Facts

Stephen Yagman filed this putative class action against 34 employees of the City of Los Angeles, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, each member of the City Council and various employees of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, in both their individual and official capacities.

Yagman objected to the city's practice of not allowing recipients of parking tickets to contest their tickets at an administrative hearing until they have paid the full amount of the fine as a bond or demonstrated an inability to pay. California Vehicle Code section 40215 requires payment of a parking ticket as a prerequisite to requesting an administrative hearing to contest the ticket.

Yagman alleged that over the course of approximately 17 months from March 2012 to August 2013, he received three parking violations issued by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Yagman contested each ticket, however, he was required to pay the penalty amount of the ticket prior to scheduling the administrative hearing. Despite his request with respect to each of the tickets, Yagman was not allowed to schedule a hearing without first paying the penalty amount.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
: Yagman claimed the city's practice of requiring full payment of the ticket amount prior to contesting the ticket at an administrative hearing was unconstitutional and alleged claims against the city including a 1983 claim for violation of his due process rights, a 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, two conspiracy claims, a Monell claim, and a claim for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed that procedural due process requires that before depriving an individual of a constitutionally protected property interest, a state actor must provide the individual with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Section 40215 provides a contestant with notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to a final decision on the merits, which comports with due process standards. Defendants claimed the property interest at stake was slight and the administrative scheme provides a prompt, post deprivation remedy. Defendants claimed plaintiff failed to allege a cognizable constitutional violation.

Result

Judge George H. King granted the city's motion to dismiss as to all of plaintiff's claims.

Other Information

FILING DATE: March 27, 2014.