Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Statute of Limitations Issue In Chargeback Suit, Plus Shareholder's Derivative Suit

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on August 10, 2010 12:07 AM

Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 08-1673, involved a suit by owner-operators of leased trucks against a carrier pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 14704(a)(2), claiming that a chargeback violates 49 C.F.R. section 376.12(i), which provides that the lessor is not required to purchase or rent any products, equipment, or services from the authorized carrier as a condition of entering into the lease arrangement.  The court remanded district court's dismissal of some of the claims after concluding that the statute of limitations is two years as neither section 14704(a)(2) nor any other statute sets a period of limitations for suits on its authority.  However, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that a chargeback differs from a compulsory purchase of insurance on the merits.

  • Hale v. Chu, 09-3262, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss in plaintiffs' corporate derivative suit against China Online, Inc., claiming that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations and duties owed to the corporation and its shareholders.  In affirming the dismissal, the court held that plaintiffs have waived their argument that that the district court should have known that their complaint was really a direct action brought by China Online in its own name, as the record contains no evidence that the plaintiffs ever alerted the district court that China Online was pursuing a direct claim against the defendants despite having ample opportunity to do so.

    Related Resources:

    Find a Lawyer

    More Options