Can motorists bypass parking ticket procedures to pursue unjust enrichment claims? Bivens v. Salt Lake City Explained

In Bivens v. Salt Lake City, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether motorists who received constitutionally adequate notice of parking violation procedures can bypass those procedures and pursue equitable remedies like unjust enrichment claims.

Background and Facts

Between 2011 and 2014, Salt Lake City replaced coin-operated parking meters with multi-space pay stations but failed to update its municipal code until 2014. The code continued to define parking infractions by reference to “parking meters” that no longer existed. Three motorists who received tickets during this period paid their fines rather than challenging them through available procedures. They then filed a putative class action claiming the City unjustly enriched itself by collecting fines for violations that technically didn’t exist under the outdated code language.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: whether the City’s parking notices provided constitutionally adequate notice under the Utah Constitution’s due process clause, and whether plaintiffs could pursue equitable remedies without first exhausting available legal procedures for challenging their tickets.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court found that despite containing misleading information about timeframes and procedures, the parking notices provided constitutionally adequate notice of the right to a hearing. The notices clearly stated tickets could be challenged and provided contact information for additional details. Because plaintiffs received adequate notice but failed to exhaust available legal remedies (with one exception), they could not pursue equitable claims like unjust enrichment. The court emphasized that equitable remedies are “secondary gap-fillers” available only after exhausting primary legal claims.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the requirement that parties must exhaust available legal remedies before pursuing equitable relief. Even when government notices contain misleading information, if they provide constitutionally adequate notice of hearing rights, failure to utilize those procedures will bar subsequent equitable claims. Practitioners should ensure clients challenge administrative determinations through established procedures rather than paying fines and later seeking restitution through separate litigation.