Golden State Transit Corporation a California Corporation v. City of Los Angeles, a Municipal Corporation

Golden State Transit purchased the assets of the bankrupt Yellow Cab Company in 1977 and the City thereafter approved the transfer of Yellow Cab’s franchise. On March 31, 1980, Golden State made a timely application for renewal of its taxicab franchise to become effective upon its expiration on March 31, 1981. The City’s Department of Transportation reported that Golden State was in full compliance with all of the terms and conditions of its franchise. Acting on this report, the Board of Transportation Commissioners recommended approval of the franchise renewal to the Transportation and Traffic Committee of the City Council on September 4, 1980 and again on January 26, 1981. The Transportation and Traffic Committee recommended to the City Council that Golden State be granted a five-year renewal franchise.

An ordinance approving Golden State’s franchise as well as ordinances approving twelve other taxicab franchises operating within the City were placed on the City Council calendar for February 11, 1981. In October 1980, Golden State’s agreement with the Teamster’s Union expired and they failed to reach a new agreement. On February 5, 1981, the Teamsters informed the City of the…

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment of the court affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the City. I also concur in that part of the majority opinion holding that Golden State’s due process claim must fall because Golden State has failed to establish that a constitutionally protectable property interest was created.

I write separately, however, because I believe it is wholly unnecessary to the disposition of this appeal to address Golden State’s legal argument that the NLRA prohibits a City from refusing to renew Golden State’s franchise under what Golden State alleges to be the facts of this case. 1 Golden State’s preemption argument is constructed on two factual premises: (1) that the City’s purpose in refusing to renew the franchise was to assist the Teamsters in their labor dispute with Golden State, and (2) that the effect of the City’s refusal to renew the franchise was to destroy Golden State’s economic ability to resist the strike. 2 Golden State cites no evidence, *835 however, that gives rise to a triable issue of fact with respect to either of these factual allegations. As a result, we should hold that the…

754 F.2d 830 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2801 , 102 Lab.Cas. P 11,461 GOLDEN STATE TRANSIT CORPORATION a California corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, Defendant/Appellee. CA No. 83-6441. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 3, 1984. Decided Feb. 26, 1985. Zachary D. Fasman, Kathleen Johnson Raynsford, David B. Siegel, Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C., Daniel R. Shulman, Patricia A. Knipe, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff-appellant. John F. Haggerty, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before FARRIS, ALARCON and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. FARRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 Golden State Transit purchased the assets of the bankrupt Yellow Cab Company in 1977 and the City thereafter approved the transfer of Yellow Cab's franchise. On March 31, 1980, Golden State made a timely application for renewal of its taxicab franchise to become effective upon its expiration on March 31, 1981. The City's Department of Transportation reported that Golden State was in full compliance with all of the…