A lawsuit against three local cities over fines issued by automated traffic cameras has been dismissed, but the legal fight is not over yet.

Multiple people who were fined for traffic violations documented by red light and speed detection cameras in Dayton, Trotwood and West Carrollton sued the jurisdictions, claiming the civil penalties and administrative procedures used to dispute them violated due process.

But last month, a Montgomery County judge dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that the plaintiffs failed to show that the cities’ civil penalty systems were unconstitutional.

“All of their claims were dismissed,” said John Musto, senior attorney with the city of Dayton. “The claims they have made have been repeatedly rejected by courts in Ohio and throughout the country.”

But the plaintiffs on Wednesday filed a notice to appeal and are bracing for a lengthy legal battle.

In March 2014, several people who were issued fines for traffic infractions documented by automated red light and speed detection cameras filed lawsuits against the cities of Dayton, Trotwood and West Carrollton. The legal actions were consolidated into one lawsuit.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys sought to certify the case as a class action, but were denied certification. Millions of dollars the cities collected in fines would be at stake if class-action status was procured.

The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the procedures the cities set up for people who wished to contest their civil penalties.

Cited motorists were forced to go through hearing proceedings that violated their constitutional rights because they did not provide a meaningful way to contest the fines, said Thomas Manning, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The administrative hearing systems made it virtually impossible to successfully challenge a notice of violation, especially since it did not allow people facing civil penalties to present evidence, examine witnesses and provide oral arguments in a meaningful time and manner, the lawsuit stated.

“People should be able to get their money back if it was an unconstitutional procedure,” Manning said.

The lawsuit was stayed in August 2014 pending the outcome of several Ohio Supreme Court cases that involved similar issues.

The stay was lifted in March after the Supreme Court ruled in support of cities’ authority to use automated cameras.

Montgomery County Judge Micahel Krumholtz last month granted summary judgment to the three municipal defendants, resulting in the dismissal of the lawsuit.

“Their main argument was claiming that municipalities don’t have authority to establish administrative hearings, which was rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court,” said Musto. “Once that was ruled against them, the remaining issues had all been found to lack merit by previous courts.”

In an unrelated case, the city of Dayton has challenged a recently enacted state law that severely restricts use of photo-enforcement traffic cameras. The challenge is before the state Supreme Court.