Paterek v. Vill. of Armada

Citation801 F.3d 630
Decision Date08 September 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14–1894.,14–1894.
PartiesJohn W. PATEREK; Cynthia S. Paterek; Paterek Mold & Engineering, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF ARMADA, MICHIGAN; Ben Delecke, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

ARGUED:Cindy Rhodes Victor, The Victor Law Firm, PLLC, Auburn Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. Caryn A. Ford, Garan Lucow Miller, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Cindy Rhodes Victor, The Victor Law Firm, PLLC, Auburn Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. Caryn A. Ford, Garan Lucow Miller, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees.

Before: KEITH and CLAY, Circuit Judges; MARBLEY, District Judge.*

OPINION

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs John (Paterek)1 and Cynthia Paterek (“the Patereks”), along with their company Paterek Mold & Engineering, Inc. (PME), (collectively Plaintiffs), appeal the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Ben Delecke, Commissioner of the Village of Armada Planning Commission, and the Village of Armada (collectively Defendants), in this § 1983 action. Specifically, Plaintiffs appeal the adverse judgment on their First Amendment retaliation, substantive and procedural due process, and equal protection claims. Plaintiffs also appeal the district court's decision to dismiss two motions seeking to hold Defendants in contempt of court. Because there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to three of Plaintiffs' claims, and because the district court should have granted one of the motions for contempt, we hereby REVERSE the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, VACATE the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' contempt motion, and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND
A. Initial Approval and Zoning Dispute

In 1993, the Patereks—owners of PME, an injection molding company—sought to relocate their business within Macomb County, Michigan to the Village of Armada. The Patereks found a former high school auto shop (“the garage”) that suited their needs and they purchased the building. Unfortunately for the Patereks, the garage was located in a neighborhood with zoning restrictions that limited commercial activity to “general business,” and injection molding is classified as a “light industrial activity.” The Patereks could commence operations at the garage only if they first obtained a Special Approval Land Use permit (“SALU”) by successfully petitioning the Village of Armada Planning Commission (“the Planning Commission).

On August 2, 1993, the Patereks went before the Planning Commission to advocate for the issuance of a SALU so that PME could begin operations at the garage; it was the third time that the Planning commission debated the Patereks' request. John Paterek believed Village officials were discouraging the Patereks from moving PME into the Village on account of their fear that those light-industrial activities might “generate too much noise” and set a “bad example” for other business in the community. (R. 2–2, June 12 Appeal, PGID 44) Despite any concerns the officials may have had, the SALU was issued following this third hearing. The Planning Commission, however, placed the following restrictions on the SALU: a prohibition against the “outside storage of any materials, supplies, or parts”; a limitation on permissible operating hours—7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Mondays through Saturdays; and a limitation on the number of full-time employees who could work at the garage. Another condition of the SALU required PME to resurface the parking lot within two years of occupying the garage. Defendant Ben Delecke, central to this dispute, was one of the Planning Commission members who joined in the unanimous approval of the time-restricted SALU.

PME commenced operations at the garage sometime in January 1994. The business was successful, so much so that PME began exceeding its permissible operating hours in order to meet the demands of a growing customer base. The workload also kept the Patereks from scheduling to repave the parking lot in time to meet the deadline stipulated in the SALU.2 For that reason, John Paterek voluntarily went to the Planning Commission in February 1995, and he apprised that body of the predicament PME was facing. The Planning Commission responded, first, by reprimanding Paterek that PME should not be asking for additional accommodations and, next, by suggesting to Paterek that he could always sell the garage and relocate PME outside of the Village of Armada. Shortly thereafter, on May 3, 1995, the Patereks received a letter notifying them of the Village's intent to take legal action against them for failing to comply with certain provisions of the garage's SALU; mainly, for failing to construct a retaining wall along the perimeter of the PME lot and for neglecting to make plans to have the parking lot paved with a hard surface. The Patereks immediately attempted to remedy the situation by building the requisite retaining wall, and by repaving the parking lot with crushed limestone (as an intermediate solution until they repaved with a hard surface).

John Paterek wrote the Village Council on June 12, 1995, seeking to modify the terms of the SALU, prospectively, to quash any legal action threatened by the Village of Armada. In his letter, he requested the following: unrestricted operating hours for PME; the right to add signage and lighting to a garden he had recently crafted on the PME premises; the right to use a portion of the PME parking lot as an outside lunch area with a picnic table; the right to hire additional employees beyond the 14–employee cap; and an extension on his timeline to resurface the parking lot, or, in the alternative, approval of his crushed limestone lot as being in compliance with the SALU. Along with these requests, Paterek submitted numerous testimonials from neighboring businesses commending the Patereks' positive impact on the neighborhood due to the improvements PME made to the preexisting property. Following mixed public reaction to Paterek's requests, the Village Council directed Paterek to return to the Planning Commission and seek approval from that body.

Paterek submitted his request to the Planning Commission on July 3, 1995. Following a lengthy discussion, Defendant Delecke, who had been elevated to Commissioner of the Planning Commission, moved to reject the majority of Paterek's requests—to lift the restriction on PME's operating hours, to lift the restriction on the number of PME employees, and to afford the Patereks additional time to repave the PME parking lot. The motion carried upon a unanimous vote. (The requests for a lunch area with a picnic table and for lighted signage, however, were both granted.) Paterek appealed the decision to the Village Council. The Village Council reversed the Planning Commission and further modified the SALU by (a) affording the Patereks two more years to repave the parking lot, (b) allowing them to hire three more employees, and (c) easing the restriction on operating hours by extending the daily closing time and allowing for unlimited hours with respect to any emergency jobs.

Commissioner Delecke attended the Village Council meeting and spoke out against modifying the SALU for PME's garage. At that meeting, the Village Council determined that it should also investigate a decision of the Planning Commission to issue a SALU to a business associated with Commissioner Delecke. Delecke, at the next Planning Commission meeting, expressed his displeasure with both of the Village Council's decisions.

Plaintiffs alleged that following their successful appeal to the Village Council, Delecke determined to embarrass and harass the Patereks and their business. This harassment included disparaging John Paterek and maliciously spreading a false rumor that the Patereks had filed for bankruptcy. Delecke admitted to spreading the rumor, but he claimed that he believed the rumor to be true.

B. Downtown Development Authority

In 2004, John Paterek was appointed Chairman of the Armada Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”). Plaintiffs alleged that Delecke campaigned to have Paterek removed from the time he was initially appointed. This campaign was initially unsuccessful. By 2011, Paterek not only remained the Chairman of the DDA, he had also been elected Supervisor of Armada Township.3 Delecke's harassment, Plaintiffs alleged, steadily intensified following Paterek's election to this second leadership role as the top administrative official of the Township, the political subdivision that encompassed the Village of Armada.

On November 14, 2011, Paterek received a letter from the Village Council, threatening his removal from the DDA chairmanship. The letter alleged the following bases as valid cause for Paterek's removal:

— Blatant disregard of Village Council directives
— Misrepresentation of council directives in public statements
— Failure to follow Government Funds and payment procedures
— Failure to follow Village Council meeting protocol
— Derogatory and threatening behavior exhibited during public meetings of the Village Council
— Personal attacks on Village Officials

The letter went on to note, “While we respect your absolute right to voice your opinion on these matters [the administration of other Village bodies], you have demonstrated a pattern of increasing hostility towards and lack of respect for your fellow public servants which has compromised your ability to serve on the Armada DDA.”

Paterek claimed to be shocked upon receiving this letter, and he denied any wrongdoing—other than having expressed his opinions on matters of public concern. He promptly replied to the letter by seeking clarification and requesting any and all evidence in support of the allegations. No response was offered.

Ultimately, the Village Council dissolved the DDA board in early 2013 and appointed Delecke as the new Chairman of the DDA; the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
215 cases
  • Thomas v. Stevens
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 16 Agosto 2022
    ...298)). “‘Similarly situated' is a term of art-a comparator . . . must be similar in ‘all relevant respects.'” Paterek v. Vill. of Armada, 801 F.3d 630, 650 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Green, 654 F.3d 637, 651 (6th Cir. 2011)); see also Nordlinger, 505 U.S. at 10; Tree of Life ......
  • Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 3 Enero 2019
    ...action that ‘either burdens a fundamental right, targets a suspect class, or has no rational basis.’ " Paterek v. Vill. of Armada, Michigan , 801 F.3d 630, 649 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Ctr. for Bio–Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano , 648 F.3d 365, 379 (6th Cir. 2011) ). Plaintiffs do not a......
  • Johnson v. Smits
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 4 Abril 2023
    ...To establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, an inmate must show that the defendants purposefully discriminated against him. Vill. of Arlington Heights Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). Such discriminatory purpose must be a motivating factor in the actions of th......
  • Johnson v. Morales
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 7 Enero 2020
    ...existence, and therefore could apply to any business operating in the City. Such a result is not rational. Cf. Paterek v. Vill. of Armada , 801 F.3d 630, 648-49 (6th Cir. 2015) (reversing summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs’ substantive-due-process claim because a reasonable jury ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...(5th Cir. 2019) (civil contempt sanctions appropriate only if violated order is “def‌inite and specif‌ic”); Patarek v. Vill. of Armada, 801 F.3d 630, 643 (6th Cir. 2015) (civil contempt sanctions appropriate only if violated order is “def‌inite and specif‌ic”); Gascho v. Glob. Fitness Holdi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT