Stubbs v. City of Ctr. Point

• Decision Date: 19 December 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:13–cv–1200–KOB.
• Citation: 988 F.Supp.2d 1270
• Parties: Rhonda Lashon STUBBS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF CENTER POINT, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

988 F.Supp.2d 1270

Rhonda Lashon STUBBS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.The CITY OF CENTER POINT, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:13–cv–1200–KOB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Alabama,

Southern Division.

Dec. 19, 2013.

Donald K. McGowin, Thomas F. Campbell, Campbell Law PC, James H. McFerrin, McFerrin Law Firm, Birmingham, AL, Samuel M. Hill, The Law Offices of Sam Hill, LLC, Hoover, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Benjamin T. Presley, J. Bentley Owens, III, Starnes Davis Florie LLP, Michael R. Pennington, Richard Aaron Chastain, Robert J. Campbell, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KARON OWEN BOWDRE, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the “Joint Motion to Dismiss by Defendant City of Center Point, Alabama and Defendant Redflex Traffic Systems Inc.” (Doc. 5). Plaintiffs Rhonda Lashon Stubbs and Celeita Snow brought a class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, claiming the City of Center Point's traffic camera citation system violates Plaintiffs' due process rights. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). Defendants' motion to dismiss, brought pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), presents a variety of arguments for why the court should dismiss the complaint, some jurisdictional and others on the merits. For the following reasons, the court will GRANT the motion IN PART and REMAND the remaining counts to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama IN PART.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is the same as the standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss attacking the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See JWS Samuel, LLC v. Hillsborough Cnty., Fla., Case No. 8:11–CV–02803–T–MAP, 2012 WL 3291831, at *1 (M.D.Fla. Aug. 13, 2012) (citing Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 572 F.3d 1271, 1279 (11th Cir.2009); Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1528–29 (11th Cir.1990)). Generally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the complaint provide “ ‘a short and plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)).

The Supreme Court explained that “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, acceptedas true, 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 and explaining its decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). To be plausible on its face, the claim must contain enough facts that “allow[ ] 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.

In considering a 12(b) motion, the court is primarily limited to the face of the complaint and its attachments. “However, where the plaintiff refers to certain documents in the complaint and those documents are central to the plaintiff's claim, then the Court may consider the documents part of the pleadings ...” Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (11th Cir.1997) (internal citations omitted).

Furthermore, several circumstances exist in which a court may consider matters outside of the pleadings in ruling on a 12(b) motion without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. See Davis v. Self, Case No. CV–12–S–2402–NW, 2013 WL 754853, at *2 (N.D.Ala. Feb. 25, 2013). One of these circumstances arises when facts or documents are subject to judicial notice. SeeFed. R. Evid. 201(a)-(d); La Grasta v. First Union Securities, Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir.2004) (“In analyzing the sufficiency of the complaint, we limit our consideration to the well-pleaded factual allegations, documents central to or referenced in the complaint, and matters judicially noticed.”).

The considerations in this case, as reflected in the facts below, are heavily influenced by proceedings occurring in the Alabama state courts and the Alabama state legislature. Some of the relevant documents are provided as attachments to the complaint; others have been subsequently submitted to the court. Because these documents are part of the public record, the court takes judicial notice of all the proceedings, filings, and orders in City of Center Point v. Kenneth Crowder, CV–2012–0929, as well as Act 2013–228. See Universal Express, Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C., 177 Fed.Appx. 52, 53 (11th Cir.2006) (“A district court may take judicial notice of certain facts without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment ... Public records are among the permissible facts that a district court may consider.”); United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir.1994) (“a court may take notice of another court's order ... for the limited purpose of recognizing the ‘judicial act’ that the order represents or the subject matter of the litigation”); Redner v. Citrus County, Fla., 919 F.2d 646, 651 n. 14 (11th Cir.1990) (taking judicial notice of the outcome of state criminal proceedings in dismissing a claim under the doctrine of Younger abstention).

The court, therefore, considers these documents in its evaluation of this motion to dismiss without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. Although the court has not independently consulted the Alabama courts or legislature for the accuracy of the documents that the parties have provided, neither party has challenged the accuracy of the documents provided to the court through the briefing process and in response to the court's Order to Show Cause.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Act and The Ordinance

In June 2011, Alabama Act 2011–580 became law. It provided for a local law that made running a red light, running a traffic control device, or speeding within the City of Center Point an Alabama civil offense. The Act also provided for the use of automated photographic enforcement of these violations, to be supervised by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department or an authorized representative of the City as appointed by the Mayor.

Section 16(b) of the Act states: “An additional fee of ten dollars ($10) shall be collected by the Center Point Municipal Court in connection with notices issued under this act ... as compensation for record keeping and transaction processing with respect to violation notices issued under this act.” Act 2011–580, § 16(b). Under section 5(f), however, “[i]f the person is found not liable at the administrative adjudication hearing ... any penalty and fee paid related to that citation shall be refunded.” According to the complaint, the City has not collected the $10 fee for such notices and “Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated remain at risk for assessment and collection” of the fee. (Doc. 1, at ¶ 10).

On August 11, 2011, the Center Point City Council adopted Ordinance 2011–02, “An Ordinance Authorizing Automated Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Violations in the City of Center Point, Alabama,” which governs the traffic camera program in the City. The Ordinance took effect on September 9, 2011. The City contracted with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. to implement the Ordinance.

The complaint alleges both that the Mayor selected and appointed the hearing officer to adjudicate all fines, penalties, and other matters arising under Ordinance 2011–02 (doc. 1, at ¶ 21) and that Redflex provided the administrative hearing officer (doc. 1, at ¶ 33). The complaint also alleges that “Center Point has maintained that it does not operate a municipal court....” (Doc. 1, at ¶ 27). Section 1.5(i) of the Ordinance, as well as Act 2011–580 §§ 5(i) and 13(i), state:

The decision of the hearing officer shall be the final decision by the City. A person or persons aggrieved by a decision may file a petition for judicial review to the District Court of Jefferson County, Alabama within 30 days after the date of entry of the decision. The District Court shall conduct the appeal in the case in the same manner as the Court hears a small claims civil action.

(Doc. 5, Exhibit B) (emphasis added).

Section 1.7(c) of the Ordinance states: “The City Attorney of the City is authorized to file suit to enforce collection of unpaid fines or related fees and penalties, or both, imposed under this Article by lawful means to secure such payments.” (Doc. 5, Exhibit B).

The Plaintiffs

On March 8, 2012 and March 12, 2012, Plaintiff Rhonda Lashon Stubbs was driving her 2001 Lexus automobile in the City when equipment provided by Redflex Traffic Systems photographed her at a stop sign at the intersection of 24th Avenue Northeast and 23rd Avenue Northeast, where “she allegedly ran the stop sign.” (Doc. 1, at ¶ 1). Ms. Stubbs received a notice that she had violated Center Point City Ordinance 2011–02 Article 1 and instructions on how to “take care of the Notice.” The instructions stated that she must select one of two options: either pay the civil penalty by personal check, money order, or credit card, or exercise her right to a hearing by submitting a hearing request and appearing at the scheduled time. (Doc. 1, Exhibit 6).

According to the complaint, Ms. Stubbs paid her tickets “because the Defendants left her with the false impression that the administrative hearing would be binding and would be conducted by the ‘Municipal Court.’ ” The complaint further alleges: “By leaving the Plaintiff with the false impression that she would appear in front of a ‘court,’ the Notice of Violation carried the full imprimatur of the State of Alabama and misled and intimidated Ms. Stubbs and the Class members into paying the ‘fine.’ ” (Doc. 1, at ¶ 31). The Notice of Violation did not...