277 F. Supp. 3d 366
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- Plaintiffs Dubin and Alston (Nassau County motorists) challenge Nassau County Ordinance 190-2012, the Drivers’ Responsibility Fee (DRF), a mandatory $45 charge imposed on motorists with ticket dispositions other than “not guilty.”
- Plaintiffs allege the DRF is a legislative, non-discretionary penalty applied even when tickets are dismissed, chills contesting tickets, and primarily serves revenue-raising, not administrative cost recovery.
- Both named plaintiffs had tickets dismissed by the TPVA but were assessed the DRF; plaintiffs seek class relief, declaratory and injunctive relief, and restitution under § 1983 and New York law.
- Defendants (County, Legislature, TPVA) moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), arguing Rooker–Feldman, abstention (Younger and Pullman), failure to state federal constitutional claims, and seeking dismissal of pendent state claims.
- The court rejected Rooker–Feldman and abstention arguments, dismissed most § 1983 claims (bill of attainder; procedural and substantive due process; takings; equal protection; double jeopardy) for failure to state a claim or ripeness, but denied dismissal of the Eighth Amendment excessive fines claim (on the ground that the DRF is categorically non-punitive) and retained supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend limited claims; TPVA and Article 78 claim were dismissed with consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Rooker–Feldman | Challenge to DRF ordinance is an independent constitutional attack, not an appeal of state-court rulings | Rooker–Feldman bars federal review because DRF assessments arose from TPVA proceedings | Rooker–Feldman does not apply; plaintiffs are not state-court losers and seek independent statutory challenge |
| Abstention (Younger/Pullman) | Federal adjudication necessary; DRF non-appealable so state forum inadequate | Federal court should abstain because of pending/related state proceedings and unsettled state-law issues | Court declines Younger and Pullman abstention at this stage; state remedies do not preclude federal constitutional claims |
| Procedural Due Process | DRF deprives property without adequate hearing; process flips burden to motorists | Adequate pre- and post-deprivation procedures exist (trial on underlying ticket, Article 78) and plaintiffs didn’t pursue them | Procedural due process claim dismissed: property interest minimal and available pre/post procedures adequate |
| Excessive Fines (Eighth Amendment) | DRF is punitive and therefore subject to Excessive Fines Clause; $45 may be disproportionate | DRF is remedial/administrative (cost recovery), not punitive, so Eighth Amendment inapplicable | Complaint plausibly alleges punitive purpose; excessive-fines claim survives the motion to dismiss (court did not decide disproportionality) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (establishes that lower federal courts may not review state court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (limits district court review of state court decisions; distinguishes general statutory challenges)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (narrows Rooker–Feldman scope)
- Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (clarifies Younger abstention exceptional categories)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (sets balancing test for procedural due process)
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (Eighth Amendment excessive fines applies where civil forfeiture serves punitive purposes)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (governs excessive fines gross-disproportionality inquiry)
- Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (due process limits on state withholding of funds after convictions are invalidated)