McCarthy v. City of Cleveland
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23203
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- McCarthy and Carroll, lessees, received multiple traffic camera citations from Cleveland and paid fines.
- Cleveland's original traffic camera ordinance made the owner liable; owners are the BMV-identified registered owner.
- Lessee-owners were not identified as owners under the 2007 ordinance; Dickson & Campbell Ohio appellate ruling suggested lessee immunity.
- Cleveland amended the ordinance in 2010 to make lessees liable for leased vehicles' tickets.
- Plaintiffs sued in state court, removed to federal court, alleging Takings Clause violations and seeking restitution/mandamus relief; district court dismissed federal claim for lack of taking.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of federal takings claim but reversed/remanded on state-law restitution and mandamus issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcement against lessees constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment | McCarthy argues a per se taking occurred without compensation. | City contends no taking since no seizure of a specific fund; merely a monetary obligation. | No taking under the Fifth Amendment; no identifiable fund was seized. |
| Whether plaintiffs’ payment of fines was voluntary, affecting ripeness | Payments were involuntary due to coercive process and lack of meaningful choice. | Payments were voluntary because an appeal option existed. | Payments were voluntary; no taking occurred; claim not ripe. |
| Whether state-law restitution/mandamus claims were properly addressed | Ohio Constitution Article I, § 19 protections and restitution/mandamus relief were ignored. | District court did not analyze state-law claims; federal court should defer/remand as appropriate. | State-law claims are remanded for further proceedings; district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction or remand to Ohio court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, 449 U.S. 155 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (per se taking when funds are seized independent of service)
- Brown v. Legal Found. of Wash., 538 U.S. 216 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (IOLTA taking; wealth transfer to public benefit in aid of legal services)
- Eastern Enter. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (plurality discusses when takings clause applies to identifiable property interests)
- Swisher Int'l v. Schafer, 550 F.3d 1046 (11th Cir. 2008) (takings analysis for monetary obligations lacking identifiable property interest)
- Parella v. Ret. Bd. of R.I. Employees' Ret. Sys., 173 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1999) (no taking where statute affects non-identifiable monetary burden)
- United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 315 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2003) (takings analysis beyond retroactivity; monetary claims require identifiable property interest)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (defense of takings when no specific property interest is affected)
- Williams v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., 582 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2009) (ripeness and burden of proving unfair process before challenging takings)
- Dickson & Campbell, LLC v. City of Cleveland, 181 Ohio App.3d 238, 908 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (lessee liability challenge to Cleveland's ordinance)
- City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353, 853 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (Ohio Constitution provides greater protection than federal Takings Clause)
- Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (ripeness: must seek compensation through available process)