Picker

Desoto Cab Co. v. Picker

Good Law
196 F. Supp. 3d 1107·2016 WL 3913643·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94809
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 20, 2016Case No. 15-cv-04375-EMCCalifornia5,380 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Desoto Cab Company, Inc., d/b/a Flywheel Taxi (“Flywheel”), has filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), in their official capacities only. Flywheel, a “traditional” taxi company, asserts a § 1983 equal protection claim against the CPUC based on its assertion of jurisdiction over new transportation carriers such as Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar. Flywheel contends that these so-called transportation network carriers (“TNCs”) 1 are de facto taxi companies and therefore should be subject to the same rules and regulations as traditional taxi companies, which are governed not by the CPUC but rather by local municipalities such as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (“SFMTA”). The gist of Flywheel’s complaint is that the CPUC’s rules and regulations are less strict than the rules and regulations of, e.g., the SFMTA, so that, by exercising jurisdiction to regulate TNCs and freeing them of the more demanding regulatory requirements of the SFMTA, the CPUC is affording TNCs more favorable treatment than traditional taxi companies.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.