MEMORANDUM & ORDER This is a 42 U.S.C. §1983 case brought by Plaintiffs Jacob Stem and Bracha Stern as a putative class action against the City of New York (the “City”) and Commissioner Polly Trottenberg, Commissioner Jacques Jiha, Deputy Commissioner Jeffrey Shear, and Commissioner James O’Neill (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”). (Am. Compl. (Dkt. 17).) Plaintiffs contend that parking tickets issued by the NYPD to Plaintiffs and others cited non-existent provisions of local code, rendering them invalid. (Id.) Defendants have moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) (Dkt. 22); Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Mem”) (Dkt. 25) at 1.) For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The court bases its determination on Rule 12(b)(1), and therefore does not address Defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6).I. BACKGROUNDA. FactsThe court largely takes the following statement of facts from Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the well-pleaded allegations of which the court generally accepts as true for purposes of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. N.Y. Pet Welfare Ass’n v. City of New York. 850 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2017). The court draws all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor. Tandon v. Captain’s Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014). The court also considers facts from declarations submitted by Defendants. See id (“Where jurisdictional facts are placed in dispute, the court has the power and obligation to decide issues of fact by reference to evidence outside the pleadings, such as affidavits.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)). “However, the [c]ourt will not consider ‘conclusory or hearsay statements contained [therein].’” Id (quoting J.S. ex rel. N.S., 386 F.3d at 110) (citing Homefront Org., Inc. v. Motz, 570 F. Supp. 2d 398,404 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)).The City uses a “Muni Meter Parking System” to “regulate and enforce approximately 85,000 paid public on-street parking spaces.” (Am. Compl.22.) Under that system, drivers in paid parking spaces use kiosks to pay for time in the spot and receive a receipt for that payment to be displayed on the vehicle’s dashboard. (Id.23.) Police officers who enforce these payments use handheld printing devices to issue Notices of Violation for infractions, and those devices are pre-programmed with sections of the applicable regulations (the “Muni Meter Rules”) and corresponding statutes that then appear printed on the issued Notices of Violation. (Id.
24-25.)Prior to April 20, 2017, the rules governing paid parking spaces were set forth in Section 4-08(h)(10) of the Muni Meter Rules. (Id.30.) On April 20, 2017, the applicable rule was revised and renumbered as Section 4-08(h)(l), and the previous section 4-08(h)(10) was struck. (Id.31.) The new rule reflected the relevant provisions of Section 4-08(h)(10), and the changes merely clarified the previous rule and added new provisions to cover, inter alia, placement of tickets on motorcycles and payment by mobile devices. (Id.) However, Defendants continued to issue Notices of Violation citing stricken Section 4-08(h)(10) for paid parking space violations after April 20, 2017. (See id.
