710 Fed.Appx. 698 (6th Cir. 2018), 17-3966, Basista Holdings, LLC v. Ellsworth Township
|Citation:||710 Fed.Appx. 698|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||BASISTA HOLDINGS, LLC; David J. Lewis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELLSWORTH TOWNSHIP; Michael P. Kurilla, Jr.; Diane Dudek; Kurt Morrison; Fred Houston; Fred Schrock; Ishraq Hafiz; Mary Ann Stack; Wayne Sarna; William Spellman; Rick Durkin, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Frank R. Bodor, Law Offices, Warren, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant James F. Mathews, Tonya J. Rogers, Attorney, Baker Dublikar Beck Wiley & Mathews, North Canton, OH, for Defendants-Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||BEFORE: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||February 09, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 6th Cir. Rule 32.1.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Frank R. Bodor, Law Offices, Warren, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant
James F. Mathews, Tonya J. Rogers, Attorney, Baker Dublikar Beck Wiley & Mathews, North Canton, OH, for Defendants-Appellees
BEFORE: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises from a zoning dispute involving a property located on State Route 45 in Ellsworth Township, Mahoning County, Ohio. The substantive issue litigated below centered on whether the entire property should be zoned for industrial use, as its owner, plaintiff Basista Holdings, LLC, contended. The details of that dispute can be found in our opinion on
the merits, Basista Holdings, LLC v. Ellsworth Twp., 710 Fed.Appx. 688, 2017 WL 4534808 (6th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017), which affirmed judgment in favor of the defendants. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in awarding attorneys fees in the amount of $9,806.00 to defendants.
In their motion for attorneys fees, defendants limited their request to fees incurred after submission of their motion for summary judgment on October 19, 2015. According to defendants, the motion for summary judgment clearly established, as the district court and this court later held, that plaintiffs § 1983 claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. As the district court subsequently noted in an Order dated April 28, 2017: Plaintiffs continued to file "baseless and frivolous" motions in this case and two [related] ongoing state cases. These filings included seven motions in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP