Bivens v. Salt Lake City Corp.
2017 UT 67
Utah2017Background
- Salt Lake City replaced single-space coin-operated parking meters with multi-space electronic pay stations by 2011–2014 but did not update the City Code until 2014, leaving the ordinance defined in terms of “parking meters.”
- Plaintiffs Bivens, Arias, and Reed received parking tickets during that period; most paid fines rather than fully litigating challenges. One Bivens challenge succeeded on unrelated grounds; others either did not pursue or dropped challenges after initial steps.
- Tickets and an accompanying “Small Claims Court Information” sheet contained misleading statements: incorrect timeframes to seek a hearing or appeal, omitted that justice court was an alternative forum, and emphasized risks/costs of litigating in small claims court.
- Plaintiffs sued claiming (1) unjust enrichment/unlawful fines because pay stations did not match the Code’s “parking meter” definition and (2) procedural due process violations based on inadequate notice and improper hearing procedures (including attorney-fee provisions and hearing officers located in the Finance Dept.).
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6); the Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether the notices were constitutionally inadequate and whether plaintiffs waived/elected not to exhaust legal remedies, affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice under Utah Const. art. I § 7 | Tickets and info sheet misleadingly misstated time limits, omitted forum options, and overstated consequences, so plaintiffs lacked adequate notice to pursue hearings | Notices still apprised recipients of the right to challenge and provided contact info; any errors were not prejudicial | Notices were constitutionally adequate; no due process violation for inadequate notice |
| Right to argue that pay-station parking was not an infraction | Plaintiffs could not reasonably raise statutory-application defense because info sheet said judge won’t address ordinance validity | City: document reasonably described scope; plaintiffs could still contest the ticket’s applicability | Plaintiffs were not shown to have been misled on this point; they could and did raise the argument in at least one instance |
| Unjust enrichment / equitable restitution of fines | Fines were unlawful because Code referenced meters, not pay stations; City was unjustly enriched | Plaintiffs had adequate legal remedies (hearing, small claims, justice court) but failed to exhaust them before suing in equity | Unjust enrichment claim barred by failure to exhaust available legal remedies; equitable relief denied |
| Challenge to procedural rules (attorney-fee provision; hearing officer placement) | City procedures and attorney-fee allocation conflicted with state law and were unconstitutional | Plaintiffs waived these challenges by not raising them in the administrative/small-claims processes | Challenges forfeited; court will not entertain collateral attack absent exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 243 P.3d 1275 (Utah 2010) (standard on accepting allegations on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Brown v. Div. of Water Rights, 228 P.3d 747 (Utah 2010) (pleading inferences on dismissal)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Jackson Constr. Co. v. Marrs, 100 P.3d 1211 (Utah 2004) (Mullane standard quoted for adequacy of notice)
- McBride v. Utah State Bar, 242 P.3d 769 (Utah 2010) (plaintiff entitled to essential information in notice)
- Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (purpose of notice to afford opportunity to present objections)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Herrada v. City of Detroit, 275 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2001) (parking notices with phone/contact found adequate despite some misleading penalty language)
- Zilba v. City of Port Clinton, 924 F. Supp. 2d 867 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (contrast: inadequate notice where ticket gave no info about hearings or contact)