Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Saturday, June 15, 2024

Philadelphia deprives vehicle owners of rights through towing relocation program, according to class action

Federal Court
Josephckohn

Kohn | Kohn Swift & Graf

PHILADELPHIA – Class action litigation alleges that the City of Philadelphia’s vehicle towing relocation program fails to provide adequate notice or fair procedures for owners to locate and recover their vehicles after they have been relocated, thereby depriving them of their constitutional due process rights.

Kathleen Eastman, Mary Henin, Amanda Hay and Matthew Allen (individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 17 versus the City of Philadelphia.

“Vehicles parked on City streets may be towed and impounded for specific infractions enumerated in the City Code, and procedures exist for notifying owners of impounded vehicles, including a publicly accessible database to assist owners in locating and recovering their vehicles. The City, however, has failed to provide the same or similar procedures for the Relocation Program.,” the suit says.

“The Relocation Program authorizes the towing and moving of vehicles that have been lawfully parked under circumstances requiring the moving of the vehicles to allow for, among other things, construction, repairs, emergency work or public gatherings authorized by the City. At times, temporary ‘no stopping’ signs are posted and vehicles that were legally parked are moved to another location.”

According to the plaintiffs, the Relocation Program “provides no notice to the vehicles’ owners or registered operators that their vehicles have been relocated,” and “no notice posted at that location advising the vehicle owners or operators where their vehicles have been taken or how they can get information regarding the new location of the vehicle.”

The suit alleges that the only notice regarding the Relocation Program on how a vehicle owner or operator may retrieve the vehicle is provided on a page buried several levels down on the City’s website, which suggests only that a call should be made to the PPD district in which the vehicle had been parked.

“As a matter of practice and custom, there has been a systemic lack of adequate notice to vehicle owners and operators regarding the City website and how to locate their vehicles, failure of towers and the PPD to provide timely and adequate notice of the new location of the vehicle, and a lack of adequate training and supervision of police personnel to ensure that owners and operators are provided timely and accurate information as to the vehicle location,” per the suit.

“Making matters worse, although relocated vehicles are to be moved to a legal parking spot within a short radius from where they were legally parked, as a matter of practice and custom, some vehicles are relocated to arbitrary locations at considerable distances from their original locations.”

Each of the named plaintiffs cited their own relevant experiences in having their vehicles towed, relocated and illegally parked without proper notice, to support their allegations.

In the case of plaintiff Henin, after she initially reported her own vehicle as stolen (as directed by the Philadelphia Police Department) in February 2020, she recovered her vehicle and instructed the authorities that her car was found.

But nonetheless, she says she was later stopped, forced from her vehicle at gunpoint and detained by New Jersey police officers, who alleged that the car was stolen based on a still-existing PPD report that the vehicle was indeed stolen.

“The City, as a matter of practice and custom has failed to provide adequate procedures to prevent vehicles from being relocated to places where it is illegal to park or in time-limited or metered parking spaces, which unfairly exposes innocent owners to parking infractions. The constitutional violations alleged in this Complaint are ongoing, and without judicial relief will cause harm to the class members who will be subjected to the Relocation Program,” the suit states.

For counts of civil rights violations of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of the Class defined above, declaratory and injunctive relief for plaintiffs and the class, compensatory damages for plaintiffs, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any further or other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph C. Kohn, Craig W. Hillwig, William E. Hoese and Aarthi Manohar of Kohn Swift & Graf, in Philadelphia.

The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-02248

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News