Albuquerque Cab Company, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc.
1:17-cv-01006
D.N.M.May 11, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Albuquerque Cab (a PRC-authorized motor carrier) sued Uber (and Lyft) under New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act (UPA), alleging Uber operated in Albuquerque (beginning ~2014) without PRC operating authority required by the Motor Carrier Act (MCA).
- New Mexico enacted the Transportation Network Company Services Act (TNCSA) in 2016, after which Uber applied for and obtained a TNCSA certificate; the complaint challenges Uber’s pre-2016 conduct.
- The district court previously dismissed the original complaint for failing to plausibly allege Uber was a "transportation service carrier" under the MCA; plaintiff amended with detailed factual allegations about Uber’s role and control over drivers, payment processing, vehicle programs, rules, insurance lobbying, and marketing.
- Lyft settled and was dismissed; Uber moved to dismiss the amended complaint arguing: (1) it is a technology company, not a motor carrier; (2) Gandydancer bars competitor UPA suits for competitive injury; and (3) plaintiff fails to plead causation.
- The court denied Uber’s motion, holding the amended complaint plausibly alleges Uber offered/provided transportation for hire through drivers (employees or contractors), the MCA authorizes UPA suits by authorized carriers in §65-2A-33(J), and plaintiff sufficiently pleaded causation for pleading-stage purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Uber was a "transportation service carrier" under the MCA pre-2016 | Albuquerque Cab: Uber did more than provide an app — it recruited/screened drivers, set standards and pricing features, processed payments, leased vehicles, collected fares and took a cut; thus it offered/provided transportation for hire. | Uber: It only developed/distributed software connecting drivers and riders; software authors are not motor carriers under the MCA. | Court: Denied dismissal — amended facts plausibly show Uber offered/provided transportation for hire via employees/contract drivers and thus fell within MCA coverage pre-2016. |
| Whether the UPA permits competitor suits for competitive injury given Gandydancer | Albuquerque Cab: MCA §65-2A-33(J) expressly authorizes a consumer or an "authorized transportation service carrier" to sue under the UPA for unauthorized service; legislature carved out this exception. | Uber: Gandydancer bars competitor claims under the UPA; the MCA’s cross-reference to the UPA should not create a new competitor cause of action. | Court: Held §65-2A-33(J) explicitly authorizes authorized carriers to sue under the UPA for MCA violations; this statutory carve-out does not conflict with Gandydancer. |
| Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged causation between Uber’s alleged unauthorized operation and its economic injuries | Albuquerque Cab: Operating without PRC constraints let Uber underprice regulated taxi service, increased driver supply, competed for the same customers, and reduced plaintiff’s revenues. | Uber: Alleged timing/correlation does not show causation; plaintiff conflates correlation with causation. | Court: Held plaintiff’s factual allegations (market overlap, price advantage from being unregulated, revenue declines tied to Uber’s entry) are plausible and satisfy Iqbal pleading standard at this stage. |
| Whether enactment of the TNCSA proves the MCA never applied to TNCs pre-2016 | Uber: The legislature’s later enactment of TNCSA shows it intended to regulate TNCs under a separate regime, not the MCA. | Albuquerque Cab: TNCSA’s enactment can be read as a deliberate change exempting TNCs going forward; it does not prove MCA never applied earlier. | Court: Declined to infer legislative intent against MCA coverage; statutory text and PRC interpretation support that MCA could have applied pre-2016, so TNCSA’s later enactment is not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Gandydancer, LLC v. Rock House CGM, LLC, 453 P.3d 434 (N.M. 2019) (UPA generally precludes competitor suits absent legislative carve-out)
- Public Serv. Co. v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 106 N.M. 622 (N.M. 1987) (courts defer to agency interpretation of statutes the agency administers)
- State ex rel. Bird v. Apodaca, 573 P.2d 213 (N.M. 1977) (presumption that legislature intends statute changes to alter prior law)