Navarro v. The City of Mountain View

Background

Six Mountain View residents—Celerina Navarro, Janet Stevens, Gabriel Rangel Jaime, Armando Covarrubias, Evelyn Estrada, and Alma Aldaco—alleged that they live in recreational vehicles parked on public streets because of a lack of affordable housing. They challenged two city ordinances that prohibit parking oversized vehicles on streets that are 40 feet wide or narrower and on streets with certain bike lanes. The plaintiffs alleged that the restrictions apply to approximately 89% of the City’s public streets and that the City’s Safe Parking Program cannot accommodate all of the affected vehicles.

The plaintiffs asserted claims involving due process, the right to travel, privacy, disability discrimination, excessive fines, and unlawful towing seizures. The City moved to dismiss all twelve causes of action under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The plaintiffs also sought a preliminary injunction, an order temporarily stopping enforcement while the case continues.

Motion to Dismiss

The court denied the City’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ excessive-fines claims. The plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the $65 tickets and towing costs could be excessive because they could not realistically move their vehicles, the ordinances did not cap citations, and the available parking was insufficient. The court declined to resolve the fact-specific excessive-fines issue at the pleading stage based on a prior case involving a $63 parking ticket decided after discovery.

The court also denied dismissal of the state-created-danger claim. That doctrine concerns government action that affirmatively places people in a particular danger, with foreseeable injury and deliberate indifference to a known danger. The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the ordinances and the lack of available alternative parking could expose them to danger, and that the City knew about the housing shortage, the use of oversized vehicles as homes, the limited Safe Parking capacity, and the effects on people with disabilities.

The court denied dismissal of the unlawful-seizure claim based on towing. It treated towing as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and held that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the City had not shown that the signs provided sufficient notice or that towing was justified by the vehicle-safety exception known as the community-caretaking doctrine.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the invasion-of-privacy claim with leave to amend because the plaintiffs did not adequately explain a protected privacy interest in homes parked on public streets or identify an intrusion that seriously violated social norms. The court granted dismissal of the right-to-travel claims with leave to amend because the complaint described the ability to remain in the City rather than travel and did not provide binding authority recognizing the asserted right to live in a chosen place.

The court granted dismissal of the disability-discrimination claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act with leave to amend. The court held that alleging a disproportionate burden on people with disabilities was not enough; the plaintiffs had not alleged that the City discriminated against them because of their disabilities. The court also dismissed the Rehabilitation Act and California Disabled Persons Act claims with leave to amend because the plaintiffs did not oppose the City’s argument that those claims were substantially connected to the dismissed disability claim.

Preliminary Injunction

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction requires a showing that harm is likely before final judgment, among other factors. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown likely irreparable harm because, although the ordinances were enforceable, the City had not issued tickets or towed any of the plaintiffs’ vehicles. The court also found that the balance of hardships did not strongly favor the plaintiffs because the evidence did not show that they would suffer a concrete harm without an injunction, while the City asserted that allowing oversized vehicles to remain could harm pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It denied the City’s motion to dismiss the excessive-fines, state-created-danger, and unlawful-seizure claims. It granted the City’s motion to dismiss the invasion-of-privacy, right-to-travel, and disability-discrimination claims, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the deficient claims. The plaintiffs could not add new parties or claims without further court permission. The court stated that the identified dismissed claims would be dismissed with prejudice if the plaintiffs did not amend or notify the court that they would not amend by November 30, 2021.