Zilba v. City of Port Clinton
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20890
N.D. Ohio2013Background
- Plaintiff parked on Madison Ave. in Port Clinton, Ohio, in a spot he believed was designated; curb was yellow indicating prohibition, but no signs warned against parking.
- Officer issued a citation under Port Clinton Ordinance § 351.03(n) for parking in a restricted area near a crosswalk.
- Ticket lacked clear notice of a hearing or challenge procedure; Plaintiff paid the $20 civil fine after receipt of the ticket.
- Defendant accepted Plaintiff’s $20 payment, treating it as payment of the civil fine rather than contest of merits.
- Plaintiff filed federal action challenging the ordinance as unconstitutional and seeking summary judgment; Defendant sought summary judgment and class certification.
- Court denied Defendant’s Summary Judgment and granted Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment, holding the decriminalization scheme violated Ohio law and due process requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the ordinance | Plaintiff had injury from the lack of meaningful choice. | Plaintiff waived rights by paying the civil fine. | Plaintiff has standing to challenge the ordinance. |
| Procedural due process for decriminalized parking | Ticket lacked notice of hearing and process; de facto deprivation. | Notice and process were adequate; voluntary payment suffices. | Defendant violated procedural due process; due process not satisfied. |
| Ohio home-rule and Chapter 4521 compliance | Decriminalization required following § 4521.03(B) notice provisions. | Home rule allowed decriminalization without § 4521.03(B) specifics. | Municipality must comply with Chapter 4521; Defendant violated Ohio law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrada v. City of Detroit, 275 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2001) (notice and hearing issues in parking citations; standing when hearing available)
- Williams v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., 582 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2009) (notice issue where hearing is conditioned on fee; lack of meaningful choice)
- Rector v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 348 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2003) (distinguishes defense viability and notice sufficiency)
- DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 1999) (due process notice when parking decriminalized; mailed notice sufficiency)
- Silvernail v. County of Kent, 385 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004) (phone number and options for more information; due process under due notice scheme)
- Horn v. Chicago, 860 F.2d 700 (7th Cir. 1988) (due process notice deemed adequate given case circumstances)