We don't normally post trial court decisions, particularly ones which simply dismiss a case. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's recent memorandum order in The Property Management Group, Ltd. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 17-1260 (May 23, 2017), which deals in part with a somewhat unusual takings claim, is posted here for two reasons. First, Williamson County. Second, the opening paragraph.
The case involves Philadelphia's notorious parking situation, something that -- if you have ever parked a car on the street in that city -- can be a real exercise in frustration and even fear. Predatory towing, ransoming cars, private spaces, and the like. The city council, apparently responding to towing abuses (see page 2 of the slip opinion, for example), adopted an ordinance which added a "ticket-to-tow requirement" which required that a law enforcement officer first certify that a vehicle is unlawfully parked before it may be towed.
Several towing companies which own private parking spaces on Philadelphia's streets sued the city in state court, asserting among other claims that this was both a physical and regulatory taking of their property. Apparently, the only relief sought was to enjoin the ordinance. Slip op. at 6. The city removed the case to federal court, after which it sought dismissal for failure to state a claim -- the towing companies don't own "property." The plaintiffs claimed a physical taking because the ordinance allows vehicles to occupy their private parking spaces on a temporary basis while a cop is tracked down in order to write up the ticket. They also alleged a regulatory taking under Penn Central in the alternative.
The court didn't reach these claims because, as we noted above, it dismissed the case as unripe under Williamson County -- the plaintiffs had not sought just compensation in available state procedures. (In a footnote, slip op. at 19 n.21, the court concluded the plaintiffs' takings claim "have no merit" because a brief delay in ejecting trespassers is not a regulatory or physical taking.)
Normally, we'd be up in arms -- how can the defendant claim that the plaintiff has not made use of available state procedures to seek compensation when the plaintiff brought the takings claim in state court and it was the defendant which removed it to federal court ...what nerve! -- but here, we're not that outraged. Yes, the plaintiffs brought suit in Pennsylvania court and the city removed it to federal court, but the only relief which the plaintiff sought was to enjoin the ordinance. It did not seek compensation. That, according to the District Court, was fatal to its ripeness argument, since Pennsylvania has a process to seek compensation for takings, and the plaintiffs did not utilize it. This leaves unaddressed the question of whether just compensation is the only remedy for a taking or whether a plaintiff can also seek to halt it, and whether such claims are subject to Williamson County's requirement to seek compensation in state courts.
And the second reason we post this case? The introductory paragraph on page 1:
Plaintiffs, a coalition of private parking lot owners and towing companies, have towed the City of Philadelphia into court on account of a recently enacted ticket-to-tow ordinance. The ordinance requires a neutral City official, like the police, to verify a parking violation and issue a ticket before a vehicle may be towed. The parking lot owners and towing companies allege this mandate is more than just a speed bump, arguing the ordinance is preempted by state law and that it functions as an unlawful taking and deprivation of procedural due process. The City, claiming this case is a dead end, moves to dismiss the Complaint. Regrettably for Plaintiffs, the wheels have come out from under them; their Complaint reaches the end of its road.
Slip op. at 1.
Puns in takings case are in the air these days, apparently.
The Property Management Group, Ltd. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 17-1260 (E.D. Pa. May 23, 2017)
