Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids
Decision Date | 02 July 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 14–CV–111–LRR.,14–CV–111–LRR. |
Citation | 112 F.Supp.3d 817 |
Parties | Gary HUGHES et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa & Gatso USA, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
James C. Larew, Larew Law Office, Iowa City, IA, Claire M. Diallo, Browne, Diallo & Roy, LLP, Princeton Junction, NJ, for Plaintiffs.
James H. Flitz, Cedar Rapids Attorney's Office, Paul David Burns, Laura Michelle Hyer, Bradley & Riley, Elizabeth D. Jacobi, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION 825II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY 825III.SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 825IV.STANDARD OF REVIEW 825V.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 826A.Traffic Camera System 826B.Plaintiffs 8271.Gary Hughes 8272.Arash Yarpezeshkan, Edward G. Robinson and James Louis Sparks 8273.Krisanne M. Duhaime and Gerald Reid Duhaime 8284.David Mazgaj 8285.Susan M. Dumbaugh 8286.Jerry Northrup 8287.Daniel Ray French and Jeffrey V. Stimpson 8288.Roger L. Lee 828VI.ANALYSIS 828A.Standing of Gary Hughes, David Mazgaj and Roger L. Lee 8281.Parties' arguments 8282.Applicable law 8293.Application 829a.Gary Hughes 829b.David Mazgaj 831c.Roger L. Lee 832B.Procedural Due Process Claim Standing 8321.Parties' arguments 8322.Applicable law 8333.Analysis 834C.Mootness of Susan M. Dumbaugh's Claims 835D.Failure to State a Claim for Which Relief Can Be Granted 8361.Waiver 836a.Parties' arguments 836b.Applicable law 837c.Analysis 8372.Substantive due process 838a.Parties' arguments 838b.Applicable law 838 c.Analysis 8403.Equal protection 841a.Parties' arguments 841b.Applicable law 841c.Analysis 8424.Privileges and immunities 843a.Parties' arguments 843b.Applicable law 843c.Analysis 8445.Department of Transportation rules 845a.Parties' arguments 845b.Applicable law 845c.Analysis 8466.Unjust enrichment 848E.Plaintiffs' Remaining Claims 848VII.CONCLUSION 849
The matter before the court is Defendants City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Gatso USA, Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants") "Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint" ("Motion to Dismiss") (docket no. 19).
On September 2, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Petition in the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Iowa, Case No. EQCV081602. Class Action Petition (docket no. 2–2). On October 3, 2014, Defendants removed the case to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See Joint Notice of Removal (docket no. 2). On December 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (docket no. 18). On January 5, 2015, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss. On February 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance (docket no. 28). On February 12, 2015, Defendants filed a Reply (docket no. 29). Neither party requests oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss, and the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The Motion to Dismiss is fully submitted and ready for decision.
The court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims because they arise under the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ().
The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims because they are so related to the claims over which the court has federal question jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ().
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal on the basis of "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) ; see also Cmty. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Republic of Kenya, 663 F.3d 977, 979 (8th Cir.2011). "To establish constitutional standing, the ‘person invoking the power of a federal court must’ ‘prove that he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’ " Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Sveen, 776 F.3d 547, 553–54 (8th Cir.2015) (quoting Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. ––––, ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2661, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) ).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal on the basis of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter ... to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ); accord B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 569 F.3d 383, 387 (8th Cir.2009). A claim satisfies the plausibility standard "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
Although a plaintiff need not provide "detailed" facts in support of his or her allegations, the "short and plain statement" requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)"demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (). "A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ " Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "Where the allegations show on the face of the complaint [that] there is some insuperable bar to relief, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate." Benton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 524 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir.2008) (citing Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 122 F.3d 539, 546 (8th Cir.1997) ).
Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the facts are as follows:
A. Traffic Camera System
In 2011, Defendant City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa ("City") implemented an Automated Traffic Enforcement ("ATE") system pursuant to the Cedar Rapids Code of Ordinances. See Cedar Rapids, Iowa Code of Ordinances § 61.138. The City contracted with Defendant Gatso USA, Inc. ("Gatso") to assist the city in installing and operating the ATE system.
Under the ATE system, a camera captures an image of a vehicle either failing to stop at a red light or traveling faster than the posted speed limit. The City then mails a "Notice of Violation" to the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by the Cedar Rapids Code of Ordinances. See id. § 61.138(d)(1). A Notice of Violation informs the registered owner of the vehicle of the violation. See, e.g., Notice of Violation (docket no. 19–2) at 4. The Notice of Violation informs the registered owner of the vehicle that he or she may either waive the right to a hearing by paying the civil penalty or contest the violation. See id. at 5.
The Notice of Violation states that a vehicle owner who is a resident of the state of Iowa may contest the violation in person at an administrative hearing. See id. A nonresident may contest the violation by filling out a form found at www.viewviolation.com and mailing it to a violation processing center in New York. See id. The Notice of Violation also states that the vehicle's owner "may view the city ordinance at ... http://www.cedar-rapids.org." Id.
The ordinance provides that a person charged with an automated traffic citation may challenge such citation in two ways:
Cedar Rapids, Iowa Code of Ordinances § 61.138(e). If a vehicle owner elects to have an administrative hearing and loses at such hearing, the City sends a second notice called a Notice of Determination. In such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids, 16-1031
...process, equal protection, and privileges and immunities would be evaluated using a rational basis test. See Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids , 112 F.Supp.3d 817, 839 (N.D. Iowa 2015) (concluding that in order to show the fundamental right to travel has been infringed, the court looks to "[t]......
-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids & Gatso United States, Inc., 16-1031
...equal protection, and privileges and immunities would be evaluated using a rational basis test. See Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids, 112 F. Supp. 3d 817, 839 (N.D. Iowa 2015) (concluding that in order to show the fundamental right to travel has been infringed, the court looks to "[t]he direc......
-
Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids
...28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands. I. In 2011, the City, by ordinance, authorized an ATE system. Cedar Rapids, Iowa Mun.Code § 61.138. The City contracted with Gatso to install and operate the system. When a vehicle speeds or runs a red light, an AT......
-
Weizberg v. City of Des Moines, 17-1489
...are not unconstitutional simply because the ordinance does not spell out the additional options. See Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids , 112 F.Supp.3d 817, 846–47 (N.D. Iowa 2015), aff’d in part, rev’d in part , 840 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2016). The City rejects the notion, adopted by the district......