taxi drivers file suit against city of seattle

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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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

mailto:[email protected]

taxi drivers file suit against city of seattle

Documents