Aga v. Meade Cnty.

• Decision Date: 29 August 2022
• Docket Number: Civ. 21-5059-JLV
• Parties: KALYN AGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of South Dakota, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

KALYN AGA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MEADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of South Dakota, Defendant.

Civ. No. 21-5059-JLV

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division

August 29, 2022

ORDER

JEFFREY L. VIKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction .................................................................................2

II. Standard of Review ...................................................................2

III. Analysis ....................................................................................4

A. Res Judicata ..............................................................................4

1. Facts ...........................................................................................4

2. Arguments of the Parties .............................................................7

3. Resolution of Defendant's Motion .................................................7

A. Same Issue .................................................................................10

B. Parties, Opportunity, and Final Judgment .....................................10

B. Comity ........................................................................................12

C. State-Created Danger Claim .........................................................13

1. Facts ............................................................................................14

2. Arguments of the Parties ..................................................................18

3. Resolution of Count 1 .....................................................................20

D. Equal Protection Claim ......................................................................21

1. Facts ................................................................................................22

2. Arguments of the Parties ......................................................................24

3. Resolution of Count 2 ........................................................................25

E. Inverse Condemnation Claim ................................................................27

1. Facts ....................................................................................................29

2. Arguments of the Parties ........................................................................29

3. Resolution of Count 3 ............................................................................31

1

F. Inverse Condemnation-State Claim .........................................................34

1. Facts .......................................................................................................35

2. Arguments of the Parties ...........................................................................36

3. Resolution of Count 4 ...............................................................................37

IV. Order .....................................................................................................38

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs filed a multi-count amended complaint against the defendants. (Docket 7). Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against defendants United States Gypsum Corporation and Knauf KG. (Docket 22). Defendant Meade County filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs resist Meade County's motion. (Docket 17). For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of plaintiffs' amended complaint (“complaint”) if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In evaluating Meade County's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts as true all of the factual allegations contained in plaintiffs' complaint and grants all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiffs as the nonmoving party. Braden v. Wal-Mart, 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ”) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009)). See also Crooks v. Lynch, 557 F.3d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 2009) (the court must review “a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,

2

accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and granting all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, the nonmoving party.”) (brackets omitted). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The “plausibility standard” at the pleading stage requires a showing greater than the mere possibility of misconduct yet less than the probability of misconduct. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-58. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. “But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'- that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

3

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs' complaint is twenty-three pages in length, contains numerous conclusory statements of law, commentary on the facts and exceeds the boundaries contemplated by Rule 8(a)(2).^[1] (Docket 7). The complaint asserts four claims against Meade County. Those are:

1. Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a “state-created danger due process” claim. Id. at p. 13 (capitalization and underlining omitted)

2. Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an “equal protection” claim. Id. at p. 16 (capitalization and underlining omitted).

3. Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an “inverse condemnation” claim. Id. at p. 19 (capitalization and underlining omitted).

4. Violation of Article VI § 13 of the South Dakota Constitution, an “inverse condemnation state claim.” Id. (capitalization, underlining and parenthesis omitted).

Plaintiffs seeks compensatory and consequential damages and “other relief allowed by law or equity.” Id. at p. 22. To resolve Meade County's motion to dismiss, the court will separately analyze each of plaintiffs' causes of action.

A. RES JUDICATA

1. FACTS

The court takes judicial notice of the state court proceedings in 46CIV20-000177. Fed.R.Evid. 201. Rule 201(b) states:

4

(b) Kinds of facts that may be judicially noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

(1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Because Meade County asked the court to take judicial notice of the state court litigation and plaintiffs referenced the same proceeding, the court finds the parties were provided an adequate opportunity to be heard on the issue of judicial notice. Fed.R.Evid. 201(e).

On June 8, 2020, 138 named plaintiffs (“state plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in Circuit Court in the Fourth Judicial Circuit in the State of South Dakota. Trudo, et al v. Meade County, et al, 46CIV20-000177 at pp. 1-42. On July 1, 2020, the state plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging 20 causes of action against 35 defendants including Meade County. Id. at pp. 4789.

On October 1, 2020, the state court granted Meade County's motion to dismiss the state plaintiffs' amended complaint. Id. at pp. 568-72. The order dismissed the amended complaint claims against Meade County with prejudice. Id. at pp. 571-72. The order also dismissed the claims against Meade County “without prejudice for insufficient service of process[.]” Id. at p. 572. In a November 20, 2020, order the state court clarified

the Meade County Defendants [including Meade County] have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court, waived their right to service of process, and requested a judgment on the merits. To the extent that they requested a dismissal on service of process grounds, the Meade County Defendants specifically stated

5

that they would rely on that argument only to the extent that this Court denied their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Id. at pp. 934-35.

The state court plaintiffs filed two separate notices of appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court from the state court order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. See 46CIV20-000177 at p. 1004; South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal No. 29489; 46CIV20-000177 at p. 1384; and South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal No. 29931. In each instance, the state plaintiffs moved to dismiss their appeal because there was no final judgment as it relates to issues associated with defendants other than Meade County. See Appeal No. 29489, Docket 19, and Appeal No. 29931 at pp. 138-42. With each appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeals because the orders were not a...