Santander Consumer U.S. v. The City of Yonkers

1

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF YONKERS et al., Defendants.

No. 20-CV-4553 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 12, 2022

Sarah Bouskila, Esq. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Counsel for Plaintiff

Nicholas Andrew Duston, Esq. Norris McLaughlin, PA Counsel for Plaintiff

Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq. Campanelli & Associates P.C. Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff

Dennis E. A. Lynch, Esq. Blanchard & Wilson, LLP Counsel for Defendant The City of Yonkers

Paul William Meyer, Esq. Law Office of Paul W. Meyer, Jr. Counsel for Defendants A.P.O.W. Towing LLC and Harold Wuestenhoefer

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (“Santander” or “Plaintiff”) and Intervenor Plaintiff Kate A Mensah (“Mensah” or “Intervenor”) bring this Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants The City of Yonkers (hereinafter “Yonkers”), A.P.O.W. Towing, LLC. (“APOW”) and Harold Wuestenhoefer (“Wuestenhoefer”; together with APOW, the “APOW Defendants”; and collectively “Defendants”), alleging constitutional and state law violations in connection with the seizure of Plaintiff and Intervenor's car. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) Before the Court are: (1) Santander's Motion for Attorney's Fees, 2) Yonkers' Motion for Summary Judgment, and 3) APOW's Motion for Summary Judgment, and 4) Mensah's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (See Dkt. Nos. 89, 95, 103, 106.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for Attorney's Fees is granted with modifications, Yonkers' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, APOW's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in part and granted in part, and Mensah's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from Mensah's Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (Mensah's Rule 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mensah's 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 92)), Yonkers' Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (Yonkers' Rule 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J (“Yonkers' 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 100)), the APOW Defendants' Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (APOW's Rule 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“APOW's 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 105)), the APOW Defs.' Counter Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (APOW's Rule 56.1 Counter Statement in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“APOW's Counter 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 118)), Mensah's Counter Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (Mensah's Rule 56.1 Counter Statement in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mensah's Counter 56.1 - APOW”) (Dkt. No. 123)), Mensah's Counter Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (Mensah's Rule 56.1 Counter Statement in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mensah's Counter 56.1 - Yonkers”) (Dkt. No. 125)), Yonkers' Counter Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (Yonkers' Rule 56.1 Counter Statement in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Yonkers' Counter 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 129)), and the admissible evidence submitted by the Parties.

On July 16, 2018, Mensah entered into a financing agreement with Santander, whereby Santander financed the purchase of a 2017 Nissan Pathfinder (the “Vehicle”). (Mensah's 56.1 ¶ 50; APOW's 56.1 ¶ 1.) Under the terms of the financing agreement, Mensah agreed to pay Santander in monthly installments of $655 over a six-year period. (APOW's 56.1 ¶ 1.) Santander held title to the Vehicle and the first duly perfected lien in the Vehicle, and Mensah had sole, undisputed right of continued use and possession of the Vehicle. (Mensah's 56.1 ¶¶ 51, 53.) Mensah registered the Vehicle with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. (Id. ¶ 52.) At the time that Mensah entered into the financing agreement, she resided at 180 Hawthorne Avenue, Apartment 2A, Yonkers, New York. (APOW's 56.1 ¶ 2.) However, the Vehicle was registered to Mensah at 180 Hawthorne Avenue, Apartment 4E, Yonkers, New York, where Mensah had previously resided. (APOW's 56.1 ¶¶ 2-7.) Mensah continued to receive mail addressed to Apartment 4E. (APOW's 56.1 ¶ 2.)

APOW was a contract vendor with Yonkers, pursuant to which APOW towed, stored, and disposed of motor vehicles at the request of Yonkers. (APOW's 56.1 ¶ 10; Mensah's 56.1 ¶ 24.) According to its contract, APOW could not release a vehicle to its owner until Yonkers issued a release indicating that payment-i.e., for unpaid tickets, as well as the cost of towing and storing the car-was made. (APOW's 56.1 ¶ 10; see also Mensah's 56.1 ¶ 30.) APOW must store vehicles for at least 60 days before disposal. (APOW's 56.1 ¶ 11.)

On January 24, 2020, APOW towed and impounded the Vehicle, which was parked on the street outside Mensah's apartment, at Yonkers' request. (APOW's 56.1 ¶ 8.) According to Defendants, the Vehicle was towed because it had an expired registration and because it had outstanding parking violations. (Yonkers' 56.1 ¶¶ 2-7; APOW's 56.1 ¶¶ 8-9; Mensah's 56.1 ¶ 62.) According to Mensah, she received no written notice regarding the seizure of the Vehicle. (Mensah's 56.1 ¶ 62.)

After the Vehicle was impounded, Mensah went to the Yonkers Parking Violations Bureau (“PVB”) and requested a hearing before an independent Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Yonkers' 56.1 ¶ 8.) That hearing was held on January 27, 2020 in front of ALJ Joseph Ruggiero. (Mensah's 56.1 ¶ 65.) At the hearing, the ALJ found in favor of Mensah on some of the unpaid parking tickets but found against her on others. (Id. ¶ 66.) ALJ Ruggiero found that Mensah owed a balance of $1367.63 to Yonkers. (Id. ¶ 67; Yonkers' 56.1 ¶ 10.) When Mensah informed the ALJ that she could not pay the entire balance at once, ALJ Ruggiero permitted Mensah to pay in installments. (Yonkers' 56.1 ¶ 11.)

By March 20, 2020, Mensah paid the full balance to Yonkers. (Id. ¶ 12.) When she had made her final payment, Yonkers provided Mensah with a release so that she could obtain the Vehicle from APOW. (Id. ¶ 13.) According to Yonkers and APOW, Mensah signed an acknowledgement from the PVB stating that until she re-registered the Vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Vehicle could not be operated on any public street. (Id.; APOW 56.1 ¶ 22.) Mensah denies that she signed such a statement. (APOW 56.1 ¶ 23.)

Before the Vehicle was towed, Mensah had defaulted on her loan payments to Santander. (APOW 56.1 ¶ 13; Yonkers 56.1 ¶ 43.) Because of this, when Mensah went to APOW on March 20, 2020 to retrieve the vehicle, she was told that Santander had taken the car. (APOW's 56.1 ¶ 26(b).) Santander repossessed the Vehicle-which was still being held by APOW-on October 23, 2020. (Mensah's 56.1 ¶ 98; see also Yonkers' 56.1 ¶ 16.)^[1] On November 25, 2020, Santander sold the Vehicle for $15,800. (Mensah's 56.1 ¶ 100.)

Mensah alleges that she was deprived of the Vehicle from January 24, 2020 through October 23, 2020, during which time she and her children were “forced to use public transportation during a global pandemic.” (Id. ¶ 99.)

B. Procedural History

Santander filed its Complaint on June 15, 2020, alleging both constitutional and state law violations in connection with Defendants' seizure of the Vehicle. (Dkt. No. 1.) Yonkers filed an Answer on July 7, 2020. (Dkt. No. 12.) The APOW Defendants filed an Answer and CrossClaim against Yonkers on July 9, 2020. (Dkt. No. 17.) Yonkers filed an Amended Answer on July 17, 2020. (Dkt. No. 19.) The Court adopted a Case Management Order on October 6, 2020. (Dkt. No. 25.) On October 15, 2020, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison (“Magistrate Judge Davison”). (Dkt. No. 26.)

On April 19, 2021, Mensah filed a Motion to Intervene, (Dkt. No. 53), which Magistrate Judge Davison granted on May 17, 2021, (Dkt. No. 61.) On May 18, 2021, Mensah filed an Intervenor Complaint against Yonkers and APOW. (Dkt. No. 62.) On May 25, 2021, the APOW Defendants filed an Answer and Cross-Claim against Yonkers. (Dkt. No. 63.) Yonkers filed an Answer to the Intervenor Complaint on May 27, 2021, and it filed an Answer to the Cross-Claim on May 30, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 64-65.)

On August 3, 2021, Yonkers filed a Notice of an Offer of Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (“Rule 68 Offer”). (Dkt. No. 72.) On August 16, 2021, Yonkers and Santander filed a Notice of Acceptance indicating that Santander had accepted Yonkers' Rule 68 Offer. (Dkt. No. 77.) On August 17, 2021, the Court entered Judgement against Yonkers as to Santander's claims in the amount of $3,000. (Dkt. No. 79.) The Judgment also required Yonkers to further revise its Code at Chapter 109-132 “to provide for prompt notice of towing or removal as well as an opportunity to be heard before a person or party independent of [Yonkers] to any registered owner, title owner, lessor or lien holder of any motor vehicle being towed or removed for non- payment of parking tickets or other violations of law or Code.” (Id.)

Yonkers filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on September 10, 2021. (Dkt. No. 89.) Mensah also filed her Motion for Summary Judgment on September 10, 2021. (Dkt. No. 91.) Mensah filed her accompanying papers on September 22, 2021, (Dkt. Nos 92-94), and Yonkers filed its accompanying papers on September 24, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 100-102.)^[2] On September 25, 2021, the APOW Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying papers. (Dkt. Nos. 103-105.) On October 22, 2021, the APOW Defendants filed their Opposition and accompanying papers. (Dkt. Nos. 116-118.) On the same day, Yonkers filed their Opposition and accompanying papers. (Dkt. Nos. 119-120.) Also on October 22, 2021, Mensah filed Oppositions to Yonkers' and the APOW Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 121-126.) On November 12, 2021, Yonkers, Mensah, and the APOW Defendants filed their Replies. (Dkt. Nos. 129-135...