Bezingue v. Steuben Lakes Reg'l Waste Dist.

• Decision Date: 14 December 2020
• Docket Number: Cause No. 1:19-CV-81-HAB
• Citation: 507 F.Supp.3d 1021
• Parties: Robert and Jennifer BEZINGUE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEUBEN LAKES REGIONAL WASTE DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

507 F.Supp.3d 1021

Robert and Jennifer BEZINGUE, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.STEUBEN LAKES REGIONAL WASTE DISTRICT, Defendant.

Cause No. 1:19-CV-81-HAB

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

Signed December 14, 2020

John J. Schwarz, II, Schwarz Law Office PC, Royal Center, IN, for Plaintiffs.

Larry L. Barnard, Eric M. Blume, Carson LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

HOLLY A. BRADY, JUDGE

For all the summary judgment briefing in this case, the question presented is a simple one: is an Indiana sewer district required to perform the construction work needed to connect a property to its sewer lines? The Court concludes that the answer to this question is no. Because Defendant was well-within its statutory rights to leave the work of connection to the Plaintiff landowners, summary judgment in favor of Defendant is appropriate.

A. Factual Background

Both parties present an extensive recitation of the facts, but the Court finds that only a handful are relevant. Defendant is a regional utility district established under Indiana law. The focus of this litigation is Defendant's NED-I project, which involves providing sanitary sewers to 298 homes in Steuben County.

Connection to the sanitary sewer system requires the installation of a grinder station on each connecting parcel of land. Each landowner is given two options with respect to the grinder station. Option #1 requires the landowner to provide Defendant an easement, for free as Plaintiffs repeatedly note, that allows Defendant to install and maintain the grinder station and install a lateral connection to the main line. Option #2 allows the landowner to decline to give the easement, leaving the landowner responsible for the installation and maintenance of the grinder station. In both scenarios, the landowner is provided the grinder station and related hardware free of charge and the actual connection fee (i.e., the initial amount charged by Defendant to use its sanitary sewer line) is the same.

All Plaintiffs elected option #2. Faced with the expense of installing and maintaining sewer equipment on their own, they filed a sixteen-page, nine-count complaint in Steuben County Circuit Court. (ECF No. 3). The suit was removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction, as Plaintiffs allege violations of the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint (ECF No. 14), but nine counts remain.

Now before the Court are competing motions for summary judgment from the parties. Mercifully, Plaintiffs have withdrawn their claims under Counts I (alleging that the order to connect to the sewer system was invalid); VI (seeking an injunction preventing installation of the main sewer line); VII (alleging a taking as a result of Defendant dictating the location of the grinder pumps); and VIII (alleging an equal protection violation because some landowners may be forced to share a grinder pump). Finding there to be no genuine issues of material fact, the Court will enter summary judgment for Defendant on all remaining counts.

B. Legal Analysis

1. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is warranted when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The non-moving party must marshal and present the Court with evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely to find in their favor. Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc. , 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). A court must deny a motion for summary judgment when the nonmoving party presents admissible evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact. Luster v. Ill. Dep't of Corrs. , 652 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). A court's role in deciding a motion for summary judgment "is not to sift through the evidence, pondering the nuances and inconsistencies, and decide whom to believe. The court has one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial." Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp. , 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994).

Facts that are outcome determinative under the applicable law are material for summary judgment purposes.

Smith ex rel. Smith v. Severn , 129 F.3d 419, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Although a bare contention that an issue of material fact exists is insufficient to create a factual dispute, a court must construe all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, view all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, Bellaver v. Quanex Corp. , 200 F.3d 485, 491–92 (7th Cir. 2000), and avoid "the temptation to decide which party's version of the facts is more likely true," Payne v. Pauley , 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003). Additionally, a court is not "obliged to research and construct legal arguments for parties, especially when they are represented by counsel." Nelson v. Napolitano , 657 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 2011).

The fact that the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment does not alter the standard. When evaluating each side's motion, the court simply "construe[s] all inferences in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made." Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson , 297 F.3d 558, 561–62 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp. , 154 F.3d 685, 692 (7th Cir. 1998) ).

2. Procedural Matters

a. Lack of Certification of the Constitutional Issue

One issue raised by the parties, but not discussed in any great depth, is the process for challenging the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court. Both parties cite to Ind. Code § 34-14-1-11, which requires a trial court to certify a constitutional challenge to the Indiana Attorney General, who must also be served with the complaint. However, that is an Indiana statute, governing Indiana procedure, with no relevance or applicability to this federal proceeding. Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc. , 518 U.S. 415, 427, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996) ("Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.").

The applicable statute is 28 U.S.C. § 2403. That statute provides, in part:

In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the attorney general of the State, and shall permit the State to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality.

28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). While § 2403 imposes an independent duty on the district court to certify the constitutional issue to the appropriate state attorney general, Tonya K. by Diane K. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi. , 847 F.2d 1243, 1247 (7th Cir. 1988), the district court is often ill-equipped to do so on its own. This Court does not, and indeed cannot, read every pleading as it is filed. The Court often does not know the precise allegations in any civil case until a dispositve motion is filed or the deadline to do so has expired.

Understanding this reality, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute to notify the district court of that claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 provides, in part:

A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:

(1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:

(A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or

(B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and

(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned--or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned--either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)¹ . In order to comply with the Rule in this case, Plaintiffs would have had to file, separately from their complaint, a notice of constitutional question and serve that notice on the Indiana Attorney General through one of the identified methods.

Plaintiffs did none of these things. The closest Plaintiffs came was a letter to the Indiana Attorney General's Office attaching a copy of the state court complaint. (ECF No. 36-8). The letter, however, did not give notice of this action, nor does it appear to have been served via one of the methods authorized by the Rule. Moreover, no notice of the constitutional question appears on the docket. The Court concludes, then, that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 5.1.

What is the consequence of Plaintiffs’ failure? Compliance with Rule 5.1 and 28 U.S.C. § 2403 is not jurisdictional. Tonya K. , 847 F.2d at 1247. While some courts have simply refused to hear constitutional claims where the notice requirements have not been satisfied, see , e.g. , Jones v. U-Haul Co. of Mass. and Ohio Inc. , 16 F. Supp. 3d 922, 941 (S.D. Ohio 2014), the Court cannot conclude that this approach is appropriate. Rule 5.1(d) expressly states that "[a] party's failure to file and serve the notice, or the court's failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted." The Court disagrees with Defendant, then, that lack of notice is a basis for the award of summary judgment.

The purpose of the notice requirement is to "give the Executive Branch both the time...