Can somebody post the actual injunction for everyone to see?
Thanks,
George
RE: Petition for Injunctive Relief
An injunction action suit against the City of Chicago has been filed at the Circuit Court of Cook County by a group of Chicago taxi drivers, led by Mr. Stanley Shen and Mr. Wolfgang Weiss and represented by Mr. Donald Nathan, claiming the recently passed City Ordinance for "$1 Gas Surcharge" and other changes to the ordinance will cause Irreparable Harm to drivers.
Case Information Summary for Case Number
2008-CH-15273
Filing Date: 4/24/2008 Case Type: GENERAL CHANCERY
Division: Chancery Division District: First Municipal
Ad ****um: $0.00 Calendar: 07
Case Activity
Activity Date: 4/24/2008 Participant:
GENERAL CHANCERY FILED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT—CHANCERY DIVISION
)
WOLFGANG WEISS, SAMUEL KANJAMA, )
FRED DAVIS, SAAED SIDDIQUI, STANLEY )
SHEN, QIANG CHEN and CHAO TAN )
Plaintiffs, ) 08 CH 15273
)
v. )
)
CITY OF CHICAGO, A Municipal Corporation, )
Defendant.. )
)
PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NOW COME plaintiffs, WOLFGANG WEISS, SAMUEL KANJAMA, FRED
DAVIS, SAAED SIDDIQUI, STANLEY SHEN, QIANG CHEN and CHAO TAN
(hereafter collectively referred to as “CABDRIVERS”) by and through their attorneys,
DONALD S. NATHAN, P.C., and moves this Honorable Court to grant them injunctive
relief against the defendant, CITY OF CHICAGO, A Municipal Corporation (hereafter
“CITY”), and in connection therewith, they state as follows:
1. That the plaintiffs, CABDRIVERS, are all licensed public
passenger vehicle chauffeurs subject to regulation by defendant, CITY, through one of its
agencies, the Department of Consumer [Services] (“DCS”), and, as such, are subject to the
ordinances promulgated by the City Council of CITY.
2. That over the course of the past several months, the price of
gasoline has spiraled upward causing significant economic privation to CABDRIVERS
and all those similarly situated, typical prices at gasoline stations throughout CITY now
approaching the range of FOUR ($4.00) DOLLARS per gallon for regular gasoline.
3. In addition to the spiraling cost of gasoline, the plaintiffs,
CABDRIVERS, have faced a general increase in the cost of living that is largely a result
of ever rising costs of energy, food and a general slowing of the American economy.
4. Over the course of the past several months, CABDRIVERS, have
been seeking to have a revision of taxicab rates of fare so as to assuage these ever rising
costs, several of them having appeared before the City Council of CITY to testify before
its Transportation Committee at hearings that have been conducted at various times prior
to the promulgation of any ordinance to address what CABDRIVERS had perceived as
an economic crisis..
5. Moreover, CABDRIVERS, individually, and through various
organizations of which they were members, had been seeking a general taxicab fare
revision designed to address the perceived economic crisis they faced of approximately
TWENTY-FIVE (25% )PERCENT.
6. Instead of opting for a general adjustment of the taxicab rates of
fare, the City Council of CITY has promulgated an ordinance that, in effect, provided for
a “surcharge” based on the price of gasoline that was both outmoded before having been
promulgated and insignificant in meeting the increased costs of gasoline and the cost of
living faced by CABDRIVERS and those similarly situated.
7. That a copy of the aforesaid ordinance, amending the Municipal
Code of Chicago, Sections 9-104-030, 9-104-040, 9-104-140, 9-112-2609, 112-460 and
9-112-510 has been appended to this Petition For Injunctive Relief and is incorporated
herein by way of reference as “Exhibit A”.
8. On information and belief, the aforesaid ordinance and taxicab fare
revision would yield an increase in the income of CABDRIVERS of approximately TWO
(2%) PERCENT through the so-called “gas surcharge” being enacted in Section 9-112-
510, and given the effect of the surcharge particularly on short fares may actually cause a
dramatic decrease in the net income of CABDRIVERS by reason of an anticipated
decrease in short trips being taken by Chicagoans based on surveys conducted by UTCC.
9. In addition, the ordinance which is primed to take effect on April
28, 2008, forbids consideration of any further taxicab fare revision (“Provided, however,
that no hearings or general ordinance authorizing a surcharge on the rates of fare shall be
required if a fuel surcharge on such rates of fare is permitted under subsection ((e)) of this
section.”), thereby preventing CABDRIVERS from any further relief for the anticipated
continued spiking of gasoline prices that reasonably can be anticipated to continue over
the course of the next year and causing them irreparable harm.
10 That the enactment of the said revision of taxicab rates through a
gas surcharge is primed to be concurrent with a prohibition of consideration of any other
rate increase for a period of 12 months causing yet further irreparable harm to
CABDRIVERS in light of the fact that the gas surcharge provided for in the ordinance is
scheduled to end in just 60 days.
11. That yet other sections of the ordinance are going to cause
CABDRIVERS irreparable harm; namely, Section 9-112-460 which actually decreases
fares by THIRTY-THEE and 33/100 (-33.3%) PERCENT from Midway Field to Burbank
and O’Hare Field to Skokie.
12. Further, that the ordinance primed to take effect on April 28, 2008
provides for trebling of fines for the most petty of infractions of Rules and Regulations of
DCS in Section 9-104-140 thereof at “Administrative Hearings” at which rank hearsay
evidence is routinely admitted and due process is flouted.
13. Further, the ordinance in Section 9-104-040(c)(iii) permits the
DCS Commissioner to suspend or even to revoke the Public Passenger Vehicle Chauffeur
license of CABDRIVERS who might be charged with a felony before even a finding of
guilt has been made thereby ignoring the presumption of innocence fundamental to the
system of justice in every jurisdiction of these United States of America and, thereby,
abridging the rights of CABDRIVERS without any procedural due process.
14. That there is no legal remedy available to the plaintiffs,
CABDRIVERS, that would assure the possibility of a taxicab rate increase that would
offset the cost of gasoline and offset the general increase in the cost of living that
reasonably can be anticipated to continue, nor is there any legal remedy for the other
onerous parts of the ordinance that abridge their rights and have the certain affect of even
causing the decrease of their income.
15. That it would cause no hardship upon defendant, CITY, to have an
injunction imposed upon it to prevent the said ordinance from taking effect so as to
consider the plight of CABDRIVERS facing continuing economic hardship with the
currently planned taxicab fare revisions and so as to consider alternative revisions that
would relieve their long-term difficulties..
16. That it would cause no hardship to the defendant, CITY, pending
the time of a full hearing on the merits of this Petition for Injunctive Relief to have the
aforesaid ordinance enjoined from taking effect.
17. That the parties to this action all do business in Cook County, and
any injunctive relief that this Honorable Court might grant would be easily capable of
enforcement.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, CABDRIVERS, pray as follows:
,
a. That pending a full hearing of the facts and issues relative to the relief
sought in this petition for injunctive relief that the effect of the ordinance
marked “Exhibit A” be stayed;
b. That this Honorable Court restrain defendant, CITY, from enforcing the ordinance marked “Exhibit A”;
c. In the alternative, that this Honorable Court restrain defendant CITY and the DCS from failing to consider further and additional taxicab rate of fare revisions in futuro.
d. For such other and further relief as fairness and equity require;
e. For costs of this action.
_____________________________
DONALD S. NATHAN
`
DONALD S. NATHAN, P.C.
FOUR ELM CREEK DRIVE, #417
ELMHURST, IL 60126
630-758-1500
#35031
"causing yet further irreparable harm to CABDRIVERS in light of the fact that the gas surcharge provided for in the ordinance is scheduled to end in just 60 days."
Not true.
What is "not true" and how is it not true?
It doesn't expire in sixty days.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
What is "not true" and how is it not true?
Where does it say that it it does or doesn't expire in 60 days?
Wolf,
The old ordinance said 60 days. That must be what you remember. The surcharge isn't based on an arbitrary number of days anymore. It's based on gas prices.
So we are stuck with the $1 surcharge until May 2009:
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang J. Weiss
To: Thomas R. Allen
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:31 AM
Opec says oil could hit $200
By Carola Hoyos in London
Published: April 28 2008 13:56 | Last updated: April 28 2008 20:03
Opec’s president on Monday warned oil prices could hit $200 a barrel and there would be little the cartel could do to help.
The comments made by Chakib Khelil, Algeria’s energy minister, came as oil prices hit a historic peak close to $120 a barrel, putting further pressure on global economies.
His remarks suggest Algeria wants Opec to continue to resist calls by US and European leaders for the cartel to pump more oil to help ease prices. But Mr Khelil blamed record oil prices on the weak dollar and global political insecurity.
He told El Moudjahid, Algeria’s government newspaper: “I don’t think that an increase in production would help lower prices, because there is a balance between supply and demand and the stocks of gasoline in the United States have recorded a surplus and are at their highest level for five years.”
He added: “The prices are high due to the recession in the United States and the economic crisis, which has touched several countries, a situation that has an effect on the value of the dollar. Each time the dollar falls 1 per cent, the price of the barrel rises by $4 and of course vice versa.”
Some US senators have pinned the blame for high oil prices directly on Opec and Saudi Arabia, its largest and most powerful member.
In a letter to President George W. Bush last week, they said Riyadh had cut its oil production by about 2m barrels a day over the past three years, even though oil prices had continued to rise.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Oil hits fresh high as biofuels rethink looms
By Carola Hoyos in Rome and Ed Crooks and Javier Blas in London
Published: April 22 2008 23:52 | Last updated: April 22 2008 23:52
Expectations rose on Tuesday that soaring food prices will provoke a rethink of support for biofuels in Europe and the US, as the price of oil hit a new high of almost $120 a barrel.
Biofuels produced from crops such as corn and soya provide a small but fast-growing share of road-fuel supplies, and had been expected to make an important contribution to meeting growing demand.
But Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, said on Tuesday the country could push for a change in a European Union target to increase the proportion of biofuel to 10 per cent of road fuels by 2020.
Malcolm Wicks, the UK energy minister, went further, telling the Financial Times that the targets should be reviewed because of mounting concern that they are contributing to food shortages.
The remarks will reinforce perceptions in the oil market that government support for biofuels, without which US and European production is unlikely to be commercially viable, is at risk.
Kevin Norrish of Barclays Capital said that two years ago the assumption was biofuels would provide a significant share of the fuel supply – enough to make up new US demand for petrol.
“The realisation now is that this may not happen, because of the impact on food prices,” he said.
Biofuels still have strong political support in many countries. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, said last week: “Those rising global food prices have nothing to do [with] biofuels.”
But Rob Bailey of Oxfam said: “We want the government to stop adding fuel to the fire by subsidising the diversion of land to biofuels production.”
Agriculture diplomats are concerned that governments are focusing on biofuels as the main reason for rising food prices. They argue that the use of agricultural land and crops for fuel is only part of a mix of problems including higher demand in Asia, climate change, declining growth in farming productivity and water scarcity.
The European Commission has been defending its 10 per cent target. Asked by reporters on Monday whether the EU was reconsidering its position on the biofuels target, a spokesman said: “The answer is very simple. No.”
However, Mr Brown said in a statement on Tuesday, ahead of a meeting on food prices with industry leaders and development experts, that if a UK government review of the impact of biofuels now under way “shows that we need to change our approach, we will also push for change in EU biofuels targets”.
The review was launched in February and is due to deliver initial conclusions next month, with a full report by the end of June.
Speaking in Rome, Mr Wicks voiced the most open criticism yet from a British minister of European and US policies to encourage the use of biofuels.
“It would be ridiculous if we fill up our cars with 5-10 per cent of biofuels if the consequences are that somewhere else in the world people are not being fed,” he said.
“We need to have a second look [at the EU’s biofuels target]. I think we will.”
Environmental and social groups have intensified their campaigns against biofuels as food prices have risen, arguing that they are diverting production away from food and animal feed.
Until now the government’s policy has been to support the increased use of biofuels.
The renewable transport fuel obligation, compelling suppliers to provide 2.5 per cent of their sales as biofuel, took effect last week. The proportion rises to 5 per cent in 2010.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: I tell all my customers to keep the buck if they want, they can save it or burn it later as heating fuel.
wjw
Don't sweat it Wolf. I'm sure the legal advice you received was worth every penny you paid for it.
This surcharge is not only not helping us; Tt's making customer pay no tips and lots of questions and confusions and conflicting with the additonal charge for additional passengers.
THis surcharge of 1$ on Extra button on meter is conflicting with the additional charges for additional passenger and thus angering the passengers and causing arguments and fights with drivers and get no tip. They don't care even if we explain.
Gas price is almost or over 4$ for regular gas and gas price has jumped up over 100% since 2002 and did we have meter increase of even just 50%? Hell, we didn't even have 25% increase.
Everybody in everybussiness in the world can raise price based on high cost of products but why no increase for Taxi drivers? Airlines, food cost, gallon of milk and a dozen of egg has gone almost 100%.
We should file a lawsuit over not getting meter increase.
