Azam v. Dist. of Columbia Taxicab Comm'n

• Decision Date: 02 June 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–1558ESH
• Parties: Choudhary M. Azam, et al., Plaintiffs, v. District of Columbia Taxicab Commission, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

46 F.Supp.3d 38

Choudhary M. Azam, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
District of Columbia Taxicab Commission, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13–1558ESH

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed June 2, 2014

46 F.Supp.3d 42

Billy L. Ponds, Ponds Law Firm, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Douglas Stuart Rosenbloom, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs, individuals who are either licensed to operate taxicabs in the District of Columbia or who utilize taxicabs as passengers, bring this action against Ronald Linton, Chairman of the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission, and the District of Columbia, challenging various regulations enacted by the Commission as violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). (See 2d Am. Compl., Nov. 23, 2014 [ECF No. 17] (“2AC”).) Before the Court are plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (Pls.' Mot. for Preliminary Injunction, Nov. 23, 2013 [ECF No. 18] (“PI Mot.”)) and defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Pls.' Second Am. Compl. or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, Jan. 17, 2014 [ECF No. 19] (“Defs.' MTD/SJ Mot.”).) For the reasons stated herein, defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants' motion for summary judgment will be denied as moot.

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the D.C. Council enacted the Taxicab Service Improvement Amendment Act of 2012 (“Improvement Act”). 2012 District of Columbia Laws 19–184 (Act 19–437). One section of the Improvement Act addressed the “modernization of taxicabs” in the District, giving the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission¹ “one year from October 22, 2012, to modernize the taxicab fleet and make vehicle and equipment improvements, including installation of meter systems that would accept non-cash payment of fares and electronically collect trip-sheet data through the use of GPS technology” and installation of “[u]niform cruising lights that clearly display a taxicab's identification number, as well as identify when a taxicab is occupied, on-call, off-duty, or available to accept a fare.” See D.C. Code § 50–326(1)–(2). The Act further authorized the Taxicab Commission to collect a “passenger surcharge” for

46 F.Supp.3d 43

each ride “in an amount not to exceed 50 cents” to help fund the Commission. D.C. Code §§ 50–303, 50–320

Pursuant to the Improvement Act, the Taxicab Commission issued implementing regulations, which, in relevant part, provide for the collection of a $0.25 passenger surcharge for each trip, 31 D.C. Mun. Regs. § 1103 ; require licensed taxicab drivers to install a “modern taximeter system” (“MTS”); see 31 D.C. Mun. Regs. § 603 (“MTS Regulation”), and require drivers to install a new standardized dome light, 31 D.C. Mun. Regs. § 605 (“Dome Light Regulation”).² The aspects of the MTS Regulation and Dome Light Regulation that are at issue in the present litigation are summarized below.

MTS Regulation

The MTS Regulation requires drivers to acquire an MTS from an approved “payment service provider” (“PSP”). The MTS includes a taximeter, a global positioning system, and a payment processing unit. The MTS is turned on when a driver begins a shift and turned off when the shift ends. When it is on, the MTS connects to the PSP, which then receives and processes payment information for each trip in real time. Through the PSP, the MTS is also connected to the Taxicab Commission's Taxicab Information System (“TCIS”).³ Every 24 hours, the MTS transmits data to the TCIS, including:

(1) The date;

(2) The operator identification (Face Card) number and PVIN, reported in a unique and anonymous manner allowing the PSP to maintain a retrievable record of the operator and vehicle;

(3) The name of the taxicab company, association, or fleet if applicable;

(4) The PSP-assigned tour ID number and time at beginning of tour of duty;

(5) The time and mileage of each trip;

(6) The time of pickup and drop-off of each trip;

(7) The geospatially-recorded place of pickup and drop-off of each trip which may be generalized to census tract level;

(8) The number of passengers;

(9) The unique trip number assigned by the PSP;

(10) The taximeter fare and an itemization of the rates and charges pursuant to § 801;

(11) The form of payment (cash payment, cashless payment, voucher, or digital payment), and, if a digital payment, the name of the DDS;

(12) The time at the end of each tour of duty.

31 D.C. Mun. Regs. § 603.9(c). The MTS is also used to “provide the information necessary to ensure that the passenger surcharge has been assessed for each trip, regardless of how the fare is paid.” Id. § 603.9(d). Every seven days, the PSP must remit the passenger surcharges it collects to the District. Id. § 408.15.

Dome Light Regulation

The Dome Light Regulation requires drivers to install new “uniform” dome lights. These dome lights differ from prior lights in two material ways. First, instead of being operated by a manual switch, the dome light display is controlled by engaging the MTS. The dome light displays “ ‘Taxi For Hire’ at all times when the taxicab is available for hire” and goes

46 F.Supp.3d 44

“ ‘dark’ when the taxicab is not available for hire because the taxicab is carrying a passenger, is on call, or is off duty not intending to take on passengers.” 31 D.C. Mun. Regs. §§ 605.5, 605.6, 605.7. The “Taxi For Hire” display cannot be manually changed from inside the cab to read “Taxi On Call”, unless the driver is affiliated with an “authorized dispatch company.” (2AC ¶¶ 82–86); 31 D.C. Mun. Regs. § 602. Second, the new dome light eliminates the “Call 911” display option, which drivers formerly could activate via a manual switch inside the taxicab in the case of an emergency to alert passersby that assistance was needed. (2AC ¶¶ 74–79.)

Six individuals who are licensed to operate taxicabs in the District of Columbia (Choudhary M. Azam, Tariq Mahmood, Waleed A. Mohammed, Ahmed Djebbour, Mohammed Akram, and Mohammed Saleem Syed) and two individuals who utilize District of Columbia taxicabs as passengers (Benjamin P. Stewart and Per Kristian Hoel) have filed a complaint against the District of Columbia alleging that the MTS Regulation violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and that the Dome Light Regulation violates the Title II of the ADA and the ADEA (Counts I–IV). The complaint also seeks to hold Linton individually liable for these violations (Counts V–VII) and to hold the District liable for negligence in failing to prevent the violations (Count VIII). Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction. In response, defendants have opposed plaintiffs' motion and have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing⁴ and failure to state a claim, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6), or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

ANALYSIS

I. STATUTORY CLAIMS AGAINST THE DISTRICT

A. ADA (Count I)

Count I of plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the Dome Light Regulation violates Title II of the ADA. Title II provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”42 U.S.C.A. § 12132⁵ ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.⁶ According to plaintiffs, the

46 F.Supp.3d 45

Dome Light Regulation discriminates against taxi drivers with disabilities by (1) only allowing drivers affiliated with an approved dispatch company to have an in-car switch that changes the display from “Taxi For Hire” to “Taxi On Call”; and (2) eliminating the option to have “Call 911” displayed on the dome light. (2AC ¶¶ 14–15.) The complaint alleges that these changes “create[ ] a hazardous condition for all of the taxicab drivers and passengers, particularly taxicab drivers with a disability,” and that they were “implemented with reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of those cab drivers with disabilities.” (2AC ¶¶ 80, 91.) Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of...