Albuquerque Cab Co. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
2017 NMSC 28
| N.M. | 2017Background
- Q Cab, LLC applied to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) for a certificate to provide general taxicab service in Bernalillo County; existing municipal carriers Albuquerque Cab and Yellow-Checker Cab protested.
- The PRC hearing examiner recommended denying Q Cab based on lack of fitness and potential adverse public-interest effects; PRC reversed the fitness finding and granted the certificate.
- The core statutory framework is the Motor Carrier Act (2013 amendments), which (a) distinguishes municipal vs. general taxicab services, (b) requires applicants show "fitness," and (c) restricts granting new general certificates within a municipal carrier’s full-service territory if the protesting municipal carrier proves certain facts.
- Albuquerque Cab and Yellow Cab argued their municipal certificates automatically bar entry by Q Cab under Section 65-2A-13(D)(2) and alternatively that Q Cab’s entry would impair public passenger service in their territories.
- The PRC found the protestors failed to satisfy their burden to prove they were providing full-service operations and failed to prove impairment; the PRC found Q Cab fit to operate after cure of some application deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal carriers’ certificates automatically block new general carriers in their full-service territory | Municipal carriers: certificates under §65-2A-13(D)(2) create an automatic bar | Q Cab/PRC: protection is not automatic; protestors must prove actual full-service operations per §65-2A-13(C)(2) | Not automatic; protestors must prove all matters of fact showing full-service operation; PRC decision affirmed |
| Whether Albuquerque Cab and Yellow Cab proved potential impairment of public passenger service from Q Cab’s entry | Protestors: entry will divert revenue and cripple municipal carriers, hurting public service | Q Cab/PRC: protestors offered only speculation and industry-wide decline evidence, not particularized proof that Q Cab would impair service | Protestors failed to demonstrate reasonable potential to impair full-service passenger service; PRC finding upheld |
| Whether Q Cab was "fit" to receive a certificate under §65-2A-8 and §65-2A-3(R) | Protestors: alleged misleading conduct, premature signage, and applicant’s misunderstandings show unfitness | Q Cab/PRC: deficiencies were innocent, cured before hearing, and applicant met regulatory requirements | PRC’s fitness determination supported by substantial evidence and within its discretion; fitness upheld |
| Whether the PRC unlawfully disagreed with the hearing examiner without adequate explanation | Protestors: PRC failed to articulate reasons for deviating from the hearing examiner, violating 1.2.2.37(A)(3) NMAC | PRC: regulation permits discretion; record contained sufficient support for PRC’s conclusions | Court held PRC need not restate detailed reasoning if record supports its decision; no unlawful deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernalillo Cty. Health Care Corp. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 319 P.3d 1284 (N.M. 2014) (agency denial of certificate may be arbitrary when applicant has material legal/regulatory violations affecting fitness)
- Att’y Gen. of N.M. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 258 P.3d 453 (N.M. 2011) (standard of review for PRC decisions: arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, beyond authority, or inconsistent with law)
- Colonias Dev. Council v. Rhino Envtl. Servs. Inc., 117 P.3d 939 (N.M. 2005) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard explained: must show rational connection between facts and choices)
- Toltec Int’l, Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, 619 P.2d 186 (N.M. 1980) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Albuquerque Bernalillo Cty. Water Util. Auth. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 229 P.3d 494 (N.M. 2010) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for agency factfinding)