case checkers cab operators versus miami dade county apologize in advance i seem to be losing my voice and we can hear you fine you're doing just fine thank you and i'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal issue before the court today is whether the district court properly dismissed with prejudice that the appellant's my client's claim against miami dade county there are two k claims that are involved in this appeal taking claim under the federal in four constitutions and also an equal protection claim under those same constitutions the judge in this case found that there was no protectable property interest in so far as the value of the medallions which are held by my clients or also is to the exclusivity of the provision of for higher tax and cap services in miami dade county i think it's important to just give a little bit of background and i know the courts familiar with the x work were familiar with the background let me ask you a question about the fifth amendment takings claim and you know i've looked at the cases that are cited in your brief i cannot find a case that would support the proposition that increased competition in a market is is a taking where you're out of there so i mean the city can always add more medallions right i mean the city could add more medallions but as you know when you get and you get the your clients get to keep their medallions right yes they get to keep their medallions and you can you support can you cite a any case that would support the proposition that in a market increase competition in a market in this context would constitute a fifth amendment taking i don't have a case that says that your honor but what we have is a judicial landscape beginning with the ruckelshaus case which we wrote rely upon heavily and what the courts have held is that it is in a takings analysis you need to have an ad hoc factual determination you have to look at all the circumstances there is no quote set formula in the takings analysis and what we have in our case is from nine hundred ninety eight until this  constitutional right to exclude others from the market it depends on what what the what the factual circumstances are in this case judge you've had a code provision that explicitly declares and this is different from any cases cited by my opponents in this case we have a code provision that explicitly declares that a taxicab medallion is deemed to be quote unquote intangible property and i know what that means i'm sergeant well the fact that it is property is separate and different from whether you're entitled to the protection of the specific you in the context of they continue to have the right to the medallion and to constitute and to operate the service all that's happened is that other people also have that right so you have it hasn't been taken from you what they have done is add it to others so how is that a taking as to you it's a take your has to us because prior to the inaccurate of this statute you had to have a medallion to provide the transportation services that my clients provide and that and sees now provide after the statute by under the code new medallions were issued very infrequently it's a code to give you the exclusive right to compete in the market the code limb and if it did show me where i brought it i can't find it i think it's undisputed that prior to may two thousand and sixteen you could not state and what are you telling me the county couldn't change the code and include who were in the left well the county can do that but i position is that because our position is that we have a protected property interest and that excludes you may have had a protected property interests the question is how far it extends let me ask the question this way you can see that the county could double the number of medallions or triple the number of but dion's issued in the year based on its view that the people of miami dade county the tourists are not getting properly served you could walk into court and said that amounted to an unlawful takings on the fifth amendment right well under the code is that existed prior to the amendment there were specific provisions as to my questions a simple question could the county double the number of medallions if the chose to do so based on its view of the need in the community without you being able to walk in and say that constituted an unlawful taking i would say your honor that that act industry like that that is a heavily regulated industry understands and recognizes that the government always has the right to change those regulations my answer to that you know we need to look at the history and the facts in this case number one since one thousand nine hundred ninety eight for hire transportation was limited to medallion holders number two the issuance of newbie dahlias was severely restricted number as in its judgment the public convenience in the sense that he may require and pursuant to that power the county issued more than three hundred additional medallion since one thousand nine hundred ninety eight isn't that true it is county decided to issue not three hundred more medallions but six hundred more medallions your income coate property rights in medallions didn't bar the county from doing that did it i'm just talking about medallions now i understand your outer i can't really answer that question because i think that you have to look before the county can do something along the lines of what you're under suggested you need to look at the whole the whole thing i read from the specific ordinance itself they reserve the right to issue more medallions if they determined it was necessary i'm simply asking whether you would have a takings claim if instead of issuing three hundred medallions they issued six hundred or nine hundred since one thousand nine hundred ninety eight over the last twenty one years could they do that without violating the fifth amendment takings clause i think they could not judge  police just explained to me why they could not do that the text of the ordinance wouldn't preclude them from doing that right though the whole factual circumstances we believe would preclude them including the fact thousand dollars apiece there are also county commissioners that went on record this is alleging our complaint that assured the medallion holders that they have a protected property interest in their medallions in the exclusivity is what we're arguing about so we think that you need to see all of the facts and circumstances to look at the combination that's what we believe that the ruckelshaus case stands for property and it is very high value because the zoning of the property next door is very restricted and the government decides to alter the zoning of the property next door and now they people can do whatever they want with it they've done nothing to me but the property of the value of my property has just plummeted because the property next door is available that's not a taking as to me isn't it that may or may not be but this is the difference the difference is that in our case we have the the county closely in meshed with the medallion system for decades and then all of a sudden they give in to political pressure or if you want the inertia of the digital age and legalize these companies there has been a reasonable investment back expectations in our opinion through the continued viability of the medallion system for taxicab transportation in the county so when you're saying that they're closely and messed with that you're essentially agreeing that this was a heavily regulated industry i can't dispute that you're on it but just because it's heavily regulated doesn't mean that the county or any other governmental entity has carte blanche to do away with reasonable investment back the expectations before we move on and i will give you all the time that you reserve for about a lot of needs more help on this takings as i understand it a takings can occur in one of three ways as i see the law first the plan of me assert the government required him to suffer a permanent physical invasion of property you don't have that second the plaintiff may assert that a particular regulation deprived him of all economically beneficial use of the property seems to me you don't have that and you don't believe that what you say is we still had some value in it but they diminished the fair market value of the medallion so it seems to me the real claim you have if you have a claim at all is the third theory that a plaintiff may assert a partial regulatory for a king which governs the framework of this case is that what essentially you're arguing yes ok now the critical case the supreme court has decided there has been central yelling with taking and they say we look at three things the economic impact the extent to which the regulation as interfered with the investment backed expectation and the character of the invasion itself the claim here just so i have it is not that they destroyed the value but they substantially reduced the value of the medallion is that is that essentially what we're talking about yes that's the beginning and the end of the takings claim well i don't know was there anything more to it maybe i've missed it i've tried to lay out the parameters of us how you would comment a taking his claim admittedly the first two prongs don't affect you at all well actually you're on a quote of three problems yes correct those three i know i have them here somewhere right here the character of the governmental action to its economic impact and three its interest interference with reasonable investment back the expectation we have problems with number two and three economic impact you don't you do not have to have to have a valid takings claim you do not need to show that your property is that al you less if it is substantially diminished that is sufficient there's no question that there has been a huge economic impact here and i don't think the county disputes that what's the problem is even in looking in the area of real property the court has recognized the government may create and execute laws that adversely affect recognized economic values they approve zoning laws that quote may destroy or adversely affect the recognize real property interests so long as those changes are dictated by health safety general welfare basically police power the problem you have here is that you really seeking to bar competition in the area from a different form but will give you the full let me let me ask you a question before you say you use some and this isn't really necessary to decide the case but how would you establish your damages in this case that that is an interesting question because of the florida statute that was enacted last year so i mean that's why i'm asking could we say that this appeal is moot no your honor and first off the county does not claim that it's moot that's not dispositive but as we cited in our brief where there is a claim for money damages moot as doctrine does not apply under these circumstances i would car would you prove your damages or at the very and please i don't want to commit to this because it hasn't been briefed or argued but at the very least the diminish in of medallion value from the time find experts that would be able to prove that ok thank you thank you unary got a phone so far miami dade county with me at counsel's table gerald sanchez and facility for both assisting county attorneys the court i think has touched upon the crucial issue in this case and i'll focus my argument at least the beginning part of it on the takings claim since one thousand ninety eight the taxicab industry has had a property right and that property right has been limited to the individual licenses the right to operate with that license and the right to exclude others from operating that individual license the issue that has been raised by this case is that plaintiffs would like to exclude an entire industry from the transportation market and since one thousand nine hundred eight the county has been clear it has amended the taxicab ordinance at least three thirty three times had it has added at least three hundred new medallions and it's been clear that there has been no record yes or so there well are you saying that the taxicab drivers business is increased we have added medallions and arguably the need for the teenie is because there is in addition there's additional need in the market for form additional services what's the value of a medallion and they carry your honor i don't have that number there are let me ask a question in respect to that accepting that you can increase the number of medallions that you issue and that you've increased it by a number of three hundred since one thousand nine hundred ninety eight with the county have it within its power to triple or quadruple the units if it chose to do so if the net result or net effect of that was to render the value of the medallion virtually worthless yes your honor i think the ordinance is clear that there was no expectation that the number of medallions would be capped at any point and that the county could increase so by regulation they could completely wipe out the value of the medallion well your honor the as to render nuggets or the value of the medallion simply by exponentially increasing the number that you wish you well there would still be value because those medallion holders would still be able to operate in the industry and so the county can add medallions as it sees the need and and in this case even though the answer is yes yes your honor their market value had been at one point in this record four hundred thousand let's say i'm not sure that the county would agree with that that there was an optimal option the more at four hundred thousand at one point what the market may be there was something in the record that said as of two thousand and fourteen it had a fair market value of two hundred forty thousand render worthless a medallion it would turn around and say anybody who wants it can get it we have only one requirement you've got to have a show for his license or something like that and we're going to increase exponentially the number thereby rendering worthless i don't say that's what you have here i'm asking a different question would you do that without running afoul of the taking they didn't own the property there is a property right the right is limited i just want to know whether in the course of us heavily regulated industry you could wipe out the value completely without running a cap of the number of licenses was removed and the courts in those cases simply held that there was no expectation and not not happening because it's a heavily regulated industry and there was a license cases  is different from what we have in this case we have the miami ordinance which says that the medallions constitute intangible property that makes this case different than the other cases the your honor yes but in this case they remain the property at issue here is taking back the property at issue really is the right to operate your medallion and the right to lease your medallion and so even if there is no limit on the number of medallions that we can issue which which is the case and has been the case since one thousand nine hundred eighty these medallion owners continue to have that property and so what they're right i'm simply asking whether they can wipe out the fair market value of that property completely simply by issuing an unlimited number of medallions and your answer is yeah they can do that i think it would depend on the circumstances if there's still a market where additional even if there was no you can get as many as you want if there's still a need and i think it still ha think it would depend on the circumstances it certainly wouldn't be the same value but if there is still a need and so it's supply and demand but the bottom line is they can regulate it so fully as to r worthless i don't think that that would be the result but it isn't my question not asking a pragmatic question i'm not asking you to tell me about the forces of supply and demand i'm asking you to assume for the purposes of my question that they set about a course to just flood the market with medallions thereby rendering the medallions virtually worthless what they do that without running afoul of the fifth amendment gee i thought your answer would be maybe yes maybe no but that's nothing remotely like what we have here that is that is the case your honor that is the case i think it would at some point the regulation can render the value of their property worthless your honor i wouldn't advise a court of the fifth circuit case and dennis miller converses city of new orleans where there was extensive regulation of the taxicab industry there and the court found that given that you the history of expensive regulation the expectation that you would be continued to continue to be subject to extensive regulation that there would be no regulatory taking in that circumstance and so that in this case i think it's a similar scenario and sort of the question would be if you increase the number of medallions with that county could add medallions however many the county would see fit so essentially once they buy the medallion they're at the mercy of the county well out of the market your honor i i think no no i'm not talking about the market now i'm talking about whether the county for reasons having nothing to do with the forces of supply and demand chooses to exponentially increase the number the county could choose to exponentially increase the number that when they reach over a conclusion that have to have only regulated this industry there are a lot of terrorists or ten million tourists who come to miami dade county in a year they're getting lots of complaints from tourists they can't get cabs when they want to particularly when it's raining and so they decide that they're going to open the market up completely they're not going to regulate much at all they'll require some minimal check on who'll the chauffeur is and so on but they come at it with the very purpose of exponentially increasing it these folks bought these medallions for two hundred four hundred grand whatever the case may be the pleading the complaint says what happened here is they reduced in a measurable way the fair market value of our property i'm simply asking you whether they can reduce it to virtually nothing without running afoul of the  transportation industry it gives the owner the exclusive right to operate their own individual medallion the for hire industry in miami dade county is not limited to taxicabs we have limousines mortar carrier vehicles other forms of transportation and so what we did in two thousand and sixteen is simply add an additional form of transportation taxicabs have not and haven't been haven't ever been the only exclusive form of transportation what we're here at the leading s miami dade county there are other forms of for her transportation and the plaintiffs have conceded to the fact that for example in two thousand and sixteen we adopted the taxicab ordinance the transportation network and he ordered ordinance and we also adopted the limousine ordinance and i would point the court's attention to in the past there have been similar similar challenges between the taxicab and limousines or ordinances so th for hire industry in miami dade county has never been exclusively taxicabs and so it would be inappropriate to remand this case for further factual findings when really this is truly just a legal question well help me with the truly legal question is argument about the nature of the takings here is not that there was a physical invasion of his property that's not what we're talking about or that the regulation deprived him of all economically beneficial use of his property he really is going on the third in the last possibility to wit that this amounted to a partial regulatory taking governed by penn central and cases like that you agree that that's the mode ality of analysis we should employ here i have to look at it under the heading of a partial regulatory take which yester honor but the issue is that there is no property interest and the right to exclude others from the industry here the only property interest at the limit or you'd never get to the the only property that has ever been limited property right that's but ever been recognized as on the individual medallion the right to exclude others from the industry was never and has never been a property right held by the plaintiff if you were to apply and central fact was the supreme court lays out there would some clarity what would that yield here i think your honor the more precisely would it not cause you to vacate the dismissal and send it back for discovery your honor and court says you look at the economic impact one to the extent to which the regulation has interfered with a distinct investment back to expectation that's the second and third you look at the character of the government action itself if you were to apply that test to this case what would yield you are the issue is as a yield a slam dunk dismissal for failure calling yes your honor the issue is only why the issue is that the county has never protected the county has never promised a value in these medallions the only thing that the county has promised is the right to participate and in the for hire industry and until today there are taxi cabs out there that are still participating in the taxicab industry that the ex the county has never promised and expect and return on their there's really truly no expectation here on the value of the medallion it's simply expectation to be able to operate a taxicab which is which is still the case your honor if i may address briefly the equal protection claim brief so i don't really know that you're you have to address that he didn't really want to argue that here then i would briefly close to say your honour's holding otherwise in this case and finding that the plaintiffs have protected property and excluding others from the industry would really be against public policy and result in in twenty thirty forty years down the road being limited to only taxicabs for writing the transportation services in miami dade county and across the country and so the real interest that miami dade county has is in providing reliant rely reliable and clean and safe transportation services to the residents and visitors of miami dade county and so for that i rest on my brief thank you very much thank you addresses a question that judge wilson posed could provide a quote it shall be unlawful for any person to use drive operate any for hire motor vehicle upon the streets of miami dade county without first obtaining a miami dade county for higher license and maintaining it current invalid pursuant to the provision of this article it's undisputed that in this context for hire a license equals a medallion so that was what the law stated at that time now my opponent here i think made a couple of interesting concessions when she was discussing the hypothetical of judge marcus were guarding  ially increasing the number of medallions council stated that there is long as the need for additional taxi cab service was there that would justify increasing the number of medallions that's our answer to the three hundred medallions or the sixteen percent addition of medallion since two thousand and sixty since one nine hundred ninety eight population of dade county miami dade county obviously ballooned and they had a some taxi cab medallions just like they're permitted to do under the code but throughout that period of time the value of taxi cab medallions increased and it increased because of the relationship between the number of the medallions and the population out there so there that is the explanation in our answer to that the cause traditionally the addition of medallions has been relatively de minimus and tied to the market that it all goes together also you know honors i think it's important  that the penn central three factors which are reiterated in the ruckelshaus case are indeed necessary to determine whether there is in fact a protectable property interest  says or suggests that no those factors don't count and that analysis what we disagree so me ask you this question this way if we really started with this is there any case anywhere any time that has ever held that the right to property includes the right to be free from competition not in such use so many words but the ruckelshaus case we believe comes close and that's the case that deals with exclusivity and with that i would close thank you very much thank you both for your efforts will proceed to the