CHECKER CAB PHILADELPHIA, INC. v. THE PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY
2:16-cv-04669
| E.D. Pa. | Jan 29, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (Checker Cab and intervenor Germantown) are Philadelphia taxicab companies challenging the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) and former executive director Vincent Fenerty for failing to regulate Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft before Pennsylvania enacted Act 164 (Nov. 4, 2016). Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged constitutional violations.
- Statutory context: Act 94 (delegating local taxi regulation to PPA) defines medallions and caps issuance; Act 164 later created a distinct statutory regime for TNCs and exempted them from the prior definition of "taxicab service." Medallions are statutorily defined as "property."
- Factual posture: TNCs operated in Philadelphia before Act 164; PPA issued impoundments and citations and entered a 90-day settlement with Uber in 2016, but did not seek injunctive relief or promulgate TNC-specific regulations prior to Act 164.
- Procedural history: Complaint filed Aug. 29, 2016; Court allowed equal protection (failure-to-regulate) and takings claims to proceed past dismissal. Defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery; Plaintiffs sought additional discovery under Rule 56(d) and to file a supplement.
- The court evaluated (1) whether taxicabs and TNCs are "similarly situated" for Equal Protection purposes, (2) whether PPA engaged in selective enforcement, (3) whether PPA's inaction amounted to a regulatory taking of medallions, and (4) whether PPA is judicially estopped by prior litigation statements.
- Decision: The court granted summary judgment in favor of PPA (for PPA only), holding plaintiffs’ equal protection and takings theories fail as a matter of law; denied plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) and supplemental-memo motions; declined to apply judicial estoppel; left Fenerty’s qualified immunity to further factual submission by plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment under Equal Protection (failure to regulate TNCs) | PPA enforced costly regulations on medallion taxis but did not regulate or enjoin TNCs, treating similarly situated competitors differently and lacking a rational basis | TNCs and taxis differ in business model, legal status (TNCs were illegal before Act 164), and customer interaction; rational-basis review applies and PPA had rational bases for its approach | Court: Taxis and TNCs are not similarly situated; alternatively, even if they were, plaintiffs failed to negate conceivable rational bases — summary judgment for PPA |
| Selective enforcement under Equal Protection | PPA vigorously enforced rules against plaintiffs while neglecting to enforce against TNCs; motive was retaliatory or arbitrary | Legal market participants (licensed taxis) are not similarly situated to illegal operators; plaintiffs must show discriminatory purpose and similarly situated comparators | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show similarly situated comparators or discriminatory purpose; selective-enforcement claim fails |
| Takings Clause (diminution of medallion value) | PPA’s inaction allowed TNC competition that destroyed medallion market value amounting to a regulatory taking of property without compensation | Medallion holders lack a protected property interest in the value of medallions or a right to be free from competition; courts uniformly reject takings claims based on competition-driven value declines | Court: Although medallions are statutorily "property," plaintiffs have no cognizable property right to exclude competition or to preserve medallion market value — takings claim fails |
| Judicial estoppel (PPA’s prior litigation positions) | PPA previously argued in state court that TNC activity fell within "call or demand" taxi definition; it should be estopped from now arguing TNCs differ from taxis | Prior statements defended enforcement actions but are not irreconcilably inconsistent with current legal arguments; no bad faith shown | Court: Judicial estoppel not warranted; PPA’s prior representations were not sufficiently inconsistent nor shown to be made in bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Transp. Trade Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 839 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2016) (TNCs and taxis differ in relevant respects; separate regulatory treatment survives equal protection review)
- Boston Taxi Owners Ass'n v. Baker, 223 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2016) (discussed in district opinions; separate regulatory regimes for TNCs and taxis examined under rational-basis analysis)
- Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004) (standards on regulatory takings and need to identify a cognizable property interest)
- Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (similarly situated requirement in Equal Protection analysis)
- Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 867 F.3d 338 (3d Cir. 2017) (affirming that whether parties are similarly situated can be decided as a matter of law)