MCT Transportation Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 47
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Petitioners challenge 53 Pa.C.S. § 5707(b), which authorizes the Parking Authority's annual budget and fee schedule for Philadelphia taxis and limousines.
- Act 94 (2004) shifted city regulation of taxi and limousine services to the Parking Authority, funding via a dedicated Philadelphia Taxicab and Limousine Regulatory Fund.
- The Parking Authority collects, and the fund allocates, fees from regulated operators; fees are set annually under § 5707(b).
- The 2013 budget/fee schedule was approved March 9, 2012, and became effective when neither Senate nor House disapproved by April 15, 2012; invoicing followed, leading to potential sanctions for nonpayment.
- Petitioners seek declaration of unconstitutionality, injunctive relief, and, in the alternative, summary relief authorizing challenge to the statute and the funding mechanism.
- The Parking Authority raised preliminary objections; issues include standing, lack of adjudicatory process, and consent to court review of constitutionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unconstitutional delegation of legislative power | Taxicab Companies argue § 5707(b) lacks standards. | Parking Authority contends budget/fees are legislatively set via Appropriations Committees. | Unconstitutional delegation |
| Due process failure for fee schedule | Section 5707(b) deprives hearing before/after fees take effect. | Fees become effective via legislative review; no adjudication required. | Violates due process |
| Separation of powers concerns | Gives Parking Authority autocratic control over spending and fees. | Legislature directs through Appropriations Committees; review is legislative, not adjudicatory. | Constitutional separation of powers violated |
| Severability of § 5707(b) from Act 94 | If § 5707(b) unconstitutional, Act 94 should fail entirely. | Prohibits severability analysis; funding mechanism can be invalidated while rest remains. | Severability not granted; issue denied (fact-specific) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania v. Driscoll, 343 Pa. 109, 21 A.2d 912 (Pa. 1941) (requires definite standards to limit delegated power)
- National Automobile Service Corp. v. Barfod, 289 Pa. 307, 137 A. 601 (Pa. 1927) (due process requires notice/hearing before major action)
- Association of Settlement Companies v. Department of Banking, 977 A.2d 1257 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (lacks standards to guide regulation, unconstitutional delegation)
- United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, Inc. v. Department of Banking, 991 A.2d 370 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (reiterates need for standards to guide agency regulation; unconstitutional if absent)
- Shapp v. Sloan, 480 Pa. 449, 391 A.2d 595 (Pa. 1978) (budget/appropriation process essential; funds appropriated by General Assembly)
- Pennsylvania Coal Mining Association v. Insurance Department, 471 Pa. 437, 370 A.2d 685 (Pa. 1977) (due process in pricing/insurance context; notice before action required)