889 F. Supp. 2d 808
E.D. La.2012Background
- Three consolidated lawsuits challenge New Orleans taxicab ordinances enacted April 19, 2012.
- Ordinances target CPNC rights, transferability, vehicle upgrades, and statutory age/tech requirements.
- Plaintiffs, as CPNC owners/holders, allege Fifth Amendment takings and related constitutional/contract claims.
- Defendant City seeks declaratory relief and enforcement of the ordinances; TROs/temporary measures were extended pending ruling.
- Court analyzes CPNCs as property interests, and separately analyzes upgrade-related regulatory requirements under Penn Central and Equal Protection.
- Court ultimately grants partial declaratory relief and partial preliminary injunction; some ordinances remain subject to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are CPNCs protectable property rights and has a taking occurred? | Plaintiffs urge CPNCs are property rights; regulations effect a per se or regulatory taking. | City contends CPNCs are privileges, not rights, and restrictions are legitimate regulation. | Plaintiffs have a protectable property interest; likely regulatory taking. |
| Do the CPNC privilege and transfer restrictions violate ex post facto or Contracts Clause? | Plaintiffs claim breach of contract and ex post facto impairments. | State/City did not form an enforceable contract; no ex post facto breach. | No substantial likelihood of success on breach/Contracts Clause claim. |
| Do the challenged CPNC privilege/transfer restrictions cause irreparable harm? | Loss of property rights and financing ability irreparably harms Plaintiffs. | TROs have been in place without immediate irreparable harm; existing uses continue. | Yes, per se irreparable harm established for CPNC privilege/transfer issues. |
| Are the taxicab upgrade ordinances a taking under Penn Central? | Upgrades and costs diminish value of CPNCs and investments. | Upgrades serve health/safety and economic welfare; costs manageable; value not destroyed. | No substantial likelihood of taking; costs outweighed by public interest benefits. |
| Do the upgrade regulations violate Equal Protection or invade privacy? | Regulations unfairly burden taxi drivers and vehicles; invade privacy via surveillance tech. | Regulations rationally related to public safety and industry regulation; privacy expectations limited. | No substantial likelihood of Equal Protection or invasion of privacy violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (establishes three-factor test for regulatory takings)
- Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (reduction in economic benefits may be permissible in certain regulatory contexts)
- Forest Properties, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed.Cl. 56 (Fed. Cl. 1997) (investor expectations in highly regulated industries evaluated case-by-case)
- Tex. Manufactured Hous. Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Nederland, 101 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 1996) (some economic impact tolerated for public health/safety goals)
- Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328 (5th Cir. 1981) (irreparable harm concept discussed in context of monetary harm)
- Hutton v. City of Baton Rouge, 217 La. 857, 47 So.2d 665 (La. 1950) (distinguishes franchise vs. license in CPNC context)
- Flower Cab Co. v. Petitte, 658 F. Supp. 1170 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (licenses with transfer rights can be protectable property interests)
- Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U.S. 356 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (rational basis review in economic regulation contexts)