Dennis Melancon v. City of New Orleans, et
703 F.3d 262
5th Cir.2012Background
- Three consolidated suits challenging City of New Orleans taxicab ordinances; TRO issued in state court, federal court heard preliminary injunction; district court partially granted/denied; court vacates and remands in part; ordinances 162-59 and 162-321 concern CPNCs as privileges subject to regulation; Upgrade Ordinances impose safety and modernization requirements; plaintiffs claim takings, contract impairment, equal protection, and irreparable injury; city argues CPNCs are privileges and regulation is permissible; appellate court focuses on takings and contract claims and irreparable injury for upgrade provisions; court ultimately vacates injunction on takings, affirms denial for upgrade irreparable injury, remands for further proceedings; costs borne by plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Takings claim validity | Plaintiffs (CPNC holders) claim 162-59 and 162-321 take property rights. | City contends CPNCs are privileges, not property. | No substantial likelihood of taking established. |
| Contract impairment claim viability | Statutes 45:200.1â200.7 and 33:4792 create a contractual right to CPNCs. | No contract exists under Sebastian; statutes do not create enforceable private rights. | District court correctly denied substantial likelihood; no contract impairment. |
| Irreparable injury from Upgrade Ordinances | Costs to comply ($25kâ$40k) and vehicle age limits cause irreparable harm. | Costs are monetary, remediable; many may already comply. | No irreparable harm; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Enforceability of other Upgrade Ordinances | Upgrade provisions burden industry and public interest challenges. | Ordinances further public safety and welfare goals. | Remand on merits; court affirmed denial of injunction for upgrade provisions. |
| Overall injunction posture and standard of review | Vacate/in part, affirm in part; remand consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (containment of property rights in regulatory takings; existing rules define property interest)
- Roth v. Board of Regents of State Colleges, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (frame of property rights; entitlement requires more than mere expectancy)
- Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coal. v. City of Minneapolis, 572 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2009) (highly regulated markets preclude protected property interest in licenses)
- Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. United States, 7 F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (benign government regulation and exclusion power; property interests limited)
- United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945) (bundle of rights concept; use, transfer, profits define property)