IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Germantown Cab Company :
:
v. : No. 1083 C.D. 2016

: No. 1084 C.D. 2016 Philadelphia Parking : Submitted: January 27, 2017 Authority, :
: Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: August 15, 2017

The Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA ) appeals a June 10, 2016

o rder of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) insofar as
it reversed the decision of a PPA Hearing Officer to uphold three citations issued to Germantown Cab Company (Germantown), a partial rights 1 taxicab operator, for violating PPA regulations.

On March 8, 2014, Supervisor John Broggi (Broggi) of the PPA Taxi
and Limousine Division (TLD) issued th ree citations to Germantown : T

- 16568 (as amended) for violation s of 52 Pa. Code §§1011.3(a)(1) ( expiration of taxi cab

1 A partial rights taxi cab is defined as “[a] taxicab authorized by the [PPA] to provide common carrier call or demand transportation of persons for compensation on a non

- citywide basis . . . .” 52 Pa. Code §1011.2.2

driver’s certificate) and 1011.9(b) ( certificate holder’s responsibility to supervise drivers) ; T

- 16569 for a violation of 52 Pa. Code §1017.5(b)(12) ( requiring a protective shield separating front and back seats); and T

- 16570 for violation s of 52 Pa. Code § § 1017.5 (b)(15)
, (16) ( taxicab must be clean; spare tires must be
covered ) . Several days later, Broggi issued citation T

- 16574 for a violation of 52 Pa. Code §1017.36 ( prohibiting a taxicab removed from service from resuming
service prior to a successful PPA comp liance inspection )

. Germantown appealed
all of the citations

.

At a February 26, 2015 hearing, TLD relied on Broggi’s inspection
report for its case. Germantown presented no witnesses or evidence but argued
that the PPA could not establish jurisdiction because the taxi cab had not been registered with the PPA

. Germantown also asserted arguments it had raised as part
of a g eneral challenge to PPA regulations in Bucks County Services, Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Author ity , (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016, No. 584 M.D. 2011, filed January 3, 2017) (single

- judge opinion by Brobson, J.)
, 2 which matter was then pending

. Based on the TLD inspection report , the PPA H earing O fficer found
that the taxi cab
, G

- 47
, had been providing service in Philadelphia and was therefore subject to the PPA’s jurisdiction. T he H earing O fficer concluded that TLD had prov ed by a preponderance of the evidence that Germantown was liable
for all violations alleged in the citations

. B y o rder dated April 14, 2015, the PPA

2 Notice s of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme C o urt were file d by the PPA on January 23, 2017, and the P ennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (P UC ) on February 2, 2017, and docketed at 8 E AP 2017 and 9 EAP 2017 , respectively

.3

H earing O fficer imposed civil penalties and administrative costs total ing $ 2,025 .00. Germantown appealed to the trial court.

The trial court first noted that because the taxicab is a partial rights taxicab, it may be regulated by the PUC a nd/or the PPA when it is operating within certain areas of Philadelphia. The trial court observed that it had previously refused to enforce PPA regulations that conflict with PUC regulations absent evidence that the taxicab had been operating outside its PUC certificate, reasoning

t hat such enforcement creates an unreasonable economic hardship on a partial rights operator. 3 By order date d June 9, 2016, the trial court affirmed the PPA as to
citation T

- 16570
, on the grounds th at the regulation at issue did not conflict with any PUC regulation or impose any undue economic hardship. Trial Court op. at 4.
However, after determining that the PPA and PUC regulations conflicted and that

3 The trial court explained:

[T]his C ourt has reasoned that if a taxi is providing ser vice within the City of Philadelphia pursuant to its PUC certificate, the statute gives the PPA the authority to enforce PPA regulations as long as such enforcement is within PPA’s jurisdiction and the enforcement does not create an unreasonable conflict b etween the taxi’s PUC

– issued certificate and PPA regulations. In order for a PUC certificate, including one granting partial rights, to have an y meaning, the regulations imposed by PPA cannot conflict with those of the PUC in such a way that creates unrea sonable economic hardship or eviscerates the PUC certificate.

Accordingly . . . in order for the PPA to have the jurisdiction to properly enforce its conflicting regulation . . . record evidence must establish that the at

- issue taxi was providing point

- to

- point service within the City of Philadelphia and outside of its PUC certificate at the time of the violation.

Trial Court op. at 2 (emphasis in original)

.4

the PPA failed to establish that the taxicab had been operating in Philadel phia outside its PUC certificate, the trial court reversed the PPA ’s order as to the remaining citations

.

On appeal to this Court, 4 the PPA argues that the trial cour t ignored the PPA’s exclusive jurisdiction to regulate partial rights taxicab service within the

C i ty of Philadelphia

. We affirm the trial court’s order on other grounds

. 5

In Bucks County Services , this Court addressed a challenge to PPA regulations brou ght by several taxi cab companies providing partial

- rights services in Philadelphia, including Germantown

. The companies challenged the authority of the PPA to regulate partial

- rights taxi cabs under the same regulatory scheme as medallion cabs operating in Philadelphia. This Court found that the PPA failed to consider the differences between medallion taxicabs and partial

- rights taxi cabs when enacting its 2011 regulations , which placed the same burdens on partial

rights and medallion taxi cabs

. This Court concluded that th e regulations placed a disproportionate burden on partial

- rights taxi cabs and evidenced a purely arbitrary
exercise of the PPA ’ s rulemaking power . The Court initially held that all of the regulations promulgated by the PPA in 2011 were in valid as to partial

- rights
taxicabs. Subsequently, i n a January 3, 2017 Memorandum and Order, this Court

4 Our scope of review of an agency’s decision where the trial court does not take any addition al evidence 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 , 14 3 A.3d 443, 446 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). T he PPA functions as a n agency of the Commonwealth in regulating taxicabs. Blount v. Philadelphia Parking Authority , 965 A.2d 226, 234 (Pa. 2009).

5 An appellate court may affirm the tri al court for grounds different from those relied upon by the trial court when other grounds for affirmance exist. Germantown Cab Company v. Philadelphia Parking Authority , 158 A.3d 731, 732 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).5

amended its original order in Bucks County Servi ces , Inc. to hold that the nine specific regulations challenged in that appeal , including 52 Pa. Code §§1011.3 (annual renewal of driver’s certificate) and 1017.5(b)(12) (requiring protective shield), were invalid and unenforceable with respect to partial

- rights taxicabs. 6

Thereafter, in Germantown Cab Company v. Philadelphia Parking Authority , 155 A.3d 669, 673

- 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), we reversed a trial court’s order upholding a fine imposed on Germantown by the PPA for a violation of 52
Pa. Code § 1017.5(b)(12) (protective shields ). In doing so, w e adopted the reasoning in Bucks County Servi ces , Inc. and reaffirmed i ts holding. We stated:

Recently, this Court held that the [PPA] cannot impose its regulations on partial rights taxicabs operating in Philadelphia. [Bucks County Services, Inc.]. In that case, the taxicab companies argued that it was unreasonable and unduly burdensome for the [PPA] to regulate their operations; they were only subject to regulation by the PUC. This Court found that the regulations treated medallion and partial rights taxicabs identically, without any considerati on of the material differences in their operations. Accordingly, the Court held that the [PPA’s] regulations were invalid and unenforceable to partial rights taxicabs. On January 3, 2017, this Court amended its original order in Bucks County Services, Inc . and declared nine specific Parking Authority regulations invalid and unenforceable . . . [including 52 Pa. Code §1017.5(b)(12)]. 155 A.3d at 673 (footnote omitted). We further noted that

6 Also included were regulations related to vehicle age and mileage requirements, 52 Pa. Code §1717.4; pre

- service inspections, 52 Pa. Code §1017.2; PPA certificates of inspection, 52 Pa. Code §1017.32(d); PPA biannual inspections, 52 Pa. Code §1017.31; meter seal inspections, 52 Pa. Code §1017.21(b); driver certi fications, 52 Pa. Code §§1021.2; 1021.4(3), 1021.4(7 ), 1021.7, 1021.8, and 1021.9; and out

- of

- service designations, 52 Pa. Code §1003.32.6 [t] he PUC does not require partial rights operators to have a protective shield, and this Court has invalidated the [ P P A ’ s ] protective shield regulation as it applies to partial rights cabs. Stated otherwise, assuming Germantown Cab operated outside the serv ice area in its PUC certificate, this does not subject it to a medallion taxicab regulation. Instead, it becomes a taxicab operating outside its PUC certificate and subject to penalties as delineated in Germantown Cab Company v. Philadelphia Parking Autho rity [(Pa. Cmwlth., No. 461 C.D. 2012, filed January 22, 2013)].
155 A.3d at 674. See also Germantown Cab Company v. Philadelphia Parking Authority , 158 A.2d 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (affirming trial court’s reversal of a
fine issued for failure to install a protective shield based on the holding in Bucks County Servi ces, Inc. that 52 Pa. Code §1017.5(b)(12) was unenforceable). Following these decisions, we affirm the trial court’s order as to citation T

- 16569

.

With respect to citation T

- 16568 , issued for violations of 52 Pa. Code §§1011.3(a)(1) (expiration of taxicab driver’s certificate) and 1011.9(b) (certificate holder’s responsibility to supervise drivers)
, we find the rationale set forth in Bucks County Services, Inc. , to be persuasive
, 7 and we ad opt its hold ing that the regulation at 52 Pa. Code §1011.3 is invalid and unenforceable. Further, because
, in this case, the alleged violation of 52 Pa. Code §1011.9(b) was premised on a violation of 52 Pa. Code §1011.3, we affirm the trial court’s revers al of the PPA’s decision with respect to citation T

- 16568.

7 An unreported opinion of th is c ourt may be cited and relied upon when it is relevant under the doctrine of law of the case, res judicata or collateral estoppel. Parties may also cite an unreported panel decision of the Court issued after January 15, 2008
, for its persuasive value , but not as binding precedent. A single

- judge opinion of the Commonwealth Court, even i f reported, shall be cited only for its persuasive value , not as a binding precedent

. Sectio n 414 of the Commonwealth Court’ s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code §69.414.7 The remaining citation , T

- 16574
, alleges a violation of 52 Pa. Code §1017.36
, 8 specifically, the operation of a taxicab that was removed from service by the PPA. As the trial court observed, the reasons PPA placed Germantown’s PPA certificate out of service are not set forth in the record. However, i n Bucks County Services, Inc. , t his Court also invalidated the regulation at 52 Pa. Code §1003.32 (out of service designation)
, which was the sou rce of the PPA ’s authority

to place a vehicle in out

- of

- service status. The rationale underlying the Court’s

determination in Bucks County Services, Inc. as to the invalidity of 52 Pa. Code §1003.32 is persuasive
, and
, g iven this Court’s prior determinations, we affirm the
trial court’s reversal of the PPA’s order as to citation T

- 16574

.

A ccordingly, the trial court’s order is a ffirmed.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

8 The regulation states: “If a taxicab fails any authority inspection or is removed from taxicab service for any reason, the taxicab may not resume taxicab service until a compliance inspection is successfully completed by the Authority.” 52 Pa. Code §1017.36

.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Germantown Cab Company :
:
v. : No. 1083 C.D. 2016

: No. 1084 C.D. 2016 Philadelphia Parking : Authority, :
: Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 15 th day of August , 201 7
, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated June 10, 2016 , is affirmed.

_________________________________ _ MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge