O'Diah v. TBTA-Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority

ESE A. O'DIAH, Plaintiff, v. TBTA-TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, Defendant.

No. 19-CV-7586 (VSB)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

June 23, 2021

Appearances:

Ese A O'Diah, Briarwood, NY Pro se Plaintiff.

Esteban Morales, Matthew Joseph Novian, Mintz, Levin, Cohn Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Los Angeles, CA.

Todd Fredrick Rosenbaum, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York, NY Counsel for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:

Before me is Defendant TBTA-Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's (“TBTA” or “Defendant”) motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Ese A. O'Diah's (“O'Diah” or “Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint. (Doc. 20.) For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, because I find that I have jurisdiction and that Plaintiff has stated a claim with respect to his federal and state excessive fines claims and his unjust enrichment claim, Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to these claims. However, TBTA's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to all other claims.

I. Factual Background^[1]

Plaintiff Ese A. O'Diah is a resident of Queens County, New York and is a contracted driver^[2] who makes use of certain bridges and tunnels with tolling systems operated by Defendant. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12-13, 31.) In January 2017, TBTA switched many of its bridges and tunnels to a “cashless toll” collection system, meaning that tolls are now collected from drivers using automated systems. (Id. ¶ 3.) These systems include the “EZPass” system, and the “Toll-By-Mail” (“TBM”) system. (Id. ¶ 16.) As cars pass through the cashless tolls, cars with EZPass transponders are detected by the cashless toll system, and automatically charged through EZPass accounts. (Id. ¶ 17.) Through TBM, cars without EZPass transponders are imaged by the cashless toll system and a bill is sent by mail to the registered owner of the car using the license plate registration information. (Id. ¶ 18.)

Before a toll bill is sent to a motorist, it takes TBTA approximately thirty days to prepare the bill statement for distribution through TBM. (Id. ¶ 22.) When a motorist receives the TBM statement, the motorist has thirty days to pay the toll bill. (Id. ¶ 23.) If a motorist fails to pay the toll bill within thirty days, a notice of violation^[3] letter is sent to the motorist notifying the motorist that the toll bill must be paid within thirty additional days to avoid incurring the violation fees included in the letter. (Id. ¶ 24.) After sixty days without payment, an Enforcement Action^[4] letter is mailed to the motorist assessing both the underlying toll bill and the violations fees associated with the unpaid bill. (Id. ¶ 25.) Violations fees are assessed in amounts of either $50 or $100 per unpaid toll bill. (Id.)^[5] If a motorist fails to pay their toll bill and violation fees within thirty days of the Enforcement Action letter, the statement goes to collection. (Id. ¶ 26.)

Before a motorist receives a TBM bill, the motorist has the option to view their current account balance through a website. (Id. ¶ 27.) It takes thirty days from the date on which the toll was incurred for the website to reflect the outstanding toll balance. (Id. ¶ 28.) To access the TBM account statement online, a motorist needs to input their license plate and toll bill number. (Id. ¶ 29.)

Plaintiff had used the New York toll system without issue prior to the implementation of the cashless system in 2017. (Id. ¶ 31.) After introduction of the cashless toll systems, Plaintiff set up an EZPass account, but often passed through tolls without his transponder, resulting in TBM bills. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 35.) When Plaintiff received TBM statements, he always paid them on time, but in March 2017 Plaintiff stopped receiving TBM statements. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff contacted EZPass to inquire as to why he was not receiving his statements, and was informed that he should wait as it takes thirty days to prepare the statements. (Id.) While waiting for bill statements, Plaintiff began to receive Notice of Violation letters, but paid the amount requested before any violation fees were incurred. (Id.) Although Plaintiff never received initial TBM statements, over the course of 2017 Plaintiff continued receiving Notice of Violation letters and also began receiving Enforcement Action letters. (Id. ¶ 37.)

Plaintiff attempted to dispute the violation fee charges outlined in the various Enforcement Action letters, and informed EZPass that he was not receiving his initial TBM statements. (Id. ¶ 38.) Around November 2017, Plaintiff's online EZPass account was blocked due to a $629.52 outstanding balance. (Id. ¶ 39.) On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff paid this balance in full, which closed his EZPass account. (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.) In December 2017 and January 2018, Plaintiff continued to receive violation letters almost every week, despite not receiving initial TBM statements. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff received a collection notice from Transworld System Inc., and reached out to EZPass to dispute the violation fees he received. (Id. ¶ 44.) After discussing his problem with EZPass, Plaintiff contacted the local post office and was informed that all his mail was sent to him and that if he was not receiving mail, it was because nothing was sent by EZPass. (Id. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff was informed by EZPass that many customers were having issues accessing their bill statements and receiving TBM statements. (Doc. 31, at 2.) Because of his outstanding toll and violation fee balance, in early 2018 Plaintiff's vehicle registration was suspended. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff was told on February 27, 2019, after sending various dispute letters to the EZPass violation processing center, that in order for his vehicle registration suspension to be revoked, he would need to pay the fee balance that was due. (Id. ¶¶ 47-52.) Plaintiff continued attempting to dispute his violation fee balance without success. (Id. ¶¶ 52-57.) Plaintiff alleges that collection agencies are seeking to collect roughly $61, 257.50 in toll bills and violation fees assessed against him as a result of 569 citations from 2017 to March 14, 2018. (Id. ¶ 69; Compl. at 1; Doc. 31, Ex. 3, at 65.) From the documentation provided by Plaintiff, it appears that Plaintiff incurred violation fees in the amount of $56, 450 for $4, 807.50 in underlying tolls. (Doc. 31, Ex. 3, at 65.) Plaintiff appears to have paid $76.50 in violation fees and $1, 223.50 in tolls. (Id.)

II. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on August 13, 2019, (Doc. 2), with leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docs. 1, 3). On November 11, 2019, TBTA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, (Docs. 10-11), which I dismissed as moot after Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 6, 2019, (Docs. 16-17). On January 10, 2020, TBTA filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, supported by a memorandum of law and the Declaration of Anne Marie Bressler (“Bressler Decl.”), with exhibits. (Docs. 20-22.) On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, with exhibits. (Doc. 31.) TBTA filed its reply memorandum of law on February 25, 2020. (Doc. 34.)

On October 1, 2020, I issued an order holding in abeyance Defendant's motion to dismiss because I required supplemental briefing regarding a court proceeding that Plaintiff mentioned in his Amended Complaint and what effect, if any, that would have on Defendant's motion. (Doc. 35.) Defendant issued its supplemental letter in response on December 18, 2020, (Doc. 36), and Plaintiff issued his response on February 5, 2021, (Doc. 38).

III. Legal Standards

A. Jurisdiction

“Determining the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry[, ] and a claim is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 561 U.S. 247 (2010); United States v. Bond, 762 F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir. 2014) (describing subject matter jurisdiction as the “threshold question”) (internal quotation marks omitted). While a district court resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) “must take all uncontroverted facts in the complaint . . . as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction, ” “where jurisdictional facts are placed in dispute, the court has the power and obligation to decide issues of fact by reference to evidence outside the pleadings, such as affidavits, ” in which case “the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.” Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014) (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

B. 12(b)(6)

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. This standard demands “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Plausibility . . . depends on a host of considerations: the full factual picture presented by the complaint, the particular cause...