taxi drivers file suit against city of seattle
DESCRIPTION
Taxi drivers file suit against City of SeattleTRANSCRIPT
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1
70798466.1 0009610-0001770798466.1 0009610-00017
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTONFOR KING COUNTY
GREENCAB TAXI & DISABLED SERVICES ASSOCIATION LLC; a Washington limited liability company; RIDEHAIL LLC, a Washington limited liability company; EVERGREEN STATE TAXI ASSOCIATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation; and SEATTLE TAXI DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SEATTLE CITIZENS TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 124441, an unknown entity; CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal corporation; KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; MONICA SIMMONS, in her official capacity as Clerk for the City of Seattle; and KYMBER WALTMUNSON, in her official capacity as King County Auditor,
Defendants.
No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2
70798466.1 0009610-0001770798466.1 0009610-00017
Plaintiffs GreenCab Taxi & Disabled Services Association LLC, RideHail LLC,
Evergreen State Taxi Association, and Seattle Taxi Drivers Association (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. GreenCab Taxi & Disabled Services Association LLC (“GreenCab”) is a
Washington limited liability company based in Kent, Washington. GreenCab operates 44 King
County-licensed taxicab vehicles. GreenCab supports the City’s adoption of Ordinance No.
124441 because, among other things, Ordinance No. 124441 includes a provision that will allow
GreenCab additional flexibility in servicing contract customers from their locations within the
City of Seattle.
2. RideHail LLC (“RideHail”) is a Washington limited liability company based in
Seattle, Washington. RideHail is developing an application for use by licensed taxicab and other
vehicles operated for-hire, and their operators. RideHail supports the City’s adoption of
Ordinance No. 124441 because, consistent with the Seattle City Council’s legislative finding of
fact made in adopting Ordinance No. 124441, the “creation of a pilot program regulating
unlicensed companies and affiliated drivers using application dispatch technology will promote
fair competition among other licensed transportation providers.” See Exhibit A (Ordinance No.
124441 at ¶12).
3. Evergreen State Taxi Association (“Evergreen”), a Washington nonprofit
corporation, is an association of taxicab, for-hire, and limousine dispatch companies, with certain
of its members operating in and around Seattle, Washington, as well as throughout the State of
Washington. Members of Evergreen must, as a condition of operation, pay licensing fees, and
their affiliated vehicle operators are subject to commercial insurance rates. Evergreen supports
the City’s adoption of Ordinance No. 124441 because, consistent with the Seattle City Council’s
legislative findings of fact in adopting Ordinance No. 124441: (a) “some companies using
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 3
70798466.1 0009610-0001770798466.1 0009610-00017
application dispatch technology to offer transportation services in Seattle are unlicensed and
affiliated with unlicensed for-hire drivers (unlicensed drivers) and vehicles;” (b) “the use of
application dispatch technology by unlicensed companies, vehicles, and drivers raises significant
public safety and consumer protection concerns;” (c) “the use of application dispatch technology
by unlicensed companies and drivers are competing with existing licensed taxicab and for-hire
drivers in the transportation market and causing negative impacts;” and (d) creation of a pilot
program regulating unlicensed companies and affiliated drivers using application dispatch
technology will promote fair competition among other licensed transportation providers.” See
Exhibit A (Ordinance No. 124441 at ¶¶4, 5, 6, and 12.
4. Seattle Taxi Drivers Association is an unincorporated association of licensed
individual for-hire drivers who operate taxicabs in and around Seattle, Washington. Members of
the Seattle Taxi Drivers are licensed taxicab drivers who must, as a condition of operation, pay
licensing fees and are subject to commercial insurance rates. Seattle Taxi Drivers Association
likewise supports the City’s adoption of Ordinance No. 124441 because, consistent with the
Seattle City Council’s legislative finding of fact made in adopting Ordinance No. 124441, the
“creation of a pilot program regulating unlicensed companies and affiliated drivers using
application dispatch technology will promote fair competition among other licensed
transportation providers.” See Exhibit A (Ordinance No. 124441 at ¶12).
5. Seattle Citizens to Repeal Ordinance 124441 (“SCRO”) is the sponsor of a
referendum challenging City of Seattle Ordinance No. 124441.
6. The City of Seattle (the “City”) is a charter city incorporated pursuant to Article
XI, Section 10 of the Washington State Constitution.
7. Monica Simmons, named here only in her official capacity, is the Clerk of the
Seattle City Council.
8. King County is a political subdivision of the State of Washington.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4
70798466.1 0009610-0001770798466.1 0009610-00017
9. Kymber Waltmunson, named here only in her official capacity, is the Auditor of
King County.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under RCW 7.24.010 et
seq. and RCW 7.40 .010 et seq..
11. Venue is proper in King County, Washington under RCW 4.12.025.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12. On March 17, 2014, the Seattle City Council (“City Council”) unanimously
passed Council Bill 118306 (Ordinance No. 124441). Attached at Exhibit A is a true and correct
copy of Ordinance No. 124441.
13. Ordinance No. 12441 provides for the regulation of Transportation Network
Companies and modification of certain regulations relating to for-hire vehicles. The title of
Ordinance No. 12441 provides:
AN ORDINANCE relating to companies and drivers of a new type of for-hire vehicle in order to create a pilot program for transportation network companies and affiliated drivers and vehicles; establishing minimum operating requirements for transportation network companies and affiliated drivers; imposing vehicle inspections; imposing a zero tolerance drug use policy for affiliated drivers; imposing minimum insurance requirements for transportation network companies and affiliated vehicles; requiring rate transparency for transportation network companies; and establishing licensing fees; raising the maximum number of taxicab licenses issued by the City; revising terminology; adding new sections and amending various Sections of Chapter 6.310 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
14. Under Ordinance No. 124441, the City Council made specific findings of fact,
including, in part:1
a. “The Council finds that as [sic] the use of application dispatch technology
by unlicensed companies, vehicles, and drivers raises significant public
safety and consumer protection concerns;”
1 The City Council’s findings of fact are provided in full at Ordinance 124441, attached at Exhibit A.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5
70798466.1 0009610-0001770798466.1 0009610-00017
b. “The Council finds that the use of application dispatch technology by
unlicensed companies and drivers are competing with existing licensed
taxicab and for-hire drivers in the transportation market and causing
negative impacts;”
c. “The Council finds that the creation of a pilot program, establishing
minimum operating requirements for unlicensed drivers and unlicensed
companies using application dispatch technology is appropriate and
necessary to protect the safety of the public;” and
d. “The Council finds that it has the authority to establish code to regulate
for-hire vehicles as granted by Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington
State Constitution and RCW 46.72.160.”
15. Shortly after Ordinance No. 124441 was passed by the City Council on March 17,
2014, SCRO commenced a campaign to gather signatures for a referendum petition to repeal
Ordinance No. 124441 (the “Referendum”). Attached at Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of
the Referendum.
16. The Referendum seeks to repeal Ordinance No. 124441 in its entirety.
17. On May 7, 2014, the King County Department of Elections delivered to the
Seattle City Clerk’s office a Certificate of Sufficiency, certifying that SCRO submitted the
requisite number of signatures to permit placement of the Referendum on the November 2014
ballot, pursuant to Article IV, Section 1 of the Charter of the City of Seattle. Attached at Exhibit
C is a true and correct copy of a memorandum from the Seattle City Clerk to the Seattle City
Council (“May 7, 2014 Memo”), including a copy of the Certificate of Sufficiency, notifying the
Seattle City Council of the Certificate of Sufficiency.
18. As stated in the May 7, 2014 Memo, the “deadline for placing a measure on the
November 4, 2014, general election ballot is Tuesday, August 5, 2014. The last regularly
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6
70798466.1 0009610-0001770798466.1 0009610-00017
scheduled Full Council Meeting prior to that deadline is Monday, August 4, 2014.”
19. Absent court intervention, the City Council and City Clerk are expected to take
action on or before August 5, 2014, to refer the Referendum to the County and County Auditor
for inclusion on the November 4, 2014, general election ballot.
20. Absent court intervention, the County and County Auditor are expected to take
action in August or, by the latest, September, 2014, to include the Referendum on the November
4, 2014, general election ballot.
21. Plaintiffs GreenCab, RideHail, Evergreen State Taxi Association , and the Seattle
Taxi Drivers Association bring this action seeking a declaration that the Referendum is invalid
and therefore not proper for inclusion on the November 4, 2014, general election ballot. Under
RCW 46.72.001, the Legislature specifically found that the issue of privately operated for-hire
transportation, and the related safety, reliability, and stability of privately operated for-hire
transportation services are matters of statewide importance. To that end the Legislature provided
its intent to permit political subdivisions of the state to license, control, and regulate for-hire
vehicles operating within their jurisdictions.
22. The Legislature’s finding that the regulation of privately operated for-hire
transportation services is an “essential governmental function,” and the Legislature’s exclusive
grant of power to political subdivisions of the state to regulate for-hire transportation services,
preclude a local referendum on the subject matter.
23. To the extent the actions of the City Council under Ordinance 124441 are deemed
administrative in nature, the Referendum is invalid on that basis.
24. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent inclusion of the Referendum on the
November 4, 2014, general election ballot.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7
70798466.1 0009610-0001770798466.1 0009610-00017
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DECLARATORY RELIEF
(All Defendants)
25. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully
herein.
26. A controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether the
subject matter of the Referendum is within the scope of the local initiative/referendum power.
27. Pre-election review of the Referendum is permitted where, as here, there is a
dispute regarding whether the subject matter of the Referendum is beyond the scope of the local
initiative/referendum power.
28. The Referendum usurps authority granted to the Seattle City Council by Article
11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution and by the Washington State Legislature,
pursuant to RCW 46.72.001 and 46.72.160, and therefore exceeds the scope of the local
initiative/referendum power.
29. To the extent the Referendum involves administrative actions, rather than
legislative actions, it is not within the scope of the local initiative/referendum power.
30. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Referendum is invalid because it is beyond
the scope of the local initiative/referendum power.
V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(All Defendants)
31. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully
herein.
32. Because the Referendum is not a lawful exercise of the local initiative/referendum
power, Defendants, and all employees, agents, and others acting in concert with Defendants,
should be enjoined from submitting or including the Referendum on the November 4, 2014,
general election ballot.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 8
70798466.1 0009610-0001770798466.1 0009610-00017
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs seek relief as follows:
a. Declaring that the Referendum, in its entirety, is invalid because it is beyond the
scope of the local initiative/referendum power;
b. Enjoining Defendants from including the Referendum on the November 4, 2014,
general election ballot; and
c. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
DATED: June 9, 2014.STOEL RIVES LLP
__________________________________Vanessa Soriano Power, WSBA No. 30777Stoel Rives LLP600 University St., Ste. 3600Seattle, WA 98101Phone: (206) 624-0900Fax: (206) 386-7500Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs