IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Seedjam, Inc., :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2233 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: October 20, 2016

The Philadelphia Parking Authority :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: November 14, 2016

Seedjam, Inc. (Seedjam) appeals an order of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) affirming the Philadelphia Parking 

Authority Taxicab and Limousine Division’s (Hearing Officer’s) order sustaining 

the Philadelphia Parking Authority’s (Authority) imposition of a $350.00 fine for 

operating its medallion taxicab without a working GPS system in violation of 52 

Pa. Code § 1017.24.

1

 We affirm.

 

1

In addition to the fine, Seedjam was also issued citation T-17865, incomplete 

communication system, and citation T-17866, vehicle condition and equipment substandard. 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Seedjam pleaded liable to these other two citations in exchange for 

recommended penalties. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 19a-20a, 27a-28a.) Seedjam only 

challenges the citation on appeal.
2

On September 27, 2014, Division Inspector Joseph McKeown

(McKeown) issued citation T-17864 (Citation) to Seedjam for violating 52 Pa. 

Code § 1017.24, “Meter activation and display,” because its GPS system failed to 

power on despite repeated attempts. Seedjam received a reducible penalty of 

$350.00 and its medallion taxicab was placed out of service. Seedjam timely 

contested the Citation.

Seedjam appealed and before the Hearing Officer, McKeown testified 

that when he inspected the taxicab on September 27, 2014, its GPS system would 

not “power on” despite several attempts to do so. He stated that he also provided 

the driver with an opportunity to turn on the GPS to no avail. McKeown admitted,

though, that he did not check the GPS’s cables, fuses or any batteries it had. 

McKeown stated that he then issued Seedjam a citation for “meter activation and 

display” under 52 Pa. Code § 1017.24 because the GPS is a component of the 

taxicab’s meter system and must be operational when a taxicab is in service.

The Hearing Officer found an inoperable GPS to be a violation of 52 

Pa. Code § 1017.24 and imposed a penalty of $350.00 along with a $75.00 

administrative hearing fee. Seedjam appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the 

Hearing Officer’s decision. Seedjam then filed this appeal.

2

 

2

“Where the trial court does not take any additional evidence, our scope of review of an 

agency’s decision is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether 

an error of law was committed, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by 

substantial evidence.” Lindros Taxi, LLC v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 143 A.3d 443, 446 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (citing Kovler v. Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, 6 A.3d 1060, 1062 

n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)).
3

On appeal, Seedjam contends that the trial court erred by imposing a 

$350.00 fine because Section 5725 of what is commonly referred to as the Parking 

Authority Law,

3

unlawfully delegates the Authority to impose civil penalties for 

taxicab violations without standards in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the 

Pennsylvania Constitution.4 This regulation provides:

If any person or corporation subject to this subchapter . . .

shall fail, omit, neglect or refuse to obey, observe and 

comply with any regulation or final direction, 

requirement, determination or order made by the 

authority . . . the person or corporation . . . shall forfeit 

and pay to the authority a sum not exceeding $1,000 to 

be recovered by a complaint as provided in section 

5705(b) (relating to contested complaints).

53 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). (emphasis added.) It argues that this provision is an 

unlawful delegation because it does not impose any fixed standard, policies or 

limitations on the Authority in issuing citations and civil penalties other than the 

$1,000.00 limitation.

In support of its challenge, Seedjam primarily relies on MCT 

Transportation, Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority,

5 where we held, in

 

3

53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5501–5517, 5701–5745.

4 Article II, Section 1 states, “The legislative power of this Commonwealth shall be 

vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” 

Pa. Const. art. II, § 1.

5 MCT Transportation Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 60 A.3d 899, 905 (Pa. 

Cmwlth.) (footnote omitted), aff’d sub nom. MCT Transportation, Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
4

pertinent part, that Section 5707(b) of the Parking Authority Law was an 

unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority reasoning:

Section 5707(b) states that the Parking Authority’s 

annual budget and fee schedule shall be in the amounts 

“necessary to advance the purposes of this chapter.” 

General expenses that cannot be tied to either the 

Limousine Account or the Taxicab Account will be 

allocated in “a fair and equitable manner . . . as 

determined by the authority.” 53 Pa.C.S. § 5708(c)(2). 

The words “necessary” and “fair and equitable” suggest a 

standard, but it is a standard too inchoate to survive the 

separation of powers challenge brought by the Taxicab 

Companies.

60 A.3d at 914. We then determined that Section 5707(b) of the Parking Authority 

Law was an unlawful delegation because it provided “‘no standards to guide or 

restrain [the Authority] in setting fees’ in any fashion whatsoever.” Id. at 915 

(quoting United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, Inc. v. 

Department of Banking, 991 A.2d 370, 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)).6

 

(continued...)

Authority, 81 A.3d 813 (Pa. 2013), and aff’d sub nom. MCT Transportation, Inc. v. Philadelphia 

Parking Authority, 83 A.3d 85 (Pa. 2013).

6

Since our decision in MCT Transportation, the General Assembly established a new 

process for setting the Parking Authority’s budget and assessments. Act of July 9, 2013, P.L. 

455, No. 64 (Act 64). Act 64 substantially amended Sections 5707 and 5708 and added Sections 

5707.1 and 5710 of the Parking Authority Law.
5

However, contrary to Seedjam’s contention, our holding in MCT 

Transportation does not control because Section 5725 of the Parking Authority 

Law does provide a standard by explicitly providing a $1,000.00 limitation on the 

fine that the Authority could set or impose. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). By providing a 

maximum amount, the General Assembly gave a sufficient standard which set the 

boundary of the fine that the Authority could impose.7

Seedjam also contends that the trial court erred when concluding that 

it violated 52 Pa. Code § 1017.24 by not having a GPS system attached to its 

taximeter because the regulation does not require a GPS to be hardwired or 

otherwise affixed to the taximeter nor does it require the taximeter to have GPS 

functionality. Instead, Seedjam asserts that regulation only requires a taxicab to 

have GPS capabilities, which could be satisfied by the use of a driver’s cell phone. 

This contention is, however, contrary to 52 Pa. Code § 1017.24 which clearly 

provides that “meters in every taxicab must have . . . [t]he ability to provide drivers 

with driving directions through a global positioning system [and] . . . global 

positioning system tracking to monitor the location of each taxicab and provide 

driving directions to the taxicab driver . . . .” Id. at § 1017.24(d)(2) & (3).8

 

7 We also note that the General Assembly has placed various restraints and limitations on 

the Authority’s discretion, which affect its ability to promulgate and enforce regulations. For 

instance, the General Assembly also restrains the Authority’s power to regulate taxicabs to the 

area in and around Philadelphia, 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5505(d)(23),(24) & 5722, sets the composition of 

its Governing Board, id. at § 5508.1(c), oversees its budget, id. at § 5707, and sets administrative 

fees, id. at § 5710, all for the purpose of streamlining the Commonwealth’s ground transportation 

system, in particular, its taxicab and limousine services. Id. at §§ 5502, 5701.1.

8 A survey of the history for 52 Pa. Code § 1017.24 further makes clear that a taximeter’s 

ability to provide GPS navigation and tracking was for the important purposes of improving 

public safety and to assist police investigations.

(Footnote continued on next page...)
6

Finally, Seedjam contends that the fine imposed by the Authority was 

an unconstitutional taking without due process of law because the Authority has 

failed to effect uniform guidelines for imposing civil penalties for GPS violations, 

which has purportedly resulted in inconsistent application. However, Seedjam was 

provided with both notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the Citation

because it clearly explained the substance of the charge from the moment it was 

issued. As we have explained, the “essential elements [of due process] are notice 

and opportunity to be heard and to defend in an orderly proceeding adapted to the 

 

(continued...)

Commentators also suggested that the tracking of taxicab 

operations through the GPS function of the meter system was 

outside the Authority’s scope. We disagree. Taxicab operations 

are and have always been a heavily regulated industry. Taxicabs 

always advertise their services, even when a driver may claim he 

or she is not seeking a fare. Taxicab regulation is based upon the 

close contact taxicabs have with customers and the potential for 

abuse or harm to passengers at the hands of drivers and vice versa. 

The GPS component has and will continue to improve driver safety 

through the use of the emergency button. When activated by a 

driver under distress, both the Authority and the taxicab’s 

dispatcher will know where a driver is in order to direct police 

attention. The GPS function has also been used to locate countless 

taxicabs on behalf of passengers who left behind valuable items 

after exiting the taxicab. The GPS function has been used to assist 

the police in investigating crimes inflicted upon taxicab drivers or 

by taxicab drivers upon others. The manner in which taxicabs 

offer service or appear to offer service is squarely within the scope 

of the Authority’s regulatory powers, regardless of when it 

happens. Also, taxicab drivers are not prohibited from using their 

own GPS units, in addition to that included in the meter system.

See 41 Pennsylvania Bulletin 6545 (December 3, 2011).
7

nature of the case before a tribunal having jurisdiction of the cause.” MCT 

Transportation, 60 A.3d at 916 (quoting Conestoga National Bank of Lancaster v. 

Patterson, 275 A.2d 6, 9 (Pa. 1971)) (internal quotation omitted in MCT 

Transportation).9

Accordingly, the General Assembly was constitutionally permitted to 

provide the Authority with limited discretion to implement fines for violations of 

its regulations and because Seedjam failed to comply with 52 Pa. Code § 1017.24, 

which requires taximeters to have GPS functionality, we affirm.

________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

 

9

Seedjam contends that the Authority has been inconsistent when setting penalties 

regarding certain other citations regarding meter violations but admits those citations were 

withdrawn once it was called to the Authority’s attention because they were not in accord with 

its regulations. Also, the Authority’s regulation clearly provides that “[i]f a penalty has not been 

otherwise assigned to a violation of any provision of the act, this part or an order of the 

Authority, the penalty applicable to the violation may not be less than $25 and not greater than 

$1,000.” 52 Pa. Code § 1001.61(a).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Seedjam, Inc., :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2233 C.D. 2015

:

The Philadelphia Parking Authority :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2016, it is hereby ordered that 

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County’s order dated October 2, 2015, 

is affirmed.

________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge