Yagman v. Garcetti, No. 14-56223 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit challenging the procedure for contesting parking citations pursuant to the California Vehicle Code. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against various city officials alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims for due process violations, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and Monell liability, as well as a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The court rejected plaintiff's claim for violation of procedural due process based on the Code's deposit requirement given the availability of prompt post-deprivation review and correction. The court explained that plaintiff's modest interest in temporarily retaining the amount of a parking penalty is outweighed by the City’s more substantial interests in discouraging dilatory challenges, promptly collecting penalties, and conserving scarce resources. The court also rejected plaintiff's substantive due process challenge, concluding that plaintiff has failed to allege conduct so egregious as to amount to an abuse of power lacking any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective. Because plaintiff has not alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, he cannot maintain derivative constitutional claims based on that conduct. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining claims and agreed with the district court's denial of leave to amend based on futility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the procedure provided by the City of Los Angeles for contesting parking citations, as set forth in the California Vehicle Code, deprives contestants of property without due process. The panel rejected plaintiff’s contention that his right to procedural due process was violated because under the Code he was required to pay the citation penalty or prove an inability to pay before obtaining an administrative hearing. The panel held that plaintiff’s modest interest in temporarily retaining the amount of a parking penalty was outweighed by the City’s more substantial interests in discouraging dilatory challenges, promptly collecting penalties, and conserving scarce resources. The panel held that plaintiff’s substantive due process challenge failed because he did not allege conduct so egregious as to amount to an abuse of power lacking any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective. The panel also held that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to state § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and Monell liability, and also failed to adequately plead facts establishing a RICO claim. 4 YAGMAN V. GARCETTI Finally, the panel held that the district court did not err by not granting leave to amend the complaint because amendment would have been futile.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.