We are not attorneys. This guide is for informational purposes only.
In May 2026, a San Diego jury handed down a $16.45 million verdict against the City of San Diego over how it handled unpaid parking citations — not over whether the underlying tickets were valid, but over whether the city gave drivers the notice state law says they’re owed before piling on late fees. The case is worth understanding even if you’ve never gotten a ticket in San Diego, because the notice requirement at issue exists in some form in most states, and the same gap has likely shown up elsewhere.
What Hasia-Welch v. City of San Diego Was Actually About
The case, formally Hasia-Welch v. City of San Diego, is a class action brought on behalf of drivers who received parking citations in San Diego between February 22, 2022 and the case’s trial-cutoff date, later got a notice of delinquent violation, and paid a late fee or penalty as a result.
The legal theory did not challenge whether the original citations were correctly issued. It challenged the notice process that follows a citation. California Vehicle Code requirements call for a city to mail an initial notice giving the recipient a window — 14 days, in the version at issue here — to pay the base fine before any late penalty attaches. The plaintiffs argued San Diego skipped that step in practice: instead of a clean initial notice followed by a separate late notice if the deadline passed, the city’s notices already had late fees added onto them from the start, denying drivers the chance the law gives them to pay the base amount before the penalty kicks in.
A jury agreed, awarding more than $16.45 million. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Deborah Dixon of The Dixon Firm and Charlotte Barone of The Barone Firm, called it a historic verdict against the city’s parking enforcement practices. The City of San Diego has denied wrongdoing throughout the litigation and maintained it complied with applicable law; as of this writing, the city has not issued a detailed public statement on whether it will pursue post-trial motions or an appeal.
What This Doesn’t Mean Yet
It’s important to be precise about where this stands: a jury verdict is not the same as a final, distributed payout. As of this writing, the city’s own official case page for Hasia-Welch confirms there is no refund or claims process open yet, and no guarantee that money or benefits will ultimately reach any class member — post-trial motions, potential appeal, and a formal distribution plan would all need to happen first, and a verdict amount can still be reduced, appealed, or restructured before anyone sees a check.
If you believe you’re a class member — a California resident who got a San Diego parking citation between February 25, 2022 and the trial’s start, later received a delinquent-violation notice, and paid a late fee or penalty because of it — the way to actually track this rather than guess at it is to contact the court-appointed notice administrator directly (1-844-220-7111) or register for updates through the official case site, rather than relying on any single news account of the verdict, including this one.
What Proper Notice Is Actually Supposed to Look Like
For any driver — in San Diego or elsewhere — the underlying rule this case turned on is worth knowing on its own terms. Most states that allow escalating parking penalties build in a similar structure: an initial notice at the base fine amount, a defined window to pay or contest it, and only after that window lapses does a late penalty attach through a separate notice. The point of the two-step structure is to give you a real chance to pay the original amount before it grows.
If you get a notice on an old parking citation that already includes late fees or penalties and you never received an earlier notice at the base amount, that gap is worth raising directly with the issuing city’s parking or treasurer’s office. Ask specifically when the initial notice was mailed and what the required response window was under your state’s vehicle code — the answer should be documented, not just asserted verbally. Our guide to parking ticket late fees and penalties covers how these escalation schedules typically work city to city.
The Broader Takeaway
Cities process citation notices at high volume, often through automated systems built years before anyone scrutinized whether every notice actually complied with the statute governing it. Hasia-Welch shows that a mismatch between an automated notice pipeline and the actual statutory notice sequence isn’t a hypothetical risk for cities — it can produce a real, jury-tested liability once someone checks the paper trail closely enough. For drivers, the practical lesson is simpler: keep every notice you receive on a citation, in order, with its date. If the sequence looks wrong — a late fee appearing on your first notice rather than a second one — that’s a specific, documentable fact worth raising, not just a general complaint about the fine being too high.
Key Takeaways
- A San Diego jury awarded $16.45 million in Hasia-Welch v. City of San Diego, finding the city failed to give the notice period California Vehicle Code requires before adding late fees to parking citations.
- The case covers citations issued between February 22, 2022 and the trial’s start date where a driver later paid a late fee or penalty after a delinquent-violation notice.
- No refund or claims process is open yet — the city’s own case page confirms nothing has been finally decided on distribution, and the city has not stated whether it will appeal.
- The underlying rule — a clean initial notice at the base fine, then a separate notice only after the payment window lapses — applies broadly; keep your own notices in order and flag it directly with the issuing office if a late fee shows up on what should have been your first notice.