City of Clinton v. S. Paramedic Servs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–870.,11–870.
• Citation: 387 S.W.3d 137,2012 Ark. 88
• Parties: CITY OF CLINTON, Appellant v. SOUTHERN PARAMEDIC SERVICES, INC., Gary Padget, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2012 Ark. 88

387 S.W.3d 137

CITY OF CLINTON, Appellant

v.SOUTHERN PARAMEDIC SERVICES, INC., Gary Padget, et al., Appellees.

No. 11–870.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 1, 2012.

Michael Allen Mosley, North Little Rock, for appellant.

Ed Daniel, IV and Kevin A. Crass, Little Rock, for appellee.

ROBERT L. BROWN, Justice.

This case began as a criminal action filed in Van Buren County District Court by the appellant, City of Clinton (the City), against the appellee, Southern Paramedic Services, Inc. (Southern Paramedic), alleging that Southern Paramedic violated two of the City ordinances, 2005–22 and 2005–23, which prohibited an entity from engaging in the ambulance business within the City without first obtaining a franchise from the City Council. Ordinances 2005–22 and 2005–23, were passed on October 25, 2005. The ordinances further prohibited any entity from offering or providing an “intra city ambulance service of any kind” or providing “any intercity ambulance service of any kind that originated within the city limits of Clinton without having first obtained a franchise.” ¹ The City reserved the right to grant an exclusive franchise to any business that provided ambulance service for operation within the city of Clinton.

The dispute in this appeal centers on the proper interpretation of a specific phrase in Arkansas's Municipal Ambulance Licensing Act, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 14–266–101 to –110. Under the Act, cities like Clinton are authorized to franchise ambulance services whether municipally owned or otherwise. Ark.Code Ann. § 14–266–105(a)(2) (Repl.1998). Cities like Clinton are further permitted to “regulate all intracity patient transports, all intercity patient transports, and all intracounty patient transports originating from within the regulating city.” Ark.Code Ann. § 14–266–105(a)(5) (Repl.1998). There is, however, a limitation to such cities. They “shall not restrict or allow local regulation of not-for-hire on a fee-for-service basis transportation, any intercounty patient transports, or intercity patient transports to or from medical facilities within the regulating city originating from anywhere outside the regulating city.” Ark.Code Ann. § 14–266–105(a)(5) (Repl.1998) (emphasis added). Thus, if an ambulance service provider is “not-for-hire on a fee-for-service basis,” it is exempt from regulation under the Act. The crux of this appeal is whether Southern Paramedic qualifies for the exemption as such a provider under subsection 105(a)(5).

In 2005, the City granted an exclusive franchise to Vital Link, an ambulance provider, under ordinances 2005–22 and 2005–23. Notwithstanding this grant, Southern Paramedic undisputedly responded to calls originating within the City from Van Buren Hospital (Hospital) and transported patients from the Hospital to locations outside of Van Buren County. The City filed a criminal action against Southern Paramedic in district court, asserting that it had violated the City ordinances. Under ordinance 2005–22, each transport was a separate violation with a possible punishment of not less than $100 and not more than $500 per transport.

Southern Paramedic answered that, under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14–266–102, the City was not authorized to regulate by exclusive franchise any intercounty patient transports, even if they originated within the City. The district court found that the statute was ambiguous, and it issued a nolle prosequi order on November 2, 2007, finding that it would be “far more appropriate for the issue of construction of the relevant statute, Ark.Code Ann. section 14–266–105(a)(5), to be determined in a Civil Court forum.”

On December 7, 2007, the City filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Van Buren County Circuit Court against Southern Paramedic and others seeking an interpretation of section 14–266–105. An amended complaint for declaratory judgment was filed in circuit court on January 4, 2008. A counterclaim was subsequently filed by Southern Paramedic against the City. All of the defendants other than Southern Paramedic were later dismissed by the circuit court.

On April 16, 2009, the circuit court entered a judgment order finding that the only remaining defendant was Southern Paramedic. The court also found that it was undisputed that the Hospital is owned solely by Van Buren County and lies within the City. Unlike the district court, the circuit court found that section 14–266–105 was not ambiguous. The circuit court found that if a call originated within the City for transportation within the City or to another city or unincorporated area within Van Buren County, the City could exclusively franchise the provision of ambulance services. If the call originated outside of the City, it could not regulate the ambulance service absent an agreement with the other city or county, even if the call was for pick-up or drop-off at the Hospital located in the City. The court added that the City was not permitted to regulate the following ambulatory transports via exclusive franchises: (1) Not-for-hire on a fee-for-service basis transportation; (2) Any patient transports between counties; and (3) Any patient transports between cities to or from medical facilities within the City that originate outside the City.

On June 18, 2009, Southern Paramedic filed a “Petition for Further Relief and for Order to Show Cause.” In this petition, Southern Paramedic asserted four grounds for relief: (1) That it could not be restricted or locally regulated, via city ordinances, because it is a provider of “not-for-hire on a fee-for-service basis” transportation under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14–266–105(a)(5); (2) Tortious interference; (3) Inverse condemnation; and (4) Constitutional challenges to the City ordinances 2009–05 and 2009–06, as lacking any legitimate governmental purpose. Southern Paramedic also moved for temporary injunctive relief, requesting that the circuit court temporarily enjoin the City from forcing Southern Paramedic to vacate its business location and remove all of its operations from within the City.

The City responded and denied that Southern Paramedic operated on a “not for hire on a fee for service” basis. The City also asserted that Southern Paramedic's petition failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted, as well as other defenses. The City requested that the circuit court order Southern Paramedic to comply with City ordinances and not accept any ambulance transport where the transport originates in the City.

Southern Paramedic then moved to dismiss all counts raised in its “Petition for Further Relief” with the exception of Count 1, which sought interpretation of the term “not-for-hire on a fee-for-service basis” contained in section 14–266–105(a)(5). Later, the City also moved the court to interpret the same term and agreed to the dismissal of all other claims. On August 27, 2009, the circuit court entered an order granting Southern Paramedic's motion and dismissed, without prejudice, the remaining claims.²

On July 21, 2011, the circuit court entered an order interpreting the term “not-for-hire on a fee-for-service basis” in section 14–266–105(a). In that order, the court specifically found: “The City of Clinton no longer has a franchise agreement, however, both sides stipulate to and wish for this Court to interpret the statute in order to provide the City of Clinton and other related entities direction regarding how to proceed in the future.” In addition, the circuit court found that “[w]hile the issue may be currently moot, both sides stipulate it is capable of repetition yet evading review. The sides stipulate the City of Clinton would like to enter into an exclusive franchise in the future.”

Regarding the phrase “not-for-hire on a fee-for-service basis,” the circuit court found that the plain meaning of the term was “the ambulance service is not available for hire by the general public where payment would be per transport.” Based on undisputed facts, the circuit court found that “if the City of Clinton once again entered into a franchise agreement with an ambulance service other than [Southern Paramedic], [Southern Paramedic] would be exempt from transports from the Hospital to the patient's home or another medical facility. This is provided [Southern Paramedic] remains ‘not for hire’ to the general public within the City of Clinton.” The City now appeals from that decision.

The first issue that this court must resolve is whether the appealed question is moot. To reiterate, the circuit court found that the City no longer had a franchise agreement for ambulance service but both sides stipulated to and wanted the Court to interpret section 14–266–105(a) to provide the City and other related entities future direction. In reaching its conclusion, the circuit court said:

Therefore, with the agreement of both parties the Court finds as follows:

If the City of Clinton enters into an exclusive franchise with an ambulance service other than [Southern Paramedic] under the Act, [Southern Paramedic] would be exempt for ambulance transport assignments derived from the Hospital for transports to patients' homes or another medical facility. [Southern Paramedic] could not accept fee for service patient initiated transports within the City of Clinton.

(Emphasis added.) The circuit court also found that the issue was “capable of repetition yet evading review” because the City might enter into a franchise agreement with an entity other than Southern Paramedic in the future.

As a general rule, the appellate courts of this state will not review issues that are moot. Terry v. White, 374 Ark. 387, 391, 288 S.W.3d 199, 202 (2008). To do so would be to render advisory opinions, which this court will not do. Id. We have generally held that a case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. Id. In other words, a moot...