Parsons v. United States Postal Service
| Decision Date | 11 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 340-73. |
| Parties | Stephen L. PARSONS et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Levenson, Magid & Mazzoni by Donald S. Levenson, Cherry Hill, N. J., for plaintiffs.
Jonathan L. Goldstein, U. S. Atty. by William D. Lavery, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.
On Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
The much harassed Postal Service is once again under attack by members of the Winslow Crossing community whose complaint is subjected to a motion by the defendant, United States Postal Service, for summary judgment.
Winslow Crossing is a residential development in Sicklerville, New Jersey, consisting of both single family detached houses and townhouses. In the spring of 1971, while Winslow Crossing was under construction, representatives of the United States Postal Service met with representatives of the developer, Levitt and Sons, Inc., to discuss the extension of postal service to the future residents of the community. As a result of that meeting, defendant Postal Service temporarily and presently occupies a portion of a small shopping center which Levitt built in Sicklerville, New Jersey, in order to serve Winslow Township until defendant can erect a permanent facility in the Sicklerville area.
Plaintiffs, residents and a residents' organization, allege that Levitt is supplying the facility at the shopping center to defendant in consideration for defendant's alleged oral agreement to extend door-to-door delivery service to the whole of Winslow Crossing, and that, as a result of Levitt's alleged performance, defendant is bound to furnish plaintiffs with door-to-door service, for which Levitt allegedly contracted.
Defendant denies making an agreement with Levitt to extend door-to-door service to all residents of Winslow Crossing. The Postal Service states that they originally offered to extend mail delivery to Winslow Crossing from the Williamstown, New Jersey Post Office. Levitt and Sons desired, however, to have a Sicklerville mailing address and, solely as an accommodation to Levitt, defendant agreed to extend postal service to Winslow Crossing from a facility at Sicklerville. The only representations allegedly made by defendant to Levitt were that "city delivery" would be extended to Winslow Crossing.
In September of 1972, representatives of the Postal Service met with those of the plaintiff Civic Association and Levitt, at which time it was pointed out by the Postal Service that under existing postal regulations, door-to-door delivery could not be extended to residents of single family homes, and that they could qualify only for "cluster box" or curbside mail service.
On September 29, 1972, the Regional Director of the Postal Service modified the then existing requirements for establishing and extending "city delivery" to new areas. In so doing, the policy was established that delivery to new areas which qualify for "city delivery" should normally be by motorized carrier to curbline or "cluster boxes"; door-to-door delivery was limited to homes with average street frontage of 50 feet or less — 25 feet less than the previous 75 foot requirement. These changes were published as required by federal regulations.
On November 13, 1972, Winslow Crossing reached the minimum standards for extension of "city delivery" service. The average street frontage for townhouses is 20 feet, and door-to-door delivery has been extended to townhouse residents. Because of the frontage requirements, residents living in detached homes have received mail delivery at curbside mail boxes, or at the Sicklerville Post Office.
Plaintiffs filed the instant class action wherein they seek door-to-door mail delivery to all Winslow Crossing residents. Plaintiffs allege (1) that failure to provide door-to-door service constitutes a "breach of contract"; (2) the regulations concerning mail delivery service are arbitrary and capricious and constitute a denial of equal protection to single family home owners; and (3) the failure to have a hearing prior to establishing the delivery regulations constitutes a denial of due process. For the reasons noted below, this Court concludes that plaintiffs' claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
First, even assuming arguendo that the plaintiffs have standing as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.
...and those classifications upheld against equal protection charges in the following representative list of cases: Parsons v. U. S. Postal Service, 380 F.Supp. 815 (D.N.J., 1974) postal regulations prohibiting door-to-door delivery to detached homes. Detroit Bank v. United States, 317 U.S. 32......
-
National Easter Seal Soc. for Crippled Children and Adults v. U.S. Postal Service
...See 39 U.S.C. § 3641(e).17 See NAACP v. United States Postal Service, 398 F.Supp. 562, 563 (N.D.Ga.1975); Parsons v. United States Postal Service, 380 F.Supp. 815, 818 (D.N.J.1974); Buchanan v. United States Postal Service, 375 F.Supp. 1014, 1018 (N.D.Ala.1974), aff'd in part, 508 F.2d 259 ......
-
EAST TEX. GUIDANCE & ACHIEVEMENT CTR., INC. v. Brockette, TY-76-113-CA.
...v. United States, 375 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. den., 389 U.S. 844, 88 S.Ct. 96, 19 L.Ed.2d 112 (1967); Parsons v. United States Postal Service, 380 F.Supp. 815 (D.N. J.1974). But even if it may be said that due process required a hearing before the State Board adopted the formula for ......
-
Grover City v. United States Postal Service, CV 74-3110-WPG.
...regulations described above, and applied nationwide. These regulations are neither arbitrary nor capricious. Parsons v. United States Postal Service, 380 F.Supp. 815 (D.N.J.1974). The Postal Service's delivery regulations are not unreasonably discriminatory because the distinctions made by ......