Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, First Division
INDEPENDENT TAXI DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, LLC, et al., Appellants/Plaintiffs,
METROPOLITAN TAXICAB COMMISSION, et al., Respondents/Defendants.
from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis 1422-CC01070
Honorable Dennis M. Schaumann
P. PAGE, JUDGE
Taxi Drivers Association, LLC and various individual taxicab
vehicle owners (collectively, "Plaintiffs") appeal
from the trial court's judgment granting Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission of St. Louis ("MTC") and three
individual commissioners (collectively,
"Defendants") motion to enforce settlement. We
dismiss as the record on appeal is insufficient to review the
appeal, because Plaintiffs have failed to file a transcript
of the trial court proceedings.
about May 12, 2014, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants
in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, alleging
restraint of trade. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert the
Defendants' moratorium on the issuance of Certificates of
Convenience and Necessity ("CCN") prohibited
Plaintiffs from operating taxicabs within the geographical
jurisdiction of the MTC.
after a series of oral and electronic mail
("e-mail") conversations, Plaintiffs and Defendants
reached an oral settlement agreement. From what this court
can determine from the scant record on appeal, this
settlement required Defendants to grant Plaintiffs 100
taxicab permits. On or about October 26, 2015, the MTC voted
to approve the oral settlement agreement.
October 30, 2015, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed their
"Joint Request for Removal from the Trial
Docket/Continuance Pending Settlement[, ]" which read in
relevant part as follows:
3. Plaintiff anticipates filing a Stipulation for Dismissal
after Plaintiff's drivers' permits are activated.
said filing did not include the written terms of the
December 2015, the MTC revised its "Director Rules"
to include a requirement that all conditional vehicle permits
be filed within 90 days or the allotted, but unused, permits
would be forfeited.
subsequent time after the oral agreement was reached and the
MTC revised its "Director Rules, " supra,
Plaintiffs filed a second CCN with the MTC in order that MTC
would issue 100 permits to Plaintiffs. In February 2016,
pursuant to the oral agreement, Defendants issued 100 permits
to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, however, only filed 76 of the 100
permits within the 90 day time limit, thus forfeiting the
other 24 permits. Upon the expiration of the 90 day period,
Defendants notified Plaintiffs no additional permits would be
about May 9, 2016, Defendants filed their Motion to Enforce
Settlement. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and
Permanent Injunction. The trial court conducted an
evidentiary hearing on May 23, 2016 on the respective
trial court entered its judgment granting Defendants'
Motion to Enforce Settlement and denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary
Injunction and Permanent Injunction. The trial court found,
based upon the evidence adduced during the evidentiary
hearing, that "Plaintiffs were fully advised and aware
that as holder of the CCN, pursuant to [the MTC] rules and
regulations, Plaintiffs were required to ...