NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0361n.06
Case No. 00-3409 FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 27, 2011
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
OUR GARAGE AND WRECKER )
SERVICE1; TOWING & RECOVERY )
ASSOCIATION OF OHIO, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
CITY OF COLUMBUS; DAVID WILSON; )
BOBBIE BEAVERS, )
)
Defendants-Appellants.
_______________________________________
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; KEITH and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellees Ours Garage and Wrecker
Service, Inc., and the Towing and Recovery Association of Ohio brought suit against the City of
Columbus and certain city officials to enjoin enforcement of Chapter 549 of the Columbus City Code
(the “towing ordinance”), which regulates consensual towing operations. The district court held that
the Interestate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), preempts the towing ordinance, and this
court affirmed. Our Garage & Wrecker Serv. v. City of Columbus, 257 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2001).
The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision of this court and remanded the case for
consideration of whether the towing ordinance qualifies as an exercise of “‘safety regulatory
1
In both the district court and in this court, the caption of the case has identified the plaintiff as “Our
Garage” throughout the course of this litigation. The company’s name in fact is “Ours Garage,” but we continue to
use “Our Garage” in the caption to avoid confusion.
Case No. 00-3409, Our Garage v. City of Columbus
authority’ or otherwise fall[s] within § 14501(c)(2)(A)’s compass.” City of Columbus v. Ours
Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 442 (2002). We now remand to the District Court for
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
2