PHILADELPHIA – The City of Philadelphia has argued against an injunction being sought by a nonprofit corporation representing local taxi cab drivers, which alleged that its decision to modify where its drivers are positioned outside terminals at Philadelphia International Airport will cause irreparable damage to business.
Taxi Workers’ Alliance of PA and Alassan Jalloh (individually and on behalf of Taxi Workers’ Alliance and Lucky Man Cab Co.) first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 17 versus the City of Philadelphia’s Aviation Department. All parties are of Philadelphia.
(The complaint was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 19.)
“The City of Philadelphia is the owner and operator of the Philadelphia International Airport. The City of Philadelphia has, in a meeting which was held on Jan. 16, 2023, announced it is switching the zones of taxi cabs and rideshare services at the Airport effective immediately. The City of Philadelphia operates the Airport through the Department of Aviation, which was created by a voter referendum of City residents and prior to December 2022, was part of the Department of Commerce and the Division of Aviation. Pursuant to its Administrative powers under the Home Rule Charter, Section 4-300, the City has promulgated regulations for ground service transportation at the Airport,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff Jalloh is a medallion owner, through plaintiff Lucky Man Cab Co., and a taxi driver who works at the Philadelphia International Airport pursuant to the regulations. Pursuant to the regulations, taxi drivers are directed to enter the airport, where they are to enter an area designated as the Taxi cab Staging Area, where they are then dispatched on a first-come, first-serve basis to Taxi cab Feed Lines and then to Taxi cab Zones (the number of the taxi zone is undefined in the regulations), where they may be hailed by the public. Presently, the Zone designated for Taxi cabs is Zone 5, which is within the immediate view of the public when they exit the terminals. The placement of taxis in Zone 5, which is the Zone most immediate to the exit of the terminal, is important to note, as visibility is paramount to this public transportation mode known as taxi cabs.”
The suit added that taxi cabs, which do not have an “app” and may only be hailed upon request of the user, being within the sight of customers is necessary to (a) in order to prominently present to them the taxi cab vehicles, and process them immediately to their destinations and (b) indicate the amount of wait time for a taxi cab.
“The rideshare companies have their own designated zone, Zone 7, on the other side of the terminal road, where they are to wait for the app to send them to the terminal. Zone 7 was ‘carved out’ after they were moved from the other side of the terminal altogether – front of the terminal – due to rideshare drivers creating an extreme traffic problem and confusion, whilst the typical rideshare driver was negotiating between the app and the would-be passenger via the app while on course or in front of the terminal. There is no mention of a Zone for rideshare companies anywhere in the regulations – it was granted to them without express authority in the regulations. Zone 7 is outside the view of the public, however, it is not as necessary that the rideshare companies be in view of the public in view of the fact that they are hailed by phone application, not by people actually waving at them,” the suit stated.
“The limousine companies have their own Zone, Zone 6, which is behind Zone 5; limousines are reserved in advance, per the regulations. The Division of Aviation has now announced, without amending the regulations and without proper regulatory consideration of the affected parties, that the rideshare companies will be assigned to Zone 5, and the taxi cabs will be moved to Zone 7. This will have an adverse effect of further devastating the taxi cab industry, which is still suffering from the rideshare companies’ entry into the market in 2013, causing tens of millions of dollars in losses to the taxi cab business, that is largely still family-owned.”
UPDATE
The City filed a response to the motion seeking an injunction on Feb. 8, countering that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm to their business and any such responsibility for terminal pickup lanes is that of Philadelphia International Airport alone.
“Plaintiffs’ motion must be denied because they have failed to meet the basic requirements necessary to secure the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction. As an initial matter, plaintiffs have not and cannot show immediate irreparable harm as a result of a change in location where taxicabs may pick-up passengers at the airport. Loss of cab fares or ridership is a compensable injury and cannot constitute irreparable harm. Plaintiffs’ bold assertion that such change could, perhaps, end the entire taxicab industry in Philadelphia not only depends on a purely economic injury; it is also speculative and not otherwise supported by any factual allegations. Plaintiffs have not been irreparably harmed and their motion for preliminary injunction must be denied on that basis alone,” the response filing stated.
“But even if plaintiffs could show irreparable harm, their request for a preliminary injunction fails because they have not provided any independent source – state law, regulation, or otherwise – that grants them a property interest in a particular location for pick-up of passengers at the airport. Indeed, the City has authority and discretion under its own regulations to regulate traffic flow at the airport. Lastly, the equities and public interest also weigh against plaintiffs’ requested relief as the operational changes the airport is considering are in response to the public’s usage of particular modes of ground transportation and attendant safety concerns. Such changes are the airport’s responsibility and it is not in the public interest for determination of such issues to be made by plaintiffs. As a result, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied.”
The City contends that both “the balancing of the harms and the public interest weigh against an injunction that would effectively tie the hands of the airport to regulate commercial ground transportation operations.”
“Despite this, plaintiffs offer a lone assertion that an injunction would serve the public interest simply because it would require the City to promulgate regulations. However, as explained above, the City is already authorized by its regulations to take such action. Further, the airport’s consideration of this step is being made in response to the relative consumer demand for each mode of transportation at the airport and attendant safety concerns from such use. These concerns are clearly in the interest of the public who utilize the airport and weigh strongly against entry of an injunction,” per the response.
For counts of violating the Procedural Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiffs are seeking the granting of the preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs are represented by Eli Gabay of Solomon Sherman & Gabay, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Sean J. McGrath of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00233
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230101658
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com