Torres v. City of N.Y.
| Docket Number | 20 Civ. 10210 (JPC) |
| Decision Date | 11 March 2022 |
| Parties | Jaime TORRES and Rakesh Kalra, individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, acting THROUGH the New York City Police Department and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT of Finance, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Robert B. Lower, Lower Law, PLLC, New York, NY, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Geragos & Geragos, APC, New York, NY, Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Mark J. Geragos, Geragos and Geragos APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Darren Michael Trotter, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, Daniel Guillermo Saavedra, U.S. Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendants City of New York, Jeffrey Shear, Mary Gotsopoulis.
Suppose one day, you park on the street in a zone where parking is not allowed. When you return to your car hours later, you find not one, but two, parking tickets under your windshield wiper. A bad day, to be sure. But did your receipt of two parking tickets, for an illegally parked car that you failed to move over an extended period, violate your constitutional rights? That, in essence, is what Plaintiffs Jaime Torres and Rakesh Kalra claim in this putative class action challenging New York City's parking ticket regime. They allege that, by issuing multiple tickets at different times the same day, the City of New York and its personnel violated their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as their rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. The Court cannot agree. While receiving multiple parking tickets over a relatively brief period of time is no doubt frustrating, the City's enforcement of its parking laws as to Plaintiffs satisfied procedural due process, did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and was not an unconstitutionally excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
On November 8, 2019, Jaime Torres parked at a Department of Education parking zone in New York City. Am. Complaint ¶ 13. As a school teacher, Torres had a parking permit that allowed him to park there. Id. ¶ 12. On that day, however, he forgot to display it. Id. ¶ 13. So with no permit displayed, New York City parking enforcement officials gave Torres two parking tickets within twelve minutes of each other. Id. ¶ 11.
After receiving the tickets, Torres administratively challenged the second parking ticket, but not the first, by entering a "not guilty" plea with New York City's Department of Finance. Id. ¶ 14; Dkt. 38 ("Complaint Supp."), Exh. 3 at 1.2 In presenting that challenge, Torres explained that his parking permit allowed him to park at the Department of Education parking zone and that he simply forgot to display it on November 8, 2019. Am. Complaint ¶ 14. He did not, however, note that he received two tickets within twelve minutes of each other. A Department of Finance administrative law judge ("ALJ") rejected Torres's argument and adjudicated him guilty. Id. ¶¶ 15-16, Exh. 3 at 1.
After the ALJ issued that order, Torres tried to enter a "Not Guilty" plea on the first ticket he received on November 8, 2019. Am. Complaint ¶ 17.3 But the Department of Finance website did not allow him to do so. Id. ¶ 18. To avoid paying "additional fines and penalties or having his car impounded," Torres paid the $95 fine for each ticket and another $10 penalty for the second ticket, $200 in total. Id. ¶ 19.
The Department of Finance allows an appeal of an ALJ's decision provided it is filed within thirty days. See Appeal a Hearing Decision, NYC Department of Finance, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/dispute-appeal-hearing.page (last visited Mar. 11, 2022). But Torres waited eight months to appeal the ALJ's decision as to the second ticket to the Appeals Board. See Am. Complaint ¶ 20. He argued in his appeal that the second ticket "was duplicative of another ticket issued for the same violation on the same day." Id. (quotations omitted). The Appeals Board denied Torres's appeal by explaining that Torres failed to submit it "within 30 days of the guilty decision." Id. ¶ 21 (capitalization changed). After the Appeals Board's decision, Torres did not pursue what is known as an Article 78 proceeding, which entails judicial review by the New York Supreme Court of a final agency determination. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7801.
In April 2021, a year-and-a-half after receiving the first two parking tickets, Torres received another parking ticket after once again forgetting to display a parking permit when parked in a restricted zone. Am. Complaint ¶ 83, Exhs. 1, 3. Torres pleaded not guilty and argued to the Department of Finance that it should dismiss his ticket because he had simply forgotten to display his parking permit. Id. ¶ 83. The ALJ rejected Torres's defense because "no permit was displayed and the photo [that Torres] submitted [of his permit] is illegible." Id. , Exh. 3 at 1-2. The Amended Complaint does not say whether Torres appealed that decision or sought an Article 78 proceeding.
The other named Plaintiff, Rakesh Kalra, received two parking tickets five hours apart for illegally parking at a bus stop. Id. ¶ 24. Kalra challenged the tickets by submitting a request for a hearing to the Department of Finance. Id. ¶ 25. He argued that he believed "parking was permitted on Sundays at the spot" and that he "received 2 tickets for the same offen[s]e." Id. ¶ 26 (quotations omitted). An ALJ rejected Kalra's defense. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. The ALJ reasoned that parking was not permitted at the bus stop on Sundays and that the summonses were not "repeat summonses" because they "were not issued within three hours of each other." Complaint Supp., Exh. 5 at 2.
Kalra then paid the $230 in total fines for the two tickets and timely appealed the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Board. Am. Complaint ¶¶ 29-30. On appeal, Kalra again contended that he "[r]eceived 2 [tickets] for the same offense at the same location." Id. ¶ 30. The Appeals Board affirmed, finding "no error of fact or law" in the ALJ's decision. Id. ¶ 32 (quotations omitted). The Amended Complaint does not allege whether Kalra sought Article 78 judicial review of the Appeals Board's decision.
In December 2020, Plaintiffs filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages and a declaration that Defendants violated their constitutional rights. See Dkt. 1. Two months later, Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint. See Dkt. 26. In July 2021, the Court denied the motion as moot when it granted Plaintiffs’ application to file an amended complaint. See Dkt. 32.
Plaintiffs did so on July 26, 2021. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs name as Defendants the City of New York, laying out the various agencies responsible for parking enforcement, Am. Complaint ¶¶ 35-45, as well as in their official capacities Jeffrey Shear, the Deputy Commissioner of the New York City Department of Finance's Treasury and Payment Services; Mary Gotsopoulis, the Department of Finance's Chief Administrative Law Judge; and ten Jane and John Does, id. ¶¶ 46-51. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their (1) Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights, (2) Eighth Amendment (incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) right to be free from excessive fines, and (3) Fourth Amendment (incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) right against unreasonable seizures. Id. ¶¶ 107-111. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants violated the New York State Constitution's protections against excessive fines, unreasonable seizures, and unlawful taking of property, as well as guarantees of due process of law. Id. ¶¶ 112-115. As relief, Plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Id. ¶¶ 96-98.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. See Dkts. 36, 37 ("Motion to Dismiss"). After the parties completed briefing the motion, the Court ordered the parties to file letters addressing whether Plaintiffs had standing to bring their unreasonable seizures claims as Plaintiffs framed those claims in their Opposition Brief. Dkt. 43; see Dkt. 28 ("Opposition") at 39 (). The Court held oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on March 7, 2022.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 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) (quotations omitted). A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. A complaint's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
Section 1983 creates a federal right of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives someone of a right created by the Constitution or federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because each Defendant qualifies as a "person" under section 1983,4 the only question is whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants did so in three ways. They claim that the City's parking ticket system violated their (1) procedural due process rights, (2) right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and (3) right to be free from excessive fines. The Court will take each argument in turn.
No State may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" without "due process of law." U.S. Const. amend....
To continue reading
Request your trial