United Motorcoach Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Austin
| Decision Date | 17 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. A-13-CA-1006-SS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
| Parties | UNITED MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF AUSTIN, Defendant. |
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Plaintiff United Motorcoach Association, Inc.'s Motions for Preliminary Injunction [##3, 8], Defendant City of Austin's Response [#14], the parties' lists of relevant ordinance provisions [##18, 19], UMA's post-hearing briefing [##34, 35], and the City's post-hearing briefing [##31, 32, 33]; and UMA's Motion for Extension of Time [#30].1 Having reviewed the documents, the governing law, the evidence and arguments presented at the evidentiary hearing, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders.
The Plaintiff, UMA, is an association of professional bus and motorcoach companies. UMA brought this lawsuit challenging Austin City Ordinance No. 20130620-051, approved by the Austin City Council in June 2013. The Ordinance amended certain sections of the Austin City Code relatingto charter service. Its specific requirements are legion, depending on how finely they are separated,2 but the Ordinance generally seeks to regulate charter service providers offering point-to-point charter transportation within Austin city limits. UMA seeks to enjoin the City from enforcing the Ordinance on the theory the Ordinance is preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501(a)(1)(C), which is a provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).
The Ordinance amends certain provisions contained in Austin City Code Chapter 13-2, the City's Ground Transportation Code. The Ordinance begins by making definitional adjustments to the Ground Transportation Code to alter or clarify the scope of the City's regulations.
First, the Ordinance alters the definition of "prearranged service" (alterations made by the Ordinance are underlined):
PREARRANGED SERVICE means ground transportation service that is scheduled by an initial reservation a minimum of one half hour in advance of the trip, excluding performance under a corporate contract.
Compl. [#1-1], Ex. A (Ordinance), at 1 (modifying Austin City Code § 13-2-1(20)).
Second, the Ordinance alters the definition of "charter service" as follows:
Charter service consists of transporting passengers using motorized vehicles such as vans, minibuses, buses or motor coaches to transport a group or individual passengers for prearranged service on irregular routes and schedules with a rate of fare based either on a flat rate for each passenger or on an hourly rate operated from locations within the city to locations inside the city (point-to-point and continuous trips) from the same point of origin or from various points of origin to a single point of destination. Charter service does not include services owned, contracted, orsubcontracted by a governmental entity, or independent or consolidated school district.
Id. (modifying Austin City Code § 13-2-251).
The City requires any person operating a charter service to obtain a decal signifying the City has provided the person with the authority to operate such a service. Austin City Code § 13-2-252(A). The Ordinance requires a holder of a charter service operating authority to comply with a number of additional requirements.
First, the holder must use a van, minibus, bus, or motorcoach that meets five criteria. The vehicle must: (1) have an occupancy of more than six persons, including the driver; (2) "have no top light or other electric identification sign;" (3) "not use a taximeter;" (4) "[have] no checkered logo/pattern or insignia to represent the vehicle as a taxicab;" and (5) "have identical markings on all vehicles that are unique to that holder," if identifying logos or markings are used at all. Ordinance [#1-1], at 2 (modifying Austin City Code § 13-2-252). Second, the holder must provide the City with a list of its drivers who possess commercial driver's licenses, including license numbers and copies of those licenses. Id.
Third, the holder must provide proof each vehicle with a capacity of sixteen or more passengers has passed a Texas Department of Transportation annual vehicle inspection. Id. To pass a safety inspection, a vehicle must meet a host of requirements.3 Specifically, the vehicle must: (1) conform to state safety standards; (2) have a chemical fire extinguisher mounted within reach of the driver; (3) have a spare tire, jack, and lug nut wrench, mounted appropriately; (4) be in dependable and safe condition; (5) have a physical barrier between passengers and luggage; (6) have some formof two-way communication equipment, such as a radio; (7) have functioning air conditioning and heating; (8) have a reasonably clean exterior; (9) have matching wheel covers, if wheel covers are used; (10) have no missing or damaged body moldings or trim; (11) have no ripped or torn vehicle body parts; (12) have no large dents; (13) have no serious windshield or mirror damage; (14) have no rusted, flaking, or faded exterior paint; (15) have a reasonably clean and clear interior; (16) contain no more than five newspapers or similar items; (17) have a clear and adequate trunk and storage space; (18) have matching interior upholstery; (19) have no broken or damaged interior parts affecting operation or safety; (20) have neat and inconspicuous interior repairs; and (21) have no rusted, flaking, or faded interior paint. Austin City Code § 13-2-142.
Fourth, the holder may not "hold itself out as a taxi service . . . and cannot accept passengers less than one half hour in advance of commencement of scheduled service." Ordinance [#1-1], at 2. Fifth, the driver must keep a "trip ticket" in the vehicle, in either written or electronic form. Id. The trip ticket must include: (1) the date of the trip, and the name, address, and phone number of the person who booked or paid for the trip; (2) the name, address, and phone number of at least one passenger; (3) the pickup location, stops, and drop off location; (4) the date and time the reservation was made, the scheduled pick-up time, and the actual pick-up time; (5) the rate charged for the service; and (6) the identity of the owner of the vehicle and the name, address, and phone number of the holder of the operating authority. Id. at 3.
Because the Ground Transportation Code is penal in nature, violations of the Ordinance are Class C misdemeanors. Penalties include a fine of up to $500 and possible impoundment of the offending vehicle.
The Ordinance was passed in late June 2013, and became effective July 1, 2013. UMA filed this lawsuit on November 21, 2013. After reviewing UMA's initial motions, the Court called a status conference. The conference, like many of the pleadings in this case, covered UMA's numerous and wide-ranging complaints under a variety of theories. In an effort to simplify and clarify the precise issues before the Court, UMA was ordered to file "a list of each specific provision of [the Ordinance] it contends should be enjoined because it impermissibly regulates the operating authority of charter bus transportation providers." Order of Jan. 3, 2014.4 The City was given an opportunity to respond, and did so. Thereafter, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the parties presented testimony from a representative of the City and various industry players. After the hearing, the parties, at the Court's direction, provided additional letter briefs, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and proposed judgments. The parties have had ample opportunity to present their positions, and the motions are now ripe for determination.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must satisfy each of four criteria: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) the substantial injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party against whom the injunction is sought; and (4) granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo Cnty., Tex., Inc. v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2012). "[A]preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should not be granted unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The parties agree, however, that in cases involving express preemption, a finding of a substantial likelihood of success "carries with it a determination that the other three requirements have been satisfied." Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox, 897 F.2d 773, 783 (5th Cir. 1990).
The FAAAA preempts state or local regulations "relating to . . . the authority to provide intrastate or interstate charter bus transportation." 49 U.S.C. § 14501(a)(1)(C). This express preemption provision is followed immediately by apreemption exception provision, which provides § 14501(a)(1) "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles." Id. § 14501(a)(2). This case turns primarily on whether the City's Ordinance falls within the scope of this safety exception.
As the United States Supreme Court has opined, "[i]n all preemption cases . . . [courts] start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded . . . unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996). Because of this assumption, "[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone" in preemption cases. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96, 103 (1963). Analyzing a nearly identical preemption exception provision elsewhere in...
To continue reading
Request your trial