Opinion ID: 70542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: wrecker rotation case law in other circuits

Text: Our holding in Durham, and our holding in this case, is consistent with the law of other circuits that have considered the issue of property rights in the context of wrecker rotation lists. The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have addressed this issue. The general principle that emerges from all of the decisions is that: Where a court has found a property interest in remaining on a rotation list, the plaintiff has alleged a claim of entitlement supported or created by a formal and settled source such as a state statute or regulatory scheme. Absent such an entitlement grounded in state law, courts have not found a protected property interest in remaining on a wrecker rotation list. Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 938 (5th Cir.1995). To illustrate the application of this principle, and to illuminate our own analysis, we review briefly the cases from each of these circuits. In the most recent case of this series, the Seventh Circuit considered whether a wrecker service company had a property interest in remaining on a city rotation list. O'Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 47 F.3d 883 (7th Cir.1995). The wrecker service company in O'Hare claimed that the City of Northlake violated its procedural due process rights when the city removed it from the rotation list without providing an opportunity for a hearing. Id. at 884. Although no statute or ordinance governed the rotation system, the company argued nonetheless that it had a protected property interest in remaining on the list. The court rejected that argument stating, We have, of course, found property interests arising from internal rules or regulations, but only when they have the force of law. Id. at 886. Finding no Illinois authority supporting the conclusion that Northlake's policy and practice concerning the rotation list had the force of law, the Seventh Circuit held that the wrecker service company had no property interest in remaining on the list. Id. As noted previously, the Fifth Circuit articulated the general principle governing these cases in Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F.3d at 938, another case in which the plaintiff claimed a property interest in remaining on a local law enforcement agency's wrecker rotation list. The Blackburn Court drew from Roth, Perry, Bishop, Logan, and applicable Fifth Circuit decisions the principle that constitutionally protected property interests must be grounded in state law. Applying that principle to the facts, the court concluded, Because there apparently is no Texas or local statute, ordinance, or regulatory scheme governing the wrecker list ... we hold that Blackburn has failed to allege a property interest in remaining on the wrecker rotation list. Blackburn, 42 F.3d at 941. The Third Circuit applied the same principle in Piecknick, 36 F.3d at 1257-59. Distinguishing wrecker rotation cases in which a property interest had been found, the court stated: These cases are distinguishable. In all of them, a state statute or regulation gave a towing operator a property interest. Here, there is no Pennsylvania statute or regulation governing towing or wrecker services. Id. at 1257 (footnote omitted). The court also considered and rejected, as we do, the contention that the applicable wrecker service policy at issue could, of itself, create a protected property interest. Id. at 1259. Concluding that that policy was not a regulation having the force of law and noting the absence of any other governing state law or regulation to support the asserted entitlement, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. The Second Circuit considered whether a wrecker referral system created a property right in White Plains Towing Corp. v. Patterson, 991 F.2d 1049 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 185, 126 L.Ed.2d 144 (1993). In that case, the state police divided a section of a state highway into three zones, assigning exclusive towing referral rights to a single wrecker service within each zone. Under the system, the dispatcher called the assigned wrecker unless the disabled motorists requested a different wrecker service. The plaintiff brought a section 1983 due process claim when his exclusive zone assignment was terminated. The Second Circuit emphasized that the wrecker assignment system was not authorized by or codified in any New York statute or regulation and held that regardless of their unilateral hopes or expectations, plaintiffs had no cognizable property interest in continued towing referrals ... and the mere termination of their status thus did not deprive them of a due-process-protected interest. Id. at 1062. Applying the same principle in a different state law context, the Fourth Circuit has recognized that a wrecker service company has a constitutionally protected property interest in remaining on a rotation list when state regulations require maintenance of the list for the stated purpose of providing companies with an equal opportunity to obtain the referral business. Pritchett v. Alford, 973 F.2d 307 (4th Cir.1992). That case involved a section 1983 due process claim brought by a wrecker service company that had been removed from a rotation list. The rotation list was governed by extensive state regulations that required every highway patrol district to establish wrecker zones and wrecker-rotation' lists for the zones ... to ensure that all wrecker services on the list have an equal opportunity to the towing business arising from the rotation list. Id. at 317. As the court explained, Being on [the list] by virtue of this state regulatory regime insured that it was a legally enforceable entitlement.... Id. (emphasis added). As we have noted, no such state regulatory regime is present in this case. Likewise, the Tenth Circuit has recognized a protected property interest in continued wrecker referrals when the referral system was directly governed by a state wrecker statute mandating that referrals be made on an equal basis. Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228 (10th Cir.1990). The plaintiff in Abercrombie brought a section 1983 due process claim after he was removed from a city's wrecker rotation list. To support his claim of entitlement, the plaintiff relied on the state wrecker statute, which required the city to make wrecker referrals on an equal basis as nearly as possible to licensed wreckers in or near the city limits. Id. at 1232. Closely examining the applicable statute, the court concluded that it created a property interest in wrecker referrals in favor of the plaintiff. Id. As previously explained, no analogous Florida statute operates to create a property interest in this case. In summary, every circuit to date that has considered the creation of property interests in the context of wrecker rotation lists has reached a decision in harmony with the principle recently distilled by the Fifth Circuit in Blackburn: The existence of a property right in such a case turns on whether the alleged claim of entitlement is supported or created by state law such as a state statute or regulatory scheme or decisional law. We see no reason for this circuit to depart from that principle, which is entirely consistent with our Durham decision. Because the plaintiffs have not, and apparently cannot, point to any Florida statute, state administrative regulation, or any other source of Florida law that provides the asserted entitlement in remaining on the wrecker rotation list, we hold that they have failed to allege a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court must be reversed with respect to the plaintiffs' claims arising from their removal from the list.5 5 In addition to the property interest claim, the plaintiffs' second amended complaint averred a procedural due process liberty interest claim, a substantive due process claim, and an equal protection claim resulting from their removal from the wrecker rotation list. The plaintiffs rely on Cowan v. Corley, 814 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1987) as support for their argument that they had a liberty interest in remaining on the rotation list. This reliance is misplaced. In Cowan, the Fifth Circuit held that it was error to dismiss a wrecker service's liberty interest claim when [a]ll wrecker assignments, including those made on an owner-preference basis were routed through the sheriff's office, id. at 225, which allegedly resulted in the plaintiff's exclusion from all wrecker calls