PITTSBURGH – A local man alleges his vehicle was impounded by Pittsburgh authorities and a towing company without allowing him a hearing before an impartial officer on the matter, thereby violating his due process rights under the U.S. Constitution, while the company has motioned for the suit to be dismissed.
Joseph D. Early first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 23 versus the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, the City of Pittsburgh and Ferra’s Automotive Services, Inc. All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“On or about Oct. 10, 2022, Officer Kusenko of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, came upon the vehicle, pursuant to a complaint, and determined the vehicle was presumed abandoned. Officer Kusenko further determined that the vehicle’s registration and inspection were both expired for periods of greater than 90 days. Pursuant to the above determination, Officer Kusenko determined the vehicle was to be towed and seized immediately. The vehicle, being legally parked on Shady Avenue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was towed and seized by defendant Ferra’s at the direction of PPD,” the suit said.
“On or about Oct. 10, 2022, plaintiff noticed the vehicle was missing. On or about Oct. 11, 2022, plaintiff contacted the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, Zone 4, to inquire if the vehicle was towed by the City and discovered the vehicle had been towed as ‘Abandoned’. To the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, the vehicle was legally parked and not a hazard or obstruction on the roadway. To the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, the license plate for the vehicle was still properly attached and the VIN Number was visible and legible. Upon reasonable belief, defendant Ferra’s failed to properly complete the abandoned vehicle information report.”
The suit added that for more than two months following those events, the plaintiff struggled to receive information and/or confirmation as to the scheduling of an abandoned vehicle hearing, until one was finally set for this past January.
“On Jan. 5, 2023, plaintiff spoke, via phone, with Jesse Exilus, Assistant Solicitor for the Pittsburgh Department of Law, about scheduling an abandoned vehicle hearing. On Jan. 20, 2023, plaintiff received an email from Jesse Exilus, Assistant Solicitor for the Pittsburgh Department of Law, scheduling the Abandoned Vehicle Hearing for Jan. 25, 2023,” the suit stated.
“On Jan. 25, 2023, plaintiff attended the abandoned vehicle hearing in the offices of the Pittsburgh Department of Law. The Hearing Officer was Jesse Exilus, Assistant Solicitor, Pittsburgh Department of Law. On Feb. 10, 2023, plaintiff received the abandoned vehicle adjudication from Jesse Exilus, Assistant Solicitor, Pittsburgh Department of Law, that plaintiff’s vehicle was lawfully determined to be ‘Abandoned’ and that plaintiff could reclaim said vehicle upon payment of all towing and storage expenses.”
On June 22, Ferra’s Automotive Services motioned to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.
“Plaintiff does not suggest in his complaint that the defendants got together and coordinated or conspired to deprive him of any rights he may have. Rather, he alleges that Ferra, a state-approved salvor in Pennsylvania, was requested by the police to tow an obviously abandoned motor vehicle owned by the plaintiff. Ferra did nothing but perform a ministerial act at the behest of an appropriate city officer on a car that was obviously abandoned in accordance with Pennsylvania state law,” the dismissal motion stated.
“The vehicle was abandoned because under Pennsylvania law, the vehicle on which the registration and inspection sticker have been expired for more than 90 days is authorized to be towed immediately. The only acts committed by Ferra that could be the basis for the claims of the plaintiff are as follows: 1) Ferra received a telephone call requesting a tow; 2) Ferra’s truck responded to the tow site, verified the information and towed the car to Ferra’s storage lot, as directed by the Pittsburgh Police.”
For multiple counts of deprivation of property by unreasonable seizure and without due process of law, failure to provide required notice, declaratory relief, trespass to chattels, improper claim to fees and replevin, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Grant judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants on all causes of action asserted herein;
• Declare that defendants violated plaintiff’s rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and plaintiff’s rights to due process under the United States Constitution;
• Judgment against defendants for compensatory damages to be proven at trial;
• Injunctive relief preventing the City or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from transferring title or selling the vehicle;
• Injunctive relief preventing the Ferra’s from obtaining title or transferring title by any means;
• Replevin of the vehicle;
• Award plaintiff the cost of prosecuting this action together with attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;
• Declare a permanent injunction against defendants prohibiting the above unconstitutional practices and award such other and different relief that the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is representing himself in this matter.
The defendants are represented by Hillary Weaver and Julie E. Koren of the City of Pittsburgh’s Law Department, plus John G. Arch, also of Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00417
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com