A federal judge has greenlit portions of a class action from people who say the city of Chicago didn’t give them sufficient notice before scrapping vehicles the city impounded over unpaid parking tickets.
The legal action dates to February 2020, when attorney Jacie Zolna and others with the firm of Myron M. Cherry & Associates, of Chicago, filed a complaint on behalf of named plaintiffs Danyetta Walker and Joseph Walawski. The complaint is similar to a class action the same lawyers filed in Cook County Circuit Court in January 2019, but also names Mokena-based United Road Towing as a defendant.
The plaintiffs’ allegations are based in part on a 2019 WBEZ report showing the city towed 19,665 legally parked cars in 2017 under a city ordinance concerning unpaid tickets. If the vehicle owners don’t pay the ticketed amount, as well as the towing and impound fees, the city would either use the car in its fleet or would sell it through auction or “in the vast majority of cases” to a scrap dealer, all without either paying the original vehicle owner or putting the sale price toward any outstanding debt, according to the report and the lawsuit.
The city argued its practice of impounding and selling vehicles doesn’t violate Fifth Amendment takings clause protections because it aligns with historical precedent regarding forfeiture proceedings. Wood agreed, citing a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Bennis v. Michigan, and dismissed a count seeking an injunction and damages, as well as the state law unjust enrichment claims built on those allegations.
However, Wood would not dismiss takings clause claims relying on an argument the city failed to follow municipal code requirements to send a second notice to vehicle owners regarding impoundment and disposal. Rather than argue the policy is unconstitutional, she explained, the complaint contends disposal of cars without proper notice “is not a lawful exercise of police power.”
The next step is evaluating whether the complaint adequately alleged the city confiscated private property for public use. Wood said in 2017, United Road Towing “paid $4 million for 24,000 vehicles with a combined value of $22 million,” with the surplus value constituting some of the city’s payment to the company. Because those sales generated revenue for the Chicago operating budget — and because no credit was given toward outstanding debt — the complaint meets the bar for a public use allegation.
Wood further refused to dismiss counts seeking, on behalf of a proposed “Notice Class,” an injunction preventing disposal of unclaimed vehicles without proper notice; a court order requiring the city to send notices in compliance with city ordinance and the Illinois Vehicle Code; as well as unjust enrichment claims against the city and United Road Towing. She said the plaintiffs weren’t trying to sue under the city or state law, but seeking to establish the practice is unlawful and therefore able to support the unjust enrichment claim.
The plaintiffs also sought injunctions and damages under the Fourth Amendment, as well as under the Illinois state constitution, under the same standard. The city argued the complaint only challenged the ultimate disposition of the vehicles and not the impoundment, meaning it failed to state a claim for unlawful seizure.
Wood agreed, writing “the seizures here were complete when the vehicles were towed and impounded; the subsequent sale, auction, or destruction of the vehicles was not a further seizure.”
Regarding surviving claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, Wood said Walker has standing to pursue such relief because the city can still impound her current car. However, she said the complaint fails to show why Walawski would be subject to future injury absent judicial intervention.
Wood further said United Road Towing can’t be held liable under the takings clause because, while the company is accused of carrying out the challenged city policy, the company was not required by law to send notices to anyone.
She would not, however, grant the company dismissal from any part of the action under its attempt to invoke legal immunity through a hold harmless provision of the Illinois Vehicle Code because that protection is only available to actions that comply with the state law, while the plaintiffs have alleged the city acted outside the color of the statute.