Filed: Oct. 31, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2017
Summary: OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY WESLEY OLER, Jr. Senior Judge . In this case involving a part of the transportation industry known as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), 1 one such TNC (Lyft, Inc. or Appellant) has appealed from an order granting a preliminary injunction that declared TNC taxi service in the City of Philadelphia to be violative of the civil rights of riders with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act 2 and the city's Fair Practices Ordina
Summary: OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY WESLEY OLER, Jr. Senior Judge . In this case involving a part of the transportation industry known as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), 1 one such TNC (Lyft, Inc. or Appellant) has appealed from an order granting a preliminary injunction that declared TNC taxi service in the City of Philadelphia to be violative of the civil rights of riders with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act 2 and the city's Fair Practices Ordinan..
More
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY WESLEY OLER, Jr. Senior Judge.
In this case involving a part of the transportation industry known as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs),1 one such TNC (Lyft, Inc. or Appellant) has appealed from an order granting a preliminary injunction that declared TNC taxi service in the City of Philadelphia to be violative of the civil rights of riders with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act2 and the city's Fair Practices Ordinance,3 enjoining such service in the city, and directing the Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority) to "fully enforce under the law its regulations with regard to TNC as unauthorized taxi service within the City of Philadelphia."4 No briefs have been filed in response to the appeal.5
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the preliminary injunction will be vacated insofar as it applies to Appellant, on the basis of intervening, remedial legislation.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In the course of litigation against the Authority in connection with the purported operation of TNCs in the city, a preliminary injunction was issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), reading as follows:
AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2016, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiffs' Motion for a [sic] injunctive relief is GRANTED, for the reasons set forth on the record today and at previous hearings.
1. `TNC' taxi service that provides point to point service in the City of Philadelphia (such as UBER-X and LYFT) violates the civil rights of riders with disabilities in violation of the American[s] [with] Disabilities Act, and the City's Fair Practice[s] Ordinance;
2. Accordingly, such service shall cease and desist within the City of Philadelphia;
3. PPA [Philadelphia Parking Authority] shall fully enforce under the law its regulations with regard to TNC as unauthorized taxi service within the City of Philadelphia;
4. PPA shall provide a copy of this Order to all TNC taxi companies and operators to whom it may issue citations;
5. Continued violation of this Order may result in contempt of court, upon notice and hearing.[6]
On October 7, 2016, Lyft, Inc., appealed this order. In support of the appeal, Appellant argues: (1) that it is aggrieved by the order; (2) that its lack of party status, notice and an opportunity to be heard amounted to a due process violation; (3) that the omission of a requirement for security rendered the injunction a nullity under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1531(b); (4) that the lower court lacked original subject matter jurisdiction of the litigation due to the Authority's status as a Commonwealth agency; (5) that the order premised relief in part on a ground, related to the rights of disabled persons, that had been withdrawn from Plaintiffs' amended complaint; and (6) that administrative remedies had not been exhausted with respect to any purported violation of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance prior to institution of the litigation. As noted, no brief in response to these contentions has been filed. On March 2, 2017, this Court issued an order granting Lyft's motion for a stay pending disposition of the appeal.
Since the preliminary injunction was issued, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a law,7 effective November 4, 2016, dealing with issues that the injunction attempted to address. This statute provides, inter alia, for licensing of TNCs and TNC drivers by the parking authority,8 subject to numerous rules and regulations,9 and contains a section designed to protect the rights of disabled persons.10 In this regard, in a letter declining to file a brief with this Court, counsel for the Authority has included the observation that "legislation enacted subsequent to [the] Order [appealed] has mooted any question of appellant's current rights."11
DISCUSSION
With respect to the criteria for a preliminary injunction, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated as follows:
The six essential prerequisites that a moving party must demonstrate to obtain a preliminary injunction are as follows: (1) the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be compensated adequately by damages; (2) greater injury would result from refusing the injunction than from granting it, and, concomitantly, the issuance of an injunction will not substantially harm other interested parties in the proceedings; (3) the preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) the party seeking injunctive relief has a clear right to relief and is likely to prevail on the merits; (5) the injunction is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and (6) the preliminary injunction will not adversely affect the public interest.
SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 104 A.3d 495, 501-02 (Pa. 2014).
In the present case, the context for consideration of the need for a preliminary injunction has been altered by the TNC legislation effective November 4, 2016 to such a significant extent that the predicate for several of the above prerequisites for issuance of the injunction sub judice can no longer be said to exist. For this reason, the preliminary injunction will be vacated insofar as it applies to Lyft, Inc.12
ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2017, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dated October 6, 2016 is vacated insofar as it applies to Appellant Lyft, Inc.
