City says traffic camera plaintiffs have no legal right to sue

CEDAR RAPIDS - A motion was recently filed in federal court by the City of Cedar Rapids and the company that provides traffic camera services, claiming the drivers who filed a lawsuit challenging the speed cameras don't have a legal right to sue them.

The class-action lawsuit was filed two months ago in Linn County District Court by residents in the county and outside the state of Iowa, but the defendants, the city and Gatso USA, moved the case to U.S. District. The court just granted an extension of time to allow the plaintiffs to file their opposition.

The defendants are asking the court to dismiss the complaint, claiming the court lacks jurisdiction because the drivers can't show injury in fact - which requires they have a personal stake in the outcome, according to the motion. The motion also claims the plaintiffs fail to 'state a claim for which relief can be granted.” The court should dismiss all of the plaintiffs' arguments, the motion contends.

Gary Hughes and David Mazgaj, two of the plaintiffs lack any legal right to bring a claim because they have never received a traffic camera citation or participated in the process which a driver can go through to contest a citation, according to the motion. Neither have been injured or penalized by the system.

The suit claims Mazgaj received a 'Notice of Determination,” which is sent when a driver takes no action and doesn't pay the fine, and is appealing the citation but Margaj has never received a violation so he couldn't have received the other notice.

The other plaintiffs already waived their rights by paying the citations, according to the motion. According to other similar cases, plaintiffs who were prevented from participating in the complaint process or who didn't receive a hearing date or information on how to contest had standing but none of the plaintiffs in this action had that experience.

The city allows drivers who received violations to contest and they are provided with information about how to contest the violations, according to the motion which included the city ordinance for the traffic cameras. A driver can request an administrative hearing before an appeal board or they can request a municipal citation be issued which will allow them to have a trial before a magistrate in small claims court.

According to the motion, the ordinance also informs drivers if they pay the violation, they waive their right to contest.

Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim for an equal protection violation, according to the motion. They haven't alleged being members in a 'suspect class.” Plaintiffs claimed class distinction based on license plate placement and presence in the Iowa Department of Transportation database, which are not suspect classes. They argue the system treats those without rear license plates differently than those with front plates, and treats non locals differently than locals, which impacts their right to travel. The motion contends the argument isn't rational.