[CA] Can ambiguous parking signage and reliance on a contractor’s guidance be a defense to a wrongful tow?

I have a wrongful tow small claims case that I want an attorney to review prior to my trial.

I am a retail employee at my employer's store inside the mall. The mall has designated employee parking rules that require parking in specific areas or at an off-site lot on certain busy/holiday days. On December 7, 2025 (a non-off-site day), my vehicle was towed from the main mall parking lot without any prior warning. I paid $440 in towing and storage fees.

Key Facts & Timeline

November 28, 2025: I went to the mall's designated off-site employee parking lot. A uniformed contractor attendant told me off-site parking was required only on select busy days and that I should park in the main mall lot on other days. The guidance was incomplete, it never mentioned any designated employee parking areas inside the main lot. I reasonably relied on this and parked in the main lot thereafter.

December 7, 2025 (tow date): My car was towed without warning. The tow authorization cited "illegal parking," but the sticker placed on my vehicle by mall security cited the violation as "employee of my employer." Employee status is not a posted restriction on any sign.

Signage: Fixed entrance signs say "retail parking only" and contain the required CVC § 22658 language. They do not say "no employee parking," "retail customers only," or anything clearly excluding retail employees. After I filed this case, the mall added a new temporary movable "guest parking only" stand-up sign (posted only on certain days). Inconsistent enforcement: On December 21, 2025 (busy off-site day), security entered our store to personally warn a coworker, despite security having told me they do not notify us prior to towing, and allowed them to move their car prior to it getting towed. On my quieter non-off-site day (Dec 7), I was towed immediately with no warning.

My Legal Arguments

Ambiguous signage: "Retail parking only" is ambiguous as applied to a retail employee. California courts hold that ambiguous signage does not provide adequate notice for towing (People v. James (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 25).

Defective tow authorization: The authorization must be based on a clear, posted violation under CVC § 22658. "Employee status" is not posted.

Inconsistent enforcement: The mall applied the rule arbitrarily depending on the day and volume of employee vehicles.

Reasonable reliance / apparent authority: I relied on guidance from the mall's own uniformed contractor at the designated off-site lot. The mall created the appearance of authority by designating the lot and placing personnel there.

I am seeking the statutory double damages of $880 plus court costs under CVC § 22658(e)(1).

Mall's Position (from mediation on March 27): The mall refused to settle and stated the lease with my employer makes the tenant responsible for ensuring employees know the parking rules, that the signs allow towing for "improperly parked" vehicles and my vehicle was improperly parked, that the temporary "guest parking only" sign is only used on certain days, and that my coworker received a warning on Dec 21 because it was an off-site day (fewer employee vehicles onsite).

Current Status: Mediation failed. Trial is now scheduled for June 30, 2026. I have a complete set of exhibits (tow receipt, photos of signs, timeline, demand letter, etc.) and am representing myself.

I would like your opinion on the overall strength of my case, especially on signage ambiguity and defective authorization, whether the mall's lease and "improperly parked" arguments have merit, any additional arguments or evidence I should prepare for trial, and the realistic expected outcome and settlement value.

Yes, the case is filed. It just went through mediation, which failed, and is now pending trial.

No.

The mall outright denied mediation.

Just the contractors at the gate.

No.

Yes, I have pictures of the signage.

This all makes sense and aligns with the arguments I have prepared, but I wanted confirmation that the arguments were based in appropriate legal arguments and that there were no false interpretations on my end. Additionally, during our mediation, the mall relied heavily on the fact that the lease with my employer specifically states that the employer is responsible for ensuring that their employees follow parking rules and that the mall holds no liability because of this. Now, I know that this isn't the case because I am not a party to this lease and thus it is irrelevant to my case, but how should I form an argument around this in court? Would this be something I simply object to on the basis of relevance if it is brought up during trial, or how does that work in small claims? They also mentioned that their signage said "improperly parked" vehicles may be towed, how does that wording play into this?

Are there any arguments you could see the mall posing that could potentially be harmful to my case? Anything I need to be prepared for?

Would written statements from these people be adequate or would they need to appear in court?

I'm just curious as to the mall's mindset here. For what seems to be a pretty clear cut case to me, the mall was very adamant about wanting this to go to trial. What could be their reason for being so unwilling to settle or mediate?

Are there any other legal principles or cases that may be relevant to my case?

I did ask AI to do some research on relevant case law, but altering doing my own research into everything it gave me People v. James (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 25 seems to be the only case law that is applicable after reading into the court documentation on that. It also cited Civil Code § 1654 which to me is only broadly relevant if signage is considered a contract.

I'm aware of the issues with AI, but I don't use AI without double checking it. It did spit out fake or irrelevant cases, but I only know that because I researched them myself afterwards.

How applicable would Civil Code § 1654 be in this case then? Would signage be considered a contract?

So what I am noticing with this is I have a lot of arguments, some stronger than others, so with that being said how should I handle this during trial? How should I prioritize my arguments? Should I try to argue everything I have even if it may be a stretch as in the case for the civil code 1654 argument just in case it sticks, or should I only present my strongest points?

What arguments seem strongest to you?

Since the day that I went to the off side lot where contractors were present was not a select off site day, the mall has told me that technically the contractors were not contracted to be working for the mall on that specific day so they are not liable for what they do when they aren't actively working for the mall. Does that matter when it comes to apparent authority/vicarious liability? My argument would be that, whether or not they were contracted on that specific day or not is irrelevant because the mall had created the appearance of authority related to parking with those contractors which makes it reasonable to rely on any parking information they provide to me. Their response to me on that was, "well would you rely on information about your company from your company's janitorial contractors." To that I would say yes if I'm asking about cleaning but not product information. What's your view on this?

The mall has argued to me that while the contractor may have told me to park in the main lot, the contractor likely made an assumption that I knew about the employee parking rules in the main lot which is why they didn't provide more detail. They are saying that I should have taken "park in the main mall parking lot" to mean park in the approved employee parking sections of the main mall parking lot. My argument is that they shouldn't be making such assumptions and that their contractor provided incomplete and misleading (ambiguous) information. How do you think a court would see this?

The mall also argues that their internal parking policy is what makes them able to tow my car. The policy that my company is supposed to have provided me with per their lease. This is the policy that would have designated the specific days I was supposed to be off site as well as the parking rules for a typical, non-holiday, working day. Their argument is that, because of that policy existing internally, signage in the parking lot is not necessary. What would the law say about that?

I never received a copy of the policy. When I asked them if they could prove I knew about they policy, they said it wasn't their responsibility to that because the employers are responsible for communicating the policy.

After I was towed my company became quite hyper aware of the parking situation and we found that many of the other employees were also parking in violation of this policy because they also were not aware. This is of course evident from security having come into the store to inform an employee to move their car prior to it being towed like I mentioned in the beginning. I am curious though, would knowledge of the policy really matter in this case given the signage and contractor issue?

The mall of course informed my employer that I was suing them to recover my tow fees. Once they were notified, my company sent our district sales manager to interview me about the incident. A few weeks later I was then put on a call with HR and an area manager where I was told that the lawsuit could jeopardize the relationship between the mall and the company and questioning if I should really be pursing a "loophole" like this. I'm just curious if there is anything I should consider here? Should I engage in these conversations going forward? Am I obligated to have these conversations with my company? Is there anything else I should be aware of related to this?