Germantown Cab Co. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority
36 A.3d 105
Pa.2012Background
- In 2001, the General Assembly divested the Mayor of Philadelphia of appointment authority for the Philadelphia Parking Authority’s governing body and placed it with the Governor.
- In 2004, legislation transferred regional taxi and limousine regulation to the Authority, which the Court has treated as a Commonwealth agency for certain regulatory purposes.
- Germantown Cab Co. and Sawink, Inc. were fined and penalized under Authority regulations (driver licensure, vehicle inspection currency, tire tread wear).
- The companies sought declaratory and appellate relief contesting the regulations as invalid for not being filed with the Legislative Reference Bureau under the Commonwealth Documents Law (CDL).
- Commonwealth Court held the Authority’s regulations invalid for lack of CDL filing and rejected the Authority’s claimed exemptions from the CDL; the en banc Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CDL applies to the PPA’s rulemaking. | PPA argues CDL exemptions apply due to local focus and Act 94. | Germantown Cab/Sawink contend CDL governs all agencies; no express exemption." | CDL applies; no express exemption found. |
| Whether Section 5722’s notwithstanding-other-law provision creates an exemption for the PPA. | PPA asserts it exempts from CDL by not-withstanding other laws. | Court should read as a not express exemption; requires express language. | Not an express exemption; CDL requirements apply. |
| Whether Act 94 or Parking Authorities Law provide an exemption from CDL. | PPA argues transition provisions exempt its rulemaking. | Appellees argue no express exemption; Act 94 provisions do not confer CDL exemption. | No express exemption; CDL applies. |
| Whether the Commonwealth Attorneys Act exemption extends to the CDL. | PPA argues exemption from CAA implies CDL exemption. | Appellees argue exemption is limited to CAA and not CDL. | CAA exemption does not extend to CDL; CDL applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blount v. PPA, 600 Pa. 277, 965 A.2d 226 (Pa. 2009) (recognizes PPA as a Commonwealth agency for regulatory purposes and guides CDL applicability)
- Germantown Cab Co. v. PPA, 993 A.2d 933 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (intermediate court holding that CDL applies and exemptions must be express)
- Snizaski v. W.C.A.B. (Rox Coal Co.), 586 Pa. 146, 891 A.2d 1267 (Pa. 2006) (CDL publication and regulatory procedures considerations)
- Borough of Bedford v. D.E.P., 972 A.2d 53 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (statutory regulatory requirements and exemptions considerations)
- Clement & Muller, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 552 Pa. 317, 715 A.2d 397 (Pa. 1998) (notwithstanding-any-law provisos and express exemptions discussion)