www.courthousenews.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS ___________________________________ ) CAROL SURPRENANT, Individually and ) Case No. on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE ) RELIEF AND IMPOSITION OF AUTHORITY and MASSACHUSETTS ) CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PORT AUTHORITY, ) ) CLASS ACTION Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Plaintiff, by her attorneys, brings this action, and alleges upon information and belief, except for those allegations which pertain to plaintiff or her attorneys, which are alleged on personal knowledge, as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT/RELIEF REQUESTED 1. At issue in this litigation is the constitutionality of a discriminatory toll pricing structure that defendants have in effect at certain locations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Under this structure, substantially discounted toll rates are made available to residents of certain areas of Massachusetts (hereinafter “residents” or “resident travelers”), but not to residents of other states, or residents of other areas of the Commonwealth (hereinafter collectivelyCourthouse “non-residents” or “non-resident travelers”). News These discriminatory Service pricing policies are effectuated through the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority’s (“MTA”) Annual FAST LANE Tunnel Communities Resident Program (“Tunnel Residents Program”) and the Massachusetts www.courthousenews.com Port Authority’s (“MPA”) Tobin Bridge Resident Permit Discount Program (“Tobin Bridge Resident Program”).1 2. In this putative class action, plaintiff seeks, among other things, a judgment from this Court declaring that the defendants’ toll pricing structures are unconstitutional in that they: (a) violate the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution (art. I, § 8, cl. 3) on their face, by design and in effect, by granting substantial discounts to residents of certain Massachusetts communities, denying said discounts to non-resident travelers utilizing the same bridges and tunnels, and thereby discriminating against non-resident travelers who are required to pay up to 10 times more than resident travelers are required to pay;2 (b) violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause (art. IV, § 2, cl. 1) of the United States Constitution; and/or (c) violate plaintiff’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution collecting higher toll fees from non-residents than residents for utilizing the same facilities in exactly the same manner. 3. In addition, plaintiff and the class (defined below) seek: (a) an injunction requiring that any toll revenue collected from non-resident travelers for utilizing one of the bridges or tunnels at issue, to the extent it is greater than the amount that would be charged to a resident, be placed in a constructive trust pending the outcome of this litigation; (b) a refund of, 1 The Tunnel Residents Program and the Tobin Bridge Resident Program are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Resident Discount Programs.” 2 At its February 24, 2009 meeting, the MTA Board of Directors approved a two- step toll increase on the Ted Williams and Sumner Tunnels. Effective March 29, 2009, a non- resident traveler paying cash or using the E-Z Pass system will pay $5.50, and effective July 1, 2009, the cost will increase to $7.00. Residents, however, will continue to pay $0.40 per one way trip through the tunnels. Accordingly, as of July 1, 2009, non-residents utilizing E-Z Pass will pay 17.5 times what residents pay to utilize the Ted Williams and Sumner Tunnels. 2 www.courthousenews.com or damages equal to, all money collected from non-residents to the extent it was greater than the discounted toll charge paid by residents, plus interest; as well as (c) attorneys’ fees and costs. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. In addition, because the state law claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction with respect to these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 5. Venue is proper in this Court because defendants have their principal places of business within this District. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Carol Surprenant is an individual who resides in the State of Rhode Island, Washington County, and who, on several occasions, in the course of engaging in interstate commerce, used the facilities at issue, including the Tobin Bridge and the Ted Williams Tunnel, and paid, tolls at those locations at the non-resident rate. Plaintiff has paid tolls at these facilities at some point in the course of interstate, round trip travel on trips from Rhode Island to Maine for the purposes of tourism, from Rhode Island to other states, via Logan Airport for tourism and business purposes, and from Rhode Island to other states for business purposes. In the course of these and other interstate travels, during which she was assessed the non-resident toll fee, plaintiff purchased a variety of goods and services, including food, fuel, clothing, lift tickets, airline tickets, hotel rooms, books and newspapers. 3 www.courthousenews.com 7. Defendant MTA is a “body politic and corporate” organized and operating pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws c. 81A, § 1 (2007). Its principal place of business is located at the State Transportation Building, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, Massachusetts 02116. The MTA is authorized to “sue and be sued in its own name.” M.G.L. c. 81A, §1. At all relevant times, the MTA was charged with the construction, maintenance, repair, control, financing and policing of the Massachusetts Turnpike, an interstate system. Pursuant to statute, the MTA is “a public instrumentality,” deemed to perform “an essential governmental function” and may adopt “rules and regulations.” M.G.L. c. 81A, §1 and § 4(k). The MTA operates, among other facilities, the Sumner Tunnel and the Ted Williams Tunnel (hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as “the Tunnels”). Pursuant to statute, the MTA is “authorized to charge and collect and from time to time fix and revise tolls for transit” over the Massachusetts Turnpike and the metropolitan highway system, which includes the Tunnels. M.G.L. c. 81A, §10. 8. Defendant MPA was created by and exists pursuant to Chapter 465 of the Massachusetts Acts of 1956 (as amended) and is a body politic and corporate and a public instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As so constituted, the MPA is empowered to, and has, promulgated rules and regulations governing its affairs, the conduct of its business, and the use of its facilities, including the Maurice J. Tobin Memorial Bridge (“Tobin Memorial Bridge”) and Boston-Logan International Airport (“Logan Airport”). See 740 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (“CMR”) § 2.01. Its principal place of business is located at One Harborside Drive, Suite 200S, East Boston, Massachusetts 02128-2909. 4 www.courthousenews.com CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 9. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class which plaintiff seeks to represent consists of: All persons who paid tolls at the Tobin Memorial Bridge and the Sumner and Ted Williams Tunnels using E-Z Pass or FAST LANE transponders, but were denied the benefit of the Resident Discount Programs. Excluded from the class are defendants, as well as any of their employees, subsidiaries or affiliated entities. 10. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number of class members are unknown to plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, plaintiff believes that there are tens of thousands of class members. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact affecting the parties represented in this action. 11. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class. These common questions predominate over the questions affecting only individual class members. 12. The questions common to members of the class include, inter alia: a. whether the toll pricing structure complained of herein violates the United States Constitution; b. whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought herein; and c. the nature and extent of damages, refunds and/or other remedies to which plaintiff and the proposed class members are entitled as a result of defendants’ wrongful conduct. 5 www.courthousenews.com 13. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class as all members of the class have been similarly affected by defendants’ wrongful conduct in violation of the United States Constitution. Moreover, plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the other members of the proposed class, and she is not subject to any unique defenses. Plaintiff and all members of the class have sustained monetary damages arising out of the defendants’ constitutional violations. 14. Plaintiff is similarly situated in interest to all of the members of the proposed class and is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action. To this end, plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in the prosecution of class actions. Accordingly, plaintiff is an adequate representative of the