RICHMOND, Va. – A federal appeals court has sent a case involving administrative fees for people who don’t pay West Virginia Turnpike tolls back to district court.
In the January 6 opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case originally filed by Blazine Monaco of Chagrin Falls, Ohio.
Monaco appealed the district court’s dismissal of her case against the West Virginia Parkways Authority in which she alleged it improperly collected fees. Monaco had driven through West Virginia on September 7, 2018, and again two days later. Each day, she encountered cash only tolls on the Turnpike. She did not have cash and was not able to pay with a debit or credit card because electronic forms of payment are not accepted at Turnpike toll booths.
The following month, Monaco says she received an Unpaid Toll Violation Notice in the mail from the Parkways Authority. It said failure to pay the tolls and related charges could result in a misdemeanor.
The notice said Monaco owed $8 for the four unpaid tolls of $2 each. In addition, she was assessed four $30 administrative fees and a $10 notice fee. Fearing being charged with a misdemeanor, she paid the $138 in tolls and fees.
Monaco said the administrative and notice fees are not authorized by rule as required by law, and she said the Parkways Authority has been unjustly enriched by collecting them from her. She claimed the authority was required to set administrative fees by promulgating a rule but did not do so.
In response, the authority sought to have the complaint dismissed, saying the potential class could result in more than $5 million having to be repaid to class members. It said it was immune from the suit under the U.S. and state constitutions and that, regardless, the fees were properly assessed.
U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin granted the Parkways Authority’s motion, rejecting the immunity argument but said the fees were proper.
The Fourth Circuit Court, however, noted Monaco had styled her lawsuit as a diversity case.
“Nobody questioned whether the district court had diversity jurisdiction in the first place,” Judge Julius Richardson wrote in the Fourth Circuit opinion. “The district court did address (and reject) the Parkways Authority’s argument that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Monaco failed to comply with a state notice law. But the court did not ask whether the parties satisfied the statutory requirements for diversity. …
“While the district court ultimately held that the Parkways Authority was not entitled to immunity, we find the Parkways Authority’s sovereign immunity arguments stronger than the district court suggested.”
The opinion says the Parkways Authority’s sovereign immunity claim is strong enough to conclude the district court “may be foreclosed from ordering relief” against it.
“Since that is the only provision that Monaco relies on to establish jurisdiction over her putative class action, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear it,” the Fourth Circuit ruled. “Accordingly, the judgment of the district court must be vacated and the case remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss without prejudice.”
Monaco is being represented by Stephen G. Skinner of the Skinner Law Firm in Charles Town as well as Nicole T. Fiorelli, Patrick J. Perotti and Frank A. Bartela of Dworken & Bernstein Co. in Painesville, Ohio. The authority is being represented by Stuart A. McMillan and Peter G. Markham of Bowles Rice in Charleston.
U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case number 21-1230 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 2:20-cv-00517)