Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

9th Circuit Concludes Epic Seven-Year Parking Ticket Legal Fight

By Kit Yona, M.A. | Reviewed by Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Last updated on

It's said that you can't fight city hall, but that's untrue. Every citizen can fight city hall. It's winning that's the tricky part.

In a decision that saw their second judgment involving the case, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against a plaintiff contesting a violation of his 14th Amendment rights — the towing of his vehicle by the City of Portland.

The case focused on what level of responsibility Portland had to ensure the plaintiff, Andrew Grimm, was made aware of his vehicle's imminent towing. Grimm claimed the city didn't make enough of an effort. The ensuing legal battle lasted seven years.

The Facts of the Case

On October 25, 2017, Andrew Grimm registered with Parking Kitty, the official parking management app for Portland, Oregon. Parking Kitty allows drivers to pay for parking in municipal spaces from a smartphone. Grimm's Honda Accord was registered in California and had California license plates. The vehicle was registered to his father and listed as a third-party lienholder as well.

Grimm parked in a space in downtown Portland at 5:41 p.m. on December 14, 2017. He used the Parking Kitty app to pay for the spot from that time until 7 p.m. of the same day. The app sent him notifications to warn Grimm that his parking session was about to expire and to alert him after it expired. Grimm neither extended his parking session nor moved his vehicle.

On December 15, a Portland parking enforcement officer issued a citation for being unlawfully parked in a meter zone without proof of payment. The citation was placed on the Accord's windshield, along with another citation for expired registration (the vehicle's registration was up to date, but Grimm had failed to affix the current registration tags to the license plates).

These citations were issued again by a different parking enforcement officer on December 18th and placed on top of the two original citations. The next day, another citation for illegal parking was issued along with a red slip warning the vehicle would be towed if not moved. On December 21st, a final unlawful parking citation was issued along with another red slip ordering the towing of the vehicle.

The vehicle was then towed. A notice of the towing with instructions on how to retrieve the car from the tow lot was sent to Grimm's address. He picked the car up on December 30 after paying $571 in outstanding charges. Approximately one month later, he filed a complaint against the City of Portland, the officers who issued the tickets, and the towing company.

Keeping Up With the Joneses

The City of Portland became the sole defendant as the towing company was granted a motion to dismiss and the officers had qualified immunity. In July 2018, the district court used Mathews v. Eldridge to rule that the City had made an adequate effort to alert Grimm. This was reversed by the 9th Circuit in 2020 as the appeals court ruled the district court had applied the wrong standard.

The district court was told to use Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. and Jones v. Flowers instead to determine if Grimm's 14th Amendment rights had been violated. The focus was to be on the following issues:

  • Do citations that don't mention the possibility of towing provide adequate warning?
  • Does a red tow slip offer adequate warning?
  • Is Portland required under Jones to provide alternate means of ensuring notice to a driver if the citations and tow warning are ineffective?

The district court found that Portland had met its responsibilities to inform Grimm of their intent to have his vehicle towed. In their ruling filed on January 3, 2025, the 9th Circuit agreed. While the City's efforts would have been hampered by the registration being in the defendant's father's name, the court ruled that nonetheless, the citations and tow warnings on the vehicle were adequate.

The ruling stated that would be unreasonable for the City to be expected to access the Parking Kitty app, a third-party vendor. Likewise, a mailed notice or phone call would be an undue burden on Portland, as noted by the plaintiff's inability to find any instances where such methods are required.

Violation Frustration

In the end, the plaintiff's claim of 14th Amendment violation through Jones fell short as the courts ruled that Portland had met their notice requirement through the citations and tow warnings. The onus was placed on Grimm for not checking his car - or, technically, his father's car.

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard