James Timphony v. City of Pasadena
669 F. App'x 484
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2014 Scarlet and James Timphony had their car towed by parking enforcement; James was present and protested, claiming he had paid the underlying parking tickets and that receipts were in the glove compartment.
- The officer (Verduzeo) refused to allow retrieval or inspection of the receipts and proceeded with the tow.
- Plaintiffs sued raising three claims: (1) a private civil cause of action under California Penal Code §146, (2) a §1983 Fourth Amendment claim against the officer for an unreasonable seizure, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The District Court dismissed all three claims; the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed.
- The majority held (1) no private civil remedy under §146, (2) the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the §1983 claim, and (3) the IIED claim failed because the officer’s conduct was not “outrageous.”
- Judge Reinhardt dissented as to qualified immunity, arguing the officer’s refusal to inspect receipts while towing was objectively unreasonable and that plaintiffs should at least get leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cal. Penal Code §146 creates a private right of action for damages | §146 criminalizes certain official misconduct; Timphony seeks to convert it into a private civil remedy | Legislature did not intend a private remedy; existing §1983 remedies suffice; no public-policy basis to recognize one | No private civil action under §146; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether officer is entitled to qualified immunity for towing (Fourth Amendment seizure) | Officer acted unreasonably by refusing to inspect proof of payment while towing; violated clearly established rights | Towing is a permissible seizure when reasonable; officer could believe towing lawful and that evidentiary disputes could be resolved later | Qualified immunity applies; officer could reasonably believe conduct lawful; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Officer’s conduct in refusing receipt inspection and towing caused severe emotional distress | Conduct did not reach the extreme and outrageous threshold required for IIED | IIED claim dismissed; conduct not outrageous |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework permitting consideration of either prong)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity protects officials unless clearly established law was violated)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (vehicle towing and inventory searches can be reasonable seizures serving public purposes)
- Katzberg v. Regents of Univ. of California, 29 Cal.4th 300 (state courts decline to imply private actions from certain constitutional provisions)
- Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Mendes, 160 Cal.App.4th 136 (private civil suits permitted only where legislature intended one or public policy compels)
- Vikco Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Ohio Indem. Co., 70 Cal.App.4th 55 (same rule on implying private rights from criminal statutes)
- Trerice v. Blue Cross of Cal., 209 Cal.App.3d 878 (elements and outrageousness standard for IIED)