Boston Taxi Owners Ass'n. v. City of Boston
223 F. Supp. 3d 119
D. Mass.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Boston Taxi Owners Association and two medallion holders) challenged the City of Boston and Police Commissioner, alleging unequal treatment of taxis versus transportation network companies (TNCs) in violation of equal protection and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
- After earlier proceedings, Massachusetts enacted M.G.L. ch. 159A (the Act), creating a state-level TNC regulatory scheme, a new Division in the Department of Public Utilities, permit/inspection/insurance/fare oversight, and generally preempting local rate and other requirements for TNCs while allowing municipal traffic-control regulation.
- Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (Count IV: due process/equal protection; Counts I-II: declaratory and injunctive relief; Count III: damages) and renewed a motion for preliminary injunction after the Act passed.
- Defendants reported they are precluded from regulating TNCs under the Act and moved to dismiss Counts I and II as moot and for judgment on the pleadings on Counts III and IV.
- The court found the Act preempts local regulation of TNCs, rendering declaratory and injunctive claims moot; it also held plaintiffs failed to plead a municipal policy or custom actionable under § 1983, so equal protection and damages claims were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal declaratory and injunctive claims are moot after state TNC statute | The Act preserves a municipal exception for regulating "traffic flow and traffic patterns," permitting continued local regulation of TNCs | The Act preempts municipal regulation of TNCs, so there is no ongoing municipal conduct to adjudicate or enjoin | Moot: declaratory and injunctive claims dismissed because state law preempts local regulation and any relief would be advisory or illegal to order |
| Whether the Act preempts local regulation of TNCs | The traffic-flow exception allows the City to apply taxi regulations/requirements to TNCs | The statute expressly and implicitly preempts local regulation by creating comprehensive state scheme and barring municipal rate/other requirements | Preemption: Act bars municipal regulation of TNCs; exception cannot be read to swallow the Act |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded an actionable municipal policy/custom for an equal protection claim under § 1983 | City’s failure to regulate TNCs differently constitutes municipal policy discriminating against taxi medallion holders | Any limitation on municipal regulation is the result of state law, not a City policy; municipalities are liable only for their own illegal acts | Judgment for defendants: plaintiffs failed to identify a municipal policy or custom causing the alleged violation; equal protection claim dismissed |
| Whether damages claim survives despite mootness of injunctive/declaratory relief | Monetary damages preserve a live controversy and allow adjudication of constitutional claim | Because no municipal policy caused the injury, damages claim fails; state preemption eliminates the basis for municipal liability | Damages claim dismissed as derivative of the dismissed equal protection claim |
Key Cases Cited
- ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 705 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2013) (mootness principles and justiciability)
- New England Regional Council of Carpenters v. Kinton, 284 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2002) (declarations become pointless when policy changes during litigation)
- KG Urban Enterprises, LLC v. Patrick, 969 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D. Mass. 2013) (examples of situations rendering cases moot)
- St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral v. Fire Dep’t of Springfield, 462 Mass. 120 (Mass. 2012) (preemption standard and inference of field preemption)
- Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (2011) (§ 1983 municipal-liability requires an identifiable policy or custom)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (municipalities liable only for their own unlawful acts)
- County Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 278 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2002) (monetary damages can keep a case live when injunctive relief is moot)