IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sephardic Taxi, LLC, :

Appellant :

: No. 2343 C.D. 2015

v. :

: Submitted: June 3, 2016

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 citation 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 and 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- 48a.)

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 holder2to supervise its drivers to ensure that only 

authorized drivers provide taxicab service and stated that Salagbi provided at least 

one-hundred trips during the period his license was suspended. (R.R. at 48a-49a.) 

Owens explained that Salagbi attempted to renew his taxicab certificate3

when it was discovered 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 taxicab certificate. (R.R. at 50a-52a.)

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 determination 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 issues 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 verifies 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, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sephardic Taxi, LLC, :

Appellant :

: No. 2343 C.D. 2015

v. :

:

The Philadelphia Parking Authority :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2016, the October 16, 2015, order 

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

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge