Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — The Nevada Supreme Court decided Monday that a judge in Reno, not Las Vegas, should hear a bid by taxi regulators and limousine firms to block ride-sharing company Uber Technologies from operating in the state.
The high court received written arguments from both sides last week on an expedited schedule that allowed the justices to rule before a court hearing set Tuesday in Reno. Washoe County District Court Judge Scott Freeman is scheduled to decide whether to extend a temporary order he issued last month to stop Uber from doing business in the state.
Supreme Court Justices James Hardesty and Michael Douglas said it came down to where the complaint was filed first — in this case Washoe County District Court — one day before it was filed in Clark County, not the request for a temporary order which was filed in Clark County first.
Justice Michael Cherry disagreed arguing that other filings, including requests for temporary orders in this case, should be considered when weighing where a case was filed first.
In his dissent, Cherry also said the question of which court should hear the case shouldn't be decided by a panel of justices but by the full court instead.
Uber attorneys, who wanted the case heard in Clark County instead, had accused the state of forum-shopping to find a sympathetic court.
The justices said the Nevada Transportation Authority's "failure to follow the relevant procedural rules demonstrates an inept effort to commence its case," but the contention that the state shopped for a judge, "impugns the neutrality of the three district court judges involved in the dispute between the parties, and nothing in the record supports that contention."
Cherry, though, said he thought the state's series of filings in multiple courts did give off the appearance of forum-shopping.
By denying Uber's petition and keeping the case in Washoe County, "the majority may very well encourage such behavior in future matters in our district courts, which I cannot condone," Cherry wrote.
The state attorney general's office and a lawyer representing Bell Limo and Whittlesea Checker Taxi argued that although the Nevada Transportation Authority sought restraining orders in courts in Reno, Carson City and Las Vegas, written documents were submitted first to Freeman. The Carson City case was later consolidated with the Washoe County case.
Uber argues that it provides the technology for riders and drivers to connect. It wanted the case heard by Clark County District Court Judge Douglas Herndon, who declined Oct. 29 to issue a temporary restraining order against the ride-sharing company. Herndon said the state failed to show Uber was causing irreparable harm.
Beyond the venue dispute is a key question: Does an Internet application matching riders with drivers using their personal cars infringe on the franchise rights of taxi companies and cab drivers to shuttle fare-paying passengers to places like airports and the Las Vegas Strip?
Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend said Monday that thousands of passengers have used the service since it launched Oct. 24, and the company stands behind its "driver partners."
Nevada Taxi Authority agents have issued citations to Uber drivers and impounded cars after posing in some cases as passengers.
Teri Williams, spokeswoman for the Nevada Department of Business and Industry, said at least 38 Uber drivers have been issued citations accusing them of operating without proper permits and their vehicles have been impounded.
Copyright © The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
