Damon v. City of Kansas City
419 S.W.3d 162
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Damon and Olinetchouk) brought a putative class action against Kansas City and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) challenging the city’s red‑light camera ordinance and related notices seeking declaratory, injunctive relief and damages.
- Two subclasses: Subclass One paid fines after receiving Notices of Violation; Subclass Two received notices or summonses and face municipal prosecution but have not paid.
- Ordinance contains a rebuttable presumption that the vehicle owner was the driver, classifies red‑light captures as non‑point civil infractions (no driver‑points), and authorizes processes that routed payments, notices and customer service through ATS (out‑of‑state addresses and a $4 convenience fee).
- Plaintiffs allege procedural due process defects in the notices (no clear court date, conflicting instructions), that the ordinance conflicts with state traffic statutes (points/reporting), that the scheme is revenue‑driven and that ATS functioned in law‑enforcement/prosecutorial roles.
- Trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice; Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the ordinance conflicts with state law and that plaintiffs’ claims survived threshold defenses (standing, waiver, adequate remedy at law).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity under state law / conflict with statutes on points/reporting | Ordinance reclassifies moving red‑light violations as non‑point infractions, circumventing state statutes requiring reporting and points | City argues ordinance is valid municipal traffic regulation under §304.120 and is civil/non‑point | Court: Ordinance conflicts with state statutes on moving violations and reporting/points and is therefore void |
| Rebuttable presumption (owner = driver) | Presumption unconstitutionally shifts burden if ordinance is criminal; compels owner to prove innocence | City relies on parking‑ticket precedent allowing rebuttable presumption as evidentiary device | Court: Presumption unconstitutional if ordinance is held criminal; factual determination remanded |
| Procedural due process / notice defects | Notices lacked proper summons/court date, used ATS addresses/website, threatened warrants — depriving reasonable opportunity to challenge | Defendants argue plaintiffs waived claims by paying or can raise defenses in municipal court (adequate remedy) | Court: Plaintiffs alleged sufficient notice defects to survive dismissal; Subclass One not barred; Subclass Two lacks adequate remedy at law in these circumstances |
| Unjust enrichment / voluntary payment doctrine | Subclass One seeks restitution for fines paid; payments were involuntary/under duress or induced by misleading procedure | Defendants assert voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery (payments made voluntarily with knowledge) | Court: Plaintiffs pleaded facts (duress/misleading notice/possible fraud) sufficient to defeat dismissal; voluntary payment is an affirmative defense for later resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Alumax Foils, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 939 S.W.2d 907 (Mo. 1997) (appellate jurisdiction for municipal ordinance constitutional claims lies initially with court of appeals)
- Marshall v. Kansas City, 355 S.W.2d 877 (Mo. 1962) (prior rule that Supreme Court had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over municipal ordinance validity)
- City of Creve Coeur v. Nottebrok, 356 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (analysis of civil vs. quasi‑criminal nature of red‑light ordinances)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (mandatory presumptions that shift burden of proof violate due process)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1997) (civil labels may be examined for punitive effect transforming civil remedy into criminal punishment)
- Huch v. Charter Communications, 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. 2009) (voluntary payment doctrine as a defense to restitution claims)