4:12-cv-00408
E.D. Mo.Feb 20, 2013Background
- Plaintiff sought to provide wheelchair‑accessible taxi service at Lambert Airport and proposed it to the City in Jan 2011.
- In Jan–Mar 2011, the Airport and the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission discussed ADA compliance and Plaintiff’s proposal.
- On March 28, 2011, the Commission enacted Chapter 13 creating a CCN process for wheelchair taxis.
- April 2011 the Commission granted a CCN to Plaintiff and began enforcing Chapter 13; Plaintiff alleges retaliation via continued enforcement and CCN revocation.
- Plaintiff filed a FAC on July 5, 2012 alleging due process (Count I) and retaliation (Count II); Defendants moved to dismiss.
- The Court grants the motions to dismiss Count I (no protected property interest in a CCN) and dismisses City’s Count II claim; City is dismissed without prejudice on Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property interest in CCN sufficient for due process | Plaintiff asserts a protectable CCN interest under Boonstra. | Defendants argue there is no property interest; CCN is a license that can be issued or revoked. | No protected property interest; Count I dismissed. |
| Due process for CCN revocation | Revocation infringes due process if entitlement exists. | Even assuming some interest, notice and opportunity to challenge were provided. | No due process violation given lack of property interest. |
| Retaliation claim viability against City | City’s actions (contract denial, Chapter 13 enactment, CCN revocation) were retaliatory for ADA notice. | Plaintiff failed to state a retaliation claim against City; actions were discretionary. | Plaintiff failed to state a retaliation claim against City; Count II as to City dismissed. |
| Retaliation claim viability against Commission | Commission’s actions in Chapter 13 and CCN revocation were retaliatory. | Retaliation claims insufficiently pled; discretionary regulatory actions. | Court previously ruled allegations fail to state a retaliatory claim; Count II insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v. , 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard—facially plausible claim required)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957) (abrogated by Twombly for federal pleading standard)
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (definition of property interest; entitlement required)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (due process and property interest in welfare-like benefits)
- Dennis Melancon, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 703 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2012) (certificate of public convenience as a personal license, not a property right)
- Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition of City of Minneapolis, 572 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2009) (highly regulated taxi industry limits create no protected property right)
- Boonstra v. City of Chicago, 574 N.E.2d 689 (Ill. Ct. App. 1991) (taxi license assignability facts created a property-like interest under specific conditions)
- Stauch v. City of Columbia Heights, 212 F.3d 425 (8th Cir. 2000) (due process and property interest standards in the Eighth Circuit)