UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS PIMENTEL; DAVID R. No. 22-55946 WELCH; JEFFREY O'CONNELL; EDWARD LEE; WENDY COOPER; D.C. No. JACKLYN BAIRD; RAFAEL 2:14-cv-01371- BUELNA, and all persons similarly FMO-E situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, OPINION and ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant-Appellee,

v. ELEN KARAPETYAN,

Movant. 2 PIMENTEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 25, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed September 9, 2024

Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Mark J. Bennett, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Lee; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Bennett

SUMMARY *

Excessive Fines Clause

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the City of Los Angeles in a class action alleging that the City of Los Angeles’ $63 penalty for failure to timely pay a fine for a parking meter violation, which is set at 100 percent of the $63 parking fine, violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fine Clause. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment to the City on appellants’ facial challenge to the late fee because a genuine factual dispute exists about the * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. PIMENTEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 3

City’s basis for setting the late fee at 100 percent of the parking fine. Given this factual dispute, the panel could not say as a matter of law that the late fee is not “grossly disproportional” to the harm caused by the untimely payment of the parking fine under the Excessive Fines Clause. The panel could not determine gross disproportionality as a matter of law because the City provided no evidence on how it set the $63 late fee amount. Accordingly, based on the record before the panel at the summary judgment stage, the panel could not conclude as a matter of law that the City’s late payment penalty is not unconstitutionally excessive. Addressing appellants’ as-applied challenge, in which they assert that several of them lack the financial means to pay the fine within 21 days, the panel declined to incorporate means-testing into the Excessive Fines Clause analysis. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Bennett agreed with the majority that the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge, but would hold that the Excessive Fines Clause does not prohibit imposing the $63 late-fee penalty because legislative bodies are owed substantial deference and the City met its low burden of showing that the late fee is not disproportionate to the harm caused by untimely payment. 4 PIMENTEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

COUNSEL Paul L. Hoffman (argued) and John C. Washington, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP, Hermosa Beach, California; Donald R. Pepperman, Waymaker LLP, Los Angeles, California; Donald G. Norris, Donald G. Norris a Law Corporation, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Timothy W. Martin (argued), Arlene N. Hoang, and Gabriel Dermer, Deputy City Attorneys; Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Denise C. Mills, Chief Deputy City Attorney; Hydee F. Soto, City Attorney; Los Angeles Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION LEE, Circuit Judge:

In Los Angeles—the “City of Angels”—trying to find a parking spot can sometimes feel like traipsing through Dante