Suing the City for Unfair Parking Law Enforcement - Opinions please! (how much, lawyers)

[RalphWiggum]

It's kind of common knowledge that 2 hour parking means you can only park there for 2 hours before having to move. Not sure you'd have a case.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by RalphWiggum

It's kind of common knowledge that 2 hour parking means you can only park there for 2 hours before having to move. Not sure you'd have a case.

Or move the car a few feet so the traffic cop's yellow mark makes is face down on the pavement and cannot be seen.

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by RalphWiggum

It's kind of common knowledge that 2 hour parking means you can only park there for 2 hours before having to move. Not sure you'd have a case.

This.

[1200RT]

I love these threads.

The purpose of parking meters is to encourage parking turnover so patrons of local businesses can park, not be blocked by people feeding meters incessantly, EXACTLY like you did in this case. Parking meters are not your personal parking spaces, and you likely deserved the cites, and were likely 100% lawful, and you likely have zero case.

It is not the city's responsibility to make you aware of their laws, nor post signs to alert you that you must move your car.

I suggest you read the City of Los Angeles Muni Code related to parking meters. You were likely cited for one of the following violations:

Good luck with your suit.

SEC. 88.12. EXTENDING PARKING TIME FOR A PARKING METER SPACE.

(Title and Section Amended by Ord. No. 180,092, Eff. 9/7/08.)

It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause to be made a payment in a parking meter for the purpose of increasing or extending the parking time of any vehicle beyond the legal parking time which has been established by the Department for the parking meter space.

SEC. 88.13. FAILURE TO PAY FOR A PARKING METER SPACE.

(Title and Section Amended by Ord. No. 180,092, Eff. 9/7/08.)

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park, or to cause, allow, permit or suffer to be parked, a vehicle in any parking meter space, except as provided by Sections 88.01.1, 88.03.1 and 88.06.1, without immediately making or causing to be made a lawful payment at an applicable parking meter as provided in Section 88.07.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to cause, allow, permit or suffer any vehicle to remain in any parking meter space for more than the time indicated by posted signs or on an applicable parking meter indicating the maximum parking time allowed in such parking meter space, or during any time the applicable parking meter is indicating that the time has elapsed for which lawful payment has been made for said parking meter space; provided, however, that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to any vehicle described in Section 80.05, vehicles owned by the City of Los Angeles, or vehicles operated pursuant to Sections 88.01.1, 88.03.1 and 88.06.1.

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by romeoplank

I recently shot an independent film in an office building on Ventura Blvd in Sherman Oaks. Many of my cast and crew parked along Ventura on day 1 with the express intent of feeding the meters every 2 hours. The posted signs read, "2 hour parking," and the meters have a 2 hour limit.

We all kept our meters full, but after the first two hours were up, we were all ticketed for not having moved our vehicles...

This is deceptive, as the requirement that the vehicle must be moved every 2 hours is not implicit in the posted "2 hour parking" warning. In other words, a meter of time with a 2 hour limit implies only a limit on TIME, and constitutes a sale thereof when the meter is paid. I am buying 2 hours of time measured by that meter. Therefore, without any posting referring to the necessary removal of my vehicle after 2 hours, I do not understand how the city can justify a fine, as long as the meter is continually paid. I'm seriously considering filing a class action against the city.

In your first sentence you even state it is a 2 hour limit.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by ferretkona

In your first sentence you even state it is a 2 hour limit.

2-hour limit meaning that you can only deposit 8 quarters at a time, the maximum allowable. That had to be what he meant.

[CALGUY]

What the OP is trying to make us understand is, if he continually feeds the meter every two hours, he should not have to move his vehicle.
In theory that should be the case, but the law does state the vehicle can not take up that parking space for more than two hours.
As silly as the law is, it IS the law.
Now, what do you suppose the outcome would be if the OP, at the end of the two hour period, moved the vehicle around the block, and when returning, the same space was available, and he, or she parked there and fed the meter for another two hours?
In my book, that would be entirely legal.
Bob.

[wall st kid]

I think that these tickets are just a 'technicality' and the reason i say that is because its obvious that you and your crew were going to occupy those meters all day. You were either going to keep each car in its spot for the entire day OR, you were going to go out and 'swap' cars and move Car 1 from spot 1 into spot 2 and car 2 from spot 2 into spot 1 and so on and so forth. It wasnt like those meters were going to be unoccupado.

Your beef could be that why start the cars and create exhaust into the air just on a technicality? Its a pain in the rear end that you have to 'swap' 2 cars every 2 hours that are right next to each other when those 2 spots were 'yours' and were going to be yours all throughout the day.

Can they prove that you didnt actually 'swap' the cars? In other words, does it say on the ticket the exact space number the car was sitting in, or does it just say the general loction "main street"? You can say "We did go out ever two hours and swap cars"

Here's another thing you can say and fight.

You can say that every hour, you went out, drove your car out of the spot and then reparked in that same spot. Technically, you werent in that spot for 2 hours because once you leave the spot, you get another 2 hours, in other words, the clock starts over from square one.

Does the parking nazi know for sure that you didnt drive the car out of the spot and just repark it in the same exact spot to 'restart' the 2 hour time limit?

[wall st kid]

One more thing...i think you have a great case to fight this ticket because they ticketed a car that actually had money in the meter. Its wasnt like the meter ran out. When you ticket a car that has paid the fee, you are just 'guessing' that the car didnt drive out every hour and 'repark' in that spot. The rules are vague on the sign, if it doesnt say "once you go into a spot, the 2 hour time limit starts and even if you leave the spot and repark, the 2 hour limit doesnt reset"

A good lawyer should be able to get these tickets tossed out on technicalities.

[1200RT]

Originally Posted by wall st kid

One more thing...i think you have a great case to fight this ticket because they ticketed a car that actually had money in the meter. Its wasnt like the meter ran out. When you ticket a car that has paid the fee, you are just 'guessing' that the car didnt drive out every hour and 'repark' in that spot. The rules are vague on the sign, if it doesnt say "once you go into a spot, the 2 hour time limit starts and even if you leave the spot and repark, the 2 hour limit doesnt reset"

A good lawyer should be able to get these tickets tossed out on technicalities.

There is a specific muni code addressing this very topic. I posted it above. There is no "great case" here. Having money in the meter is moot, and I highly doubt anyone "guessed" that the car was there for more than two hours, its highly likely that it was observed not moving, and then cited.

Furthermore, good luck finding a "good lawyer" to sue the city. What technicalities do you see? The parking or police officer to who cited the cars will testify under oath he observed the car in the spot for longer than 2 hours, which, for what its worth they have been trained, at length to legally swear to. The OP will then be asked under oath if he moved his car. He will (a)tell the truth or (b)perjure himself. The judge will then ask all the rest of his film crew - who would then all have to perjure themselves, all to get out of parking tickets written well within the city's laws? The court could then look at security camera footage of the street, interview outside witnesses and consider other evidence to justify this lawsuit. Then of course, the court would just need to track down this thread, where the OP admitted to violating the law (ignorance of the law, is of course, not a defense), and they could all go to jail for perjury. All of that is highly unlikely, however, because we're talking about LAWFULLY WRITTEN PARKING CITATIONS, which will not go anywhere if contested. Parking tickets, folks. parking tickets. For blocking an entire block for a film shoot.

Holy Hell. Get a grip folks. And next time, just apply for a film permit. LADOT