United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
GINA THOMPSON and KAREN MCCABE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Redflex Traffic
Systems, Inc.'s ("Redflex") Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 17), Supplemental Motion
for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 60), and
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62). The motions
are fully briefed and ready for disposition.
Court stated the background of this case in its Memorandum
and Order of October 24, 2016 granting the Defendant City of
St. Peters' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court
incorporates by reference those facts as if set forth herein.
(ECF No. 92) Specific to Redflex, Plaintiffs assert claims
for Declaratory Judgment (Count I); Unjust Enrichment (Count
V); Abuse of Process (Count VI); Damages for Violation of Mo.
Rev. Stat. §§ 484.010, et seq. (Count
VII); and Money Had and Received (Counts VIII and IX).
2006, Defendants Redflex and St. Peters worked together to
implement and operate an automated program that enforced
traffic regulations. (Compl. ¶ 31, ECF No. 4) St. Peters
and Redflex entered into an Agreement on July 5, 2006 wherein
Defendant Redflex would provide certain equipment, processes,
and back office services ("Redflex System") so that
sworn police officers could monitor, identify, and enforce
red light running violations. (Def. Redflex's Mem. in Supp.
of Mot. for Partial J. on the Pleadings Ex. A p. 1, ECF No.
18-1) Section 3 of the Agreement entitled
"Services" provided for the construction,
installation, and maintenance of the Redflex System. (Def.
Redflex's Ex. A p. 7) In addition, the Agreement provided
that all violations data would be stored on the Redflex
System and processed into a format capable for review by an
Authorized Officer, who would then determine whether a
citation should be issued. (Id.) The Agreement
specified that the decision to issue a citation was "the
sole, unilateral and exclusive decision of the authorized
officer." (Id.) Exhibit D to the Agreement
provided that St. Peters would pay Redflex a certain fee per
citation. (Id. at p. 27)
8, 2006, the City of St. Peters adopted Ordinance No. 4536,
entitled "Automated Enforcement of Traffic Control
Signal Regulations." (Compl. ¶ 32; Def.
Redflex's Ex. A, 2006 Ordinance, ECF. No. 61-1) On
November 7, 2013, the City replaced the 2006 Ordinance and
adopted Ordinance No. 6014 entitled "Automated Photo
Enforcement of Traffic Regulations." (Compl. ¶ 53;
Def Redflex's Ex. B, 2013 Ordinance, ECF No. 61-2) These
Ordinances governed the use of the Redflex System.
assert in their Complaint that Defendant Redflex "plays
an integral role in prosecuting violations, processing
citations, and collecting fines." (Compl. ¶ 85a)
Further, Plaintiffs maintain that Redflex encourages guilty
pleas and payment of the fine, as well as provides a
toll-free customer service line. (Id. at
¶¶ 85c, 86-87) In response to the Complaint,
Defendant Redflex has filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on
the Pleadings, a Supplemental Motion for Partial Judgment on
the Pleadings, and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Judgment on the Pleadings
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), "[a]fter the
pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a
party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Courts
review motions for judgment on the pleadings under the same
standard as motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). demons
v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2009)
(citation and internal quotation omitted). When deciding such
a motion, the court accepts "all facts pled by the
nonmoving party as true and draws all reasonable inferences
from the facts in favor of the nonmovant." Waldron
v. Boeing Co., 388 F.3d 591, 593 (8th Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). A complaint must be dismissed if the
complaint fails to plead "enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level . . . ." Id.
at 555. "[A] plaintiffs obligation to provide the
'grounds' of his ' entitle[ment] to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do." Id. at 555. The grant of a motion for
judgment on the pleadings is '"appropriate only when
there is no dispute as to any material facts and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'"
Greenman v. Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir.
2015) (quoting Ashley Cty, Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552
F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009)).
considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings . . ., the
court generally must ignore materials outside the pleadings .
. . ." Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186
F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999). However, courts "may
consider materials that necessarily are embraced by the
pleadings or that are part of the public record and do not
contradict the complaint." Mickelson v. Cty. of
Ramsey, 823 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing
Porous Media, 186 F.3d at 1079).
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.
AssociatedElec. 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., 771 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.