Rothenberg v. Daus

• Decision Date: 31 July 2014
• Docket Number: 08-Cv-567 (SHS)
• Parties: SAUL ROTHENBERG, EBRAHIM ABOOD, TOBBY KOMBO, KONSTANTINOS KATSIGIANNIS, BOUBACAR DOUMBIA, ROBERT DYCE, and MOUSTACH ALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW DAUS, DIANE MCGRATH- MCKECHNIE, JOSEPH ECKSTEIN, ELIZABETH BONINA, THOMAS COYNE, THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

SAUL ROTHENBERG, EBRAHIM ABOOD, TOBBY KOMBO, KONSTANTINOS

KATSIGIANNIS, BOUBACAR DOUMBIA, ROBERT DYCE, and MOUSTACH ALI,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW DAUS, DIANE MCGRATH- MCKECHNIE, JOSEPH ECKSTEIN,ELIZABETH BONINA, THOMAS COYNE, THE NEW YORK CITY TAXIAND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

08-Cv-567 (SHS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

July 31, 2014

OPINION & ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Background.........................................................................................................4

A. The TLC issues and revokes licenses for taxicab and FHV drivers pursuant to New York City law. ................ 4

B. The TLC suspended and then revoked plaintiffs' licenses to drive taxicabs and FHVs. ............ 6

C. Procedural History..........................8

II. Legal Standard ..................................................................................................10

III. Discussion..........................................................................................................10

A. Plaintiffs have a protected property interest in their licenses...............11

B. All plaintiffs except Ali had fair warning that their conduct would result in revocation of their licenses..............13

1. Of the conviction defendants, Kombo and Dyce—but not Ali—had fair warning that their convictions would lead to revocation...............14

2. Drug test plaintiffs had fair warning that a failed drug test would prompt revocation................21

C. Conviction plaintiffs had adequate notice of their hearings but drug test plaintiffs lacked adequate notice..............30

1. Hearing notices to conviction plaintiffs were adequate, because further specification of the alleged misconduct would have provided no further due process................30

2. Hearing notices to drug test plaintiffs were inadequate because they provided plaintiffs with no information about what drug was present..................33

D. Plaintiffs' right to a meaningful hearing was adequately protected by the combination of their post-deprivation hearings and their right to Article 78 review............................36

1. Plaintiffs were not entitled to pre-deprivation hearings............36

2. Plaintiffs' TLC adjudications—except for Ali's—represented adequate post-deprivation hearings............37

E. A genuine dispute remains as to the impartiality of the ALJs................43

F. This Court will not exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims, which could have been asserted in Article 78 proceedings..................46

IV. Conclusion.........................................................................................................49

SIDNEY H. STEIN, U.S. District Judge.

Plaintiffs—former drivers of taxicabs and for-hire vehicles ("FHVs")—have sued the City of New York and several officials for alleged violations of their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, based on the revocation of their licenses by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC"). Plaintiffs Ebrahim Abood, Boubacar Doumbia, Konstantinos Katsigiannis, and Saul Rothenberg ("drug test plaintiffs") failed a required annual drug test, prompting the suspensions and revocations of their licenses. Plaintiffs Robert Dyce, Tobby Kombo, and Moustach Ali ("conviction plaintiffs") were arrested and then convicted for off-duty conduct, leading to their suspensions and revocations. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Matthew Daus, Diane McKechnie, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth Bonina, Thomas Coyne, and the City of New York violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process in four principal ways: (1) the regulations putatively supporting plaintiffs' revocations were unconstitutionally vague; (2) the notices of their revocation hearings were constitutionally inadequate; (3) the revocation hearings were sham hearings that did not provide plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and (4) the administrative law judges ("ALJs") conducting the hearings were impermissibly biased against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also complain that their license revocations violated several state laws.

Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, on remand after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part an earlier grant by this Court of summary judgment for defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants partial summary judgment to defendants, grants partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, and concludes that a genuine issue of material fact persists as to whether plaintiffs had the benefit of an impartial tribunal. The Court also concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' state law claims or alternatively declinesto exercise jurisdiction over those claims and therefore dismisses plaintiffs' state law claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The TLC issues and revokes licenses for taxicab and FHV drivers pursuant to New York City law.

The New York City Charter establishes the TLC, "the purposes of which shall be the continuance, further development and improvement of taxi and limousine service in the city of New York." N.Y.C. Charter § 2300. The TLC comprises nine commissioners, including a chairman, appointed by the Mayor of New York City. Id. § 2301(a), (c). Its charge includes the promulgation of standards for safety and licensing related to taxis and limousines. Id. § 2300. The City Charter vests specific powers in the TLC, including "[t]he issuance, revocation, [and] suspension of licenses for drivers, chauffeurs, owners or operators of vehicles, other than licenses issued pursuant to state law, . . . and the establishment of qualifying standards required for such licenses." Id. § 2303(b)(5). That section further provides to the TLC residual authority to "formulat[e], promulgat[e] and effectuat[e] [] rules and regulations reasonably designed to carry out the purposes, terms and provisions of this chapter." Id. § 2303(b)(11).

Any driver of a taxicab or FHV in New York City must obtain a license from the TLC. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 19-505(a) (2009). Where the Charter creates the general power to license drivers and set standards for licensure, the New York City Administrative Code provides further instruction on those standards. For example, it requires that license applicants "[b]e fingerprinted," id. § 19-505(b)(4), "[b]e of good moral character," id. § 19-505(b)(5), and "[n]ot be addicted to the use of drugs or intoxicating liquors," id. § 19-505(b)(6).

Relying on the authority granted to it by the City Charter and on the more specific instructions in the Administrative Code, the TLC has promulgated licensing requirements for drivers of taxicabs. Therequirements for drivers of taxicabs are codified in Chapter 2 of the TLC Rules, and the requirements for FHV drivers are codified in Chapter 6.¹

Some of the requirements incumbent on TLC-licensed drivers are specific. For example, a driver is prohibited from "threaten[ing], harass[ing] or abus[ing] any passenger" while on-duty, TLC Rules § 2-60(a); "distract[ing] or attempt[ing] to distract a service animal accompanying a person with a disability," id.; committing or attempting "fraud, misrepresentation or larceny against a passenger" while on-duty, id. § 2-61(a)(1); and "offer[ing] or giv[ing] any gift, gratuity or thing of value to any employee, representative or member of the [TLC]," id. § 2-62(a). Other requirements are more general. For example, a driver must not "commit or attempt . . . any willful act of omission or commission which is against the best interests of the public." Id. § 2-61(a)(2).

One section of the TLC Rules pertains specifically to criminal convictions, requiring drivers to "notify the [TLC] in writing of his conviction of a crime within fifteen (15) days of such conviction" and to "deliver to the [TLC] a certified copy of the certificate of disposition issued by the Clerk of Court within fifteen (15) days of sentencing." Id. § 2-63. Separately, in the section of the Rules dealing only with probationary licenses, the Rules allow for revocation of a probationary license if a driver is convicted of a crime during the probationary period. Id. § 2-04(b).

Pursuant to the City Charter's delegation to the TLC of "[t]he issuance, revocation, [and] suspension of licenses for drivers," N.Y.C. Charter § 2303(b)(5), the TLC has adopted rules to define what conduct prompts fitness hearings, suspensions, and revocations, see, e.g., TLC Rules §§ 8-14to 8-17. Section 8-15(c) of the TLC Rules allows the TLC to suspend a driver's license if a driver fails a required drug test. More generally, Section 8-15(a) allows the TLC to initiate revocation proceedings if the driver "does not meet or does not continue to meet the qualifications for licensure."

At all times relevant to this action, revocation proceedings took place under the administrative auspices of the TLC, and all fitness hearings took place before the TLC's own administrative law judges ("ALJs"). (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Undisputed Facts ("Defs.' 56.1") ¶ 28; Pls.' Post-Remand Rule 56.1 Statement in Support of Their Renewed Mot. for Summary Judgment ("Pls.' 56.1") ¶ 31.) After the facts underlying this action took place, the TLC substantially amended its adjudication rules and transferred its adjudication process to New York City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings ("OATH"). (Id. ¶ 31; Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 35, 51.)

B. The TLC suspended and then revoked plaintiffs' licenses to drive taxicabs and FHVs.

Against this regulatory backdrop, plaintiffs obtained taxicab and FHV driver's licenses from the TLC. The following facts are undisputed.

Tobby Kombo was a TLC-licensed taxicab driver when he was arrested on July 16, 2006. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 183.) Two days later, on July 18, 2006, the TLC suspended Kombo's license. (Id. ¶ 184.) Kombo pled guilty...