History
  • No items yet
midpage
Exec. Transp. Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
138 A.3d 145
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Rasier-PA, LLC (Rasier), an affiliate of Uber, applied for an experimental common-carrier certificate to provide on-demand passenger service in Allegheny County using the Uber app and drivers’ personal vehicles.
  • Executive Transportation Co. (Executive), a local taxi company, protested, arguing Rasier would act as a broker (no custody/control of vehicles) and thus the PUC lacked jurisdiction.
  • Two ALJs recommended dismissing Rasier’s Allegheny Application for obstructing hearings; the PUC conducted de novo review and reversed, granting Rasier experimental authorization subject to extensive compliance conditions.
  • Executive filed a petition for reconsideration raising the custody/broker jurisdiction point; the PUC denied reconsideration, approved Rasier’s compliance plan, and Executive appealed the denial.
  • The Commonwealth Court reviewed only the PUC’s denial of reconsideration (abuse of discretion standard) and affirmed, concluding Executive raised the same arguments already considered and identifying no basis for reconsideration.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the PUC had jurisdiction to adjudicate Rasier’s Allegheny Application given Rasier proposed no custody/control of vehicles Executive: Custody/control of vehicles is essential for a common-carrier CPC holder; without it Rasier is a broker outside PUC motor-carrier jurisdiction PUC: Rasier’s app-based service is a motor-carrier offering transportation to the public for compensation; vehicle ownership/custody is not a jurisdictional prerequisite Court: Did not reach merits on jurisdiction in this appeal of reconsideration denial, but affirmed PUC’s denial because Executive merely reasserted arguments already adjudicated and showed no basis for reconsideration
Whether Rasier is a “broker” under 66 Pa.C.S. §2501(b) Executive: Rasier fits broker definition because it arranges rides but does not assume custody of vehicles PUC: Rasier will not use certificated motor carriers and functions as an on-demand motor carrier; experimental-certification framework applies Court: Found PUC considered and rejected this claim; no new argument shown to merit reconsideration
Whether denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion Executive: PUC erred and abused discretion by refusing to revisit jurisdictional/broker argument PUC: Executive failed Duick standard for reconsideration—no novel or overlooked issue presented Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed (no bad faith, fraud, caprice, or abuse of power shown)
Whether court should address merits of December 5, 2014 order in this appeal Executive: framed appeal narrowly as denial of reconsideration PUC & Court: jurisdictional issues may be reviewed; but because Executive sought only reconsideration, court limited review to abuse-of-discretion standard Court: Declined to review merits here; noted companion decision (Capital City Cab) addressed merits and would support PUC’s determination

Key Cases Cited

  • Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Service Comm'n, 118 Pa. Super. 380 (1935) (reconsideration cannot be a second bite at issues already decided)
  • J.A.M. Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 572 A.2d 1317 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (review of denial of reconsideration limited by abuse-of-discretion standard)
  • Columbia Gas of Pa. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 535 A.2d 1246 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (abuse of discretion standard for agency reconsideration; identifies grounds for reversal)
  • PECO Energy Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 791 A.2d 1155 (Pa. 2002) (standards for appellate review of PUC decisions)
  • Blackwell v. State Ethics Comm'n, 567 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1989) (jurisdictional issues are never waived and may be raised sua sponte)
  • Capital City Cab Service v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 138 A.3d 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (companion opinion addressing merits of Rasier’s statewide experimental authorization)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Exec. Transp. Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
Court Name: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Apr 22, 2016
Citation: 138 A.3d 145
Docket Number: No. 252 C.D. 2015
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Commw. Ct.