Blair v. City of Hannibal
179 F. Supp. 3d 901
E.D. Mo.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Jacob and Sarah Blair brought a putative class action challenging Hannibal, Missouri’s red‑light camera program; they sued the City, Redflex Traffic Systems (contractor), and others, alleging the program and ordinances were unconstitutional and asserting eight claims (including § 1983, unjust enrichment, abuse of process, conspiracy, aiding/abetting, unauthorized practice of law, money had and received).
- Redflex contracted with Hannibal in 2007 to install and operate the automated enforcement system; Redflex reviewed images, advised the city, sent violation notices, operated customer service, and received contract revenue tied to paid citations.
- Plaintiffs received citations in 2011–2013, paid the fines, and allege Defendants collected roughly $500,000 annually from the program.
- Redflex moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing (inter alia) the government‑contractor defense, lack of state‑action for § 1983, no unjust enrichment because payments were voluntary (mistake of law), failure to plead conspiracy/aiding‑and‑abetting, no abuse of process, and no unauthorized practice of law.
- The court concluded at the pleading stage Redflex could not yet obtain the government‑contractor defense because Plaintiffs plausibly alleged Redflex committed a willful tort; but the court dismissed Counts II and III–VIII as to Redflex for the reasons discussed below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of government‑contractor defense | Redflex participated in an unlawful revenue scheme; Redflex is not immune | Redflex claims it shares sovereign immunity with Hannibal if not negligent or willful | Government‑contractor defense denied at this stage because Plaintiffs plausibly alleged willful tort by Redflex; not foreclosed later |
| § 1983 / State action | Redflex acted under color of law by operating system and issuing notices | Redflex argues it did not act under color of law or cause the constitutional deprivation (city enacted/enforced ordinances) | § 1983 claim against Redflex dismissed — Plaintiffs failed to allege conduct by Redflex that deprived them of constitutional rights |
| Unjust enrichment / Money had & received | Redflex received Plaintiffs’ fines via the program; retention is inequitable | Redflex says Plaintiffs voluntarily paid fines (mistake of law); no duress/fraud; contract and ordinances show belief in validity | Claims dismissed — payments treated as voluntary mistake of law; no pleaded duress/fraud and no allegation city surrendered governmental functions to Redflex |
| Abuse of process | Redflex used process improperly via notices/collection | Redflex says it did not institute or prosecute process; city handles prosecution | Abuse of process claim dismissed — complaint lacks facts showing Redflex used process illegally or for improper purpose |
| Civil conspiracy | Conspiracy existed to collect revenue; meeting of minds and acts in furtherance are pleaded | Redflex argues allegations are conclusory | Conspiracy claim dismissed — pleadings fail to allege facts showing meeting of minds or overt acts |
| Aiding and abetting | Redflex substantially assisted the unlawful scheme | Redflex argues Missouri does not recognize the ‘‘substantial assistance’’ tort and concert‑of‑action is just conspiracy element | Aiding and abetting dismissed — substantial‑assistance theory unrecoverable under Missouri law; concert‑of‑action duplicates conspiracy element |
| Unauthorized practice of law / law business | Redflex gave legal advice via customer service and processed affidavits/pleas | Redflex argues it did not charge for legal services or perform acts constituting practice of law | Claim dismissed — Plaintiffs fail to show Redflex performed the defined "practice of law" or charged for legal services; fines not tied to legal advice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ginsburg v. Inbev NV/SA, 623 F.3d 1229 (8th Cir. 2010) (pleading standard and adoption of well‑pleaded allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (enough facts to state a plausible claim)
- Rector v. Tobin Constr. Co., 377 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. 1964) (government‑contractor defense and willful tort exception)
- Kubley v. Brooks, 141 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. 2004) (sovereign immunity and waiver by contract or insurance)
- Ballard v. City of Creve Coeur, 419 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (voluntary payment doctrine bars restitution for fines paid under mistake of law)
- Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (duress allegation may avoid voluntary payment bar where coercion to pay is pleaded)
- Brunner v. City of Arnold, 427 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (unjust enrichment against camera company permitted where governmental functions may have been surrendered)