IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sephardic Taxi, LLC

, :

Appellant :

: No. 2 343 C .D. 201 5

v. :

: Submitted : June 3

, 201 6

The Philadelphia Parking Authority :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: July 22, 2016

Sephardic Taxi, LLC (Appellant) appeals from the October 16, 2015,

order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) affirming a

Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) Hearing Officer’s determination, which

sustained the issuance of a c itation to Appellant for violating section 1011.9 of Title

52 of the Pennsylvania Code (Code). 1

Facts and Procedural History

On January 9, 2014, PPA’s Taxicab and Limousine Division (TLD)

issued a citation to Appellant for allegedly using a taxicab driver with a suspended

1 52 Pa. Code §1011.9 (taxicab service limitations).2

driver’s license in violation of section 1011.9 of the Code. Appellant appealed the

issuance of citation an d requested an administrative hearing. On October 23, 2014, a

hearing was held before a PPA Hearing Officer.

Steve Owens, a TLD inspector, testified that he received an

administrative complaint to investigate the records of a taxicab driver, Solo Salagbi

.

Owens stated that his investigation revealed that Salagbi’s driver’s license had been

suspended from October 29, 2013, to November 7, 2013; however, notwithstanding

his suspended driver’s license, Owens noted that Salagbi had provided taxicab service

in an Appellant

- owned vehicle during the period when his license was suspended.

Owens explained that he relied on a driving record generated by the Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing in issuing the citation.

(R.R. at 44a

- 48 a .)

According to Owens, TLD’s regulations prohibit a taxicab driver from

operating a taxicab without a valid driver’s license. He further testified that TLD’s

regulations require a certificate holder 2 to supervise its drivers to ensure that only

autho rized drivers provide taxicab service and stated that Salagbi provided at least

one

- hundred t r ips during the period his license was suspended. (R.R. at 48a

- 49a.)

Owens explained that Salagbi attempted to renew his taxicab certificate 3

when it was disco vered that his driver’s license had been suspended, which was the

basis for the administrative complaint. However, he noted that, during the period

2 The Code defines a certificate holder as the person to whom PPA issues a certificate of

public convenience. 52 Pa. Code §1001.10(a).

3 The Code defines a taxicab certificate as “[a] certificate issued by the Authority

authorizing the holder to provide taxicab service under the act, this part or an order of the

Authority.” 52 Pa. Code §1001.10(a).3

when Salagbi’s driver’s license was suspended, PPA’s system indicated that Salagbi

possessed a valid taxica b certificate

. (R.R. at 50a

- 52 a.)

By order dated November 6, 2014, the Hearing Officer sustained the

issuance of citation to Appellant for using a driver with a suspended or revoked

driver’s license. Appellant appealed the Hearing Officer’s determinatio n to the trial

court and, on October 16, 2015, the trial court affirmed the PPA’s decision.

Appellant then filed a timely appeal to this Court.

On appeal, Appellant reiterates the arguments raised before the trial

court. Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it determined that

certificate holders are responsible for verifying the validity of a taxicab driver’s

Pennsylvania driver’s license. Appellant also argues that PPA’s retroactive issuance

of the citation violated its due process rights. Finally, Appellant asserts that the trial

court erred because there is no record evidence indicating that Appellant failed to

verify that Salagbi’s driver’s license was valid when it leased its vehicles to him.

Discussion

Here, the iss ues raised are identical to those raised and resolved by this

Court in Lindros Taxi v. Philadelphia Parking Authority , __ A.3d __ (Pa. Cmwlth.,

No. 1173 C.D. 2015 , filed July 1 , 2016 ). In Lindros Taxi , we reasoned that the Code

does not require a certificate holder to verify that a taxicab driver possesses a valid

driver’s license and, consequently, a certificate holder’s duty to supervise pursuant to

section 1011.9(b) of the Code is satisfied if it ve rifies that an individual possesses a

current and validly issued taxicab certificate. We adopt the reasoning set forth in

Lindros Taxi and likewise reject the arguments raised by PPA in the present matter.4 Conclusion

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is reversed.

________________________________ PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sephardic Taxi, LLC, :

Appellant :

: No. 2343 C.D. 2015

v. :

: The Philadelphia Parking Authority :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22 nd day of July , 201 6 , the October 16, 2015, order

of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is reversed.

____________ ____________________ PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge