Man sues Los Angeles for parking ticket, gets $650K

Originally published at:


Hero of the day awarded to this guy.


In Soviet Kaliforniya, city pay you for parking tickets!


Bravo to the court of appeals for putting the decision to deny in plain English. This says he was awarded $722K in attorneys fees, so I guess the $650K is a settlement on that amount? Were they going to appeal it to the state supreme ct otherwise?

L.A. had a major screw up with flawed new parking meters in the late 2000’s and I wouldn’t be surprised of one of those was the ones that sprung early on Mr. Weiss.

A Weiss man once said…


Did this guy seriously spend $722k fighting a $55 ticket? Or is that “attorneys’ fees” describing some punitive or other payments?


Contracting of government services to outside players has got to be stopped. They simply cannot be trusted.


Guess who’s movin’ to LA to find a place to park and hopefully get a ticket that can be contested in hopes of reaping a massive payday that’s several times larger than most people make in a few years and could well turn one’s life around in a relatively short amount of time?

[You can’t see it, but I’m pointing at myself.]


Whats that? A private monopoly service not making the choice that provides the best outcome, but the one that makes them the most profit instead? I’m shocked.

These kind of things should never, under any circumstances, be run under a profit motive. Run them as a government service or at the very least mandate it run as a not for profit setup.


Deez Nauts?

1 Like

Better call Saul

Hiring attorneys is always punitive. For someone.


I always enjoy a good Little Guy Fights City Hall story, but am I missing something?


I’m VERY glad that he did. If you don’t live in LA, maybe you’re not aware, but this is a HUGE problem that citizens have not had the means to tackle for many years. I’ve been issued several false parking tickets in my time as a resident, and there’s no means to legitimately contest them, even if you have full proof the tickets were wrongfully issued. If you don’t pay, you’re straddled with some serious threats from the city, so for those of us who don’t have 722k sitting around to fight this system, I’m glad someone finally did.


The House always wins.

1 Like

Got a law degree? Because that money is for the lawyers, not the plaintiff.

1 Like

As opposed to politicians? I’m just going to answer this with someone else’s post-

Doesn’t matter whether something is done by gov’t employees or gov’t contractors, they work for the same entity and know who butters their bread. I would argue that the distinction is utilitarian in nature, not a distinction of kind. No matter what, the city wants its cut out of your pocket.

And for those that are going to argue that at least gov’t is responsive to voters:


1 Like

That’s not “the house” that I was referring to. What I was getting at is the establishment of hiring expensive attorneys to provide their esoteric knowledge. Regardless of who wins or loses, lives or dies, as long as people are willing to pay lawyers to facilitate that process, they will only strengthen that profession’s influence.

There’s a trick. The government is responsive - as responsive as you make them. Petitioning them as if they have the real power is a recipe for folly. Traction requires treating them as if they are actual public servants, with the knowledge that this is a duty rather than a privilege, and being firm despite their protests.

1 Like

I wonder if this guy had $722K lying around, or if his legal team worked pro-bono. Since the corporation contracted to run the meters probably squeezes city residents for millions each year in illegal parking tickets, this could actually qualify as a civil rights issue, since, even if this guy did have the money to fight the long court battle, most victims probably don’t. That’s of course if this makes it easier for others to contest, which is a big if. I know there’s really really good reasons for putting limits on the power of courts, but a part of me wishes the court did have the power to force the city’s government to stop outsourcing services to unaccountable and therefore inevitably predatory contractors.

1 Like

Can you expound on the second response in your post? Because reasoning with my local parking magistrate over an erroneous ticket was met with a shrug and subsequent court date at which to “argue.”

Public employees whose objective is serving the public good will perform better than a private company whose objective is to make more money. The difference becomes especially stark when the mechanism of capitalism–competition to keep the customer satisfied–is removed.