Picker

Desoto Cab Co. v. Picker

Good Law
228 F. Supp. 3d 950·2017 WL 118810·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5004
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 2017Case No. 15-cv-04375-EMCCalifornia5,125 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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. 1 Flywheel, a “traditional” taxi company, asserts a § 1983 equal protection claim against the CPUC based on the agency’s assertion of jurisdiction over new transportation carriers such as Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar. Flywheel contends that these so-called transportation network carriers (“TNCs”) are de facto taxi companies and therefore should be subject to the same rules and regulations as traditional taxi companies, which are regulated not by the CPUC but rather by local municipalities. The gist of Flywheel’s complaint is that the CPUC’s rules and regulations governing TNCs are less strict than the rules and regulations of the local municipalities governing traditional taxis so that, in the final analysis, the TNCs are more favorably treated. According to Flywheel, TNCs are de facto taxi companies much like traditional taxi companies, and thus all should be regulated by local…

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.