United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
GINA THOMPSON and KAREN MCCABE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
CITY OF ST. PETERS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant City of St. Peters,
Missouri's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57). The
motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
Gina Thompson and Karen McCabe ("Plaintiffs") filed
a Class Action Complaint in this Court on March 4, 2015,
against Defendants City of St. Peters, Missouri ("St.
Peters), Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. ("Redflex"),
and Does 1 through 24 alleging that the red light camera
program is unconstitutional. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, ECF
No. 4) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert nine counts: (I)
Declaratory judgment; (II) Unjust Enrichment against
Defendant St. Peters; (III) Violation of Article I § 19
of the Missouri Constitution against Defendant St. Peters;
(IV) Violation of Article I § 10 of the Missouri
Constitution against Defendant St. Peters; (V) Unjust
Enrichment against Defendant Redflex; (VI) Abuse of Process
against all Defendants; (VII) Damages for Violations of Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 484.010, et seq., against
Defendant Redflex; (VIII) Money Had and Received against
Defendants by Subclass 1; and (IX) Money Had and Received
against Defendants by Subclass 2. (Compl., ECF No. 4)
February 16, 2016, Defendant St. Peters filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiffs claims against the
City. (ECF No. 57) Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition
to Defendant's motion, asserting that genuine issues of
material fact exist with regard to the allegations contained
in the Complaint. (ECF No. 67)
case stems from Ordinances allowing the automated enforcement
of traffic regulations by using cameras at red lights to
photograph traffic violations. Plaintiff Thompson paid a $110.00
penalty after she received at least one Citation in the mail
pursuant to St. Peter's Ordinance 335.095 around 2012
and/or 2013. (Compl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 4) Plaintiff McCabe
paid a $110.00 penalty after receiving at least one Citation
in the mail pursuant to St. Peter's Ordinance 335.097 in
2013 and/or 2014. (Compl. ¶ 14)
8, 2006, the City of St. Peters adopted Ordinance No. 4536,
which amended Section 335.095 of the City Code of the City of
St. Peters, Missouri, entitled "Automated Enforcement of
Traffic Control Signal Regulations." (Compl. ¶ 32;
Def St. Peters' Ex. A, 2006 Ordinance, ECF. No. 59-1) On
November 7, 2013, the City adopted Ordinance No. 6014, which
amended Section 335.097, entitled "Automated Photo
Enforcement of Traffic Regulations." (Compl. ¶ 53;
Def. St. Peters' Ex. B, 2013 Ordinance, ECF No. 59-2)
Ordinance Nos. 4536 and 6014 (collectively
"Ordinances") authorized the installation and
operation of an automated red light enforcement system
("Camera System"). (Def. St. Peters' Exs. A
& B, ECF Nos. 59-1, 59-2) These Camera Systems consisted
of cameras and vehicle sensors working in conjunction with a
traffic control signal to produce images and a video
recording of a motor vehicle running a red light. (Def. St.
Peters' SUMF ¶ 3, ECF No. 59) An officer employed by
the St. Peters Police Department would examine the recorded
images and determine whether the vehicle operator violated
the City's Traffic Code. (Id. at ¶¶
4-5) Upon filing an information, a summons would be served on
the vehicle's owner. (Id. at ¶ 6)
Thompson received notices of violation and summonses for four
separate violations of Section 335.095. (Id. at
¶¶ 7-30; Def. St. Peters' Exs. E-H, ECF Nos.
59-5 through 59-8) The citations included a court date,
instructions how to access the photos and video footage
online, and an option to pay the $110.00 fine in lieu of
appearing in court. (Def. St. Peters' Ex. E, ECF No.
59-5) On all four occasions, Ms. Thompson elected to pay the
fine. (Def St. Peters' SUMF ¶¶ 12, 18, 24, 30)
6014 enacted new provisions related to the Camera
System. (Def. St. Peters' SUMF ¶ 33; Def.
St. Peters' Ex. B, 2013 Ordinance, ECF No. 59-2)
Plaintiff McCabe received a notice of violation and summons
for an alleged violation of Section 335.097 that occurred on
July 3, 2014. (Def. St. Peters' SUMF ¶ 34; Def. St.
Peters' Ex. I, ECF No. 59-9) The citation included a
court date, instructions on accessing the photos and video
footage, and instructions for paying the $110.00 fine. (Def.
St. Peters' Ex. I, ECF No. 59-9) Ms. McCabe paid the
fine. (Def. St. Peters' SUMF ¶ 39)
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a court may grant a
motion for summary judgment only if all of the information
before the court shows "there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The court
must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party. Hutson v.
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771, 775 (8th Cir.
moving party has the initial burden to establish the
non-existence of any genuine issue of fact that is material
to a judgment in its favor. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v.
Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th
Cir. 1988). Once this burden is discharged, if the record
does in fact bear out that no genuine dispute exists, the
burden then shifts to the non-moving party, who must set
forth affirmative evidence and specific facts showing there
is a genuine dispute on that issue. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
the burden shifts, the non-moving party may not rest on the
allegations in its pleadings, but by affidavit and other
evidence must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. Fed. R. Civ .P. 56(e). The
non-moving party "must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In fact, the non-moving
party must present sufficient evidence favoring the
non-moving party which would enable a jury to return a
verdict for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249;
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.