Opinion
11 Civ. 2921 (LAK)
02-06-2012
AHASANUL AZIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.
This action is brought by three present or former taxicab drivers against the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC"), the City of New York, TLC Commissioner David S. Yassky, and New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. The gist of plaintiffs' alleged grievance is that global positioning system ("GPS") data obtained from equipment installed in New York City taxicabs in accordance with TLC rules has been and hereafter may be used to prosecute some taxicab drivers, administratively and/or criminally, despite the fact that no warrants were obtained for the installation of the equipment and/or the use of the GPS data.
The action previously was dismissed as against Mr. Vance. DI 18.
Complaint ("Cpt.") ¶ 1.
Facts
In March 2004, the TLC first issued regulations requiring the use of GPS devices in New York City taxicabs. The GPS devices required by these regulations resulted in the electronic gathering of data that taxicab drivers previously were required to track in written form. Plaintiffs allege that certain GPS data is being used in administrative and/or criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of those drivers against whom they are used.
Id. ¶ 6.
The TLC is authorized to issue regulate and supervise the business and industry of transportation of persons by licensed vehicles forhire in New York City See N.Y. CITY CHARTER §§ 2303(a), (b)(6); N.Y. CITY ADMIN. CODE §§ 19503(a).
Cpt. ¶ 7; see DI 17, at 2.
Recent cases in this district have addressed the implementation of GPS devices in New York City taxicabs and outlined the relevant TLC rules governing its use. See Buliga v. N.Y. City Taxi & Limousine Comm'n, No. 07 Civ. 6507, 2007 WL 4547738, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2007), aff'd, 324 Fed. Appx. 82 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2009); Alexandre v. N.Y. City Taxi & Limousine Comm'n, No. 07 Civ. 8175, 2007 WL 2826952, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2007).
In April 2011, plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that the use of GPS data to prosecute taxicab drivers administratively or criminally without a warrant is illegal, (2) an injunction to prevent the use of GPS data in administrative or criminal proceedings, (3) damages incidental to the equitable relief, including punitive damages, (4) attorneys' fees, and (5) other equitable relief.
Cpt., prayer for relief ¶¶ i-v.
In June 2011, the TLC, Yassky, and the City of New York (collectively, "City Defendants") moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They argue, inter alia, that the plaintiffs lack standing and that this Court should abstain under Younger from exercising jurisdiction over Azim's claims because of his ongoing administrative proceedings before the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings ("OATH").
DI 15.
Since the City Defendants filed their motion in June 2011, two relevant developments have occurred. First, OATH concluded Azim's administrative hearing and recommended that his hack license be revoked and that he be fined. On the basis of that recommendation, the TLC revoked Azim's hack license and fined him $850 for 177 overcharge violations. Even though Azim could have sought judicial review of the TLC's decision within 30 days, he did not do so. As the administrative hearing is no longer in progress, the City Defendants do not argue in their supplemental memorandum of law that Younger abstention is appropriate. Second, this Court converted the City Defendants' motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion because the motion to dismiss relied on material outside of the complaint.
Murray Decl., Ex. I.
Fox Decl., Ex. O.
Id. at 1-2.
DI 32, at 3.
DI 25.
On January 30, 2012soon after the summary judgment motion had been fully briefedplaintiffs brought to this Court an order to show cause seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. This Court denied that motion in all respects because plaintiffs failed to allege any immediate and irreparable injury or the requisite likelihood of success on the merits. DI 35.
This Court now considers the pending motion for summary judgment.
Discussion
Standing
At the outset, this Court considers whether any of the plaintiffs has alleged standing sufficient to satisfy Article Ill's case and controversy requirement. In short, plaintiffs must allege an "injury in fact" that is: (1) "concrete," "particularized," "and "actual or imminent," (2) "fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant," and (3) redressable "by a favorable decision."
See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
In reviewing the complaint, the exhibits, the parties' memoranda of law, and the concessions made by counsel at oral argument, it is clear that plaintiffs Vazquez and Charlite lack standing because they allege no actual injury from the use of GPS data at any administrative or criminal proceeding. Vazquez settled the administrative charge previously alleged against him. Even though Charlite received a proposed settlement to avoid administrative charges, no charges of any type have been filed against him despite his rejection of the proposed settlement. As Vazquez and Charlite do not allege any injury from the use of GPS data in administrative or criminal proceedings, they lack standing to bring these claims.
See Murray Decl., Exs. G & H; DI 32, at 2; DI 35.
Plaintiffs do not contest these arguments in their opposition. DI 21.
In Azim's case, administrative charges were filed against him, his hack license was revoked, and he was fined. Despite these developments, Azim decided not to seek review of the Commissioner's decision to fine him and revoke his license even though such avenues were available to him. Instead, he pursued this claim in federal court seeking prospective remedies only, including a declaratory judgment and an injunction. As Azim's license has been revoked already, the type of forward-looking relief he seeks could not redress the alleged harm he suffered. Accordingly, Azim fails to allege standing as well.
Azim did not appeal the TLC Commissioner's decision under 35 RCNY § 68-18 by filing a written appeal within 30 days. See Fox Decl.
Plaintiffs sought a TRO and preliminary injunction in this action as well. DI 36 This Court previously denied that requested relief. DI 35. --------
As this Court finds that the standing deficiencies are sufficient to decide the summary judgment motion, it does not reach the merits of plaintiffs' claims.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the City Defendants motion to dismiss, which this Court converted into a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint [DI 15], is granted in all respects on the ground that none of these plaintiffs has standing to sue. The Clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. Dated: February 6, 2012
/s/_________
Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Judge