action under subsection (a) shall be served on the Secretary and a certificate of service must appear in the complaint filed with the court. The Secretary may intervene in a civil action under subsection (a). The Secretary may notify the district court in which the action is pending that the Secretary intends to consider the matter that is the subject of the complaint in a proceeding before the Secretary. When that notice is filed, the court shall stay further action pending disposition of the proceeding before the Secretary.(c)Attorney’s Fees.—In a civil action under subsection (a), the court may determine the amount of and award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party. That fee is in addition to costs allowable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 103, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 910.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (c), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11708 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Phoenix Assurance Co. v. K-Mart Corp., 977 F. Supp. 319 (D.N.J. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Phoenix Assurance Co. v. K-Mart Corp., 977 F. Supp. 319 (D.N.J. 1997). · cites it 4× “Certain procedural prerequisites must precede a civil action by a person injured by “transportation by motor vehicle or service” where the motor vehicle or service has failed to comply with statutory registration requirements.”

Overton v. Uber Techs., Inc., 333 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 3× “" 49 U.S.C. § 14707 (a). Under Section 14707, the requirement for a "clear violation" is jurisdictional rather than a standard of proof.”

Tierney v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 791 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “§ 14704 (a)(2) is limited to claims for commercial damages; (2) the trustee failed to state a claim under 49 U.S.C. § 14707 (a), which provides for private actions to enforce federal registration requirements, because the trustee failed to plead a registration violation causally…”

Milan Express, Inc. v. Averitt Express, Inc., 208 F.3d 975 (11th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “1 nor 49 U.S.C. § 14707 gives the district court jurisdiction over a claim to recover on the bond.”

Fulfillment Servs. Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2008). “” The district court denied UPS’s motion for attorney’s fees under 49 U.S.C. § 14707 (e), holding both that it lacked jurisdiction to award fees, because it had dismissed the underlying suit for lack of standing, and that § 14707(e) requires only that attorney’s fees be awarded…”

Donaldson Tech. Grp. LLC v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 347 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D. Ohio 2004). “One June 4, 2003, De *527 fendants removed the action to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction over the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14707 , et seq. On May 26, 2004, Donaldson and Multicam amended their complaint to include a claim under the Carmack Amendment.”

Miller's Apple Valley Chevrolet Olds-Geo, Inc., a West Virginia Corp. v. Mark Goodwin, 177 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 1999). “§ 1988 (b) (same, civil rights); 49 U.S.C. § 14707 (c) (same, interstate transportation).”

Land Ocean Logistics, Inc. v. Aqua Gulf Corp., 68 F. Supp. 2d 263 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). “49 U.S.C. § 14707 (a) (1998). Given the remedies available to Defendants pursuant to the express language of the ICC Termination Act, the court is unwilling to declare the Agreement between Land Ocean and Defendants void based solely on Land *271 Ocean’s failure to obtain an ICC…”

White v. Scotty's Contracting & Stone, LLC (W.D. Ky. 2022). · cites it 3× “ACF Global argues that this Court should exercise jurisdiction over the negligent brokering claim because Congress created a private right of action under 49 U.S.C. § 14707 for injured parties to sue unregistered carriers who caused accidents transporting property in interstate…”

Archie Overton v. Uber Tech., Inc. (9th Cir. 2020). “As to appellants’ claims against the Uber defendants, the district court properly held that appellants lacked standing, based on fear of federal prosecution or other theories, to allege that Uber was operating as a motor carrier under the Federal Motor Carrier Act without…”

Reynolds v. Singh (E.D. Cal. 2022). “Defendant points to 49 U.S.C. § 14707 . 23 However, that provision provides a cause of action if a person 24 violates the registration requirements of the act, not at issue 25 here.”

Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., Inc. v. JPF Inc (D. Minnesota 2025). “C. § 13102 (14). A “broker,” on the other hand, is defined as “a person, other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier, that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.