Germantown Cab Co. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

134 A.3d 1115

GERMANTOWN CAB COMPANY, Appellant

v.PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY.

No. 1078 C.D. 2015

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Feb. 9, 2016.

Decided March 1, 2016.

Reargument Denied April 20, 2016.

Michael S. Henry, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Dennis G. Weldon, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, and ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, and JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge.

OPINION BY Judge COVEY.

Germantown Cab Company (Germantown) appeals from the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court's (trial court) May 14, 2015 order, denying its appeal from the Philadelphia Parking Authority's (Authority) decision. Germantown essentially presents two issues for this Court's review: (1) whether the Authority violated this Court's January 6, 2012 order enjoining the Authority from confiscating or impounding cars for violating Section 5714(a) of the act commonly known as the Parking Authority Law (Act),¹ and (2) whether the Authority violated Germantown's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States (U.S.) Constitution.²

Background

Germantown states in its brief that it "is a [Public Utility Commission (]PUC [) ]-certified motor carrier that operates approximately 170 taxicabs in a designated service territory that is divided by the Philadelphia–Montgomery County line. [Germantown] does not own any medallions and does not have a certificate of public convenience issued by the [Authority ]." Germantown Br. at 6 (emphasis added). However, this Court stated in Germantown Cab Company v. Public Utility Commission, 97 A.3d 410 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) : "[U]nder both Act 94 and Act 119, [Section 5714(d)(2) of the Act], 53 Pa.C.S. § 5714(d)(2) explicitly preserved Germantown's authority to conduct partial-rights operations in that portion of the City as stated in its Commission-issued CPC [certificate of public convenience] and specifically transferred regulatory authority over its operations in that area to the Authority. " Germantown, 97 A.3d at 417 (emphasis added); see also Bucks Cnty. Servs., Inc. v. Phila. Parking Auth., 104 A.3d 604 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) ("the [Authority] has the power to promulgate and enforce regulations relating to service provided by [Germantown] within the City of Philadelphia.").

Section 5714 of the Act provides in relevant part:

(a) Vehicles generally. —(1) A vehicle may not be operated as a taxicab with citywide call or demand rights in cities of the first class unless a certificate of public convenience is issued by the^[3][A]uthority authorizing the operation of the taxicab and a medallion is attached to the hood of the vehicle. Prior to the issuance of a medallion, the certificate holder shall have its vehicle inspected by the [A]uthority.

(2) The [A]uthority shall require, by order or regulation, that each vehicle within its jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter submit to periodic inspections by [A]uthority personnel to ensure that the vehicle meets the requirements of this subchapter and [A]uthority regulations.

....

(c) Service. —A vehicle authorized by a certificate to provide call or demand service within cities of the first class may transport persons and their baggage upon call or demand and parcels, packages and property at the same basic metered rates charged to passengers:

(1) between points in the city of the first class for which its certificate is issued;

(2) from any point in the city of the first class for which its certificate is issued to any point in this Commonwealth;

(3) from any point in this Commonwealth to any point in the city of the first class for which its certificate is issued if the request for service for such transportation is received by call to its centralized dispatch system; and

(4) from any point in the city of the first class for which its certificate is issued to any point outside this Commonwealth as a continuous part of a trip.

....

(e) Penalties involving certificated taxicabs. —Operating a certificated taxicab in violation of subsections (a) and (b) or authorizing or permitting such operation is a non[-]traffic summary offense. Offenders of subsections (a) and (b) may also be subject to civil penalties pursuant to section 5725 (relating to civil penalties).

(f) Unauthorized vehicles. —Operating an unauthorized vehicle as a taxicab, or giving the appearance of offering call or demand service with an unauthorized vehicle, without first having received a certificate of public convenience and a medallion is a non[-]traffic summary offense in the first instance and a misdemeanor of the third degree for each offense thereafter. The owner and the driver of a vehicle being operated as or appearing as a taxicab without a certificate of public convenience and a medallion are also subject to civil penalties pursuant to section 5725. Civil penalties which have been assessed and collected shall be deposited in the fund.

(g) Confiscation and impoundment of vehicles. —

(1) The [A]uthority is empowered to confiscate and impound vehicles, medallions and equipment which are utilized to provide call or demand service in cities of the first class without a proper certificate of public convenience issued by the authority or which are in violation of regulations of the authority.^[4] Upon satisfaction of all penalties imposed and all outstanding fines assessed against the owner or operator of the confiscated vehicle and payment of the costs of the [A]uthority associated with confiscation and impoundment, the vehicle, medallion and equipment shall be returned to its registered owner or registered lienholder.

53 Pa.C.S. § 5714.

This Court in Sawink, Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 34 A.3d 926 (Pa.Cmwlth.), aff'd, 618 Pa. 466, 57 A.3d 644 (2012) (per curiam ), held that "Section 5714 of the [Act] does not authorize the impoundment sanction where a taxicab, certificated by the PUC, accepts a hail in Philadelphia in violation of Section 5714(a) [of the Act.]" Id. at 932.

Facts

On August 1, 2014, the Authority's Taxicab and Limousine Division (TLD) Inspector James Burke (Inspector Burke) and his partner observed Germantown taxicab number G–91 pick up three passengers at 11th and Pattison Streets in Philadelphia. The inspectors followed the cab to its destination in the vicinity of 700 Annin Street, Philadelphia, whereupon they stopped the cab for providing unauthorized point to point service in Philadelphia. Upon inspection of the taxicab, the inspectors ascertained that the vehicle did not have a current TLD inspection sticker or a partition shield, had not been inspected by the Authority's TLD, and the driver was not an Authority certified driver. Inspector Burke stated that because it is a safety concern for taxicabs to be driven in Philadelphia without an inspection, it impounded Germantown's taxicab pursuant to Section 1017.32 of the Authority's Regulations, 52 Pa.Code § 1017.32.

On August 7, 2014, an impoundment hearing was held before an Authority hearing officer. On September 3, 2014, the Authority entered an order determining that the impoundment was proper. On October 20, 2014, Germantown appealed from the Authority's order to the trial court. On May 14, 2015, the trial court denied Germantown's appeal. Germantown appealed to this Court.⁵

Discussion

Germantown first argues that the Authority violated this Court's January 6, 2012 order enjoining the Authority from confiscating or impounding cars for violation of Section 5714(a) of the Act. Specifically, Germantown contends that this Court's order in Sawink prohibits any impoundment of taxicabs for violating Section 5714(a) of the Act unless or until that order has been dissolved, vacated or modified by this Court.

Initially, the Sawink Court's Order expressly stated:

AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2012, the motion for summary relief filed by Sawink, Inc., Germantown Cab Company and Rosemont Taxicab Co., Inc. is hereby GRANTED. The [Authority ] is enjoined from confiscating or impounding the taxicabs of Sawink, Inc., Germantown Cab Company and Rosemont Taxicab Co., Inc. where one of its taxicabs has committed a violation of Section 5714(a) of the [Act ], ... in a manner consistent with the conduct that prompted the impoundments referenced in the above-captioned petition for review. This injunction does not restrict the [Authority] with respect to the imposition of other sanctions authorized by the [Act].

Sawink, Inc., 34 A.3d at 932 (emphasis added). Germantown argues that because the Sawink Court enjoined the Authority from confiscating or impounding Germantown's taxicabs where one of its taxicabs has committed a violation of Section 5714(a) of the Act, the Authority is forever enjoined from confiscating or impounding Germantown's taxicabs pursuant to Section 5714 of the Act until such Order is dissolved, vacated or modified.

However, the Sawink Court explicitly stated:

Section 5714(g) [of the Act] does not empower the Authority to impound taxicabs licensed by the PUC when they commit a territorial violation proscribed by Subsection (a) of Section 5714 [of the Act], i.e., picking up a hail in Philadelphia. At a minimum, the statute is ambiguous, which requires a narrow construction of the impoundment penalty in favor of Petitioners.

Sawink, 34 A.3d at 930. Accordingly, Sawink is inapposite and thus not controlling. As stated in the Sawink Order: "The [Authority] is enjoined from confiscating or impounding the taxicabs of [Germantown] where one of its taxicabs has committed a violation of Section 5714(a) of the [Act], ... in a manner consistent with the conduct that prompted the impoundments referenced in the above-captioned petition for review. " Id. at 932 (emphasis added). It is undisputed that the conduct referenced in the petition for review involved a territorial violation. In the instant case, although Germantown's taxicab was stopped for providing point to point service in Philadelphia, it was impounded for its violation of Section 1017.32 of the Authority's Regulations which requires a current...