Boston Taxi Owners Ass'n v. City of Boston
84 F. Supp. 3d 72
D. Mass.2015Background
- Plaintiffs challenge amendments to 540 CMR 2.05 governing vehicle registrations for TNCs (Uber/Lyft) and seek court relief.
- Defendants include the Commonwealth, DPU, MassDOT, and Secretary of State Galvin, plus City of Boston and Police Commissioner Evans.
- MassDOT amended 540 CMR 2.05 on Jan. 16, 2015 to add a third registration option: personal transportation network vehicles (TNCs).
- Amendments require TNCs to obtain DPU certificates, carry liability insurance, conduct driver background checks, and set driver standards.
- City of Boston regulates taxicabs via Rule 403; historically non-enforcement against TNCs created tension with state registration changes.
- Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunction to enjoin the amendments and to require enforcement of Rule 403 against TNCs; court denies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Takings claim viability | Medallion owners claim inaction/enforcement reduces medallion value. | Amendments do not take property; no enforcement action by state; medallion value not protected. | No takings; state actions not a taking; medallion value not protected interest. |
| Equal Protection viability | TNCs are de facto taxis; disparate treatment unconstitutional. | TNCs and taxis are not similarly situated; rational basis supports differential treatment. | Rational basis supports differential treatment; no Equal Protection violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maine Educ. Ass’n Benefits Trust v. Cioppa, 695 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2012) (takings framework for regulatory interference with property)
- Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coal., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 572 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2009) (market value of medallions not protected; regulatory scheme context)
- Dennis Melancon, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 703 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2012) (medallion as privilege under regulatory scheme)
- Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2003) (likelihood of success weighs heavily in injunction analysis)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (three-factor takings framework)
- Franklin Mem’l Hosp. v. Harvey, 575 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2009) (regulated industry context for expectations)
- Joe Sanfelippo Cabs Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 46 F.Supp.3d 888 (E.D. Wis. 2014) (cost/availability impacts supportive of rational basis)
- Valles v. Pima Cnty., 776 F.Supp.2d 995 (D. Ariz. 2011) (government inaction not taking)
- Nicholson v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 605 (2007) (affirmative government action required for taking)