Deerfield-News.com-Deerfield Beach, Fl-COMING SOON.
C.O D Tire Distributors
Deerfield-News Inc.D/B/A Usedtires.com -Lead Plaintiffs….
V
Good Year, Bridgestone Firestone, Michelin, and Pirelli
Ustires.org et al.
Here we come, COD Tire Distributors CODTIRE.COM
And Deerfield-News, Inc. dba-Usedtires.com, 30 years later, in the Federal Court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, we will see the above-mentioned Major Tire Makers become defendants.
We have been waiting 30 years. These folks have been conspiring, breaking Anti-Trust Laws, and defaming the sellers of used tires collectively. They have employed anti-competitive practices for the better part of 35 years or more. We were only able to get a Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive relief in the form of a TRO, the Preliminary Injunction, and, since 9-11-1998, a Permanent Injunction that the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on that date.
Last time we had to sue the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. And we did and won.
This time, we get to sue you for damages, and we will win again. We will also continue to bring used tires into Puerto Rico by container loads, unfettered. We will also procure the rights of our dealers and their customers, the consumers.
The market for THE SALE OF USED tires in the USA is-
ESTIMATED TO BE 40-45 Million Passenger Car TIRES Every Year.
Now do you understand who not only may be behind but is behind all the shenanigans used by “New Tire Makers worldwide at the hands of the above companies and their Industry Trade Group on K Street, ustires.org.
We, Deerfield News Inc., and C.O.D.Tire Distributors of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, will be filing an action shortly.
Once again, we are proud to announce the Law Firm of Nachman and Guillemard, which represented Used Tire International Inc. in the case Used Tire International Inc. v. Miguel Diaz Saldana, Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, in 1996.
USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL INC v. DIAZ SALDAÑA (1998)
United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit.
USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Manuel DIAZ-SALDAÑA, Defendant, Appellee.
USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Manuel DIAZ-SALDAÑA, Defendant, Appellant.
Nos. 97-2347, 97-2348.
Decided: September 11, 1998
Before SELYA and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* Senior District Judge.
Sylvia Roger-Stefani, Assistant Solicitor General, with whom Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor General, and Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy Solicitor General, Federal Litigation Division, Puerto Rico Department of Justice, were on brief, for appellant. Joan S. Peters, with whom Andrés Guillemard-Noble and Nachman, Guillemard & Rebollo were on brief, for appellee.
In an effort to attack the mounting problem of solid waste disposal, the Puerto Rico legislature in 1996 enacted the Tire Handling Act, also known as Law 171. This act establishes a comprehensive scheme for the handling and disposal of used tires. Among other things, it requires tire vendors to accept customers’ used tires at no extra charge for processing or disposal, prohibits the burning of tires and depositing of tires in landfills except under certain conditions, regulates the storage and recycling of tires, establishes import fees, sets up a fund for handling scrap tires, creates incentives for recycling and developing alternative uses for scrap tires, and imposes penalties for noncompliance with its provisions. The legislature identified the disposal of tires as a particular problem because of the fire hazard they present, the public health hazard they create from disease-carrying mosquitoes breeding in water that accumulates inside discarded tires and the large amount of space they occupy, diminishing the useful life of landfills.
Used Tire International, Inc. (“UTI”) is an importer of used tires into Puerto Rico. It brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against appellant Manuel DíazSaldaña as Secretary of the Treasury to bar enforcement of certain provisions of Law 171. Those provisions are: Article 5(B) which prohibits the import of tires that do not have a minimum tread depth of 3/32”; Article 5(D) which requires tire importers to file a bond in an amount equivalent to the cost of handling and disposing of the imported product and provides for execution of the bond in the event that 10% of a representative sample of a shipment does not qualify; Article 6 which imposes a charge on all imported tires; Article 17(A)(1) which provides for distributions from a tire handling fund, created from the charge imposed on importers of tires, to recyclers, processors and exporters of tires; and Article 19(A) which imposes a $10.00 fine on persons selling or importing tires that do not have a minimum tread depth of 3/32.” Following a hearing on UTI’s request for a preliminary injunction at which both sides presented testimony, the district court issued an opinion and order, granting the injunction against enforcement of Articles 5(B), 5(D) and 19(A) and denying it with respect to Articles 6 and 17(A)(1). Puerto Rico appealed the order and UTI cross-appealed. The parties have stipulated that we may treat Puerto Rico’s appeal as being from a final adjudication of the invalidity of Articles 5(B), 5(D) and 19(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1292(a)(1).
The district court concluded that Articles 5(B) and 19(A) facially discriminate against interstate commerce by banning the importation of a class of tires that may be legally sold and used in Puerto Rico. In reaching that conclusion it rejected the Secretary’s argument that Law 171 is non-discriminatory because the 3/32” requirement applies equally to importers and sellers of used tires. The argument was premised on the first sentence of Article 19(A) which states:
Every person who sells or imports tires ․ that do not have a minimum depth of 3/32” ․ shall pay a fine of $10.00 per tire.
The court rejected this interpretation of the statute as implausible on the strength of the second sentence of Article 19(A) which states:
This provision shall apply to those who fail to comply but have not had their bond executed, according to what is pointed out in Article 5(D) [which requires all tire importers to post a bond].
It read that provision as making the penalty applicable only to those who have filed bonds, i.e., importers of used tires.
We agree with the district court’s interpretation. The reference to “those ․ who have not had their bond executed” and the cross-reference to Article 5(D) dealing with importers of used tires makes it clear that only those sellers of used tires who are also importers are the subject of Article 19(A). Moreover, as UTI points out, it would make little sense for the legislature to penalize sellers of noncomplying used tires taken in trade-in (i.e., locally-generated used tires) for to do so would simply accelerate the time when used tires are discarded as scrap and dumped in a landfill. On appeal, the Secretary merely reiterates that the penalty applies equally to sellers and to importers but has offered “only rhetoric, and not explanation.” See Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334, 343, 112 S.Ct. 2009, 119 L.Ed.2d 121 (1992). We conclude, therefore, that Article 19(A) discriminates against sellers of imported used tires because only they and not sellers of locally-generated used tires are subjected to the penalty and, consequently, that Article 5(B) discriminates against importers of used tires because Law 171 singles them out in barring the import of tires with less than 3/32” tread depth.1
The district court, having concluded that Articles 5(B) and 19(A) are invalid, did not reach the bonding requirement under Article 5(D). That article provides that “[e]very tire importer shall file ․ a bond ․ equivalent to the total cost of the handling and disposal of the imported product. Should more than 10% of a representative sample of a shipment of imported tires fail[ ] to meet [the 3/32” standard] ․ the totality of the bond shall be executed.” Plainly the bonding requirement imposes burdens, costs and risks on importers of used tires not borne by sellers of locally-generated used tires and thus provides added support for the conclusion that Articles 5(B), 5(D) and 19(A) together facially discriminate against interstate commerce.
The inexorable increase in the volume of solid wastes and the health and environmental consequences attendant on their disposal present legislatures and courts with vexing problems. See Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 630, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). We may assume that Puerto Rico’s purpose in enacting Law 171 was to serve the best interests of all its citizens. But no matter how laudatory its purpose, “it may not be accomplished by discriminating against articles of commerce coming from outside the [Commonwealth] unless there is some reason, apart from their origin, to treat them differently.” Id. at 626-27, 98 S.Ct. 2531.2 In Philadelphia, the Supreme
We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order respecting injunctive relief.
SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
