PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SONTROL NUMBER PETITION/MOTION COVER SHEET FORCOURTUSE ONLY ASSIGNED TOTUDGE: | ANSWER/RESPONSE DATE: (RESPONDING PARTIES MUSTINCLUDE THIS NUMBER ON ALL FILINGS) ay gore Tee, Donorsend Judge courtery copy of Pelion Motion/Answerf Response out te Fear Status may be obtained online at hp/cours phila.go" fe Baruld Blane HothonClar, Vincoxt Cullsein Gece en Toheck one) A Praincitt — CY] Defendant Philadelphia iting Atlee (check one) Cl Movant Ed Respondent INDICATENATUREOFDOCUMENTEILED: Tar another petonmetion been decides inthis eset Cl ver C1 No Is another pelitionimation pending? Drs [te Pein che Sy Come Oration UP te ener to either qn is es ov as dt he jlo) wer Peiton sponse (0 Motion i FTVBE OF PERTIONMOTIGN (eo ton Pverae ae] PETTTONWOTONGODE TRO siemens IANEWERTAESPONGE FILED TO (Please Inset ho eof the cavenpanding patoninaton To which you are respondre): 1. CASE PROGRAM TL, PARTIES (required for prof of service) Tar itis aioe eae (Game, address and telephone number of al course of record and el cea ie ererer er CMtepresened parties. Attach 2 stamped addressed envelope for cach A. COMMERCE PROGRAM Satvney of roccd and unrepresented party.) Name of Juciat Team Leader, Applicable PettionMotion Desdtine: wtp co Philedelphia Peking Aebaity 1. DAY FORWARDAUAIOR JURY PROGRAM — Ye Tol Market St i PUL Wty Cc. NON JURY PROGRAM ZIS.683, 160d Date Lite: 1D, ARBITRATION PROGRAM Astitetion Date: 1 ARBITRATION APPEAL 1 Date Lise F. OTHER PROGRAM: Die Listed: fai. OTRER Se nga PND arn ve iz0o68 nun 116070083 100004 fy fing tis document and signing blow, the moving party conten that hi motion, pation, answer or rspanse slong with al doce et Een seer counsel ond umeprescted pats fe requires by mle of Cost ee PA. RCP. 2066, Note 0 208.26). ond 40), Fuesmers, paca a es ree a 9 Ge PA ee ate meat INL Leb bloc Crramne¥ Signature/Vurepresented Party) (Date) (Print Name) (duorney 1D. No.) ‘ThePetition, Motionand Answer or Response,ifany, willbeforwarded to the Courtafter the Answer/Response Date, Noextension of the Answer/ResponseDate will be granted evenifthepartiessostipulate, sewersIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. TRIAL DIVISION - CIVIL Paci] blu st thctta sury 2016 Vincen 4 Chae w.lson PlaintifffPetitioner A a y ae Ad bas Term, 20. Control No, 075496 RULE AND NOW, this___ day of ‘| » upon consideration of the foregoing Motion/Petition STEEEEErerrereeseear areas ce enone ea assnboeier ee ISIEECS » # RULE is hereby entered upon the Respondent to show cause why the relief requested therein should not be granted, RULE RETURNABLE on the dey of, am/pm., in Courtroom, > oat City Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19107. BY THE COURT:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA DOCKET NO. JULY 2016 Ron Blount, Vincent Wilson, & Matthew Clark, Pees Petitioners vs. g7496 The Philadelphia Parking Authority, Respondent. ORDER ‘And now on this 12" day of July, 2016 Petitioners’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. Respondent is enjoined from honoring its private agreement with the Transportation Network Company, UberX. Respondent is enjoined from circumventing the legislative process through unlawful and unfair private agreements with favored parties and from further allowing TNCs to violate the civil rights of riders with disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city’s own Fair Practice Ordinance, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. A full evidentiary hearing on the merits of Petitioners’ request for a permanent injunction shall be scheduled for August 11, 2016 at 10:00 AM. Date asIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA DOCKET NO. suv ais Ron Blount, Vincent Wilson, Matthew Clark, 075496 Petitioners vs. The Philadelphia Parking Authority, Respondent. PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED PRO SE 1, Petitioners are residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Citizens of the United States and are directly and adversely affected by the actions and decisions of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA). 2. The PPA is an Authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, created on July 7, 1982, by the Pennsylvania General Assembly amending the Parking Authority Law permitting the City to delegate certain municipal powers to the Philadelphia Parking. Authority to coordinate the management of on-street parking. On April 8, 1983, City Council passed an Ordinance to permit the transfer of those responsibilities to the PPA. w . In July 2004, the Authority assumed responsibility for the regulation and enforcement of all taxi cabs and limousines operating in Philadelphia through its Taxi and Limousine Division. - The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission as authorized by Pennsylvania Legislature has legalized the operation of Transport Network Companies (TNC) like UberX and Lyft in every county but Philadelphia County.5. On or about July 6%, the PPA, after a secret meeting and the promise of a cash payment in a private agreement, in essence created a new law legalizing/authorizing only one TNC company (UberX) to operate in Philadelphia County, despite the decision of the State Legislature to prohibit TNCs from operating in Philadelphia County. 6. The PPA is exercising its authority and regulatory oversight unequally by not requiring TNCs like UberX to pay any taxes or fees to the PPA while at the same time requiring Taxis and Limousine drivers to pay substantial fees, taxes and permits and being subject to inspections to or by the PPA, and is thereby creating an unequal and unfair playing field for all companies and all drivers seeking to operate transportation services in Philadelphia. 7. The PPA preferential treatment to TNCs/UberX also does not require TNCs to comply with the anti-discrimination protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city’s own Fair Practices Ordinance, as well as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and exclusively and unfairly allows UberX in exchange for a cash payment to continue to discriminate against the disabled riding public in violation of their civil rights. 8. The PPA violated its own bylaws by not holding a board meeting, not allowing the public to be heard, and not following its own regulations and the laws of the Commonwealth during the secret negotiations. 9. The PPA gave as its justification for accepting a promise of a cash payment in exchange for preferential treatment to one TNC company, UberX: “There are currently two bills being considered by the Pennsylvania General Assembly that would authorize TNCs throughout the state, including Philadelphia County. This agreement authorizes Uber’s ridesharing platform in Philadelphia while the bills are pending in the State Legislature” (PPA press release, July 6'" 2016). 10. The PPA does not have the right or authority to enact/pass laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 11. No public entity has the right to grant preferential/unequal treatment to one company while unfairly subjecting competing companies (Taxi, Limo and Uber Black Drivers and Medallion Owners) to onerous fees, taxes, permits, inspections and trainings.12. No public entity has the right to negate the equal rights protections afforded to all citizens under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. 13. No public entity has the right to offer another entity or business the ability to ignore the existing laws in exchange for a cash payment, no matter what the cash payment is called. 14. Plaintiffs and the public will be irreparably harmed unless a TRO is issued because: a. Riders with disabilities will continue to experience discriminatory treatment such as the refusal to allow service animals, unfair pricing practices, and no requirements of vehicles that can transport riders who use wheelchairs. b. Taxi, Uber Black and Limousine drivers and medallion owners are subjected to substantial fees, taxes, permits, reasonable background checks, inspections and trainings while not imposing such requirements on UberX drivers and TNCs. c. The City of Philadelphia and its School District are deprived access to much needed revenue from TNC/UberX operations in Philadelphia. 15. Plaintiffs, collectively, therefore Petition the Court to issue a temporary restraining order to enjoin the PPA from further violating their equal protection and civil rights until the PPA is permanently enjoined from such egregious and harmful conduct against the public interest. Mb Vincent Wilson, Pro Se Petitioner and Representative for Uber Black and the Philadelphia Limousine Drivers Kon Blount Ronald Blount, Pro Se Petitioner and Representative for the Taxi Drivers and the Taxi Workers AllianceVita Clo Matthew Clark, Pro Se Petitioner and Representative for Taxis For All and the Disabled Community (riders with disabilities) Dated: July 12, 2016IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA DOCKET NO. JULY 2016 oa Ron Blount, Vincent Wilson, & Matthew Clark, Petitioners vs. The Philadelphia Parking Authority, Respondent. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED PRO SE 1[PageTABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION. . II, ARGUMENT, A. The Injunction is Necessary to Prevent Immediate. . 1. Constitutional and Constitute Irreparable Harm. .......--> B. Greater Injury Will C. An Injunction will D. Petitioners are Likely to Prevail on the Merits. III. The History of the PPA’s action....... Statutory Violations Result From Refusing to Grant... . Restore Parties to the Status Quo. . IV. The PPA actions Violated Article TIT, Sections 1, 3, and 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. .......00.0eeeeeee reer eeerees ; G. A Preliminary Injunction Is Reasonably Suited to Abate the Challenged Activity. . H. The Public Interest Will Not Be Harmed 1 tl e Injunction Is Granted III. CONCLUSION. 2) PaneI. INTRODUCTION In this action, Petitioners seek to enjoin enforcement and implementation of a unilateral, unauthorized act of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) that will adversely affect and harm taxi, limousine, Uber Black drivers, riders with disabilities, the Philadelphia School District and the public interest. This case is not about whether Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), or in this instance Uberx, should be allowed to operate in Philadelphia but rather the ability of the Philadelphia Parking Authority to unilaterally enter an agreement whereby they circumvent the legislative process to selectively provide preferential treatment to TNCs/UberX. Petitioners ask the Court to answer an important question: Does a public authority of the Commonwealth have the right to ignore the Commonwealth's laws, create laws for the Commonwealth, ignore Federal Mandates and provide preferential treatment for one company in exchange for a monetary payment. Petitioners ask the Court to review the extra legal action of the PPA and answer: Does any authority in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, no matter how well intentioned, have the right to create laws of the Commonwealth, or can laws only be promulgated by the State Legislature? II, ARGUMENT Pennsylvania Rule of Procedure permits this Court to enter special relief, including a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, “in the interest of justice and consistent with the usages and principles of law.” The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to “maintain the existing status until the merits of the controversy can be fully heard and determined.” Chipman v. Avon Grove School District, 841 A.2d 1098, 101 (Pa.Cmwith. 2004). The standards governing the entry of a preliminary injunction are clear and settled. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a petitioner must establish that: (4) relief is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages; (2) greater injury will occur from refusing to grant the Injunction than from granting it; (3) the injunction will restore the parties to their status quo as it existed before the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits; (5) the injunction is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and (6) the public interest will not be harmed if the injunction is granted. Brayman v. Constr. Corp., 608 Pa. 584, 601, 13 A.36 925, 935 (2011) (citations omitted). Petitioners meet this standard. 3|PageA. The Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction is Necessary to Prevent Immediate And Irreparable Harm. 1. Petitioners have lost their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law to be governed by elected representatives, if the PPA is allowed to create laws through a private agreement. . Petitioners will lose their economic livelihoods if the PPA is allowed to create laws that selectively favor one company over other companies whose drivers are required to strictly comply with the fee, permits, inspections, background checks and trainings required by the PPA regulations. N 3. Companies who did not make a special cash payment to PPA are discriminated against. 4. Riders with disabilities will continue to face discriminatory treatment in violation of their civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities, the City of Philadelphia’s Fair Practice Ordinance and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Constitutional and Statutory Violations Constitute Irreparable Harm. This case involves violations of mandatory procedural rules that are set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that govern how legislation is considered and passed. Harm to all Pennsylvania citizens arises automatically when those rules are not allowed. The same is true of the other Constitutional violations alleged - violations of rules that govern how the executive branch spends the public’s money, and rules that limit executive branch spending to appropriate amounts. Irreparable harm arises out of the violations themselves, because the challenged conduct involves precisely the conduct that these Constitutional rules are designed to protect against. As the Commonwealth Court recently recognized, [deprivation of a statutory right constitutes irreparable harm,” and “[f]ailure to comply with a statute is sufficiently injurious to constitute irreparable harm.” Wyland v. West Shore School Dist., No. 27 C.D. 2012, Slip op. at 19 (Pa.Cmwith. September 14, 2012) (citing Pa. Public Utility Comm'n v. Israel, 356 Pa. 400, 52 A.2d 317 (1947) and Patriot-New s Co. v. Empowerment Team of Harrisburg Sch. Dist. Members, 763 A.2d 539 (Pa.Cmwith.2000)). If this is true for statutory violations, then it applies with even more force to Constitutional violations. See, e.g., Common Cause v. Commonwealth, 668 A.2¢ 190, 200 (Pa.Cmwith. 1995), aff’d without opinion, 544 Pa. 512, 677 A.2d 1206 (1996) ("Common Cause, as well as all citizens, would be 4[Pageirreparably harmed if unconstitutional acts were allowed to continue unabated.”) Greater Injury Will Result From Refusing to Grant the Injunction Greater injury will result from a refusal to grant a preliminary injunction than from issuance of the requested relief. Without the issuance of a TRO and Injunction, Citizens will lose their rights to a representative government, Disabled Citizens will lose access to non-discriminatory ride service, including needed access to wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs), and drivers will lose their economic livelihoods and the ability to support their families. C. An Injunction Will Restore Parties to the Status Quo The requested Temporary preliminary injunction will preserve the status quo as it existed prior to June 7th 2016. The injunction will allow the duly Elected Representatives of the Citizens to create the laws that govern taxi, limo and TNC service, Denying the injunction, in contrast, will result in significant disruptions and irreparable harm. D. Petitioners are Likely to Prevail on the Merits To establish a right to relief, a party seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction is not required to “establish his or her claim absolutely,” but need only show that “substantial legal questions must be resolved to determine the rights of the respective parties.” Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare, 497 Pa, 267, 271, 439 A.2d 1172, 1174 (1982); see also Ambrogi v. Reber, 932 A.2d 969, 976 (Pa.Super. 2007) ("[T]he party seeking an injunction is not required to prove that he will prevail on his theory of liability, but only that there are substantial legal questions that the trial court must resolve to determine the rights of the parties.”) Petitioners believe there is no question that the PPA has acted without proper authority. It has created law without the legal authority to do so, created an uneven playing field, giving certain companies rights that it refuses to grant others and has with intent violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by allowing TNC to discriminated against disabled riders. The History of PPA Edict On July 7, 1982, the Pennsylvania General Assembly amended the Parking Authority Law permitting the City to delegate certain municipal powers to the Philadelphia Parking Authority to coordinate the management of on- street parking. On April 8, 1983, 5 [PageCity Council passed an Ordinance to permit the transfer of those responsibilities. In 1983, the PPA assumed parking management responsibilities that had been previously assigned to four other city departments. This provided the general public with a single responsibility center for On-Street Parking. The booting program was added by Ordinance in July 1983. The Communications Unit (radio dispatch center) was added in 1983 to serve as the support unit responsible for coordinating On-Street parking functions. In July 2004, the Authority assumed responsibility for the regulation and enforcement of taxi cabs and limousines operating in Philadelphia. Regular Board Meetings are scheduled for 9:30 AM in the Executive Office Board Room of the Philadelphia Parking Authority’s headquarters, located on the fifth floor of 701 Market Street, Suite 5400, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Any changes to this schedule will be publicly advertised. All changes to regulations must be advertised, presented at a public meeting of the PPA board, the meeting must comply with the Commonwealth's Sunshine Act, allowing for public comment and then voted upon by the PPA board before being enacted. The Commonweaith’s legislative branch legalized TNC service in every county in Pennsylvania, with the exception of Philadelphia County. Due to the complex issues, the legislature decided not to legalize TNC service in Philadelphia. While there may be some who believe the legislature should have legalized the service, there is no question that it did not. On or about July Sth, representatives of the PPA met in secret with representatives of only one TNC company, Uber. On Thursday July 7th, the Chairman of the PPA announced that, in exchange for a monetary payment, he would change the laws of the Commonwealth; legalize only one TNC company, Uber, in Philadelphia; allow Uber to violate the ADA act by discriminating against disabled riders; and force Uber’s competitors to pay higher costs and bear greater burdens than Uber. In announcing the acceptance of the payment in exchange for special treatment the PPA issued the attached statement which says: There are currently two bills being considered by the Pennsylvania General Assembly that would authorize TNCs throughout the State, including Philadelphia County. “This agreement authorizes Uber’s ride sharing platform in Philadelphia while the bills are pending in the legislature.” The Actions of the PPA Violated Article III, Sections 1, 3, and 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution 619The Pennsylvania Constitution sets forth mandatory procedural rules that apply to alll legislation. These rules are a cornerstone of our democratic process. See generally PAGE, 583 Pa. at 293, 877 A.2d at 394. Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution includes the following requirements: Section 1 No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose. Section 3 No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof, Section 4 Every bill shall be considered on three different days in each House. All amendments made thereto shall be printed for the use of the members before the final vote is taken on the bill and before the final vote is taken, upon written request addressed to the presiding officer of either House by at least twenty-five percent of the members elected to that House, any bill shall be read at length in that House. No bill shall become a law, unless on its final passage the vote is taken by yeas and nays, the names of the persons voting for and against it are entered on the journal, and a majority of the members elected to each House is recorded thereon as voting in its favor. These discrete yet interrelated provisions are mandatory, and expressly limit the mechanisms through which the General Assembly can pass laws. See, e.g., Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158, 179, 507 A.2d 323, 334 (1986) (noting that Article IIT provisions are mandatory). They were added to the Pennsylvania Constitution in the 1860s and 1870s, in response to a public outcry against what was perceived as a corrupt and secretive legislative process. Robert F. Williams, Special Issue on Legislation: Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation: State Constitutional Limits on Legislative Procedure: Legislative Compliance and Judicial Enforcement, 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 797, 798 (Spring 1987). The single-subject rule that is now Section 3 was the first such provision added to the Constitution. Its adoption in 1864 was the culmination of efforts to eliminate the evils of “logrolling” and “omnibus bills," and to ensure that distinct proposals each received separate consideration by the legislature. See, e.9., Fordham and Moreland, Pennsylvania’s Statutory Imbroglio: The Need of TIheStatute Law Revisions, 108 Pa. L. Rev. 1093, 1100-03 (1960); see generally Ruud, No Law Shall Embrace More Than One Subject, 42 Minn. L. Rev. 389 (1958). In 1866, just two years after the single-subject rule was adopted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed: It cannot be doubted that this restriction upon the legislature was designed to prevent an evil which had long prevailed in this state, as it has done elsewhere; which was the practice of blending, in the same law, subjects not connected with each other, and often entirely different. The primary and universally-recognized goal of the one subject rule is to prevent log-rolling - the practice of several minorities combining their several, different proposals into one bill in order to obtain a majority vote for the omnibus bill... . In addition to preventing logrolling the one-subject rule promotes an orderly legislative process; by limiting each bill to one subject, the issue presented by a bill can be better grasped and more intelligently discussed. Pa. Atty. Gen, Op. 78-10 (August 11, 1978), 8 Pa. Bulletin 2480 (September 2, 1978). The single-subject rule did not, however, satisfy the public’s demand for legislative reform, and in 1873 a Constitutional Convention was convened that resulted in the adoption of the Constitution of 1874. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed in Consumer Party of Pennsylvania: “The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1874 . . . was drafted in an atmosphere of extreme distrust of the legislative body. . . It was the product of a convention whose prevailing mood was one of reform . . . and, overshadowing all else, reform of legislation to eliminate the evil practices that had crept into the legislative process. Legislative reform was truly the dominant motif of the convention and that purpose is woven into the very fabric of the constitution.” 510 Pa. at 178, 507 A.2d at 333 (quoting R. Banning, Pennsylvania Constitutional Development (1960). This Convention resulted in the adoption of, inter alia, the provisions now set forth in Article I] Sections 1 and 4, and in the re-adoption of what is now Section 3. While these three provisions are obviously interrelated, each one has a Particular focus. Section 1 places express limitations on the changes that can be made to a bill as it goes through the process of legislative amendment and compromise. Section 3 is more directly tied to the substantive content of legislation as ultimately passed, and excludes muitiple-subject laws regardless of their path through the legislative process. 8} PageAnd Section 4 directly safeguards the deliberative process, guaranteeing transparency and time for public input and reaction by requiring that both the House and the Senate consider bills on three separate days. The concepts of rational rek ship and germaneness are essential to the application of these provisions. The PPA does not have the right to make law, accept payment for treatment of a favored company, or deny protected classes constitutional protections. Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution places legislative power in the hands of the General Assembly, and prohibits the delegation of legislative power to other institutions of government. While the General Assembly can delegate authority to execute the laws, under the Constitution “the legislative power to confer authority and discretion upon another body in connection with the execution of a law is subject to two principal limitations: (1) the basic policy choices must be made by the Legislature; and (2) the legislation must contain adequate standards which will guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative functions." PAGE, supra, 583 Pa. at 333, 877A.2d at 418 (internal quotation omitted) (striking down unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board); Robinson Twp v. Commonwealth, 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 222, Slip op. at 73 (Pa.Cmwith. July 26, 2012) (striking down unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Department of Environmental Protection); Ass'n of Settlement Cos. v. Dep't of Banking, 977 A.2d 1257, 1266-72 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). The PPA’S action violates this constitutional standard; and may constitute a criminal act. A Preliminary Injunction Is Reasonably Suited to Abate the Illegal Actions of the PPA. The requested TRO and preliminary injunction will prevent the PPA from continuing to implement and carry out its illegal actions, creating laws and giving preferential treatment to one company in exchange for money. The Public Interest Will Not Be Harmed If the Injunction Is Granted. The public interest will not be harmed if the injunction is granted. To the contrary, it will be served. All citizens of the Commonwealth have a strong interest in ensuring that the PPA complies with the mandatory rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The rule of law is fundamental. No authority has the right to create laws, no authority has the right to give 91 Pagepreferential treatment to one company in exchange for a cash payment, no matter if the money is called a settlement or bribe, III. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set forth above, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court preliminarily enjoin the Defendants from rewriting Pennsylvania law and providing favored treatment for any single company, even if that company agrees to pay the PPA. Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 12, 2016 By: ncent Wilson, Pro Se Petitioner Kon Blount Ron Blount, Pro Se Petitioner Vit Choos, Matthew Clark, Pro Se Petitioner 10|P ageVERIFICATION hex tf Abust Plaintiff/Defendant, vorify that the fats set forth in ‘the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, Tunderstand that the statements contained herein are subject to the Penalties of 18 Pa.C.S,A., Section 4904 releting to unswor falsification to authorities. (Print Name) (Signature) pate, 07/12 [DoiIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA lo. Ron Blount, Vincent Wilson, Matt Clark Petitioners, vs. The Philadelphia Parking Authority Respondent. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 12" day of July, 2016, the foregoing Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order, Brief in Support of Petitioners’ TRO and Proposed Order have been served upon the following party, by hand-delivery/personal service, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R. App. P. 121: Philadelphia Parking Authority Vince Fenerty, CEO Dennis Weldon, Chief Legal Counsel 701 Market Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pa 2016 toe Jénnifer Rauscher MI PageCourt of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County onan ts Or Doel Nanb) Trial Division Civil Cover Sheet guty 201 Wd Blast aE dip Parkes Aton? Tar seins Garde. mp a0 “A A ; 2 [ph A 708 RY fle LYowaad WS Aen "Addl Fok, Aahock GaN: Wycombe Ave Se fedel _bansdoume Da 19050 aii Hott bron Clark re SE tewater St mae Phyladelohia, PA 0047 — Sania oT Sn fememsonce, |CL comin OF set ee cease |C} mr oo aang Resa eaae | reser O pe Th Canoe Coins oo ‘Sianonaen Pease rire ano NemWETIONS) HEE Guy to al TRO rTM wher gh sce E 10 THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant: Papers may be served at the address set forth below. ras) peng, Gaede Al biphe, A. 18/S pm LAA aol. coh | Lt a2fl2 [g0/4 toe 88)First JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Prensld Blourt Metheny Cet Urcet Wfoon Vs Prledelphec fk, Adkesy Court oF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA JULY 2016 NOTICE TO DEFEND NOTICE, You have been sued in court. If you with to defend against the ‘aims set forth in the following pages, you must take aetion within ‘oventy 20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by ‘entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and ling ‘in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. ‘You are warned that if you fail to do so the cease may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered aguinst you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint of for any other claim or relief requested by the plainti, ‘You may lose money ar property or other rights, important to you. You should oe this paper to your lawyer a once. Ifyou do not have «lawyer or cannot afford one, g0 10 or telephone the offic set ferdh ‘below to find out where you can get legal help. Philadelphia Bar Association Lawyer Referral ‘and Information Service One Reading Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (218) 238-6333, TTY @15) 451-6197 10-284 AVISO Le han demandedo a usted en la enrte. Si usted quiere Aefenderse de estas demandas expuestas en Tas paginas siguientes, usted tene velate 20) dias de plaza al partir de In fecha de la demanda y Ia notieacion. Hace falta aseentar una comparencia eserta 0 en persona 0 eon un bogedo y entregar a la corte en forma cscrita sus Aefensas o sus objectones a las demandas en contra dest persona. Sea avisado que si usted nose defiende Ia corte ‘omara medides y puede contiowar la demands en contra 0 0 nofilieacion. Ademas, Ia corte puede decider a favor del demandaute y requiere que Usted cumpla con fedas ls provisions de esta demand, Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros eve esta demanda a un abggado immediatemente. Si no ene abogado o sno tena el dinero suficiente de pagar tat servicio. ‘Vaya en persona o lame por telefono a laoftina ‘wa direccin se encuentra excita abajo para averiguar ‘donde se puede conseguir aisencia legal. Asociacion De Licenelados DeFiladelfia Servicio De Refereacia B Taformacion Legal One Reading Center Filadelfic, Pennsylvania 19107 (218) 238-6333 TTY (215) 451-6197IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA DOCKET NO. Ron Blount, Ali Razak, & Matthew Clark, Petitioners vs. The Philadelphia Parking Authority, Respondent. ORDER And now on this 12'* day of July, 2016 Petitioners’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. Respondent is enjoined from honoring its private agreement with the Transportation Network Company, UberX. Respondent is enjoined from circumventing the legislative process through unlawful and unfair private agreements with favored parties and from further allowing TNCs to violate the civil rights of riders with disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city’s own Fair Practice Ordinance, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. A full evidentiary hearing on the merits of Petitioners’ request for a permanent injunction shall be scheduled for August 11, 2016 at 10:00 AM. Date 1.IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA DOCKET NO. Ron Blount, Vincent Wilson, Matthew Clark, JULY 2016 Petitioners . vs. The Philadelphia Parking Authority, Respondent. PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED PRO SE 1. Petitioners are residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Citizens of the United States and are directly and adversely affected by the actions and decisions of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA). 2. The PPA Is an Authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, created on July 7, 1982, by the Pennsylvania General Assembly amending the Parking Authority Law permitting the City to delegate certain municipal powers to the Philadelphia Parking. Authority to coordinate the management of on-street parking. On April 8, 1983, City Council passed an Ordinance to permit the transfer of those responsibilities to the PPA. 3. In July 2004, the Authority assumed responsibility for the regulation and enforcement of all taxi cabs and limousines operating in Philadelphia through its Taxi and Limousine Division. 4, The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission as.authorized by Pennsylvania Legislature has legalized the operation of Transport Network Companies (TNC) like UberX and Lyft in every county but Philadelphia County.11. . On or about July 6", the PPA; after a secret meeting and the promise of a cash payment in a private agreement, in essence created a new law legalizing/authorizing only one TNC company (UberX) to operate In Philadelphia County, despite the decision of the State Legislature to prohibit TNCs from operating in Philadelphia County. . The PPA is exercising its authority and regulatory oversight unequally by not requiring TNCs jike UberX to-pay any taxes or fees to the PPA while at the same time requiring Taxis and Limousine drivers to pay substantial fees, taxes and permits and being subject to inspections to or by the PPA, and is thereby creating an unequal and unfair playing field for all companies and all drivers seeking to operate transportation services in Philadelphia. The PPA preferential treatment to TNCs/UberX also does not require TNCs to comply with the anti-discrimination protections of the ‘Americans with Disabilities Act, the city’s own Fair Practices Ordinance, as well as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and exclusively and unfairly allows UberX in exchange for a cash payment to continue to discriminate against the disabled riding public in violation of their civil rights. The PPA violated its own bylaws by not holding a board meeting, not allowing the public to be heard, and not following its own regulations and the laws of the Commonwealth during the secret negotiations. . The PPA gave as its justification for accepting a promise of a cash payment in exchange for preferential treatment to one TNC company, Uberx: “There are currently two bills being considered by the Pennsylvania’General Assembly that would authorize TNCs throughout the state, including Philadelphia County. This agreement authorizes Uber’s ridesharing platform in Philadelphia while the bills are pending in the State Legislature” (PPA press-release, July 6” 2016). . The PPA does not have the right or authority to enact/pass laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. No public entity has the right to grant preferential/unequal treatment to one company while unfairly subjecting competing companies (Taxi, Limo and Uber Black Drivers and Medallion Owners) to onerous fees, taxes, permits, inspections and trainings.12. No public entity has the right to negate the equal rights protections afforded to all citizens under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. 13. No public entity has the right to offer another entity or business the ability to ignore the existing laws in exchange for a cash payment, no matter what the cash payment is called. 14. Plaintiffs and the public will be irreparably harmed unless a TRO is issued because: a. Riders with disabilities will continue to experience discriminatory treatment such as the refusal to allow service animals, unfair pricing practices, and.no requirements of vehicles that can transport riders who use wheelchairs. b. Taxi, Uber Black and Limousine drivers and medallion owners are subjected to substantial fees, taxes, permits, reasonable background checks, inspections and trainings while not imposing such requirements on UberX drivers and TNCs. c. The City of Philadelphia and its School District are deprived access to much needed revenue from TNC/UberX operations in Philadelphia. 15. Plaintiffs, collectively, therefore Petition the Court to issue a temporary restraining order to enjoin the PPA from further violating their equal protection and civil rights until the PPA is permanently enjoined from such egregious and harmful conduct against the public interest. Vincent Wilson, Pro Se Petitioner and Representative for Uber Black and the Philadelphia Limousine Drivers Kan Blount Ronald Blount, Pro Se Petitioner and Representative for the Taxi Drivers and the Taxi Workers AllianceMatthew Clark, Pro Se Petitioner and Representative for Taxis For All and the Disabled Community (riders with disabilities) Dated: July 12, 2016IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA DOCKET NO. Ron Blount, Ali Razak, & Matthew Clark, Petitioners vs. The Philadelphia Parking Authority, Respondent. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED PRO SE 1[PageTABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION. 0.660220 cet eee eee teens 3 IL, ARGUMENT. i A. The Injunction is Necessary to Prevent Immediate. 1. Constitutional and Statutory Violations Constitute Irreparable Harm. B. Greater Injury Will Result From Refusing to Grant... C. An Injunction Will Restore Parties to the Status Quo. . D. Petitioners are Likely to Prevail on the Merits. II. The History of the PPA's action.........- IV. The PPA actions Violated Article Til, Sections 1, 3, and 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution G. A Preliminary Injunction Is Reasonably Suited to Abate the Challenged Activity... 62.2.2 etc ee eee ene 9 H. The Public Interest Wili Not Be Harmed If the Injunction Is Granted... 22... eee eet eee 9 Be Hee SB Irate teat ea er Ee eee ee ea ee a ee aS eee ee a eae ul 2lPaseL INTRODUCTION In this action, Petitioners seek to enjoin enforcement and implementation of a unilateral, unauthorized act of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) that will adversely affect and harm taxi, limousine, Uber Black drivers, riders with disabilities, the Philadelphia School District and the public interest. This case is not about whether Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), or in this instance UberX, should be allowed to operate in Philadelphia but rather the ability of the Philadelphia Parking Authority to uniliterally enter an agreement whereby they circumvent the legislative process to selectively provide preferential treatment to TNCs/UberX. Petitioners ask the Court to answer an important question: Does a public authority of the Commonwealth have the right to ignore the Commonwealth’s laws, create laws for the Commonwealth, ignore Federal Mandates and provide preferential treatment for one company in exchange for a monetary payment. Petitioners ask the Court to review the extra legal action of the PPA and answer: Does any authority in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, no matter how well intentioned, have the right to create laws of the Commonwealth, or can laws only be promulgated by the State Legislature? Il, ARGUMENT Pennsylvania Rule of Procedure permits this Court to enter special relief, including a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, “in the interest of justice and consistent with the usages and principles of law.” The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to “maintain the existing status until the merits of the controversy can be fully heard and determined.” Chipman v. Avon Grove School District, 841 A.2d 1098, 101 (Pa.Cmwith. 2004). The standards governing the entry of a preliminary injunction are clear and settled. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a petitioner must establish that: (1) relief Is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages; (2) greater injury will occur from refusing to grant the injunction than from granting it; (3) the injunction will restore the parties to their status quo as it existed before the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits; (5) the injunction is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and (6) the public interest will not be harmed if the injunction is granted. Brayman v. Constr. Corp., 608 Pa. 584, 601, 13 A.3d 925, 935 (2011) (citations omitted). Petitioners meet this standard. 3] PageA. The Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction is Necessary to Prevent Immediate And Irreparable Harm. 1. Petitioners have lost their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law to be governed by elected representatives, if the PPA is allowed to create laws through a private agreement. 2. Petitioners will lose their economic livelihoods if the PPA is allowed to create laws that selectively favor one company over other companies whose drivers are required to strictly comply with the fee, permits, inspections, background checks and trainings required by the PPA regulations. 3. Companies who did not make a special cash payment to PPA are discriminated against. 4, Riders with disabilities will continue to face discriminatory treatment in violation of their civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities, the City of Philadelphia's Fair Practice Ordinance and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Constitutional and Statutory Violations Constitute Irreparable Harm. This case involves violations of mandatory procedural rules that are set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that govern how legislation is considered and passed. Harm to all Pennsylvania citizens arises automatically when those rules are not aollowed, The same is true of the other Constitutional violations alleged iolations of rules that govern how the executive branch spends the public’s money, and rules that limit executive branch spending to appropriate amounts. Irreparable harm arises out of the violations themselves, because the challenged conduct involves precisely the conduct that these Constitutional rules are designed to protect against. As the Commonwealth Court recently recognized, "[d]eprivation of a statutory right constitutes irreparable harm,” and “[fJailure to comply with a statute is sufficiently injurious to constitute irreparable harm.” Wyland v. West Shore School Dist., No. 27 C.D. 2012, Slip op. at 19 (Pa.Cmwith. September 14, 2012) (citing Pa, Public Utility Comm'n v. Israel, 356 Pa. 400, 52 A.2d 317 (1947) and Patriot-New s Co. v. Empowerment Team of Harrisburg Sch. Dist. Members, 763 A.2d 539 (Pa.Cmwith.2000)). If this is true for statutory violations, then it applies with even more force to Constitutional violations. See, e.g., Common Cause v. Commonwealth, 668 A.2d 190, 200 (Pa.Cmwith, 1995), aff'd without opinion, 544 Pa. 512, 677 A.2d 1206 (1996) (“Common Cause, as well as all citizens, would be alraceirreparably harmed if unconstitutional acts were allowed to continue unabated.”) Greater Injury Will Result From Refusing to Grant the Injunction Greater injury will result from a refusal to grant a preliminary injunction than from issuance of the requested relief. Without the issuance of a TRO and Injunction, Citizens will lose their rights to a representative government, Disabled Citizens will lose access to non-discriminatory ride service, including needed access to wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs), and drivers will lose their economic livelihoods and the ability to support their families. C. An Injunction Will Restore Parties to the Status Quo The requested Temporary preliminary injunction will preserve the status quo as it existed prior to June 7th 2016. The injunction will allow the duly Elected Representatives of the Citizens to create the laws that govern taxi, limo and TNC service. Denying the injunction, in contrast, will result in significant disruptions and irreparable harm. D. Petitioners are Likely to Prevail on the Merits To establish a right to relief, a party seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction is not required to “establish his or her claim absolutely,” but need only show that “substantial legal questions must be resolved to determine the rights of the respective parties.” Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare, 497 Pa. 267, 271, 439 A.2d 1172, 1174 (1982); see also Ambrogi v. Reber, 932 A.2d 969, 976 (Pa.Super. 2007) ("[T]he party seeking an injunction is not required to prove that he will prevail on his theory of liability, but only that there are substantial legal questions that the trial court must resolve to determine the rights of the parties.”). Petitioners believe there is no question that the PPA has acted without proper authority. It has created law without the legal authority to do so, created an uneven playing field, giving certain companies rights that i refuses to grant others and has with intent violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by allowing TNC to discriminated against disabled riders. The History of PPA Edict On July 7, 1982, the Pennsylvania General Assembly amended the Parking Authority Law permitting the City to delegate certain municipal powers to the Philadelphia Parking Authority to coordinate the management of on- street parking. On April 8, 1983, 51eCity Council passed an Ordinance to permit the transfer of those responsibilities. In 1983, the PPA assumed parking management responsibilities that had been previously assigned to four other city departments. This provided the general public with a single responsibility center for On-Street Parking. The booting program was added by Ordinance in July 1983. The Communications Unit (radio dispatch center) was added in 1983 to serve as the support unit responsible for coordinating On-Street parking functions. In July 2004, the Authority assumed responsibility for the regulation and enforcement of taxi cabs and limousines operating in Philadelphia, Regular Board Meetings are scheduled for 9:30 AM in the Executive Office Board Room of the Philadelphia Parking Authority's headquarters, located on the fifth floor of 701 Market Street, Suite 5400, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Any changes to this schedule will be publicly advertised. All changes to regulations must be advertised, presented at a public meeting of the PPA board, the meeting must comply with the Commonwealth's Sunshine Act, allowing for public comment and then voted upon by the PPA board before being enacted. The Commonwealth's legislative branch legalized TNC service in every county in Pennsylvania, with the exception of Philadelphia County. Due to the complex issues, the legislature decided not to legalize TNC service in Philadelphia. While there may be some who believe the legislature should have legalized the service, there is no question that it did not. On or about July Sth, representatives of the PPA met in secret with representatives of only one TNC company, Uber. On Thursday July 7th, the Chairman of the PPA announced that, in exchange for a monetary payment, he would change the laws of the Commonwealth; legalize only one TNC company, Uber, in Philadelphia; allow Uber to violate the ADA act by discriminating against disabled riders; and force Uber’s competitors to pay higher costs and bear greater burdens than Uber. In announcing the acceptance of the payment in exchange for special treatment the PPA issued the attached statement which says: There are currently two bills being considered by the Pennsylvania General Assembly that would authorize TNCs throughout the State, including Philadelphia County. “This agreement authorizes Uber’s ride sharing platform in Philadelphia while the bills are pending in the legislature.” The Actions of the PPA Violated Article III, Sections 1, 3, and 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution 6iPaThe Pennsylvania Constitution sets forth mandatory procedural rules that apply to all legislation. These rules are a cornerstone of our democratic process. See generally PAGE, 583 Pa. at 293, 877 A.2d at 394. Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution includes the following requirements: Section 1 No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose. Section 3 No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof. Section 4 Every bill shall be considered on three different days in each House. All amendments made thereto shall be printed for the use of the members before the final vote is taken on the bill and before the final vote is taken, upon written request addressed to the presiding officer of either House by at least twenty-five percent of the members elected to that House, any bill shall be read at length in that House. No bill shall become a law, unless on its final passage the vote is taken by yeas and nays, the names of the persons voting for and against it are entered on the journal, and a majority of the members elected to each House is recorded thereon as voting in its favor. These discrete yet interrelated provisions are mandatory, and expressly limit the mechanisms through which the General Assembly can pass laws. See, e.g., Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158, 179, 507 A.2d 323, 334 (1986) (noting that Article IIT provisions are mandatory). They were added to the Pennsylvania Constitution in the 1860s and 1870s, in response to a public outcry against what was perceived as a corrupt and secretive legislative process. Robert F. Williams, Special Issue on Legislation: Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation: State Constitutional Limits on Legislative Procedure: Legislative Compliance and Judicial Enforcement, 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 797, 798 (Spring 1987). The single-subject rule that is now Section 3 was the first such provision added to the Constitution. Its adoption in 1864 was the culmination of efforts to eliminate the evils of “logrolling” and “omnibus bills,” and to ensure that distinct proposals each received separate consideration by the legislature. See, e.g Fordham and Moreland, Pennsylvania's Statutory Imbroglio: The Need of 7Statute Law Revisions, 108 Pa. L. Rev. 1093, 1100-03 (1960); see generally Ruud, No Law Shall Embrace More Than One Subject, 42 Minn. L. Rev. 389 (1958). In 1866, just two years after the single-subject rule was adopted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed: It cannot be doubted that this restriction upon the legislature was designed to prevent an evil which had long prevailed in this state, as it has done elsewhere; which was the practice of blending, in the same law, subjects not connected with each other, and often entirely different. The primary and universally-recognized goal of the one subject rule is to prevent log-rolling - the practice of several minorities combining their several, different proposals into one bill in order to obtain a majority vote for the omnibus bill . . . . In addition to preventing logrolling the one-subject rule promotes an orderly legislative process; by limiting each bill to one subject, the issue presented by a bill can be better grasped and more intelligently discussed. Pa. Atty. Gen. Op. 78-10 (August 11, 1978), 8 Pa. Bulletin 2480 (September 2, 1978). The single-subject rule did not, however, satisfy the public’s demand for legislative reform, and in 1873 a Constitutional Convention was convened that resulted in the adoption of the Constitution of 1874. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed in Consumer Party of Pennsylvania: “The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1874 . . . was drafted in an atmosphere of extreme distrust of the legislative body. . . It was the product of a convention whose prevailing mood was one of reform . . . and, overshadowing all else, reform of legislation to eliminate the evil practices that had crept into the legislative process. Legislative reform was truly the dominant motif of the convention and that purpose is woven into the very fabric of the constitution.” 510 Pa. at 178, 507 A.2d at 333 (quoting R. Banning, Pennsylvania Constitutional Development (1960)). This Convention resulted in the adoption of, inter alia, the provisions now set forth in Article III Sections 1 and 4, and in the re-adoption of what is now Section 3. While these three provisions are obviously interrelated, each one has a particular focus, Section 1 places express limitations on the changes that can be made to a bill as it goes through the process of legislative amendment and compromise. Section 3 is more directly tied to the substantive content of legislation as ultimately passed, and excludes multiple-subject laws regardless of their path through the legislative process. 81‘And Section 4 directly safeguards the deliberative process, guaranteeing transparency and time for public input and reaction by requiring that both the House and the Senate consider bills on three separate days. The concepts of rational relationship and germaneness are essential to the application of these provisions. The PPA does not have the right to make law, accept payment for special treatment of a favored company, or deny protected classes constitutional protections. Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution places legislative power in the hands of the General Assembly, and prohibits the delegation of legislative power to other institutions of government. While the General Assembly can delegate authority to execute the laws, under the Constitution “the legislative power to confer authority and discretion upon another body in connection with the execution of a law is subject to two principal limitations: (1) the basic policy choices must be made by the Legislature; and (2) the legislation must contain adequate standards which will guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative functions." PAGE, supra, 583 Pa. at 333, 877A.2d at 418 (internal quotation omitted) (striking down unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board); Robinson Twp v. Commonwealth, 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 222, Slip op. at 73 (Pa.Cmwith. July 26, 2012) (striking down unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Department of Environmental Protection); Ass'n of Settlement Cos. v. Dep't of Banking, 977 A.2d 1257, 1266-72 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). The PPA’S action violates this constitutional standard; and may constitute a criminal act. A Preliminary Injunction Is Reasonably Suited to Abate the Illegal Actions of the PPA. The requested TRO and preliminary injunction will prevent the PPA from continuing to implement and carry out its illegal actions, creating laws and giving preferential treatment to one company in exchange for money. The Public Interest Will Not Be Harmed If the Injunction Is Granted. The public interest will not be harmed if the injunction is granted. To the contrary, it will be served. All citizens of the Commonwealth have a strong interest in ensuring that the PPA complies with the mandatory rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The rule of law is fundamental. No authority has the right to create laws, no authority has the right to givepreferential treatment to one company in exchange for a cash payment, no matter if the money is called a settlement or bribe. III. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set forth above, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court preliminarily enjoin the Defendants from rewriting Pennsylvania law and providing favored treatment for any single company, even if that company agrees to pay the PPA. Respectfully submitted, Dated: October 1, 2012 By: 10IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA No. Ron Blount, Ali Razak, Matt Clark Petitioners, vs. The Philadelphia Parking Authority Respondent. Certificate of Service Thereby certify that on this 12°" day of July, 2016, the foregoing Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order, Brief in Support of Petitioners’ TRO and Proposed Order have been served upon the following party, by hand-delivery/personal service, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R. App. P. 121: Philadelphia Parking Authority Vince Fenerty, CEO Dennis Weldon, Chief Legal Counsel 701 Market Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pa 19 M1 [PageVERIFICATION L, Bec u Klout _ Plaintiff/Defendant, verify thet the facts set forth in the foregoing are ttue and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, Tunderstand that the statements contained herein ave subject to the Penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A., Section 4904 relating to unsiworn falsification to authorities. boclt bat (@rint Name) (Gignature)