Tate v. Garfield Hts.
2013 Ohio 2204
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2009 Garfield Heights enacted an automated photo enforcement ordinance (Ordinance 313.11) imposing a $100 civil penalty for violations detected by cameras, with a $150 hearing bond/fee to contest a Notice of Liability.
- Redflex operated and maintained the cameras and processed images; the City enforced violations, while Redflex performed administrative tasks such as processing and storing violation images.
- Tate received three Notices of Liability in 2010 and paid a $150 hearing bond with a $50 administrative fee; he later requested a hearing but was told the Notices were dismissed and the Ordinance repealed by referendum.
- The City refunded Tate’s $150 hearing fee; Tate refused the refund and then filed a class action alleging due process and equal protection violations and, later, disgorgement and unjust enrichment claims.
- The trial court dismissed Tate’s second amended complaint for lack of standing, mootness, and immunity arguments; Tate appeals raising ten assignments of error.
- The court ultimately held Tate lacked standing because the Ordinance was repealed and his charges were dismissed prior to suit, rendering his claims moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tate had standing to sue. | Tate argues ongoing hold of the $150 fee gives standing. | City/Redflex contend dismissal, refund, and repeal render no concrete injury. | No standing; mootness; lack of injury. |
| Whether the claims are moot due to repeal and dismissal before suit. | Repeal did not moot because of potential class claims. | Ordinance repealed and notices dismissed before suit; no live case or controversy. | Claims moot; no live controversy. |
| Whether Garfield Heights or Redflex can be liable for constitutional violations as alleged. | Tate asserts due process/equal protection violations and conspiracy against Redflex. | Standing and mootness defeat liability; private entity immunity or lack of constitutional violation. | Dismissed as moot for lack of standing; no appellate reach on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) (due process notice and opportunity to be heard required)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (protected interest prerequisite for due process)
- O’Brien v. Univ. Comm. Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standards for failure to state a claim; must allege fact pattern plausibly showing liability)
- Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St.3d 23 (1985) (real party in interest rule and standing principles)
- Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (standing analysis and redressability in Ohio)