Uniontown business sues city in federal court over unfair practices
A Uniontown business owner is suing the city, the mayor and council in federal court over alleged nepotism in the practice of contracting towing services for the city.
Attorney Ryan James, who represents Mike’s Auto Repair, located at 122 Connellsville St., claimed in the suit filed Monday that the city failed to uphold its own resolution, adopted March 4, 2008, which outlines the mandatory qualifications for roadside services.
James quoted a portion of the resolution, which states, “If at any time any provider within the City of Uniontown shall provide proof of such mandates, that provider will be given the same opportunity as the current service provider.”
When the resolution was adopted, James pointed out, one business was recognized as the provider of all emergency towing services Uniontown, namely Joby’s Gulf, located at 100 Beeson Ave.
According to James, the reason Joby’s Gulf’s is the sole provider of emergency towing services for the city “is because of the familial connection between Uniontown councilman, Francis ‘Joby’ Palumbo III, and the owner of Joby’s Gulf.”
Court records indicate that Palumbo and Louis Cantalamessa, owner of Joby’s Gulf, are stepbrothers.
James went on to accuse Joby’s Gulf of failing to provide proof to the city that it could satisfy the mandates in the resolution.
Mike’s Auto has also sought approval from the city to provide emergency towing services for the City of Uniontown and, to that end, has made “substantial investments in modern pieces of towing and/or recovery equipment,” James wrote.
However, at a Uniontown city council meeting in February, Mike’s Auto presented proof to council that the business satisfied all of the mandates, but was denied without justification the same opportunity as Joby’s Gulf, James stated.
James alleges the plaintiff’s constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law were violated when the city opted to selectively enforce its resolution and treat two businesses differently without justification.
Additionally, James claims the same actions by the city constitute a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
“Since this country’s beginning there has been an abiding and widespread fear of the evils that flow from monopoly, or the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few,” James wrote, adding that prevention of such evils is at the heart of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Mike’s Auto is seeking in excess of $200,000 to cover lost income and the capital expenditures made to bring the business in line with the mandates of the city’s resolution.
The company is also asking for the city to be enjoined from selectively enforcing the resolution.
City solicitor J.W. Eddy said he had not had an opportunity to review the complaint, and could not comment.