Bucks Cnty. Servs., Inc. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

• Decision Date: 17 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. 9 EAP 2017,No. 8 EAP 2017,8 EAP 2017,9 EAP 2017
• Citation: 195 A.3d 218
• Parties: BUCKS COUNTY SERVICES, INC., Concord Coach Limousine, Inc. T/A Concord Coach Taxi, Concord Coach USA, Inc. T/A Bennett CAB, Dee-Dee CAB, Inc. T/A Penn Del CAB, Germantown CAB Company, MCT Transportation, Inc. T/A Montco Suburban Taxi, and Rosemont Taxicab Co., Inc. v. PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Appeal of: Philadelphia Parking Authority Bucks County Services, Inc., Concord Coach Limousine, Inc. T/A Concord Coach Taxi, Concord Coach USA, Inc. T/A Bennett CAB, Dee-Dee CAB, Inc. T/A Penn Del CAB, Germantown CAB Company, MCT Transportation, Inc. T/A Montco Suburban Taxi, and Rosemont Taxicab Co., Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Appeal of: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

195 A.3d 218

BUCKS COUNTY SERVICES, INC., Concord Coach Limousine, Inc. T/A Concord Coach Taxi, Concord Coach USA, Inc. T/A Bennett CAB, Dee-Dee CAB, Inc. T/A Penn Del CAB, Germantown CAB Company, MCT Transportation, Inc. T/A Montco Suburban Taxi, and Rosemont Taxicab Co., Inc.

v.PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Appeal of: Philadelphia Parking Authority

Bucks County Services, Inc., Concord Coach Limousine, Inc. T/A Concord Coach Taxi, Concord Coach USA, Inc. T/A Bennett CAB, Dee-Dee CAB, Inc. T/A Penn Del CAB, Germantown CAB Company, MCT Transportation, Inc. T/A Montco Suburban Taxi, and Rosemont Taxicab Co., Inc.

v.Philadelphia Parking Authority and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Appeal of: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

No. 8 EAP 2017

No. 9 EAP 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: March 6, 2018

Decided: October 17, 2018

Michael McAuliffe Miller, Esq., Harrisburg, Adam Mark Shienvold, Esq., Carl Robert Shultz, Esq., Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Bryan L. Heulitt Jr., Esq., Dennis Gerard Weldon Jr., Esq., for Philadelphia Parking Authority, Appellant.

Bohdan R. Pankiw, Esq., Harrisburg, John Edward Herzog, Esq., Eric Albert Rohrbaugh, Esq., PA Public Utility Commission, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Appellee.

Michael Sheridan Henry, Esq., for Germantown Cab Company, Bucks County Services, Inc., Rosemont Taxicab Co., Inc., Concord Coach Taxi, Penn Del Cab, MCT Transportation, Inc., Montco Suburban Taxi, Concord Coach Limousine, Inc., Concord Coach USA, Inc., Bennett Cab, Dee-Dee Cab, Inc.

SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

Appellants, the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), appeal from the order of the Commonwealth Court invalidating a jurisdictional agreement between PPA and PUC and concluding certain PPA regulations are invalid and unenforceable as to partial rights taxicabs operating in the City of Philadelphia (City). We reverse the Commonwealth Court's order in part (with regard to amended Count IV of the Amended Petition for Review), and affirm it in part (with regard to Counts V-VIII).

Appellees are suburban common carriers which, pursuant to certificates of public convenience, are authorized to provide hail or call taxicab services, known in the industry as "call or demand services," in the Commonwealth. Appellees are also authorized to provide call or demand services in limited portions of the City, while being prohibited from providing call or demand service to the City's business or tourist districts, Philadelphia International Airport, 30^th Street Station, or City casinos. Taxicabs which are authorized to provide call or demand service throughout the City are known as "medallion taxicabs," while appellees operate what are known as "partial rights taxicabs." Prior to 2004, PUC was responsible for regulating all taxicab service in the Commonwealth. Medallion taxicabs were regulated pursuant to the Medallion Act, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 2401 - 2416 (repealed), and all other taxicabs, including those operated by appellees, were regulated pursuant to the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 101 – 3316, and PUC regulations. In 2004, the General Assembly passed Act 94,¹ which repealed the Medallion Act, and substantially reenacted Chapter 57 of the Parking Authorities Law, 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5701 - 5745. Act 94 transferred jurisdiction over and regulation of medallion taxicab service within the City from PUC to PPA. PUC retained jurisdiction over the regulation of taxicabs with PUC certificates in all other parts of the Commonwealth, and PUC and PPA were granted dual jurisdiction over partial rights taxicabs. The General Assembly recognized Act 94 created a jurisdictional overlap within the City with regard to partial rights taxicabs. Accordingly, in Section 22(4) of Act 94,² the General Assembly provided PUC and PPA the power to resolve by mutual agreement any jurisdictional issues that may be associated with that overlap.

In February 2005, PUC and PPA entered into a Jurisdictional Agreement, which was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on March 12, 2005, along with the PUC order ratifying the Jurisdictional Agreement. See 35 Pa. B. 1737 (2005). The Jurisdictional Agreement provides, in relevant part:

2. Partial Authority Taxicabs

Currently, there are carriers authorized to provide taxicab service to designated areas within [the City] on a non-city wide basis. Section 11 of Act 94[, 53 Pa.C.S. § 5714,] provides that the PPA has jurisdiction over these carrier's [sic] operations within [the City]. These carriers also hold authority from the [PUC] to serve designated areas outside [the City]. The [PUC] and the PPA agree that services provided under dual authority to/from points within the PPA authorized area (in [the City] ) to/from points within the [PUC] authorized area (outside [the City] ), will be regulated by the PPA.

Id. Pursuant to Act 94, PPA first promulgated and began enforcing taxicab regulations in 2005.³ In 2011, PPA promulgated the regulations at issue in this appeal pursuant to the Regulatory Review Act, 71 P.S. §§ 745.1 – 745.14, and the Commonwealth Documents Law, and the regulations became effective on December 3, 2011 (the 2011 regulations).

In November 2011, appellees filed a twelve count Petition for Review in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction, challenging PPA's regulation of partial rights taxicabs and seeking, in part, declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 22, 2011, Judge Butler denied injunctive relief. Bucks County Servs., Inc. v. PPA , 584 M.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 22, 2011). Following four years of additional litigation, Counts II and IV-VIII remained.⁴ Count II sought a declaration PPA failed to comply with Section 5702 of Act 94, 53 Pa.C.S. § 5702, which required PPA to submit proposed regulations to the City of the First Class Taxicab and Limousine Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee), when promulgating the 2011 regulations. Count IV challenged the Jurisdictional Agreement to the extent it affects the application and manner of enforcement of PPA's regulations regarding partial rights taxicabs. Specifically, Count IV asserted the Jurisdictional Agreement is invalid because it (1) violates Act 94, (2) violates appellees' rights to due process, and (3) violates appellees' rights to equal protection generally and under the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.⁵ The remaining counts sought to invalidate PPA's regulations relating to mileage limitations, 52 Pa. Code § 1017.4(a)⁶ (Count V), inspections and vehicle partitions, 52 Pa. Code §§ 1017.2, 1017.32(d) ; 1017.31 ; 1017.5(b)(12), 1017.21(b)⁷ (Count VI), driver certification standards, 52 Pa. Code §§ 1021.2, 1021.4(3), 1021.4(7), 1021.7, 1021.8, and 1021.9⁸ (Count VII), and annual renewal of rights and out-of-service designations, 52 Pa. Code §§ 1003.32, § 1011.3⁹ (Count VIII), on the grounds the regulations were not within PPA's statutory authority and violated appellees' substantive and procedural due process rights.

In October 2015, Judge Brobson conducted a two-day non-jury trial, framing the issues to be decided as follows:

1. With respect to Count II of the Amended Petition for Review, whether the [PPA] failed to comply with 53 Pa.C.S. § 5702 when promulgating its current regulations (published on December 3, 2011)?¹⁰

2. With respect to amended Count IV of the Amended Petition for Review, whether the Jurisdictional Agreement between the [PPA] and the PUC should be declared invalid because it violates: (a) Act 94, (b) [appellees'] rights to due process and equal protection under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, or (c) the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution?

3. With respect to Counts V through VIII of the Amended Petition for Review, whether the [PPA's] regulation of vehicle mileage limits, vehicle inspections, and vehicle partitions, and driver certification and its regulations relating to annual renewal and out-of-service designations exceed the [PPA's] statutory powers and/or violate [appellees'] substantive due process rights. Within this main issue, [appellees] advance global challenges –– i.e , challenges that apply to all of the challenged regulations –– and challenges specific to each regulation.

Bucks County Servs. Inc. v. PPA , 584 M.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmwlth. Nov. 28, 2016), slip op., at 2-3.¹¹

In November 2016, the court issued an unpublished order and opinion containing numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law. With regard to Count IV (application of the Jurisdictional Agreement), the court made the following findings of fact. The court acknowledged appellees, PPA, and PUC each called witnesses at trial to testify as to the proper interpretation and application of the Jurisdictional Agreement to certain trips and yet none of these witnesses could agree on which taxicabs trips would be regulated by each agency. Id. at 6-10, Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 13. The court found the lack of consistency in witnesses' testimony showed the Jurisdictional Agreement does not clearly designate when appellees will be subject to each agency's jurisdiction, it is impossible for appellees to determine when their taxicabs are required to be in compliance with each agency's regulations, it does not clearly and adequately define when appellees' taxicabs must be listed on Form PR-1¹² or which taxicabs are subject to the payment of annual assessments, and which taxicabs must be inspected by PPA or be subject to possible enforcement stops and/or impoundment.

Id. at 10-11, FOF Nos. 14-17. The court found the Jurisdictional Agreement, as applied to appellees, "is unclear, vague, and inadequate and, therefore, unreasonable" because it does not clearly define which entity regulates partial rights taxicab operations in the City and it creates uncertainty as to which taxicab operations are regulated by each...