Class-Wide Refund Post-Deprivation Remedy Retroactive Notices
Z&R Cab, LLC v. Phila. Parking Auth., PICS Case No. 17-1067 (C.P. Philadelphia July 10, 2017) McInerney, J. (11 pages).
After a law pertaining to a fee structure imposed on the taxicab industry was declared unconstitutional, the city parking authority was required to give retroactive notices to class members and provide the opportunity for a hearing. Class members were not entitled to completely avoid the fees for the period during which the unconstitutional law was in effect.
In this class-action matter, plaintiffs represented members of the taxicab industry who sought a refund of fees paid to the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) between July 16, 2004, and July 9, 2013. PPA imposed these fees to cover the costs of inspecting, licensing and regulating the taxicab industry in Philadelphia.
In 2004, the legislature transferred regulatory responsibility for taxicab and limousine service in Philadelphia to PPA. The Parking Authority Law provided funding for PPA through fees paid by those in the taxicab industry. However, in 2012 the court ruled that section of the Parking Authority Law was unconstitutional. The law violated the separation of powers because the statute allowed PPA to set its own budget and fee schedule with only minimal legislative involvement or guidance. The court also found that the law deprived members of the taxicab industry of procedural due process, because the statute did not provide any means for them to challenge the fees imposed by PPA. The legislature later enacted new sections to the Parking Authority Law to correct these procedural defects.
In 2013, plaintiffs filed this class-action suit, seeking a full refund of all fees paid under the old law. PPA filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming the court's decision was prospective only. The court found that plaintiffs and other taxicab companies were not immune from the fees, but rather, PPA simply denied them procedural due process. Plaintiffs were entitled to notice, a hearing and an appeal procedure to challenge their individual assessments. The court concluded that a retrospective procedure was reasonable and appropriate. Some of the fees were charged as much as 13 years prior to the court's decision, so the court's post-deprivation remedy provided for additional time for sending notices and gathering information. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for a class-wide refund, but required defendant to provide retroactive notices and hearings to all putative class members.