PHILADELPHIA – A Clifton Heights woman maintains that Upper Darby Township has violated state and federal laws over the past two years by failing to notify hundreds and potentially thousands of drivers it issued parking tickets to of how they may contest those tickets, and that its rationale for wanting to dismiss the case is unfounded.
Mary G. Candido (individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated) first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 21 versus Upper Darby Township.
“This class action arises from Upper Darby’s deprivation of constitutional due process rights to notice and a hearing in conjunction with the issuance of parking tickets. Upper Darby’s Parking Enforcement Department issues parking tickets for various purported vehicle parking-related violations. Upper Darby’s tickets inform recipients that they may plead guilty and pay the parking fine, or else face prosecution. The tickets also note that recipients may contest tickets, but to do so they should wait to receive notice of a summons and hearing date to appear before the local district justice,” the suit said.
“But, since at least the spring of 2021, the notice of summons and hearing date are never sent to recipients. Hundreds, if not thousands, of persons receiving parking tickets from Upper Darby never receive notice of how and when they may contest a parking ticket, nor an opportunity to appear and dispute a ticket. Instead, Upper Darby leaves recipients in limbo, under ever-compounding fines and the fear of prosecution, without the most basic due process concepts of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Absent any notice or hearing, many individuals simply pay the tickets out of fear or confusion, without ever being afforded their right to notice and a hearing.”
The suit added that Upper Darby’s conduct constitutes a violation of Ms. Candido’s and other class members’ due process rights, as well as negligence and unjust enrichment under state law.
“In one extreme example, a local barber shop owner had his car towed for parking violations for which he never received any summonses or hearing dates, while parking ticket fines kept adding up and compounding. He ‘absolutely’ wanted a hearing, but never received one. Plaintiff is but one of the many individuals, like the local shop owner discussed above, who has never received any notice or hearing date in connection with parking tickets issued by Upper Darby. Plaintiff has received multiple parking tickets since spring of 2021. The most recent ticket she received was issued on or about Dec. 17, 2022,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff has never received a notice (e.g., summons) or hearing date in connection with any parking ticket issued to her by Upper Darby. Plaintiff also is aware of multiple other individuals who have similarly received parking tickets issued by Upper Darby that they would like to contest, but cannot because Upper Darby has never provided them with notice or a hearing. Startlingly, it has been reported that although a local state court has heard parking violation matters in the past, since the spring of 2021 there were zero hearings held on any parking violation matters. This strongly corroborates plaintiff’s and other class members’ experiences were not isolated or one-off instances, but are part of an ongoing pattern and practice by Upper Darby to deny individuals their due process rights to notice and a hearing.”
In a June 20 motion to dismiss the complaint, Upper Darby countered that the case should be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Moreover, the motion argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated personal injury or deprivation of her civil liberties, a key tenet needed to prove the plaintiff’s claims.
“Specifically, plaintiff fails to allege that she has personally suffered, or is at significant ‘imminent’ risk of suffering, any deprivation of a life, liberty or property interest based on the Township’s failure to issue summonses on the parking tickets she received,” per the dismissal motion.
“The failure to plead a deprivation of personal, individual interests demonstrates a lack of ‘injury-in-fact’ suffered by the plaintiff, and undermines her ability to assert a claim for violation of her due process rights under Section 1983, as well as her analogous claim for attorneys’ fees under Section 1988. Plaintiff’s state law claim for unjust enrichment should be similarly dismissed, based on plaintiff’s failure to allege any benefit conferred by her upon the Township. Lastly, plaintiff’s state law negligence claim should be dismissed based on her inability to demonstrate a violation of her constitutional rights, and further based on the application of the doctrine of governmental immunity.”
UPDATE
Candido filed an opposition brief to the dismissal motion on July 14, arguing that Upper Darby’s attempt to dismiss the case did not pass muster.
“Upper Darby’s motion to dismiss does not dispute that it fails to provide notice and a hearing – something it has failed to do, inexplicitly, since approximately June 2021. Rather, in its motion, Upper Darby principally argues that plaintiff lacks Article III standing. That argument lacks merit. The complaint sufficiently alleges that plaintiff is part of the same putative class she seeks to represent; that she herself has been subjected to Upper Darby’s wrongful policy, pattern and practice; that she, like all other putative class members, have protectable due process interests; and that her and other putative class members are deprived of their interests by Upper Darby’s deliberate indifference. These well-pleaded allegations satisfy Article III’s ‘very generous’ injury-in-fact requirement,” the brief stated, in part.
“Upper Darby’s ancillary arguments fare no better. The complaint adequately alleges the elements of each claim. As to the merits of the Section 1983 due process claim (Count I), that Upper Darby believes other procedural safeguards are enough once a hearing does occur is neither an appropriate consideration at this pleadings-only stage, nor ultimately determinative insofar as the complaint challenges Upper Darby’s predicate failure to provide timely notice and an opportunity to be heard in the first instance. Governmental immunity does not bar the state-law negligence claim (Count II) because Pennsylvania’s immunity statute explicitly carves out negligence claims relating to personal property (e.g., money, vehicle impoundment, etc.), which Count II alleges. And plaintiff has standing to assert her unjust enrichment claim (Count III) for monies she paid (and other putative subclass members paid) to Upper Darby and which it unjustly retained without affording the subclass notice and a hearing.”
For counts of violation of due process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, negligence, unjust enrichment and violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, the plaintiff is seeking the following reliefs:
• An order certifying this action as a class action;
• An order appointing plaintiff as Class Representative, and appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel to represent the Class;
• A declaration that Upper Darby violated the constitutional and related protections described herein;
• An order awarding appropriate preliminary and/or final injunctive relief against the conduct of defendant described herein, both retroactive to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard for the Class for prior parking tickets and prospectively for future parking tickets issued;
• Payment to plaintiff and class members of all damages, exemplary damages, and/or restitution associated with the conduct for all causes of action in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to the full amounts paid by the subclass for parking tickets issued without a notice and hearing;
• An award of attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and costs, as provided by applicable law and/or as would be reasonable from any recovery of monies recovered for or benefits bestowed on the class members;
• Interest as provided by law, including but not limited to, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by rule or statute; and
• Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable or proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Ruben Honik of Honik, LLC in Philadelphia, plus David J. Stanoch of Kanner & Whiteley, in New Orleans, La.
The defendant is represented by Joseph D. Shelby, James F. Devine and Ryan Morris of Cipriani & Werner, in Lancaster.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01542
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com