244 A.3d 703
D.C.2021Background
- DFHV requires a Certificate of Operating Authority renewed annually for a business to operate as a “taxicab company.”
- D.C. Code § 50-301.03(23) defines a taxicab company to require a fleet of at least 20 taxicabs with "unified control by ownership or by the company." Classic Cab held a 2017 certificate and applied to renew for 2018.
- DFHV found Classic Cab had 28 cabs in its fleet but directly owned only 14; DFHV denied renewal for failing to meet the vehicle ownership requirement.
- After a two-day hearing, DFHV’s Office of Hearing Examiners and DFHV’s Interim Director affirmed, interpreting "unified control" to require actual ownership; Classic Cab sought judicial review and requested a stay, which the court denied.
- Classic Cab submitted an affidavit stating its fleet fell to seven cabs and that the business was closed; it did not file a reply brief addressing DFHV’s mootness argument and first raised rebuttal at oral argument.
- The court concluded DFHV made a prima facie showing of mootness based on Classic Cab’s sworn statements and dismissed the petition for review as moot without reaching the statutory-interpretation merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a company that controls (but does not own) ≥20 cabs qualifies as a “taxicab company” under § 50-301.03(23) | Classic Cab: “Unified control by the company” suffices; direct ownership of 20 cabs is not required | DFHV: Statute requires actual ownership (OHE adopted this view) | Not reached — court dismissed case as moot |
| Whether the appeal is moot given Classic Cab’s admitted fleet reduction and business closure and its failure to rebut | Classic Cab (at oral argument): Closure involuntary due to DFHV; intends to reopen if it prevails | DFHV: Classic Cab’s sworn affidavit shows it lacks the 20-cab minimum and thus lacks a legally cognizable interest; Classic Cab’s failure to respond amounts to concession | Case dismissed as moot; Classic Cab effectively conceded by not rebutting mootness; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Settlemire v. D.C. Office of Emp. Appeals, 898 A.2d 902 (D.C. 2006) (mootness doctrine; case becomes moot when issues are no longer live or parties lack a legally cognizable interest)
- Thorn v. Walker, 912 A.2d 1192 (D.C. 2006) (failure to obtain a stay and voluntary compliance can moot an appeal; inaction can be treated as concession)
- McClain v. United States, 601 A.2d 80 (D.C. 1992) (mootness when no live controversy exists)
- Jackson v. George, 146 A.3d 405 (D.C. 2016) (party asserting mootness bears the heavy burden of proof)
- Munsell v. Dep’t of Agric., 509 F.3d 572 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (closure allegedly due to regulatory action does not necessarily avoid mootness)
- Comford v. United States, 947 A.2d 1181 (D.C. 2008) (courts will not entertain undeveloped or skeletal arguments; counsel must flesh out claims)