Checker Cab Philadelphia, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
2015 WL 966284, No. 14–7265 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2015)
Plaintiffs, taxi companies and their dispatch company,
sought to enjoin Uber from operating an allegedly illegal taxi operation in
Philadelphia; the court denied the motion. Plaintiffs are regulated by the
Philadelphia Parking Authority, which provides them with a limited number of
medallions allowing them to operate taxis.
Checker has an app, approved by the Authority, allowing people to order
a ride at the touch of a button. Uber has a competing app, not approved by the
Authority. It uses drivers who supply
their own vehicles and who don’t have medallions.
Here, plaintiffs sought an injunction based solely on its
unfair competition claim under Pennsylvania common law: that it was unfair
competition to run a taxi service in violation of various state and local taxi
cab ordinances.
The court found no likely success on the merits. Uber’s alleged regulatory violations couldn’t
support an unfair competition claim where enforcement of the relevant laws and
regulations is left to regulators, and the laws provide no private cause of
action. The court cited Sandoz
Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Richardson–Vicks, Inc., 902 F.2d 222 (3d Cir.1990), finding
exclusive FDA jurisdiction over alleged mislabeling of a product in violation
of the FDCA. (The court did not discuss
the extent to which Pom Wonderful
limited Sandoz. That might not be
vital here, because California is unusual in making violation of other laws a
violation of its UCL, and the court did not say that plaintiffs argued that
violation of taxi laws resulted in some kind of false advertising.) In Dial A
Car, Inc. v. Transportation, Inc., 82 F.3d 484 (D.C.Cir.1996), the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals also held that private parties couldn’t invoke the Lanham Act
to create a private cause of action for enforcement of local taxi regulations. Similar results obtained in Yellow Group LLC
v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 3396055 (N.D.Ill. July 10, 2014), Manzo v.
Uber Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 3495401 (N.D.Ill. July 14, 2014), and Greater
Houston Transportation Co. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14–941
(S.D.Tex. Apr. 21, 2014). The relevant
issues were “best left to the state and local legislative bodies and regulatory
authorities charged with implementing and enforcing the ordinances and
regulations that Plaintiffs here seek to enforce by way of private litigation.”
Plaintiffs also failed to show irreparable harm. Plaintiffs argued that a legal violation
justified a presumption of irreparable harm, but that was only for state
agencies seeking injunctive relief, and not for private parties bringing
common-law unfair competition claims. It was also inconsistent with the Third
Circuit’s holding in Ferring that
Lanham Act violations don’t justify a presumption of irreparable harm. Plaintiffs’ harm came solely from loss of
business or fares, and such harms were compensable in money damages. And plaintiffs’ argument that their losses
were indeterminate also failed: an inability to precisely measure financial
harm doesn’t make it irreparable or immeasurable.
No comments:
Post a Comment