In re the Complaint Petition of Five Mile Beach Electric Railway Co.

Citations: 342 N.J. Super. 52; 775 A.2d 708; 2001 N.J. Super. LEXIS 285

Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; July 5, 2001; New Jersey; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Five Mile Beach Electric Railway Co., Inc. (FMB) appeals decisions made by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) dismissing its petitions and requests for relief. FMB operates bus lines and a trackless trolley service in Cape May County, specifically between Cape May City and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry terminal, operated by the Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA). In 1996, New Jersey Transit (NJT) authorized Lion Corporation, a competitor of FMB, to operate a bus route on the same path, prompting FMB to file a petition with the DOT alleging destructive competition. FMB later attempted to amend this petition, asserting that DRBA's refusal to permit FMB's trolleys to stop at the ferry terminal constituted further destructive competition.

FMB's appeals, designated A-4808-99T1 and A-4916-99T1, arise from the DOT's dismissal of the 1996 petition based on a lack of jurisdiction, asserting NJT had exclusive jurisdiction. The 2000 petition, claiming wrongful denial of access to the ferry terminal, was dismissed on res judicata grounds. FMB contends that the DOT had jurisdiction but the court affirms the DOT’s dismissal. The DRBA, established by an interstate compact, operates the ferry and initially cooperated with FMB in providing trolley service, which started in 1991. Competition escalated when DRBA began selling intermodal tickets that included bus fares for Lion’s service, adversely affecting FMB’s cash-only ridership. FMB's complaints against the DRBA and Lion emphasized that their contract for bus service violated statutory authority and constituted destructive competition.

On August 25, 1998, the Department of Transportation (DOT) referred a contested case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). On October 4, 1999, FMB sought to amend its complaint to include allegations against the Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) for engaging in destructive competition by preventing FMB from picking up and dropping off passengers at the terminal and by discouraging the use of FMB's services, alongside issues regarding unpaid service fees from 1993, 1996, and 1998. The amended petition requested that the DRBA cease these actions. 

On December 6, 1999, ALJ Tassini dismissed FMB's petition and denied the amendment, citing a lack of jurisdiction by the DOT. FMB later filed exceptions to this decision, but on March 10, 2000, DOT Commissioner James Weinstein upheld the initial ruling, leading to a dismissal order on April 12, 2000. FMB appealed the denial of its motion to amend and filed a separate complaint on March 14, 2000, addressing the same issues, which was also dismissed on April 7, 2000, due to res judicata.

ALJ Tassini determined that jurisdiction over the claims lay with NJ Transit (NJT), as it had contracted with DRBA concerning bus services related to FMB's allegations. He ruled that FMB's claims were moot and fell under NJT’s exclusive jurisdiction, leading to the denial of the motion to amend. The Commissioner agreed, stating FMB had adequate remedies available through NJT. The Appellate Division's review of agency decisions is limited to constitutional compliance, adherence to legislative policies, substantial evidence in the record, and reasonable application of those policies to the facts.

Complaint petitions in OAL proceedings can be amended freely unless restricted by law or constitutional principles, promoting efficiency and avoiding undue prejudice. In this case, the ALJ declined to amend FMB’s petition, asserting that the DOT lacked jurisdiction over both the original and amended petitions, determining that NJT had jurisdiction instead. Consequently, the motion was denied as the amendment was "precluded by law," a decision later adopted by the Commissioner, resulting in the dismissal of the 2000 petition for the same jurisdictional reasons.

The jurisdictional issue primarily revolves around whether the DOT or NJT has authority over the matter, a question exacerbated by the increase in administrative agencies and conflicting jurisdictions. The determination of an agency's jurisdiction is rooted in statutory interpretation aimed at uncovering legislative intent. The DOT's jurisdiction is defined in N.J.S.A. 48:2-13, which grants it supervision and regulation over public utilities, including various transportation entities, requiring them to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commissioner for operation. The DOT can also revoke such certificates under specific conditions that affect service stability and public convenience.

NJT, established by the Public Transportation Act of 1979, is tasked with providing efficient public transportation and is empowered to enter contracts for motorbus services. Importantly, NJT is exempt from certain DOT jurisdiction regarding rate regulation and certificate issuance, allowing it to set fares for its operations following a hearing.

NJT has jurisdiction over claims alleging destructive competition related to its bus routes, as established by N.J.S.A. 27:25-7(b). NJT is responsible for creating rules and regulations for hearings on such claims, and its regulations are set forth in N.J.A.C. 16:74-1.1 to -2.4. The regulatory jurisdiction for bus routes is split between NJT and the DOT, with the DOT overseeing all routes except those operated by NJT, which are exclusively regulated by NJT. The DOT maintains jurisdiction over claims of destructive competition unless they pertain to NJT-operated routes.

FMB's claim regarding competition with the bus route between the ferry terminal and Cape May City, contracted by NJT, falls under NJT's exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the DOT correctly determined it had no jurisdiction over FMB's original complaint. The proposed amendment to FMB's 1996 petition and the 2000 petition focus on alleged destructive competition by the DRBA, which prohibits FMB from picking up and discharging passengers at the ferry terminal. However, since these allegations do not arise from actions of NJT, they do not fall within NJT's jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, FMB's claim regarding the DRBA's refusal to pay for intermodal ferry tickets also does not pertain to NJT's jurisdiction. The DRBA, as a bi-state governmental agency, exercises functions not classified under public utilities as defined by the DOT. Therefore, the DOT has no jurisdiction over the DRBA’s actions regarding FMB's operations at the ferry terminal or ticketing issues.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) lacks jurisdiction to compel the Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) to refund FMB for intermodal tickets. The DOT's authority is limited to granting certificates of public convenience and necessity for bus routes, without the power to mandate bus stops on private or public property. Municipalities have the authority to designate bus stops, and bus companies must secure permission from landowners for pick-up and drop-off locations. In the case referenced, Jersey City eliminated bus stops, and the Public Utility Commission (PUC) claimed jurisdiction to review this action, but the court found no statutory authority for such intervention. Similarly, the DRBA can remove bus stops without DOT interference. The DOT's conclusion regarding its lack of jurisdiction carries significant weight and is upheld unless plainly unreasonable. FMB's claims against the NJ Transit (NJT) regarding route competition must be addressed directly with NJT, as FMB has previously petitioned NJT without appeal. Regarding FMB's allegations against the DRBA regarding passenger pick-up, recourse lies in the courts, as neither the DOT nor NJT has jurisdiction. The DOT correctly dismissed FMB's petitions and affirmed NJT's jurisdiction over fares and services without DOT oversight. FMB had previously raised a separate complaint regarding its contract with DRBA but did not address the elimination of its bus stop in that complaint.