## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 0 8- 12 39

__ __ __ __ __ _

Mi nn eap ol is Taxi Owner s *
Co al it io n, In c., *

*
Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll an t, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is

, *

*
Defen da nt –Ap pe ll ee, *

*
A New Star Lim ou si ne *

an d Tax i Se rv ic e, *

*

In te rv en or

–Ap pe ll ee. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 13 , 20 08
Fi le d: Ju ly 14, 2 00 9

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MELLOY, BOW MAN, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

In 20 06

, th e Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is (th e “ Ci ty”) am en de d it s ta xi cab or di na nc e

to un cap th e nu m

be r of tra ns fera bl e ta xi cab li cen se s i t i s s u e s, th ereb y op en in g a

pr ev io us ly res tri ct ed marke t. The Mi nn eap ol is Tax i Owner s Co al it io n (th e

“ Co al it io n” ), a gr ou p co m pr is in g ho ld ers of ap pr ox im at el y se ve nt y -fi ve tra ns fera bl eta xi cab li cen se s, su ed th e Ci ty, as se rti ng fed eral an d st at e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns ,

in cl ud in g vi ol at io ns of th e Co al it io n’s m em be rs ’ rig ht s to jus t co m

pe ns at io n an d du e

pr oc es s. Befo re tri al

, A New St ar Lim ou si ne an d Tax i Serv ic e (“ New St ar”)

in te rv en ed an d fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re to st a t e a cl ai m

. The di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n an d di sm is se d th e cas e. The Co al it io n ap pe al s. W e affi rm

. 1

I.

The m em be rs of th e Co al it io n ho ld tra ns fera bl e ta xi cab li cen se s is su ed by th e
Ci ty. Alt ho ug h or ig in al ly pu rch as ed fro m th e Ci ty fo r a rel at iv el y sm al l fee (ro ug hl y $5 00 ), th e tra ns fera bl e li cen se s so ld on th e se co nd ary m ark et fo r as m uc h as $1 9,0 00

to $2 5,0 00

. The C it y

req ui red ad m in is tra ti ve ap pr ov al of a ll su ch li cen se tra ns fers

, bu t i t ro ut in el y

gra nt ed th e req ui red ap pr ov al

.

Befo re the en ac tm en t of th e or di na nc e am en dm en ts at is su e, se ct io n 34 1.2 70 (a)

of th e Mi nn eap ol is Co de of Ord in an ces req ui red th at th e ci ty co un ci l co nd uc t a
he ari ng at le as t on ce ev ery twen ty-fou r m on th s “ to c on si de r whe th er pu bl ic

co nv en ie nc e an d nec es si ty warra nt ad di ti on al li cen se s.” Mi nn eap ol is

, Mi nn ., Co de

of Ord in an ces ti t. 1 3

, a r t

. II, ch

. 34 1, § 34 1.2 70 (1 99 5) (rep eal ed 20 06 ). In

de te rm in in g whe th er ad di ti on al li cen se s were warra nt ed

, se ct io n 34 1.2 70 (a) req ui red

th e ci ty cou nc il to co ns id er:

th e le ve l an d q u a l i t y of se rv ic e be in g pr ov id ed by ex is ti ng ta xi cab

op erat or s; whe th er ad di ti on al co m pe ti ti on wou ld im

pr ov e th e le ve l an d

qu al it y of se rv ic e or th e de gr ee of in no va ti on in de li ve ry of se rv ic es ; th e im pa ct up on th e sa fet y of ve hi cu la r an d pe de st ria n tra ffi c; th e im pa ct on
tra ffi c co ng es ti on an d po ll ut io n; the av ai la bl e ta xi cab st an d cap aci ty; th e

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Ro s e n b a u m, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e R e p or t an d Rec om m en da ti on of th e Hon or ab le

Fran kl in L. Noel , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-2

-pu bl ic ne ed an d de m an d fo r s e r v ic e; th e im pa ct on ex is ti ng ta xi cab

op erat or s; an d su ch ot he r fact or s as th e ci ty co un ci l m ay de em rel ev an t.

Id

. A de si gn at ed c i t y c o u n ci l co m m it te e he ld op en “ pu bl ic co nv en ie nc e an d

ne ces si ty” he ari ng s on May 17

, 20 06

, an d Ju ne 7, 20 06

, to ga th er re l e v an t

in fo rm at io n. Evi de nc e pr es en te d at th e he ari ng s in cl ud ed ge ne ral te st im on y bo th in

fa vor of an d ag ains t is su an ce of ad di ti on al li cen se s; te st im on y th at Co al it io n m em bers

wou ld su ffer an eco no m ic lo ss by su ch an in crea se ; ev id en ce th at th ere was

in ad eq ua te bu si ne ss fo r cu rren t ta xi cab op erat or s; ev id en ce of co m pl ai nt s reg ard in g

th e le ve l an d qu al it y of cu rren t se rv ic e; eco no m is t te st im on y th at rem ov in g th e cap

on li cen se s wou ld in crea se job s an d th e le ve l of se rv ic e pr ov id ed ; te st im on y th at th ere

was an un ta pp e d mar k e t fo r bi li ng ua l dr iv ers , pa rti cu la rly fo r th e His pa ni c

co m m un it y ; ev id en ce th at th e nu m be r of whe el ch ai r-ac ces si bl e ve hi cl es m ay ha ve
be en in su ffi ci en t; an d ev id en ce th at a nu m be r of ta xi cab s were op erat in g wit ho ut

li cen se s.

Afte r th e h eari ng , th e Ci ty’ s Depar tm en t o f Lice ns es an d C on su m er Se rv ic es
Div is io n su bm it te d a “ fo ll ow- up do cu m en t” to th e co m m it te e, st at in g th at th ere was

in su ffi ci en t av ai la bi li ty of ta xi cab s , e sp eci al ly whe el ch ai r-ac ces si bl e ta xi cab s an d,

du rin g pe ak ho ur s, ta xi cab s ge ne ral ly. The su bm is si on di sc us se d two po ss ib le pl an s.

“ Pl an A” di d n o t i n crea se th e nu m be r of li cen se s, wit h th e ad va nt ag e th at cu rren t

li cen se ho ld ers wou ld ret ai n su bs ta nt ia l va lu e in th ei r li cen se s. “ Pl an B” in crea se d

th e nu m be r of li cen se s by fo r t y- f i v e ev ery y ear un ti l 20 10

, whe n th e cap wou ld be

co m pl et el y li fte d. Thi s pl an req ui red th at ne w “ li cen se d se rv ic e co m pa ni es ” de di cat e

at le as t 10 % of th ei r fle et s to whe el ch ai r-ac ces si bl e ve hi cl es a n d a t l eas t 10 % to

“ al te rn at iv e-fu el an d/ or fu el -eff ic ie nt ve hi cl es .” Pl an B al so r e q u i r e d th at ex is ti ng

li cen se d se rv ic e co m

pa ni es de di cat e at le as t 5% of th ei r fle et s to whe el ch ai racce ss ib le ve hi cl es an d a t l eas t 5% to al te rn at iv e-fu el an d/ or fu el -eff ic ie nt ve hi cl es by 20 07

, wit h th e m i n i mu ms in crea se d to 10 % by 20 08

. Pl an B’s pe rcei ve d

ad va nt a g e s i nc lu de d sp ur rin g be tt er-q ua li ty se rv ic e th ro ug h th e us e of in crea se d

-3

-nu m

be rs of whe el ch a i r

- a c c es si bl e ve hi cl es an d fu el -eff ic ie nt ve hi cl es

. Its

ack nowl ed ge d dis ad va nt ag es in cl ud ed th e li ke ly di m in is hi ng of th e “ m on et ary va lu e”

of ex is ti ng tax ic ab li cen se s “ to zero .”

The co m m it te e reco m

m en de d to th e Ci ty th at it in crea se th e nu m be r of ta xi cab

li cen se s p ur su an t t o P la n B :

The Co m

m it te e , up on weig hi ng th e rece iv ed ev id en ce an d whi le

reco gn iz in g th at th e is su an ce of ad di ti on al li cen se s co ul d li ke ly pr od uc e

a ne ga ti ve in it ia l im

pa ct on ex is ti ng o pe rat or s, fin ds th at su ch

pr os pe ct iv e im

pa ct is ou twei gh ed by th e po te nt ia l to (1 ) i mp ro ve th e le ve l an d qu al it y of ta xi cab se rv ic e to ci ti zen s an d vi si t or s in
Mi nn eap ol is th ro ug h a m or e op en an d free m ark et st ru ct ur e as ha s be en

acco m pl is he d in ot he r juri sd ic ti on s, th ereb y po si ti on in g Mi nn eap ol is as

a m or e v i a bl e de st in at io n fo r en te rta in m en t, bu si ne ss , co nv en ti on an d

ot he r be ne fic ia l eco no m ic pu rs ui ts

, an d (2 ) pu rs ue in no va ti on s in
de li ve ry of ta xi cab se rv ic e in th e are as of e nv iro nm en ta l s us ta in ab il it y whi le ad dr es si ng un de rs erv ed co m m un it ie s in cl ud i ng th e di sa bl ed

, bi li ng ua l an d n on -Eng li sh sp eak in g p op ul at io ns

.

In Octo be r 20 06 , th e Ci ty revi se d t he cit y ord in an ce co de to li ft th e cap on li cen se s

pe r Pl an B. See Mi nn eap ol is

, Mi nn ., Co de of Ord in a nc es ti t. 13

, art

. II, ch

. 34 1
(2 00 6)

.

In Marc h 2 00 7, t he Co al it io n s ue d th e Ci ty i n M in ne so ta st at e co ur t, ar gu in g

th at th e ne w or di na nc e red uc ed th e va lu e of th e ex is ti ng li cen se s to zero

. Rel y in g on

th e U.S. an d Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti ons, the Co al it io n cl ai m ed th at (1 ) th e Ci ty de pr iv ed

Co al it io n m em

be rs of th ei r pr op ert y in te res ts wit ho ut jus t co m pe ns at io n; (2 ) th e Ci ty

de pr iv ed Co al it io n m em

be rs of th ei r bu si ne ss l i c e n s e s wit ho ut du e pr oc es s; (3 ) th e

w h e e l c h a i r

- a c c e s s i b i l i t y a n d f u e l

- e f f i c i e n c y r e q u i r e men t s c o n s t i t u t e d a n

un co ns ti tu ti on al ex act io n; an d (4 ) Co al it io n m em be rs were d en ie d e qu al pro te ct io n
be cau se th e or di na nc e was am en de d, in pa rt, to be tt er se rv e th e His pa ni c co m m un it y

.

-4

-The Ci ty rem ov ed th e cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t be cau se th e co m pl ai nt as se rte d

fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s. See 28 U.S.C. § 14 41 (c). I n M a y 2 0 0 7

, New St ar

m ov ed to in te rv en e, an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n. In Ju ne 20 07

, New St ar

m ov ed to di sm is s th e Co al it io n’s co m pl ai nt un de r Fed eral Ru le o f C i v i l Pro ced ur e

Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

.

In Octo be r 20 07

, a m ag is tr a t e ju dg e reco m m en de d gr an ti ng th e m ot io n to

di sm is s, co nc lu di ng th at (1) Co al it io n m em be rs di d n ot ha ve a pr ot ect ab le pro pe rty

in te res t in th e se co nd ary-m ark et va lu e of th ei r li cen se s an d th at th ere f o r e th e

Co al it io n ha d no ta ki ng s cl ai m ; (2 ) th e Co al it io n’s du e pr oc es s cl ai m si m il arl y fai le d

be cau se th e Ci ty di d no t de pr iv e Co al it io n m em be rs of an y pr op ert y ; (3 ) th e Co al it io n
di d no t ha ve sta

ndi ng to br in g an un co ns ti tu ti on al -ex act io n cl ai m ba se d on th e ta xi cab

fle et req ui rem en ts be cau se th e req ui rem en ts ap pl ie d to li cen se d s erv ic e co m pa ni es ,

no t ta x i c a b l ic en se ho ld ers ; an d (4 ) th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m fai le d be cau se th e

or di na nc e su rv iv ed “ rat io na l ba si s” sc ru ti ny. In De c e mb e r 20 07

, th e di st ric t co ur t

ad op te d th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on an d gr a n t e d New St ar’s m ot io n to

di sm is s. The Co al it io n ap pe al s an d rep eat s it s ta ki ng s, du e pr oc es s, an d

un co ns ti tu ti on al -ex act io n a rg um en ts be fo re t hi s co ur t. 2

II.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), acce pt in g th e fact s as al le ge d in th e co m pl ai nt an d gr an ti ng al l

The Co al it io n do es no t p ur su e it s eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m on ap pe al , a nd th at 2

cl ai m i s t h e r e f

or e waiv ed

. Fai r v. Nor ris

, 48 0 F.3 d 86 5, 86 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). The
in cl us io n of a fo ot no te hi nt in g at a req ue st fo r ad di ti on al di sc ov ery to su pp or t

un al le ge d fact s ba se d on “ at le as t a su sp ic io n” of im pr op er m ot iv es is in ad eq ua te to

pr es erv e th e c l a i m. See Fed . R . Ap p. P. 28 (a)( 9) (A) (req ui rin g an ap pe ll an t’s br ie f

to “ co nt ai n

. . . ap pe ll an t’s co nt en ti on s an d th e reas on s fo r th em , wit h ci ta ti on s to th e

au th or it ie s an d p art s o f th e rec or d o n wh ic h t he ap pe ll an t re li es ”).

-5

-reas on ab le in fere nc es i n fav or of th e Co al it io n as th e no n- m ov in g pa rty.

N ei gh bo rh oo d Ent ers ., In c. v. Ci ty of St

. Lou is

, 54 0 F.3 d 88 2, 88 4– 85 (8 t h C i r

. 20 08 ).

A. Taki ng s

The Co al it io n arg ue s th at rem ov in g th e cap on th e nu m be r of ta xi cab li cen se s
is a ta ki ng of pr iv at e pr op ert y req ui rin g jus t co m pe n s a t i o n u nd er th e Fi fth

Am en dm en t to th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on

. See U.S. Co ns t. am en d V. The Co al it io n do es 3

no t co nt en d th at t he Ci ty rev ok ed or so m eh ow vi ti at ed ex is ti ng li cen se s or th at

op en in g th e m ark et de st ro y ed th e ab il it y of th e l i c e n se ho ld ers to us e th ei r li cen se s

to do bu si ne ss

. The Co al it io n on ly co nt en ds

— an d th e Ci ty do es no t co nt es t— th at

rem ov in g th e cap on th e nu m be r of li c e n s e s d e st ro y ed th e m ark et va lu e of th e

li cen se s. The e li m in at io n o f th e m ark et va lu e o f th e ta xi cab li cen se s, ho wev er, can
be co ns id ered a ta ki ng un d e r t h e Fi fth Am en dm en t on ly if th ere is a pr ot ect ed

pr op ert y in te res t in th at m ark et va lu e. See Lu cas v. S.C. Co as ta l Co un ci l, 5 05 U.S.

10 03

, 10 30 (1 99 2)

. Pro pe rty in te res ts “ are crea te d an d th ei r di m en si on s are de fin ed
by ex is ti ng ru le s or un de rs ta nd in gs .” Bd

. of Reg en ts of St at e Co ll s. v. Ro th

, 40 8 U.S.

56 4, 5 77 (19 72 ).

Tho se “ ex is ti ng ru le s” in cl ud e rel ev an t s ta te la w, id

., an d th e Co al it io n reli es

on se ve ral Mi nn es ot a cas es to arg ue th at th e ho ld er of a li cen se do es ha ve a pr op ert y

in te res t in th at l i c e n s e

. See St at e v. Sau ge n, 16 9 N.W .2d 37

, 41 (Mi nn

. 19 69 )
(h ol di ng th at “ [a liq uo r-]li cen se was as si gn ab le an d tran sf erab le an d as s uc h c an be

co ns tru ed as a pr op ert y rig ht rat he r th an a pr iv il eg e”); CUP Fo od s, In c. v. Ci ty of

Mi nn eap ol is

, 63 3 N.W .2d 55 7, 56 2– 63 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 20 01 ) ( f i nd in g a pr op ert y

W e no te th at

, al th ou gh th e Co al it io n arg ue d bo th s t a t e a nd fed eral ta ki ng s 3

cl ai m s b efo re t he di st ric t co ur t, i t ar gu es on ly its fed eral cla im on ap pe al

.

-6

-in te res t in a real to r’s bu si ne ss li cen se ); Bi rd v. Dep ’t of Pu b. Safe ty, 37 5 N.W .2d 36

,

42 –4 3 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App 19 8 5 ) (fi nd in g a pr op ert y in te res t in an au to m ob il e de al er’s

li cen se ); se e al so Bo on st ra v. Ci ty of Ch ic ag o, 57 4 N.E.2d 68 9, 69 4 (Il l. App

. Ct

. 19 91 ) (h ol di ng th at “a t a x i c ab li cen se an d it s as si gn ab il it y is a co ns ti tu ti on al ly

pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t” ). CUP Fo od s an d Bi rd are in ap po si te to th e Co al it io n’s 4

cl ai m s, ho wev er, be cau se bo th cas es ad dr es s th e co m pl et e rev oc at io n of th e li cen se s

at is su e. See CUP Fo od s, 63 3 N.W .2d at 56 2; B i r d

, 3 7 5 N.W .2d at 39

. Sau ge n is

si m il arl y in ap pl ic ab le

.

In Sau ge n, th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi nn e s o t a c o n si de red th e pr op ert y rig ht in

a li qu or li cen se to in cl ud e th e go in g- co nc ern va lu e of th e bu si ne ss whe re th e st at e ha d

ta ke n th e pr op ert y on whi ch th e li cen se e’s bu si ne ss ha d be en lo cat ed an d th e li cen se e

was un ab le to tra ns fer hi s li cen se to a ne w lo cat io n. Sau ge n, 16 9 N.W .2d at 39

. The

co ur t n ot ed th at th e st at e’s act io ns ha d “ effe ct iv el y de st ro y ed [th e li cen ce h ol de r’s]

In Bo on st ra, th e Ill in oi s App el la te Co ur t de te rm in ed th at by “ su m m ari ly 4

pr ecl ud in g th os e pe rs on s al read y ha vi ng an a s s i g n a b le in te res t in ta xi cab li cen se s fro m be in g ab le to as si gn th ei r pr op ert y i n t e r e s t s , th e Ci ty of Ch ic ag o’s act io n

co ns ti tu te d a ta ki ng of pr op ert y wit ho ut du e pr oc es s an d wit ho ut jus t co m pe ns at io n.”

57 4 N.E.2d at 69 5. In effe ct

, “ th e Ci ty of Ch ic ag o c r e a t e d f o r it s ci ti zen s a pu bl ic

m ark et pl ace fo r th e as si gn m en t of it s ta xi cab li cen se s. Thu s, th e ta xi cab li cen se s in
real it y be cam e m or e th an jus t m ere per so na l perm it s .

. . .” Id . at 6 94 . In Bo on st ra, th e Ci ty o f C h i c a g o to ta ll y pr oh ib it ed al l as si gn m en t of th e li cen se s, an d gi ve n th e de at h of th e li cen se ho ld er, w a s ak in to a rev oc at io n. Id . a t 69 1– 92

. In th e pr es en t

cas e, ho wev er, li cen s e e s a r e s t il l ab le to us e th ei r li cen se s an d as si gn th ei r li cen se s
to ot he rs

. The eco no m ic effe ct is ha rd er to di s t i n gu is h: un de r ei th er reg ul at io n, li cen se es are no lo ng er ab le to tra n sf er th ei r li cen se s fo r th e si gn ifi can t su m s of

m on ey th ey on ce were. To t h e e x te nt Bo on st ra wou ld es ta bl is h a co m pe ns ab le

pr op ert y rig ht i n a r e g u l at io n- crea te d m ark et va lu e, th en , we m us t de cl in e th e i nv it at io n to fo ll ow th e de ci si on of th e Ill in oi s App el la te Co ur t. See Mo v e r s W areh ou se , In c. v. Ci ty of Lit tl e Can ad a, 71 F.3 d 71 6, 71 9– 20 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ [T]he

pr op ert y rig ht m

us t ari se as a m at te r of st at e la w; m os t o f t h e c a s e s ci te d by [th e pl ai nt iff ] do no t d eal wit h M in ne so ta law an d a re t hu s i na pp li cab le .”).

-7

-va li d an d un rev ok ed ab il it y to en ga ge in th e li qu or bu si ne ss ” an d th at th ere was “ no

pr ob le m [in th at cas e] wit h a sp ecu la te d [ g o i n g

- c o nc ern ] lo ss be cau se th e go in gco nc ern va lu e ha [d ] be en st ip ul at ed .” Id

. at 46

. In th e p r es en t cas e, ho wev er, th e

Co al it io n do es no t arg ue th at it s li cen se e

– mem be rs are no lo ng er ab le to co nt in ue

th ei r bu si ne ss es as op erat in g en te rp ris es

. Here, th e li cen se d ta xi cab bu si ne ss es “ wil l

co nt in ue to op erat e as a go in g co nc ern , ev en if pr of it s are so m ewh at red uc ed .” Ci ty

of Mi nn eap ol is v. Sch ut t, 25 6 N.W .2d 26 0, 26 3 (Mi nn

. 19 77 ). Sau ge n can no t be

in te rp ret ed to est ab li sh a pr op ert y in te res t d iff

eren t fr om

th e in te res t at is su e in th at

cas e. Eve n were we to co ns tru e th e Co al it io n’s arg um en t as cl ai m in g th at th e m ark et

va lu e of a li cen se was rep res en ta ti ve of th e go in g

- c o nc ern va lu e of th e li cen se d

bu si ne ss , th e m ark et va lu e of th e li cen se —es pe ci al ly gi ve n th e ex is te nc e of th e

art ifi ci al ly res tri ct ed m ark et —was , at be st

, an in co m

pl et e an d im

pe rfec t as se ss m en t

o f t h a t g oi ng -co nc ern va lu e. A pr op ert y in te res t can no t be ex te nd ed to th e go in gc on cern va lu e of a li cen se d bu si ne ss whe re th at go in g- co nc ern va lu e i s mer e l y

sp ecu la ti ve

. Sau ge n, 16 9 N.W .2d at 46 ; se e Sch ut t, 25 6 N.W .2d at 26 2– 63 (li m it in g

Sau ge n to it s fact s)

. The Co al it io n is un ab le to po in t to an y Mi nn es ot a la w

es ta bl is hi ng th e p ro pe rty int eres t t he Co al it io n a rg ue s h as be en tak en

.

The Co al it io n als o re li es on th e Fed eral Cir cu it ’s de ci si on in Mem be rs of th e

Pean ut Quo ta Hol de rs As s ’n f o r th e pr op os it io n th at a li cen se to pa rti ci pa te in a

c o n t r o l le d m ark et is a pr op ert y in te res t in th e res tri ct ed na tu re of th at m ark et

, su ch

th a t t h e Ci ty can no t, wit ho ut jus t co m pe ns at io n, red uc e th e m ark et va lu e of th e

ta xi cab li cen se s by in crea si ng th ei r nu m be r. See Mem

be rs of th e Pe a n u t Q u o t a
Hol de rs Ass ’n v. Un it ed St at es , 4 21 F.3d 13 23 , 13 34 (Fed . Cir . 20 05 ) (“ A pro pe rty rig ht accr ue s whe n th e go ve rn m en t ha s se en fit to ta ke a li m it ed res ou rce an d se cu re

it fo r th e be ne fit of an in di vi du al or a p r e d e te rm in ed gr ou p of in di vi du al s.”)

. The

Pean ut Quo ta Holder s de ci sio n dis tin gui she d betwee n pe an ut qu ot a al lo tm en ts

, whi ch

in cl ud e a pr op ert y rig ht

, an d cert ai n fis hi ng li cen se s, whi ch do no t. Id

. at 13 33 –3 4.

The qu ot as “ gu aran te ed a m in im um pri ce,” a nd “ [o ]nce a p art ic ul ar q uo ta ha d b een

a w a rd ed , t he gr an ti ng of fu rth er qu ot as di d no t di lu te th at al lo tm en t.” Id

. a t 1 3 3 4

.

-8

-The ta xi cab li cen se es , wit h no eq ui va le nt gu ar a n t e e d m in im um , can no t be sa id to

sh are th is co nc ret en es s of va lu e. Eve n be fo re th e or di na nc e am en dm en t, th e ta xi cab

li cen se s were si m il ar to th e fis hi ng li cen se s in Pean ut Quo ta Hol de rs in th at “ [e]ach

ad di ti on al li cen se di lu te [d ] th e v al ue of t he pre vi ou sl y is su ed li cen se s” be cau se th e

li m it ed res ou rce was su bjec t to in crea se d com pe ti ti on wit h each ad di ti on al li cen se

. Id

. at 13 33 –3 4; se e Ja ck so n Sawm il l Co

., In c. v. Uni te d St at es , 58 0 F.2 d 30 2, 30 6– 07
(8 th Ci r. 19 78 ) (“ [T]here is no pr op ert y rig ht or ve st ed in te res t in a co nt in ui ng flo w

o f t raff ic .”). The ta xi cab li cen se s th em se lv es do no t carr y an in he ren t pr op e r t y

in te res t g ua ran te ei ng th e eco no m ic be ne fit s o f us in g t he tax ic ab li cen se

.

Mo re br oa dl y , th e “ ex ist ing ru le s or unde rs ta nd in gs ” th at de fin e th e di m en si on s

o f th e pr op ert y in te res t in di cat e th at th e ta xi cab li cen se s were no t un de rs t o o d t o

pr ov id e an un al te rab le m on op ol y ov er th e Mi nn eap ol is ta xi cab m ark et

. See Ro ge rs

Tr u c k Lin e, In c. v. Uni te d St at es , 14 Cl

. Ct

. 10 8, 11 1 (1 98 7) (h ol di n g t h a t a

co m m erci al -car rie r li cen s e “ di d no t gi ve pl ai nt iff s a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed

free do m fro m co m

pe ti ti on ”). Pro pe rty own ers hi p is no t wit ho ut in he ren t li m it at io n.

In th e cas e of real pr op ert y , co m pe ns at io n is no t req ui red whe re th e li m it at io n al read y

“ in he re[s ] in th e ti tl e it se lf, in th e res tri ct io ns th at ba ck gr ou nd pr in ci pl es of th e St at e’s

la w of pr op ert y an d nu is an ce alrea dy pl ace up on la nd own ers hi p.” Luc as , 50 5 U.S.

at 10 29

. “ And in th e cas e of pe rs on al pr op ert y , by reas on of th e St at e’s tra di ti on al ly

hi gh de gr ee of co nt ro l ov er co m m erci al de al in gs , [a pr op ert y own er] o u g h t to be

aware of th e po ss ib il it y t h a t ne w reg ul at io n m ig ht ev en ren de r hi s pr op ert y

eco no m ic al ly wor th le ss

. . . .” Id

. at 10 27 –2 8. Thi s in he ren t li m it at io n is es pe ci al ly

pr es en t in hi gh ly reg ul at ed m ark et s. Mi tc he ll Arm s, In c. v. Uni te d St at es , 7 F.3 d 21 2,

21 6 (Fed

. Ci r. 19 93 ) (s ta ti ng th at an en fo rcea bl e pr op ert y in te res t “ can no t ari se in an

area vo lu nt ari ly en te red in to an d on e whi c h

, fro m th e st art

, is su bjec t to pe rv as iv e

Gov ern m en t co nt ro l,” be cau se th e go ve rn m en t’s ret en ti on of di sc ret io n ov er th at area

m ean s th at th e in di vi du al “ can no t be sa id to po s s e s s t h e r ig ht to ex cl ud e” (in te rn al

qu ot at io ns , ci ta ti on , an d em ph as is om it te d) ). The ge ne ral ex pe ct at io n of reg ul at or y
ch an ge is no le ss pr es en t whe re th e va lu e of th e pr op ert y in te res t is de riv ed fro m th e

-9

-reg ul at io n it se lf. See Pean ut Quo ta Hol de rs , 42 1 F.3 d at 13 34 (s ta ti ng th at “ [q uo ta

ho ld ers ] ha ve no le ga ll y pr ot ect ed rig ht ag ai ns t th e go ve rn m en t’s m ak in g ch an ge s in

th e un de rlyin g pro gr am an d no rig ht to co m pe ns at io n fo r th e lo ss in va lu e res ul ti ng

fro m th os e ch an ge s” an d th at “ [q ]uot as are pr op ert y , bu t th ey are a fo rm of pr op ert y
th at is su bjec t to al te rat io n or el im in at io n by ch an ge s in th e go ve rn m en t pr og ram th at

ga ve th em

va lu e”).

The “ pu bl ic co nv en ie nc e an d ne ces si ty” he ari ng s req ui red by th e or di na nc e do

no t ch an ge th e un de rs ta nd in g th at th e li cen se to pa rti ci pa te in th e hi gh ly r e g u l a t ed

ta xi cab m ark et is su bjec t to reg ul at o r y c h a n g e. Co nt rary to th e Co al it io n’s

co nt en ti on , th e Ci ty ret ai ne d th e di sc ret io n to al te r th e nu m be r of li cen se s, an d “ [s ]o

l on g as th e go ve rn m en t ret ai ns th e di sc ret io n to de te rm in e th e to ta l nu mb e r o f

li cen se s is su ed

, th e nu m

be r of m ark et en tra nt s is in de te rm in at e.” Id

. The or di na nc e

ex pr es sl y co nt em

pl at ed in crea se s in th e nu m be r of ta xi cab li cen se s. It di d no t lim it

th e Ci ty’s di sc ret io n to is su e ad di ti on al li cen se s. In de te rm in in g whe th er to is su e
ad di ti on al li cen se s, th e or di na nc e al lo wed th e Ci ty to co ns id er an y fact or s it de em ed

rel ev an t, an d it di d no t es ta bl is h an y m in im um st an da rd s th at wou ld di ct at e th e Ci ty’ s
de ci si on eit he r fo r or ag ai ns t t he is su an ce o f ad di ti on al li cen se s.

The Co al it io n do es no t all eg e a ta ki ng of th e ta xi cab li cen se s or of th e ab il it y

to en ga ge in th e li cen se d act iv i t y; rat he r, th e Co al it io n’s ta ki ng s cl ai m is li m it ed to

“ th e ab il it y to real i z e a n ex pe ct at io n in th e ul ti m at e m ark et di sp os it io n of th e [li cen se s].” Mi tc he ll Arm s, 7 F.3 d at 21 7. “ Thi s ‘ co ll at eral in te res t’ in ci de nt to

. . .

own ers hi p

. . . is no t pr op ert y pr ot ect ed by th e Fi fth Am en dm en t.” Id

. Eve n if th ere
is a pr op ert y in te res t in a pa rti cu la r li cen se , “ a ta ki ng s cl ai m can no t be su pp or te d by

as se rti ng own ers hi p in a p ro pe rty i nt eres t th at is di ffer en t an d m or e ex pa ns iv e th an

th e on e act ua ll y po ss es se d.” Ro ge rs , 1 4 Cl . C t. at 11 4. W e th eref or e ho ld th at an y

pr op ert y in te res t th at th e ta xi cab -li cen se ho ld ers ’ m ay po ss es s do es no t ex te nd to th e

m ark et va lu e of th e ta xi cab li cen se s d eri ve d t hr ou gh th e cl os ed na tu re o f th e Ci ty’ s

ta xi cab m ark et

. W it ho ut su ch a pr op ert y in te res t, th ei r ta ki ng s cl ai m ne ces sa ril y fai ls

.

-1 0-B. Due P ro ces s

The Co al it io n al so arg ue s th at th e Ci ty’ s ne w or di na nc e vi ol at es it s m em be rs ’

du e pr oc es s rig ht s un de r th e F o u r t een th Am en dm en t to th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on an d

Arti cl e I of th e Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti on

. See U.S. Co ns t. am en d. XIV; Mi nn

. Co ns t.,

Art. I, § 7. The du e pr oc es s pr o t ect io n pr ov id ed un de r th e Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti on
is “ id en ti cal ” to th e pr ot ect io n pr ov id ed by t h e U

. S

. Co ns ti tu ti on

. Sart or i v.

Harn is ch feg er Co rp ., 43 2 N.W.2d 4 48 , 45 3 (M in n. 1 98 8)

.

“ The po ss es si on of a pr ot ect ed li fe, lib ert y , or pr op ert y in te res t is a co nd it io n

pr eced en t to in vo ki ng th e go ve rn m en t’s ob li ga ti on to pr ov id e du e pr oc es s of la w.”

St au ch v. Ci ty of Co lu m

bi a Heig ht s, 21 2 F.3 d 42 5, 42 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). A m un ic ip al

or di na nc e may crea te a pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t “ by es ta bl is hi ng pr oc ed ur al

req ui rem en ts th at im

po se su bs ta nt iv e l i mi t at io ns on th e ex erci se of of fic ia l

di sc ret io n.” Id

. at 42 9– 30 (fi nd in g a pr op ert y in te r e s t i n t h e ren ewal of a ren ta l

li cen se de riv ed fro m

a m un ic ip al or di na nc e li cen si ng sc he m e th at req ui red ren ewal

be gr an te d up on sa ti sf

act io n of ob

jecti ve cri te ria ). Here, ho wev er, th e or di na nc e’s

he ari ng req ui rem en t d oe s no t curt ai l th e Ci ty’ s di sc ret io n in su ch a way as to crea te

a pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t fo r th e pu rp os es of du e pr oc es s. See Mo ve rs W areh ou se

In c. v. Ci ty o f Lit tl e Can ad a, 71 F.3 d 71 6, 72 0 (8 th Cir . 19 95 ) (fi nd in g no pr op ert y

in te res t in th e ren ewal of a bi ng o- ha ll li cen se whe re “ st at e la w pl ace[ d] no su bs ta nt iv e

li m it at io ns on th e d is cret io n o f th e li cen si ng au th or it y ”).

As di sc us se d ab ov e, th e ta xi cab li cen se es do no t ha ve pr ot e c t ed pr op ert y

in te res ts in th e m ark et va lu e of th ei r li cen se s. As su ch

, th e or di n a n c e d o e s no t

im pl ic at e th e h ol de rs ’ pr op ert y in te res ts or, i t fo ll ows , th ei r du e p ro ces s ri gh ts

.

-1 1-C. Unco ns ti tu ti on al Exac ti on

The Co al it io n fu rth er arg ue s th at th e am en de d or di na nc e’s ap pl ic at io n of ne w

w he el ch ai r- ac ce ssi bil ity an d fu el -eff ic ie nc y st an da rd s is an uncons tit uti ona l ex ac tio n.

See Dol an v. Ci ty of Tig ard

, 51 2 U.S. 37 4 (1 99 4) (h ol di ng th at th e go ve rn m en t co ul d

no t, wit ho ut jus t co m

pe ns at io n, co nd it io n th e ap pr ov al of a bu il di ng pe rm it on th e

gr an t of a pu bl ic eas em en t whe n th e co nd it io n ha d no es se nt ia l ne xu s to th e

go ve rn m en t’s in te res t in th e de ve lo pm en t). Th e o rd in an ce pr ov is io n req ui rin g
whe el c h a i r-ac ces si bl e an d al te rn at iv e-fu el ve hi cl es , ho wev er, ap pl ie s to li cen se d

se rv ic e co m

pa ni es rat he r th an to in di vi du al li cen se es

. In it s co m pl ai nt

, th e Co al it io n

st at es th at it s m em

be rs ho ld fu ll y tra ns ferr ab le ta xi cab li cen se s; th e Co al it io n does no t

al le ge th at an y of it s m em be rs are, or are affi li at ed wit h, li cen se d se rv ic e co m pa ni es

.

The Co al it io n no w arg ue s th at be cau se li cen se d se rv ic e co m pa ni es are

ne ces sa ril y m ad e up of

, an d cl os el y rel at ed to

, in di vi du al t a x i cab li cen se es , th e

li cen se es wil l in ev it ab ly be in jure d by th e ch an ge in th e or di na nc e an d th eref or e ha ve

st an di ng , bu t th e Co al it io n’s de du ct iv e reas on in g can ta ke it s arg um en t on ly so far.

W hi le it m ay be tru e th at an or di na nc e a p p l i e d to li cen se d se rv ic e co m pa ni es

ne ces sa ril y affe ct s th e li cen se ho ld ers affi li at ed wit h th os e co m pa ni es , th e Co al it io n

h a s n o t al le ge d th at an y of it s m em be r– li cen se es are in fact affi li at ed wit h an y

li cen se d s erv ic e co m

pa ny.

Bec au se th e Co al it io n’s co m pl ai nt do es no t al le ge a rel a t i on sh ip be twee n it s

m em be r– li cen se es an d th e affe c te d li cen se d se rv ic e co m pa ni es , we ag ree wit h th e
di st ric t co ur t th at th e Co al it io n can no t sh ow “ in jury in fa c t ” a n d th eref

or e do es no t

ha ve st an di ng wit h res pe ct to it s un co ns ti tu ti on al -ex act io n cl ai m. S e e Lu jan v.
Defen de rs of Wil dl ife , 50 4 U.S. 5 55 , 56 0 (1 99 2)

.

-1 2-III.

F or th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co u r t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-