Stephen Yagman v. Eric Garcetti, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1030

Background

Plaintiff Stephen Yagman received and contested three Los Angeles parking citations under California Vehicle Code § 40215 (initial review, then administrative hearing with 21‑day request and deposit requirement).
Yagman alleged he requested hearings, his waiver requests for the deposit were denied, he paid the deposits, and prevailed at two of three administrative hearings.
He sued city officials asserting § 1983 claims (procedural and substantive due process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, Monell) and a RICO claim; the district court dismissed with prejudice.
Central legal claim: the City’s requirement that contestants deposit the citation penalty before a formal hearing deprives them of property without due process.
The Ninth Circuit considered whether the City’s initial-review plus deposit and prompt postdeprivation procedures satisfy the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and whether other pleaded claims survived dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the deposit-before-hearing requirement violates procedural due process	Yagman: deposit is a predeprivation taking; a hearing should occur before surrendering property	City: initial review plus prompt administrative hearing and refund procedures satisfy due process; deposit discourages delay and conserves resources	Held: No violation; Mathews factors favor City — initial review + postdeprivation remedies adequate
Whether procedures violate substantive due process (fundamental unfairness)	Yagman: process is fundamentally unfair and arbitrary	City: parking penalties affect only economic interests; procedures have rational relation to governmental aims	Held: No substantive due process violation — plaintiff didn’t meet high threshold for arbitrariness
Whether malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and Monell § 1983 claims were sufficiently pleaded	Yagman: alleges prosecution and municipal liability tied to procedure	City: plaintiff failed to plead malice, lack of probable cause, or an underlying constitutional violation	Held: Dismissed — derivative claims fail because no constitutional violation was sufficiently alleged
Whether RICO claim was adequately pleaded	Yagman: broadly alleged predicates including fraud, mail/wire fraud, extortion, civil rights violations	City: allegations are conclusory and lack factual predicates for RICO predicates	Held: Dismissed — RICO claim inadequately pleaded (no factual allegations supporting predicates)

Key Cases Cited

Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6) and leave to amend)
Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2012) (pleading standards on dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient)
Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2015) (due process flexibility and pre/postdeprivation rule)
Brewster v. Bd. of Educ., 149 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1998) (predeprivation hearing need not be elaborate; basic safeguards required)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (generally requires some hearing before deprivation)
Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979) (value of prompt postdeprivation review and reliability of predeprivation procedures)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three‑part balancing test for procedural due process)
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (application of Mathews where exceptions to predeprivation hearings are claimed)
City of Los Angeles v. David, 538 U.S. 715 (2003) (consideration of delay and private interest in context of towing/refund)
Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of malicious prosecution under § 1983)
Freeman v. City of Sacramento, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1995) (malicious prosecution standards)
Jennings v. Emry, 910 F.2d 1434 (7th Cir. 1990) (unspecified civil‑rights allegations do not supply RICO predicates)