Modacure v. B&B Vehicle Processing, Inc., 30 Cal. App. 5th 690

Plaintiff Joanna Modacure owned two vehicles that were towed and sold after accruing unpaid parking citations and boot fees; one sale (the "black chev") occurred in 2010 and a later tow (a 2002 Mercedes) occurred in 2015.
Plaintiff alleges proceeds from the 2010 sale were not used to pay outstanding parking citations as required by Vehicle Code § 22851.1(b), and she was not notified about the disposition or surplus proceeds.
Plaintiff sued City of Oakland, B&B Vehicle Processing, Oakland Parking Citation Assistance Center, and Paylock, alleging (1) a § 1985(3) conspiracy to retain lien-sale proceeds and (2) a § 1983 due process and equal protection violation based on failure to enforce § 22851.1.
Defendants demurred to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC); the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case.
On appeal the court reviewed the demurrer de novo, accepted the SAC’s factual allegations as true, and addressed whether the SAC stated causes of action.
The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the § 1985 conspiracy claim but reversed as to the § 1983 due process/equal protection claim, finding the SAC sufficiently alleged a protectable property interest and a violation of § 22851.1(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim was adequately pleaded	Defendants agreed 2013–2015 to allow city agent and vendors to retain lien-sale proceeds and not apply surplus to unpaid tickets	The alleged conspiracy post-dated the 2010 sale; no acts in furtherance tied to the sale	Demurrer sustained as to conspiracy — claim fails because stated meetings occurred after the 2010 sale and no act in furtherance was pleaded
Whether SAC stated a § 1983 claim for denial of due process/equal protection based on failure to apply sale proceeds per § 22851.1(b)	Failure to apply surplus sale proceeds to outstanding parking citations and failure to notify denied plaintiff a property interest and due process/equal protection	Trial court: claim is merely a statutory violation (Vehicle Code) and § 22851.1(b) does not require applying proceeds to tickets; defendants also raised other merits defenses later	Demurrer improperly sustained — appellate court held plaintiff alleged a constitutionally protected property interest and a plausible § 1983 claim tied to alleged nonenforcement of § 22851.1(b); remanded with demurrer denied as to second cause of action

Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 962 (1992) (standard for reviewing demurrer sustained without leave to amend)
Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985) (demurrer treats pleaded facts as admitted but not conclusions)
Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (acts in furtherance of a conspiracy must be pleaded and temporally related)
Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992) (§ 1983’s purpose to deter state actors and provide relief for deprivation of federal rights)
Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621 (9th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 requires state action depriving federal rights)
Stypmann v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 557 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1977) (loss of use of a vehicle implicates a property interest protected by due process)
Scofield v. City of Hillsborough, 862 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1988) (vehicle use is a substantial private interest)
Mendoza v. Town of Ross, 128 Cal.App.4th 625 (2005) (appellate review of demurrer may affirm if any ground asserted below is well taken)