Blue v. Bd. of Shawnee Cnty. Commissioners
| Decision Date | 02 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 124,355 |
| Citation | 517 P.3d 1280 |
| Parties | William Dean BLUE, Appellant, v. BOARD OF SHAWNEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., and City of Topeka, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
517 P.3d 1280
William Dean BLUE, Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF SHAWNEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., and City of Topeka, et al., Appellees.
No. 124,355
Court of Appeals of Kansas.
Opinion filed September 2, 2022.
Eric Kjorlie, of Topeka, for appellant.
Jonathan C. Brzon, assistant county counselor, for appellee Board of Shawnee County Commissioners.
Shelly Starr, chief of litigation, City of Topeka, for appellee City of Topeka.
Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Malone and Coble, JJ.
Coble, J.:
William Dean Blue filed multiple claims against the City of Topeka (City) and Shawnee County (County) after he was publicly misidentified as the person arrested for various crimes. Both the City and County filed motions for summary judgment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Blue failed to respond to the dispositive motions. The district court analyzed the motions on the merits and granted the City and County's motions. Blue sought reconsideration of the summary judgment order but the district court denied relief.
On appeal, Blue contends the district court needed to issue a show cause order prior to granting summary judgment under Kansas Supreme Court Administrative Order 2020-PR-58, effective May 27, 2020, which suspended various deadlines due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We find Blue's argument unpersuasive because the district court exempted Blue's case from the deadline suspension. And, even if Order 2020-PR-58 applied here, the district court decided the case on the merits, not on default or due to a missed deadline, and this distinction is important. The district court did not have to issue a show cause order prior to granting summary judgment on the merits. We affirm the district court's ruling.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2019, Blue filed multiple claims against the County and City after he was publicly misidentified as a person arrested for various crimes. Blue's petition alleged causes of action for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and negligence.
Upon motions filed by the City and County, the district court dismissed Blue's defamation claim. Blue then filed an amended petition seeking to bolster his claim of false light invasion of privacy. A few weeks later, both defendants moved to strike and dismiss Blue's amended petition, arguing the district court should strike the amended petition because Blue did not obtain consent or leave of the district court before filing. Both defendants also alternatively argued Blue failed to state viable claims for relief.
On May 27, 2020, during the initial scourge of the COVID-19 pandemic, our Supreme Court entered Administrative Order 2020-PR-58. This Order suspended "[a]ll statutes of limitation and statutory time standards or deadlines applying to the conduct or processing of judicial proceedings." Order 2020-PR-58, at 2. On June 19, 2020, the district court ordered Blue's case to be exempted from the suspension of deadlines under Order 2020-PR-58. The district court entered the order of exemption "to avoid further delay, and impose[d] a deadline of June 30, 2020, for plaintiff to file a response to the defendants' Motion(s)." The order clearly stated: "After the June 30th deadline, this matter is no longer subject to the suspension of time in the Supreme Court's order."
Blue timely responded to the City and County's motions, but the district court ultimately dismissed his claim for invasion of privacy. The district court entered a case management order setting December 28, 2020, as the deadline for completing discovery and permitted Blue to file a second amended petition that added a claim of outrage.
On December 23, 2020, the City moved for summary judgment on Blue's two remaining claims: the tort of outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The County joined the City's motion a few weeks later. Blue did not file a response to either motion.
On January 22, 2021, the City's counsel notified Blue's counsel by email that his response was overdue. Blue's counsel responded that he planned to file a motion for a status conference and request a revised case management order, largely given the disruption of the pandemic which caused him to be unable to review discovery with his client. But Blue filed no motion. On March 1, 2021, the district court granted the City and County's motions for summary judgment. Although the district court noted the lack of response from Blue, it examined the dispositive motions on the merits. The district court found Blue did not meet his burden of showing
the conduct at issue was extreme or outrageous, his distress was extreme, or that he was entitled to damages under his negligence claim.
A few weeks later, Blue moved to reconsider, alter, and amend the district court's order granting the City and County's motions for summary judgment. Blue alleged the district court erred in entering what he considered to be a default judgment without issuing a show cause order under the requirements of Order 2020-PR-58. He argued that the district court's dismissal "denied his procedural due process rights to conduct discovery; and the ability to provide information...
To continue reading
Request your trial