PHIILADELPHIA - The class action suit brought on behalf of those who had their vehicles towed in Philadelphia could be headed for trial, as a federal judge has rejected the City's motion for summary judgment.
On Dec. 5, Judge Mitchell Goldberg allowed Kathleen Eastman's lawsuit, filed in 2021, to move forward. Defendants in class actions who lose summary judgment motions are then faced with opposing certification of a class, the off-ramp of a settlement or the risk of a trial.
Eastman's lawsuit claims Philadelphia has an unofficial policy of relocating vehicles from legal parking spots - "courtesy tows" - to illegal or timed spaces. These tows happen when a car is abandoned or impeding work on a street, among other reasons.
Drivers are often unable to locate their vehicles after, it is alleged.
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 alleged 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.
One plaintiff said she reported her car stolen before finding the City had moved it. Even though she told authorities to withdraw her report, they never did, she says.
She was stopped, forced from her vehicle at gunpoint and detained in New Jersey by police officers who thought the car was stolen, the complaint said. Another plaintiff was issued three tickets while her car was missing.
Philadelphia argued the complained-of actions were not its fault, instead pointing the finger at third-party towing companies. Goldberg wrote that the failure of these companies to report their tows to the City has resulted in a lack of records.
"The purpose of these tows is to enforce the City's traffic decisions, and as such these tows are sufficiently connected to the city such that they can be deemed to have been carried out under color of state law," Goldberg wrote.
The city also does not check to see if temporary no-parking signs are posted within 24 to 48 hours before they go into effect.
"Although the private contractor may hire a private towing company to relocate the vehicle in a temporary no-parking area, the contractor is only empowered to do so under the City's police authority and its policies," Goldberg wrote.
"Additionally, the contractor continues to be subject to City regulations regarding the tow."
And the City's claim it never received information from towing companies about the relocation of the plaintiffs' vehicles was also rejected.
"Although the City does not know if private tow companies always comply with this requirement, the City's inability or failure to enforce its own regulations and maintain accurate records is not a reason to avoid having a fact-finder determine whether adequate post-deprivation notice was provide," Goldberg wrote.