1. Taxi Program Litigation and Implementation Bill Mullins - Ground Transportation Manager

2. Taxi Service Prior to Implementation Inadequate and Unsafe Equipment Drivers Fighting in the Queue Line Drivers Stranding Customers in Route Intimidation aimed at the Cab Starter And the list goes on…

3. Taxi Program Implementation Process September 2006 – The RFP is Issued September 2006 – Meetings Held With 7 Taxi Cab Companies to Discuss Minimum Qualifications

4. Taxi Program Implementation Process After the RFP Process, Three Proposals were Received ACE Taxi was Chosen by the Evaluation Committee The Recommendation was Sent to The Director of Airports Director forwarded to City Council

5. Taxi Program Implementation Process December 2006 - City Council Hears Testimony Unsuccessful Proposer Requests City Council to Reconsider the Airport’s Decision

6. Taxi Program Implementation Process Ord. No. 1781–A – 06 “Hopkins Taxi Service Ordinance” (1)Issue permits for taxicab companies to provide outbound services from Hopkins; (2)Enter into an agreement with a third-party taxi management concessionaire to manage outbound services; and (3)Issue permits at Hopkins or to enter into a concession agreement for the operation for an exclusive outbound taxicab concession at Hopkins.

7. Taxi Program Implementation Process Standard Parking was awarded the Management Contract Seventy-Five Permits were Issued, 35 to ACE Taxi, 25 to Yellow Cab and 15 to Americab October 9, 2007 the Taxi Program was Implemented

8. Airport Program/ Driver Connection Cleveland Hopkins International Airport Standard Parking Corporation Ace TaxicabYellow TaxicabAmericab Ace taxi drivers Yellow taxi drivers Americab taxi drivers

9. Implementation Issue Unqualified Proposers United and Hired Legal Representation. Litigation was Threatened if the Airport Proceeded with the Taxi Program

10. Implementation Issues On November 11, 2007 USA, ABC, United Cab and Airport Taxi Filed a Complaint seeking a Preliminary Injunction On November 13, 2007 The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division Held a Preliminary Injunction Hearing

11. Federal Judge Peter C. Economus Standards for a Preliminary Injunction –(1) Whether the Plaintiff has a strong likelihood of success on the merits –(2) Whether the Plaintiff would otherwise suffer irreparable injury –(3) Whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others –(4) Whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction

12. Likelihood of Success Racial Discrimination in Making and Enforcing Contractual Relationships Plaintiffs Could not Establish a Case of Race Discrimination Because ACE Taxi is Owned By a Member of a Protected Class

13. Irreparable Injury Due Process – Plaintiffs Claim Loss of Property Plaintiffs established they had a protected property interest (City License) because the City of Cleveland had conferred that benefit upon them

14. Substantial Harm Irreparable Injury No Other Adequate Legal Remedy Available The court agrees the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if not granted an immediate preliminary injunction

15. Public Interest The Court Must Evaluate: –Whether Plaintiffs Picking up Passengers Would Cause Substantial Harm to Others –If the Public Interest would be Served by Returning to the Original Arrangement The court decided no harm would come to public interest by granting Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction

16. The Court’s Conclusion (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction was GRANTED (2) A hearing was held on Tuesday November 27, 2007 to determine the appropriate remedy

17. Appropriate Remedy Judge Peter C. Economus ruled that the appropriate remedy would be a return to the previous program which allowed for all seven taxi cab companies to operate out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

18. Airport Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which was comprised of a three judge panel

19. Sixth Circuit Court Decision Conclusion “Because the Plaintiffs failed to establish that they were likely to succeed on the merits of both their due process and their equal protection claims, they were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. We accordingly REVERSE the district court's order granting such an injunction”

20. Get a Cab the Easy Way