PHILADELPHIA – The Philadelphia Parking Authority has motioned to dismiss litigation brought by a car dealership, which alleged the City of Philadelphia illegally seized one of its stolen vehicles and then sold it at auction.
Car Vision, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 17 versus the Philadelphia Parking Authority and the City of Philadelphia.
According to the complaint, Car Vision maintained lots on Essington Avenue in Philadelphia to store cars and on Oct. 13, 2020, reported to police multiple thefts of cars from that location. It claimed that on the night of the theft, Philadelphia police pulled over an unlicensed driver who was in one of the stolen vehicles, an Audi, for driving without headlights, but did not arrest the individual.
Car Vision alleges that on Oct. 20, 2020, it was notified by the City that the stolen Audi had been recovered and towed to the Philadelphia Parking Authority. It further alleged that while waiting to obtain a release order from traffic court in order to get possession of the Audi, the Philadelphia Parking Authority sold the vehicle at an auction.
Car Vision claimed the defendants imposed “unduly onerous conditions” on them to get the release of the Audi before it was sold at auction, that the City of Philadelphia was made aware that the vehicle had been stolen, and that it illegally seized the Audi and failed to return it.
UPDATE
On July 18, the Philadelphia Parking Authority filed a motion to dismiss the case.
“Each of Car Vision’s claims is fatally flawed. Car Vision plainly had notice and an opportunity to be heard, dooming its Section 1983 claim. The Vehicle Code required PPA to notify Car Vision that its vehicle had been impounded and would be subject to sale at public auction if it remained unclaimed (which PPA did). The Vehicle Code also afforded Car Vision the opportunity to appear before the Traffic Court to retrieve its vehicle (which Car Vision did). Even accepting the truth of Car Vision’s claim that it did not receive prior notice of the sale from PPA, the Constitution does not guarantee actual notice of state action, only notice ‘reasonably calculated’ to apprise a person of the action against it. The provisions of the Vehicle Code easily satisfy this standard,” the PPA stated in its dismissal motion.
“Car Vision’s Monell claims should likewise be dismissed. Beyond being supported by only conclusory allegations which are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, these claims require an underlying constitutional violation, which Car Vision cannot establish as a matter of law for the reasons described above. Car Vision’s claim for reasonable attorney’s fees should also be dismissed because Section 1988 does not authorize an independent cause of action, and Car Vision otherwise does not state viable civil rights claims. Finally, Car Vision’s conversion claim is unsalvageable because PPA is immune from such claims under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.”
That same day, the City of Philadelphia also motioned to dismiss – arguing that the claims were pled inadequately.
“Plaintiff’s complaint names as defendants both the PPA and the City of Philadelphia, asserting against both defendants a federal law claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and a state law claim for conversion. But neither of these claims is appropriately pled against the City: The Section 1983 claim fails both to plausibly allege a constitutional violation, and to include non-conclusory factual allegations of a policy or custom sufficient to state a claim for Section 1983 municipal liability. And plaintiff’s conversion claim is barred by the City’s immunity under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Accordingly, the City moves to dismiss the claims against it for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),” the City stated in its separate dismissal motion.
For violation of the Motor Vehicle Code and other claims, the plaintiff seeks monetary and all other just relief.
The plaintiff is represented by its in-house counsel Nicholas Daller, in Trooper.
The defendants are represented by Patrick J. Doran and Amy E. Pearl of Archer & Greiner in Philadelphia and Voorhees, N.J., plus Adam Ross Zurbriggen of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01933
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com