Santander Consumer U.S. v. The Cnty. of Nassau
| Decision Date | 22 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-4790 (AMD) (SIL) |
| Parties | SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
On October 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant Nassau County, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and the New York constitution, and for declaratory relief.[1] Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 30 32.) For the reasons explained below, the plaintiff's motion is granted in part, and the defendant's motion is denied.
The plaintiff challenges Nassau County's system for targeting “scofflaws”-drivers who have two or more unpaid traffic tickets. As explained more fully below, the defendant contracted with Paylock, which is authorized to patrol the county, run license plates to identify scofflaws, and “boot”[2] their cars. Paylock in turn contracted with C&R Automotive, Inc. (“C&R Automotive”), which tows and impounds the cars. The county's policy does not require its agents or contractors to get a warrant or court order before seizing vehicles. Nor is there any provision for a hearing at which a registered owner or lienholder can challenge the seizure of the vehicle. The plaintiff is the lienholder of a vehicle seized pursuant to this policy.
Section 8-120.2 of the Nassau County Administrative Code, entitled “Immobilization and Removal of Illegally Parked Vehicles and Vehicles of Scofflaw,” authorizes the Nassau County Police Department to “boot” and tow away illegally parked vehicles and the “vehicles of scofflaws,” which are defined as:
[V]ehicles . . . [a]gainst which two (2)[] or more tickets, warrants, summonses or fines for parking violations or two (2)[] or more notices of liability issued pursuant to any law authorizing photo or digital enforcement of the vehicle and traffic law or any local law . . . have been issued and are delinquent or any other vehicles owned by a person, corporation or other concern who also owns a vehicle subject to immobilization or removal ....
Nassau Cnty. Admin. Code § 8-120.1. The police department may contract with a private company to handle immobilizing, removing and storing vehicles. Id. § 8-120.2(e). Section 8-120.2(f) provides that [3] In practice, C&R Automotive asserts liens on vehicles that it tows and impounds.
Section 8-120.5 directs the police department and Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (the “TPVA”) to “develop procedures necessary to effectuate the purposes and provisions of this title,” including establishing the fees that the police department or its contractor may charge for immobilization, removal and storage. The defendant has a written policy governing the collection of traffic and parking tickets entitled “Nassau County Boot and Tow Program: Policy and Procedures” (the “Boot and Tow Policy”). (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 31; ECF No. 30-16.) According to the policy, the defendant has a contract with “non-party IPT LLC d/b/a Paylock” (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 10-11), and pursuant to that contract, Paylock “regularly patrols County public areas utilizing a mobile license plate recognition system” to identify scofflaw vehicles. (ECF No. 30-16 at 2.) Paylock contracts with C&R Automotive, which tows and impounds targeted vehicles. (Id.)
When the defendant issues two or more traffic or parking tickets to a vehicle and the owner does not resolve those tickets, the defendant or Paylock searches for that owner's vehicle and places a boot on it; the defendant's definition of “scofflaw” permits the immobilization and removal of any vehicle owned by someone with two or more outstanding tickets, even if the vehicle was not involved in the underlying traffic or parking violations. (ECF No. 30-1 at 1; ECF No. 30-16 at 2.) The vehicle can be towed if the owner does not try to get the boot removed within 48 hours. (ECF No. 30-16 at 2.) Within two days of the tow, the TPVA sends a written notice to the titled vehicle owners and any known lienholders or lessors. The defendant's policy requires that the notice include the following information:
(Id. at 4.) In addition, the lienholder must release the defendant and the tow operator from liability by signing:
An agreement to release the County and the tow operator/tow yard for its conduct in towing the vehicle, and as to the County only, to release any other claims that may exist between the lienholder/lessor and the County.
(Id.) Finally, the policy describes the fees for which lienholders might be responsible:
Lienholders and lessors will not be responsible for payment of the underlying traffic and/or parking violation fines. The lienholders and lessors may or may not be responsible for towing and storage fees paid to third parties pursuant to New York Lien Law § 184, on which the County takes no position but for which the County shall not refuse to authorize release of the vehicle. Lienholders and lessors will be provided a breakdown of such fees upon contacting TPVA.
(Id. at 5.)
The defendant's “Boot and Tow policy for collecting traffic and/or parking tickets does not include obtaining a warrant or a Court Order.” (Id. ¶ 33.) Nor does it afford “a hearing before a neutral decision maker at any time relative to the propriety of the towing of a vehicle under that policy,” “the propriety of [the defendant] allowing a private entity to assert a lien against a vehicle towed under that policy” or the “demand for a release of liability as a condition for release of a vehicle that has been towed under that policy.”[4] (Id. ¶¶ 34-35.)
On September 25, 2018, non-party Melissa Jenkins purchased a 2016 Nissan Rogue. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 5.) She financed the purchase of the car, and the retail installment contract was assigned to the plaintiff. (Id.) As of about October 17, 2018, the plaintiff held a lien on the vehicle, and Ms. Jenkins's monthly payment pursuant to the security agreement was $402.14 (Id. ¶¶ 7, 8.) As of about June 6, 2019, Ms. Jenkins was in default under the contract and did not cure the default. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Between 2014 and 2017, Ms. Jenkins was issued seven notices of liability for red light camera violations, seven of which were delinquent as of January 15, 2020. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 1.) Three of these notices were issued to the Nissan Rogue (ECF No. 32-8 at 11; ECF No. 32-4 at 330), and four were issued to two other vehicles. (ECF No. 32-4 at 31-59.) The defendant says that it notified Ms. Jenkins that the vehicle could be booted if she did not resolve the notices of liability. (Def 56.1 ¶ 2.)[5] On January 15, 2020, Paylock booted the vehicle, which was parked in a public lot that the defendant owned, because of the outstanding notices of liability.[6] (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4; ECF No. 30-14 at 4; ECF No. 30-17 at 2.) On January 15 or January 16, the defendant notified Ms. Jenkins by telephone that the vehicle had been booted, and told her how much she owed on the outstanding tickets. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 3; ECF No. 32-2 at 2.)
On January 17, 2020, C&R Automotive towed the car to its tow yard pursuant to the defendant's Boot and Tow Policy. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 44.) In a January 21, 2020 letter to Ms. Jenkins, the defendant advised her that the vehicle had been booted and towed to C&R Automotive's yard because of “outstanding parking violations, notices of liability issued pursuant to any law authorizing photo or digital enforcement of the vehicle and traffic law or any local law.” The defendant advised her that she could “obtain release of the vehicle upon payment of the outstanding fines plus any charges incurred in the immobilization or removal of such vehicle,” and that “storage fees will continue to accrue until the date the vehicle is reclaimed or disposed of.” (ECF No. 32-5 at 2.)
In a letter sent to the plaintiff on the same day, the defendant stated that the plaintiff could arrange for the car's release if Ms. Jenkins did not retrieve it, and listed the documentation...
To continue reading
Request your trial