SSA Terminals, LLC and SSA Terminals (Oakland), LLC v. The City of Oakland, Acting by and Through Its Board of Port Commissioners; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment, 69101-69102 [E9-31065]

Agencies

• Federal Maritime Commission

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69101-69102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31065]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 09-08]


SSA Terminals, LLC and SSA Terminals (Oakland), LLC v. The City 
of Oakland, Acting by and Through Its Board of Port Commissioners; 
Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

Served December 24, 2009, Federal Maritime Commission.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (``Commission'') by SSA Terminals, LLC and SSA 
Terminals (Oakland), LLC (jointly referred to as ``SSAT''). Complainant 
asserts that SSA Terminals, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company 
and that SSA Terminals (Oakland), LLC is a California limited liability 
company. Complainant alleges that Respondent, the City of Oakland 
acting by and through its Board of Port Commissioners (hereinafter 
``the Port''), is a municipal department established and existing under 
Article VII of the Charter of the City of Oakland. Complainant also 
alleges that the Port is a marine terminal operator within the meaning 
of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 40102(14). Complainant asserts that, 
through means of an assignment and subassignment agreement, Complainant 
leases Berths 57-59 from Respondent. Complainant alleges that 
Respondent and Ports America Outer Harbor Terminal, LLC (``PAOHT'') are 
parties to a lease agreement for Berths 20-24 which violates the 
Shipping Act by granting more reasonable terms for the rental and use 
of marine terminal

[[Page 69102]]

facilities to PAOHT than those provided to SSAT. Specifically, 
Complainant alleges that Respondent has violated the Shipping Act by: 
(1) Imposing an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage with 
respect to SSAT; (2) giving an undue or unreasonable preference or 
advantage to PAOHT; (3) refusing to deal or negotiate with SSAT; and 
(4) failing to establish, observe and enforce just and reasonable 
regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, 
handling and storing or delivering property. 46 U.S.C. 41106(2) and (3) 
and 41102(c). Complainant maintains that, as a consequence of the 
Port's agreement with PAOHT, Complainant has sustained and continues to 
incur injuries and damages, including lost business and higher rents, 
and other payments and obligations to the Respondent, thereby suffering 
damages in the millions of dollars.
    Complainant requests that the Commission require Respondent to 
answer the charges in this Complaint, cease and desist from engaging in 
violations of the Shipping Act, and put in force such practices as the 
Commission determines to be lawful and reasonable. Complainant also 
requests that an order be issued requiring Respondent to pay SSAT 
reparations for violations of the Shipping Act, including the amount of 
the actual injury, plus interest, costs and attorney fees, and any 
other damages to be determined; and that the Commission order any such 
other relief as it determines appropriate. Complainant requests that a 
hearing be held in Washington, DC.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing 
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of 
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine 
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 
statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the 
nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-
examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. 
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of 
the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by December 
28, 2010, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by 
April 27, 2011.

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31065 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P