From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jasinski v. City of Miami

United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Jun 10, 2003
CASE NO. 02-21572-CIV-SEITZ/BANDSTRA (S.D. Fla. Jun. 10, 2003)

Summary

finding retroactive intent when newly enacted ordinance expressly declared “the administrative fee to be legal and valid and to ratify, validate and conform in all respects the administrative fees imposed prior to the adoption of this ordinance ...”

Summary of this case from Bay Farms Corp. v. Great Am. Alliance Ins. Co.

Opinion

CASE NO. 02-21572-CIV-SEITZ/BANDSTRA

June 10, 2003


ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING DUE PROCESS AND SURCHARGE SETTLEMENTS AND ORDER SETTING STATUS HEARING


THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Due Process Settlement Agreement [DE-77] and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Re Miami's Parking Surcharge [DE-41]. Upon due consideration of the parties' motions, the proposed Notice of Class Action, and the record in this action, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

(1) The parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Due Process Settlement Agreement [DE-77] and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Re Miami's Parking Surcharge [DE-41] are GRANTED;

(2) The parties' proposed Due Process Settlement Agreement, which was arrived at by arm's-length negotiations by experienced counsel, and falls within the range of reasonable approval pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e), is hereby preliminarily approved;

The Court preliminarily approves the due process settlement agreement with the understanding that ¶ 5 on page 2 of the Due Process Settlement Agreement means that a towing company will not be entitled to reimbursement for storage fees if it fails to comply with the notice provisions in the proposed new ordinance.

(3) The parties' proposed surcharge settlement agreement, which was arrived at by arm's-length negotiations by experienced counsel, and falls within the range of reasonable approval pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) based on the parties' representation that the settlement offer adequately represents the number of persons who paid the surcharge and the cost of the surcharge, is hereby preliminarily approved;

(4) The following class is certified for settlement purposes, with respect to Plaintiffs' due process claim, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

All persons and entities whose vehicles have been impounded by the City of Miami Police during the period beginning four (4) years prior to May 24, 2002 (the date the action was filed), and continuing to the present;

(5) The following class is certified for settlement purposes, with respect to Plaintiffs' surcharge claim, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

All persons and entities whose vehicles have been impounded by the City of Miami Police and who have paid a parking surcharge in order to secure the release of a vehicle from a towing company storage yard from September 1, 1999 through the present;

(6) The Court agrees to dispense with notice of the right to opt-out of the due process settlement, as class members are only entitled to nominal damages and no potential class member could elect to opt out of complying with a City ordinance;

(7) Usher Bryn, P.A. is designated as lead class counsel for the putative classes;

(8) The Court does not approve of the parties' proposed Notice of Class Action, and advises the parties that it has not yet received a copy of the referenced Request for Refund Form or a Summary Notice of Class Action;

(9) The parties shall appear before the undersigned at 9:30 a.m. on June 19, 2003 for a status conference, at which time the parties shall be prepared to discuss, among other things, the form and timing of the Notice of Class Action, the Summary Notice of Class Action, and the Request for Refund Form, and the appropriate forum for publication of the Summary Notice of Class Action. Additionally, the parties shall be prepared to update the Court on the status of the City Commission's review of the new ordinance pertaining to the due process settlement. The parties shall also be prepared to discuss dates for class members to file opt-out notices for the surcharge class and objections to the settlement, and the date for a fairness hearing.

DONE and ORDERED in Miami, Florida.


Summaries of

Jasinski v. City of Miami

United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Jun 10, 2003
CASE NO. 02-21572-CIV-SEITZ/BANDSTRA (S.D. Fla. Jun. 10, 2003)

finding retroactive intent when newly enacted ordinance expressly declared “the administrative fee to be legal and valid and to ratify, validate and conform in all respects the administrative fees imposed prior to the adoption of this ordinance ...”

Summary of this case from Bay Farms Corp. v. Great Am. Alliance Ins. Co.

finding retroactive intent when newly enacted ordinance expressly declared "the administrative fee to be legal and valid and to ratify, validate and conform in all respects the administrative fees imposed prior to the adoption of this ordinance ..."

Summary of this case from Bay Farms Corp. v. Great American Alliance Ins. Co.

finding no due process violation in the retroactive application of a $25 administrative charge for non-consensual tows of privately owned vehicles

Summary of this case from Magnum Towing & Recovery, LLC v. City of Toledo
Case details for

Jasinski v. City of Miami

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT M. JASINSKI, and SUSAN M. MISAVAGE, individually and on behalf of…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Florida

Date published: Jun 10, 2003

Citations

CASE NO. 02-21572-CIV-SEITZ/BANDSTRA (S.D. Fla. Jun. 10, 2003)

Citing Cases

Magnum Towing & Recovery, LLC v. City of Toledo

Kentucky Rest. Concepts v. City of Louisville, 209 F. Supp. 2d 672, 692 (W.D. Ky. 2002). Magnum claim that…

Zaber v. City of Dubuque

The court noted, "If there are `settled expectations' in this case, they are the County's, not the…