Green Alliance Taxi Cab Association Inc et al v. King County et al, No. 2:2008cv01048 - Document 71 (W.D. Wash. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER denying pltfs' 61 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting deft's 64 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Richard A Jones.(TF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Green Alliance Taxi Cab Association Inc et al v. King County et al Doc. 71 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 11 GREEN ALLIANCE TAXI CAB ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. CASE NO. C08-1048RAJ ORDER KING COUNTY, 15 Defendant. 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 18 This matter comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. 19 ## 61, 64). Plaintiffs requested oral argument; Defendant did not. The court finds these 20 motions suitable for disposition based solely on the parties’ briefing and supporting 21 evidence. For the reasons explained below, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for 22 summary judgment (Dkt. # 61) and GRANTS King County’s motion for summary 23 judgment (Dkt. # 64). 24 II. BACKGROUND1 25 Plaintiff Green Alliance Taxi Cab Association, Inc. (“Green Alliance”) is a 26 27 28 1 The court recited the facts of the case in a previous order (Dkt. # 11), but will reiterate those facts here for the sake of clarity. ORDER – 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Washington corporation formed to represent the interests of non-owner taxicab drivers in 2 Seattle and King County. Plaintiff Seattle Taxi Owners Association (“STOA”) represents 3 the interests of Seattle and King County taxicab owners and owner/operators. Plaintiffs 4 filed this lawsuit to challenge Defendant King County’s issuance of taxicab licenses 5 pursuant to a local rule. 6 King County and Defendant City of Seattle (“the City”) regulate taxicab licensing 7 in accordance with a cooperative agreement. See RCW 81.72.220. The County issues 8 for-hire driver licenses and the City issues taxicab vehicle licenses. A Seattle taxi license 9 owner must affiliate with a taxicab association with at least fifteen members. 10 King County Code (“KCC”) 6.64.700(B) provides that the total number of taxicab 11 licenses shall not exceed 561, and that the new licenses shall not be issued from the pool 12 of “reverted” licenses (previously issued licenses that have been returned to the County 13 for reasons including the death or disqualification of the license owner) unless the County 14 determines “that there is a demand for additional taxi service.” 15 If the County determines that there is demand for additional taxi service, the 16 executive services director “may issue all or a portion of those licenses through a request 17 for proposals process designed to test alternatives to the current local taxi industry 18 model.” KCC 6.64.700(C)(2). 19 In approximately May 2007, the County issued a notice of intent to adopt 20 Administrative Rule LIC 8-3, titled “Testing Alternative Ways of Restructuring Taxi 21 Associations.” In paragraph 6.1 of the proposed rule, the County proposed distributing 22 reverted taxi licenses to associations whose “ownership/management” are persons “who 23 are not current taxicab licensees in King County or the City of Seattle.” The notice of 24 intent solicited written comments from “persons interested in obtaining a taxi license 25 under a program to test alternative ways of structuring taxi associations.” 26 During May and June 2007, the County received written comments about LIC 8-3 27 28 ORDER – 2 1 from numerous parties. On approximately July 6, 2007, the County sent surveys about 2 the test project to numerous entities that had expressed interest in participating in the test 3 project. Green Alliance and STOA submitted completed surveys. 4 The County adopted the final version of Administrative Rule LIC 803 on 5 September 20, 2007. The rule set out the requirements that associations satisfy if they are 6 selected to participate in the test project. On September 21, the County wrote a letter 7 stating that Green Cab Taxi & Disabled Service (“Green Cab”) had been selected to 8 receive 50 new licenses under Rule LIC 8-3. 9 Two taxi associations filed a lawsuit against the County in King County Superior 10 Court, contending that the County had violated the KCC by not issuing a request for 11 proposals (“RFP”) for its test project before selecting Green Cab. 12 On March 6, 2008, the County issued an RFP, which provided that licenses would 13 be issued to an association whose ownership/management were not current taxicab 14 licensees in the County or the City. The RFP also required that the taxi association 15 selected must “agree . . . to recognize and bargain with the collective bargaining agent for 16 [its] drivers/employees.” Neeleman Decl. (Dkt. # 22), Ex. C (the RFP). The RFP 17 furthermore required that the taxi association selected must agree to utilize hybrid electric 18 vehicles “with a minimum rating of 40 miles per gallon in the city.” Rule LIC 8-3 § 19 6.4.4. Green Alliance responded to the RFP. 20 On May 23, 2008, the County issued a press release stating that it selected Green 21 Cab to receive the licenses to be issued under the RFP. One of the RFP graders was 22 County Chief Administrative Officer James Buck, who had originally selected Green Cab 23 prior to the RFP process started. Buck awarded Green Cab a perfect score on the RFP. 24 No other grader gave Green Cab a perfect score, but all graders gave Green Cab the 25 highest (or tied with the highest) score compared to the other applicants. 26 Green Alliance and STOA filed a lawsuit, requesting that the court invalidate Rule 27 28 ORDER – 3 1 LIC 8-3 and enjoin the County from issuing licenses to Green Cab. The court denied the 2 Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, and the parties then cross-moved for 3 summary judgment. The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 4 21), granted the County’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 24), granted the 5 County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. # 41), and granted Plaintiffs’ 6 motion for leave to amend (Dkt. # 34). Plaintiffs Green Alliance and STOA amended their complaint (Dkt. # 58) to 7 8 include a claim that the fuel efficiency requirements set forth in Rule LIC 8-3 and the 9 RFP are preempted by the automobile fuel economy provisions of the Energy Policy and 10 Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), 49 U.S.C. §§ 39,201-39,219. Plaintiffs then moved 11 for summary judgment (Dkt. # 61) on the new claim, and the County cross-moved for 12 summary judgment (Dkt. # 64). The court now turns to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. 13 III. 14 15 A. ANALYSIS Standard of Review on Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and 16 17 the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The 18 moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of 19 material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving 20 party meets that initial burden, the opposing party must then set forth specific facts 21 showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial in order to defeat the motion. 22 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). 23 B. 24 EPCA Does Not Preempt Rule LIC 8-3 or the RFP Process. Plaintiffs contend that Rule LIC 8-3 and the RFP are preempted by the Energy 25 Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”) because EPCA contains the following 26 preemption clause: 27 28 ORDER – 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. § 32,919(a). Rule LIC 8-3 imposed the following “special conditions” upon successful respondents to the RFP: 6.4.4 Must utilize taxicab vehicles which are…hybrid electric vehicles with a minimum rating of 40 miles per gallon in the city; no older than three (3) years at the time of licensing; and, in no case, may be in operation as a taxicab beyond eight (8) years of age; provided, however, that the taxi association may operate, up to but not exceeding 10% of the total licenses issued pursuant to this test as hybrid electric vehicles with a minimum rating of 32 miles per gallon in the city; and, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6.4.5 Must provide 10% of the number of reverted licenses issued as wheelchair accessible vehicles; provided, however, the requirements of 6.4.4. above, are waived until hybrid vehicles capable of meeting the ADA accessibility regulations and 6.4.4. are available commercially, whereupon, the ADA and 6.4.4. compliant vehicles must be used within one year of their commercial availability. See Neeleman Decl., Ex. C. Plaintiffs contend that because these sections of Rule LIC 83 impose mandatory fuel economy requirements, they “relate to” fuel economy standards and thus run afoul of EPCA. See Pltfs.’ Mot. Summ. J. (Dkt. # 61) at 7. Plaintiffs claim that EPCA is an example of “express preemption,” which is one of the three bases courts typically use in finding Congressional intent to preempt local law. See Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing the three bases for federal preemption of local law: express preemption, field preemption, and conflict preemption). Defendants contend that Rule LIC 8-3 and the RFP are consistent with EPCA because Congress in enacting EPCA did not intend to preempt a “voluntary incentive program to utilize hybrid taxicabs.” Defs.’ Reply (Dkt # 66) at 2. But according to the Plaintiffs, Rule LIC 8-3 and the RFP are mandatory, not voluntary, so EPCA preempts them. See Pltfs.’ Mot. Summ. J. (Dkt. # 61) at 7-11. 27 28 ORDER – 5 1 As support for this proposition, Plaintiffs cite Metropolitan Taxicab Board of 2 Trade v. City of New York, No. 08 Civ. 7837, 2008 WL 4866021 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 3 2008) (“Metropolitan Taxicab I”); Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade v. City of New 4 York, 633 F. Supp. 2d 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Metropolitan Taxicab II”); and Ophir v. City 5 of Boston, 647 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D. Mass. 2009). Metropolitan Taxicab I involved a 6 regulation promulgated by the New York City Taxicab & Limousine Commission (TLC); 7 the regulation required all new taxicabs to meet a minimum fuel efficiency standard by 8 certain deadlines. 2008 WL 4866021 at *2. The effect of the regulation was essentially 9 to mandate that all taxicabs be hybrids by the end of the transition period, because only 10 hybrids could meet the fuel efficiency standard. The court found that such rules “set 11 standards that relate to an average number of miles that New York City taxicabs must 12 travel per gallon of gasoline.” Id., 2008 WL 4866021 at *9. The court also found that 13 the rules imposed a mandate on taxicabs. Id., 2008 WL 4866021 at *11. The court 14 concluded that the rules were most likely preempted by EPCA and thus the plaintiffs 15 showed a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. Id., 2008 WL 4866021 at 16 *12. 17 In Metropolitan Taxicab II, the court considered whether the TLC could impose 18 new regulations to provide financial incentives for taxicab fleet owners to purchase 19 hybrid vehicles. The new regulations increased the lease rate for taxi fleet owners who 20 purchased hybrid taxis and reduced the lease rate for owners who continued to use non- 21 hybrid vehicles. Metropolitan Taxicab II, 633 F. Supp. 2d at 85. In deciding the case, 22 the court followed the rule that “a local law is preempted if it directly regulates within a 23 field preempted by Congress, or if it indirectly regulates within a preempted field in such 24 a way that effectively mandates a specific, preempted outcome.” Id., 633 F. Supp. 2d at 25 95. The court found that the financial incentives to purchase hybrids and the 26 disincentives for using non-hybrids amounted to a mandate requiring taxi fleet owners to 27 28 ORDER – 6 1 purchase hybrids, and that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the TLC 2 rules were related to fuel economy standards and thus preempted by EPCA. However, 3 the court was careful to clarify which types of rules were not preempted by EPCA. The 4 court noted that cities may establish programs to incentivize (but not mandate) the 5 purchase of certain types of taxis. Id., 633 F. Supp. 2d at 87. Citing N.Y. State 6 Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 7 (1995), and California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., 519 8 U.S. 316 (1997), the Metropolitan Taxicab II court held that a local law “is not 9 preempted when it only indirectly regulates parties within a preempted field and presents 10 regulated parties with viable, non-preempted options.” Metropolitan Taxicab II, 633 F. 11 Supp. 2d at 95-96 (emphasis added). If a regulation “alters the incentives, but does not 12 dictate the choices” facing regulated parties, then the regulation is not a mandate 13 preempted by EPCA. Id., 633 F. Supp. 2d at 95 (quoting Dillingham, 519 U.S. at 334). 14 In Ophir, the city of Boston implemented a rule that each taxi placed in service 15 after August 2008 must be a hybrid, and due to the city’s mandatory taxi retirement 16 procedures, the rule effectively mandated that all taxis in the city would be hybrids by 17 2015. 647 F. Supp. 2d at 87-88. The court cited the Metropolitan Taxicab decisions with 18 favor and found that Boston’s rule imposed a requirement even more stringent than the 19 financial incentives found to be preempted in Metropolitan Taxicab II. Id., 647 F. Supp. 20 2d at 91. The court noted that “[w]hile there is no doubt but that regulation of taxis is 21 traditionally a local matter, the [Boston hybrid requirement] regulates in an area of 22 significant federal presence – fuel economy.” Id., 647 F. Supp. 2d at 91-92. 23 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention that the fuel economy requirements in LIC 8-3 24 are analogous to the regulations in the above cases, and thus preempted by EPCA, those 25 cases are factually distinguishable from this case. Metropolitan Taxicab I and Ophir 26 involved local regulatory programs mandating that all taxicabs meet fuel efficiency 27 28 ORDER – 7 1 requirements or be hybrid vehicles by certain dates. The rule in Metropolitan Taxicab II 2 admittedly only affected fleet owners (and presumably not individual owners), but for 3 those fleet owners, the rule essentially mandated the purchase of hybrid taxis by creating 4 a strong combination of financial incentives and disincentives. Thus, the courts handling 5 these cases all found that the regulations imposed mandates on the regulated parties. 6 In contrast, here King County implemented a voluntary incentive program. The 7 program is small in scope, involving the issuance of a mere 50 taxicab licenses. LIC 8-3 8 allows entities to opt in to a licensing program and adopt its requirements. LIC 8-3 does 9 not require Plaintiffs or any other taxicab owner to do anything – they can choose to enter 10 the program and follow the fuel efficiency rule or refrain from entering the program and 11 not be bound by the rule. Plaintiffs have other means of obtaining taxi licenses, namely 12 purchasing or otherwise transferring them on the open market. Per the reasoning in 13 Metropolitan Taxicab II, a rule incentivizing the purchase or use of hybrid vehicles is 14 legitimate as long as it does not compel or bind parties to a particular choice. Here, LIC 15 8-3 establishes a voluntary program and does not constitute a mandate applicable to the 16 entire taxi industry. 17 Plaintiffs contend that LIC 8-3 directly regulates fuel economy standards and thus 18 is automatically preempted per the reasoning in Metropolitan II. They argue that the 19 court need not address whether LIC 8-3 indirectly regulates to effectively mandate a 20 preempted outcome. Here, the court finds that LIC 8-3 does not directly regulate fuel 21 economy standards. The County merely established a test program and gave interested 22 parties the opportunity to participate in this alternative if they met all of the requirements 23 imposed by LIC 8-3. Parties chose whether to apply for the program, and the fuel 24 economy standards do not regulate the entire taxicab industry. At most, LIC 8-3 is an 25 indirect regulation, and even if that is true, the program does not amount to a mandate 26 and thus is not comparable to the programs in the cases cited by Plaintiffs. 27 28 ORDER – 8 1 According to the cases summarized above, only a mandate can be a legal 2 regulation “related to” fuel economy standards and thus preempted by EPCA. See 3 Metropolitan Taxicab II, 633 F. Supp. 2d at 93 (noting that a preemption analysis is 4 irrelevant if a particular rule is not a mandate, because the rule “is not forcing [the 5 regulated parties] to take any new action - much less a potentially preempted action.”). A 6 voluntary program incentivizing the purchase of higher-fuel-economy vehicles, as was 7 implemented by King County, is not a mandate and thus the court need not further 8 engage in a preemption analysis. Because the court concludes that EPCA does not apply, 9 the Plaintiffs’ remaining claim fails as a matter of law. III. CONCLUSION 10 11 For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. # 61) and 12 GRANTS Defendant’s motion (Dkt. # 64). The court directs the clerk to enter judgment 13 for Defendant. 14 15 DATED this 28th day of June, 2010. 16 A 17 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
