Illinois Transportation Trade Association et al

Filing 127

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 4/25/2016:Mailed notice(rth, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ILLINOIS TRANSPORTATION TRADE
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois municipal
corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 cv 827
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is defendant City of Chicago’s (“the City”) motion to dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint [98], intervenors’ motion to dismiss [95], and plaintiffs’ amended motion for
preliminary injunction [93]. The Court denies the motions for the reasons set forth below.

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
The plaintiffs are individuals and entities engaged in the licensed taxi and livery industry in
Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiffs allege that the City of Chicago has arbitrarily violated their constitutional
rights by applying burdensome and costly taxi and limo regulations to them, while permitting drivers
in “Transportation Network Providers” (“TNP”) to compete in the “for-hire” transportation
industry without having to comply with the same cost and regulations as plaintiffs. On September
22, 2015, this Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint,
finding that plaintiffs had stated an Equal Protection claim Counts II and III. The City moved for
reconsideration of that Order, arguing that this Court should also have dismissed the Equal

1

Protection claims in Counts II and III. On November 18, 2015, this Court denied the City’s motion
to reconsider. The Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice.
On November 25, 2015, plaintiffs’ filed a Third Amended Complaint, encompassing all
claims as well as new allegations for equal protection violation based on the new regulations for
airport pickups. Counts I, IV, V, VI, and VII, remain dismissed, but are included to preserve
plaintiffs’ appeal rights. The City filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Although
styled as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), the City rehashes and reasserts the same arguments that this Court has rejected twice
already.
While motions to reconsider interlocutory orders are permitted in the court’s discretion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), they are disfavored. Such motions “serve a limited
function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Conditioned Ocular Enhancement, Inc. v. Bonaventura, 458 F.Supp.2d 704, 707 (N.D.Ill. 2006) (quoting
Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir.1996)). Under this
standard a manifest error of law or fact occurs when a district court “has patently misunderstood a
party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or
has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales,
Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir.1990). A party asserting such an error bears a heavy burden, and
motions for reconsideration “are not at the disposal of parties who want to ‘rehash’ old arguments.”
Zurich Capital Mkts., Inc. v. Coglianese, 383 F.Supp.2d 1041, 1045 (N.D.Ill. 2005).
Here, the City primarily rehashes the same arguments that this Court considered and rejected
when ruling on its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and on the City’s motion to
reconsider. As courts routinely state, motions to dismiss are not intended to test the merits of a
claim and are construed in favor of the non-moving party. This Court therefore found that the
2

plaintiffs had stated a claim for disparate treatment under the Equal Protection Clause in Counts II
and III. The City has not persuaded this Court to find otherwise for the repled allegations either
through its motion for reconsideration or the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint now
before the Court. The only new issue for the Court to consider is plaintiffs’ claim that the City’s new
airport rules state a claim for equal protection. Plaintiffs’ claim is that liveries and taxis that prearrange airport pickups via a smartphone app should have the same access to passengers as TNPs at
the upper level of the airport rather than the “congested” lower level.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment preserves the right of all
similarly situated persons to be treated equally under the law. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Boston Taxi Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Boston, No. CV 15-10100-NMG,
2016 WL 1274531, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2016). The City “may not rely on a classification whose
relationship to an asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.”
Illinois Sporting Goods Ass’n v. County of Cook, 845 F.Supp. 582, 591 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (quoting Cleburne
Living Ctr., 473 U.S. at 446). The City asserts that its purpose of managing airport traffic and
minimizing disruption to customer expectations about where to find taxis and liveries. There is no
rational reason to distinguish between types of for-hire car with a pre-arranged pickup made through
a smartphone app. In both instances, any vehicle creates more congestion in the area of the airport
to which the vehicle is sent. The same would be true if cars of one model were sent one way and
cars of another model sent a different direction. Thus, plaintiffs have stated a claim for disparate
treatment under Equal Protection. The City’s motion to dismiss is denied.
The intervenors separately move to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs fail to state a claim under
Equal Protection because they are asking for a remedy that is not available to them for such a
violation. Plaintiffs have abandoned their request, which would cause the arrest of TNP drivers for

3

failing to comply with the taxi ordinance. This Court denies the intervenors’ motion to dismiss as
moot.
2. Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs move for preliminary injunction seeking equal treatment for the taxis and the
TNPs by requesting the Court impose an injunction preventing the City from enforcing the taxi
ordinance. With the amendment governing airport pickups, the plaintiffs are also requesting
application of the TNP ordinance to taxis and liveries that pre-arrange airport pickups through
smartphone applications. The injunctive relief plaintiffs are requesting puts the Court in the position
of acting as super-legislator by directing the City to apply parts of the TNP Ordinance to the taxi
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are essentially asking the Court to dictate the City’s transportation policy. This is
evident from their motion in which they acknowledge that the City Council and the Mayor will be
put in the position of revising the statute or violating this Court’s order. The Court declines to grant
such an extraordinary remedy.
Since this Court is not in the position of issuing advisory opinions, the Court is struggling
with how to resolve plaintiffs’ complaint. Resolution of plaintiffs’ complaint is best directed to the
legislative process. Regardless of this Court’s ruling on the merits of plaintiffs’ claim should it reach
that stage, plaintiffs will have to address their concerns to the City Council because it is clear that
monetary relief will not resolve the ultimate problem for plaintiffs. It is the City Council that has the
authority to remedy the situation at hand, and not this Court.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein and after careful consideration of the parties’ arguments this
Court denies the City’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint [98], denies Intervenors’
4

Motion to Dismiss [95], and denies Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction [93]. At
the next status hearing, plaintiffs should be prepared to address what remedy they are in fact seeking
that this Court would have the authority to impose. Status hearing set for May 6, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: April 25, 2016

Entered: _______________________________
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
United States District Judge

5