the proper application of the federal maritime commission's precedent and series marine terminal v maryland ports ministration and the application of the undisputed precedent to the claims in this  case the parties here are all ground transportation companies that operate at the at the port in the cruise terminal in galveston they all pay their own charge by the port for access to the terminal the service and who do you want to be compared to we want to be compared to other ground transportation companies and whatever rates that we would qualify for as a ground transportation company we we want to have access to those rates other shuttle bus service both other shuttle buses and and if the this thing should be between the limousine and the shuttle bus is not a distinction that it has are a justified transportation justification then we would we would want to have access to whatever rates are lower and in this case we but we are that would be the taxis and limos taxis in the sense correct europe because if you're compared to the other shuttle buses and went along for nine or ten years without objection to the to what's going on yeah i mean that's correct and what happened in this case is that what went along for a number of years changed dramatically when the when the port wanted to they probably get a tariff to raise the negotiated rate two hundred sixty percent from eight dollars per parking space to you've gone back to what was before what would your reaction be well if it got back entirely what was before probably every actually would have been that it would have been acceptable because they had it they had fee before that's correct however having brought their case and being faced with serious financial repercussions for the way that the port was charging it was apparent that and then it gets for the commission bollixed up i guess one term for right and we're trying to figure out now i understand why there would be a distinction although you would challenge this between each of us on one hand a not required here because they feel that the service being provided access to the terminal doesn't differentiate at all the basis of transportation really characteristics it's it's access the passenger the same so the rates to the extent that they're made available to one user providing access should be uniformly offered to other users getting access so once they did that what happened at the commission the commission then only applied that analysis to the rates of would have been available so when they when they compare just the rates under no see you know gee they were only comparing the aftermath of parker's two  other often more parkers like what healthy ex did not compare but limos i mean i guess you're going to dispute this but it would seem like courts would routinely distinguish say taxis on the one hand from shuttle buses on the other around the country they absolutely might might do that now your honor here's what the commission didn't do what the commission did was they decided those that that the injury element was not satisfied because with respect to one class that it wasn't clear that we were better off starting one class or the other class they ferment if we found some of those players did nothing and some of those players had less if they had compared that it's a that we would have performed better to some extent they didn't they didn't find on the basis that there was a transportation justification for taxis and limos they could do that and under the burden shifting framework and series terminal that's would be the next step so if there is a what's the end game for you because if it goes back isn't it so pretty obvious they will find that there was a justification for treating taxis them differently from your bosses i think there is there some evidence that there was a transportation justification given consideration for taxis i do not there was no evidence for the change in the top twenty fourteen tariff change to make taxis above eight passengers completely any tax exempt there is no evidence about that and there's no evidence even avail jael of all there's no evidence that limit limousines were you know a court somehow accorded a different treatment or similar to the taxi they all just said well i think living's losing services like taxes that's all well it is isn't it the number of passengers well so they take the definition of limousine in the tariff and the definition of shuttle of the tariff they're both the definitions they're both vehicles not more than fifteen passengers the only distinction is one is a luxury sedan and the other is a van type vehicle you know that commission didn't get to try to ask the port what's the transportation justification for they go back and reexamine hilma one i think you know that one was rightfully so satisfied here because the service being provided i don't even really know what the service actually is i think it's just a few you could get through the gate and they raise money to do that that's not really you know the substance of that is an issue in this appeal but there's no difference in the service between frighted so i think they decided that correctly i'm going to have trouble understanding your argument that you don't have to meet prong one with the commission a great way pronk to you just show different charges and then i think under your theory problem for disappears as well because you just say different charges show you are injured and so all you have to do is show different charges so under your theory combined with the commission's rejection of problem one of the situation all you do is show up and say here's a list of charges who are different and the burden shifts and i write about that if you're right but in a way that the way that they cover spondon it's kind of style the argument that we were saying that well you know injury is not you have to show injury we take issue with that i mean the for the for the purpose of the burden shifting framework it's it's quite apparent and serious that that's what's happening that what's the termination just told us that if we don't have to show that we're even similarly situated and long competitive i got in the show here's my list of different charges for something that qualifies as a commission found here for should be a universal charge and then by just pointing to the fact that someone's got a lower charge will inherently automatically satisfy the injury requirement will you not yes yes i think they're correct allies one pot on your side different charges and we're not in the lowest one seven analysis as to the one class that's that's not being appealed here and that's an application of ok you point to a difference and here that difference does not demonstrate that there you didn't simple i mean i'm sure some will come and as i was saying in my questions and say taxis are different for the following reasons limos are different for following reasons that's it right yes that and that your concerns that really wasn't done in your seven and twenty fourteen therof and there are elements that are close twenty fourteen and there are some that are still ongoing with respect to for example the you know the complete exemption for have that case is that they were utilizing their right to pursue an injunction which is which is allowed in concert with the shipping act and they obtained it and that is a complaint that has a whole bunch of additional but in their exceptions to the injury determination they did not argue as they could have and probably should have that the algae erred in the injury analysis and only comparing the rates that were for shuttles like hotel shuttles under the no she general regime with what they paid under the offer parking or not but they do with your brief complained that they're now raising arguments about we mustn't taxis in terms yes your honor they did discuss the different treatment for different fees for taxi cabs and limousines which and what was the commission's explanation to fanny about limos and taxis for the different treatment problem the commission noted that all around transportation companies including taxi cabs and limousines were subjected to a general theory gene while the dishes were subjected to a few regime that was based on the number of parking good well i think that in the with the commission the different treatment that the commission focused on wasn't necessarily the different rates target of the general regime it was the different treatment between on one hand  i don't think that the commission examined whether the different rates in the note c general regime were represented a regional preference or different treatment that was a separate claim that petitioners had alleged when they were subjected to the twenty to explain what it's probably one problem three really doesn't matter to me but they need to explain when these limousine taxes versus this and there probably is an easy explanation but i don't know that we have it i don't think that correct but they failed to allege that what the rates they paid were any way based off those lower rates or that they were somehow subsidizing those other users like they are had a lot that they were subsidizing other issues users and maybe that's what they are you repeated lee and there are exceptions them and elsewhere was they were subsidizing which is just another way of saying i'm getting charged right and them for doing the same thing i think yes your honor but i think of the commission respectfully looked at look at that differently they were looking at the limousines the taxi cab companies and i think the commission viewed subsidy as we are paying more so that they s see if the fact that a party claims preferential or prejudicial rights is an injury then we only have one element what the plaintiffs are petitioners framed their argument all along was they mention the different rights they talk about taxis limos and hotel shuttles but they framed their injuries beginning it page twenty six of their brief to the a l j that the fees they were charged were in excess of their relative use of the terminal that was their injury argument they said that those fees if they were making the argument that because they were being treated they were injured by the not being charged the same zero rate for access that taxis were being charged but that sounds like oh like a waiver argument on your part it does to a certain extent if you're charged say eight dollars per month per spot if they are well it's an injury if you claim that injury so i guess itis in a sense a waiver argument right and so that's why the commission address the claims that were brought before it and there's a lot of a lot of writing opinions in this case it just seems to me like it comes down do yeah of course we treated the most in taxes differently you know is what you would say first of all we're not fully explained to the commissions is the problem the issue is line is that relies on another entity doing that if requested and then the fact that on the part that is relied on to show that there's no competition the phrase on page twelve seventy one in series that basically states that there's a competitive relationship if rates are geared to transportation factors and differing characteristics of commodities but if there's no transportation or if there's no competitive relationship based on transportation factors the responder has to come back and demonstrate that the differential line is that in our port the cargo tips so the cargo the commodity granted its people but there's a completely different purpose for taxis versus shuttle in other than what we can use well the commission said based on what and that goes back to the way argument yeah based on what was presented there was no evidence to support the claim dangerous ok thank you very much the other problems this isn't as though you were charged money they were charged ten different formula were used and when we map that formula out and do the math at the end of the day under the evidence you provided lo and behold you're not paying more the contested facts of the case so if they apply to be fair to the commission i think you would have to admit that the heart of your argument was first of all you didn't even try to get a problem on the commission of that on its own and you spent a lot of time arguing about hotels  one would generally apply in this in a series great take case series element according to the commission's case on series in other cases when the service being provided is such that it doesn't differ on the basis of transportation that the series on that one always applies in the sense that it must be looked at but when the case fits in a certain group of cases that this case fits in as the commission did find and where the service does not differ on the on