Sanket Vinod Thakur v. Cofiroute USA, LLC
8:19-cv-02233
| C.D. Cal. | Jan 29, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Sanket Vinod Thakur drove on the 91 Express Lanes on August 22, 2018 without a FasTrak account and received a Notice of Toll Evasion from Cofiroute.
- Thakur alleged the Notices improperly characterized conduct as criminal under Cal. Veh. Code § 23302(b) and that defendants used nonsubscribers’ personally identifiable information to solicit FasTrak, violating Cal. Streets & Highways Code § 31490(k).
- Defendants are OCTA and RCTC (public owners of the 91 Express Lanes) and Cofiroute (toll operator). OCTA and RCTC ordinances state unpaid tolls are treated as civil violations per § 23302.5.
- A Special Master recommended granting defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice and denying a Motion to Stay as moot; the Special Master concluded Thakur misinterpreted the Vehicle Code and ordinances.
- The district court conducted a de novo review, adopted the Special Master’s Report in full, granted the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend, and denied the Motion to Stay as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAC states a viable claim grounded in § 31490(k) and Vehicle Code §§ 23302/23302.5 (statutory interpretation) | Notices alleged criminal infraction; § 23302 can support criminal penalties; defendants illegally marketed to nonsubscribers | § 23302 and § 23302.5 read together decriminalize toll evasion; ordinances mirror § 23302.5; no unlawful marketing outside toll-related notices | Dismissed: court held plaintiff misreads the statutes; § 23302.5 makes evasion a civil violation and the Ordinances align with that scheme; no cognizable claim pleaded |
| Whether declaratory relief or other claims present an actual controversy / are time-barred | Seeks declaratory relief and claims under privacy statute | No actual controversy; claims likely time-barred; history of forum-shopping undermines equitable tolling | Court agreed with Special Master that these defects would likely preclude relief (but relied primarily on statutory misinterpretation) |
| Whether to grant leave to amend | Requests leave to plead distinctions (e.g., "fail to pay" vs "evade") and invoke rule of lenity | Opposes leave: undue delay, prejudice, futility | Denied: amendment would be futile, would unduly prolong litigation and prejudice defendants |
| Whether to stay the action pending other proceedings | n/a (defendants sought stay) | Move to stay | Denied as moot because case dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1992) (permitting judicial notice of related court proceedings)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may not judicially notice reasonably disputed facts in noticed documents)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2003) (pleading standard under Rule 8(a)(2))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply context-specific plausibility inquiry)
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (court need not accept conclusory allegations)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (leave to amend ordinarily granted unless futility or other Foman factors apply)
- Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMC Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) (grounds to deny leave: undue delay, bad faith, repeated failures, prejudice, futility)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors for permitting or denying amendment)