The Justice Department says a California towing company repeatedly sold or disposed of vehicles owned by active-duty service members, ignored direct warnings, and agreed to a $160,000 settlement; this article walks through the allegations, the legal protections at stake, the responses from both sides, and the wider picture about how often these violations occur.
A San Clemente towing firm allegedly auctioned as many as 148 military-owned vehicles, many taken from Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, despite a contract requiring legal compliance. The company’s manager reportedly shrugged off a federal attorney’s warning with the words, “We do this all the time.” That blunt response became central to the Justice Department’s claim that the behavior was a pattern, not a mistake.
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or SCRA, requires a court order before a tow company can sell or dispose of a vehicle owned by a protected servicemember. That protection exists because military duty can prevent service members from defending property rights in civilian courts. The DOJ’s case says the company made little to no effort to follow those rules even though its contract with the base required adherence to federal and state law.
The complaint alleges the company continued auctions after a Military Legal Assistance attorney contacted the firm in May 2024 and spelled out the legal problem. According to the Justice Department, that contact included naming owners who were on active duty, yet the auctions went on. The Civil Rights Division, led in this matter by Harmeet Dhillon, described the conduct as a long-running pattern of abuse against people serving the country.
The settlement requires the company to pay $160,000 to compensate affected service members, and it includes conditions that the business adopt SCRA-compliant policies if it ever resumes operations. The DOJ said the payment will go directly to the service members whose vehicles were taken. Officials framed the settlement as both compensation and a warning to the towing industry to respect servicemembers’ rights.
The towing firm denied the allegations and argued its contract did not explicitly reference federal law, saying it relied on a third party to verify vehicle ownership. That defense clashes with the DOJ’s account that the company kept auctioning cars even after being told, by name, that owners were active-duty. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said service members should not lose property while carrying out military duties, and the department emphasized the need for businesses to comply with federal protections.
The problem is not limited to one company. Since 2011, enforcement of the SCRA by the Justice Department has produced more than $489 million in relief for over 152,000 service members, a figure that indicates these violations have been widespread and recurrent. Those numbers show systemic friction between private businesses that tow and store vehicles and the special protections the law affords military personnel.
An attorney for the government called the settlement an important signal to towing companies: they must recognize and honor servicemembers’ rights under federal law. The department’s statements stressed both the legal duty and the moral obligation to protect people who are serving. For those whose cars were sold or disposed of, the settlement is a monetary remedy; for the industry, it is a compliance test.
Beyond the settlement itself, the case raises questions about accountability and oversight where private contractors interact with military installations and servicemembers. Contracts that require compliance mean little without monitoring and enforcement, and the government’s action under the SCRA is one mechanism to fill that gap. The outcome here shows how enforcement can produce direct relief and prompt businesses to change practices.
The SCRA remains a critical safety net for active-duty personnel who may be deployed or otherwise unable to protect their property the way civilians can. When private firms ignore that federal protection, the result is lost property, stress for military families, and legal action. The $160,000 settlement addresses a slice of the harm alleged in this case and highlights why the statute exists.
For affected service members, the settlement offers compensation and a formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing; for the wider public and industry, it underlines that federal protections for the military are enforceable. The Department of Justice presented the agreement as both remedy and deterrent, and the larger enforcement totals reinforce that this is a recurring issue with substantial monetary consequences. The case will likely be cited by regulators and lawyers as an example of applying the SCRA in practice.
Add comment