Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 106
Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency based on statute of limitations
grounds. The plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
herself and putative class members whose driver’s licenses were suspended for nonpayment of traffic tickets. She contended that the applicable Alabama Code provisions
that authorize those suspensions violated the equal protection and due process clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment, since there is no prior notice, opportunity to be heard, or
finding that the individual is able to pay and willfully failed to do so. Id. at *3. The district
court rejected those claims and dismissed the class action. On appeal, the Eleventh
Circuit found the claims time-barred without proceeding into the merits. Id. at *3-4.
Specifically, it rejected the argument that the suspension constituted a continuing
violation - as opposed to a continuing harm - as the claims were premised on the
suspension without notice, which occurred in 2013 and were therefore untimely since
brought more than two years later in 2019. Id. at 4. Thus, although the Eleventh Circuit
recognized that the harm constituted an equal protection injury, the plaintiff was barred
from pursuing the class action due to the statute of limitation. Id. at *4.
In a massive class action entitled Mendoza, et al. v. Strickler, 51 F.4th 346 (9th Cir.
2022), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the plaintiff’s claim
challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s since-repealed system of suspending,
without inquiry into ability to pay, the driver’s licenses of persons who fail to pay fines in
connection with traffic violations failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleged the practice violates the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 349. The plaintiff moved for
class certification and a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied. Id. at 350.
That decision was not appealed and, in any event, the issues were mooted since the
Oregon provisions had subsequently been repealed, but the plaintiff separately
appealed the dismissal of her individual claims regarding her ongoing license
suspension for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 351. In reaching a
decision on that claim, the district court held that it had jurisdiction over the issue, which
the Ninth Circuit ruled was error, since jurisdictional issues must be resolved prior to
addressing dismissal on the merits. Id. at 354. First, the Ninth Circuit determined that
the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants were not barred by sovereign immunity
under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), which provides that a federal court has
jurisdiction to enjoin a state official from violating federal law. Second, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims that her license suspension based on
failure to pay, without first determining ability to pay, violated due process and equal
protection principles. Id. at 357. The Ninth Circuit distinguished cases prohibiting
wealth-based distinctions prohibiting access to judicial processes and found such fees
in the license context pass muster under a rationality standard. Id. at 360. Specifically,
the fines were upheld as having a rational basis, since they relate to a general state
interest in compliance with traffic law. Id. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the plaintiffs’
remaining arguments regarding equal protection and procedural due process violations
and affirmed dismissal of her complaint for failure to state a claim. Id. at 364.
105
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
