Cent. Specialties, Inc. v. Large

• Decision Date: 24 November 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-3027,20-3027
• Parties: CENTRAL SPECIALTIES, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant v. Jonathan LARGE; Mahnomen County, Defendants - Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

18 F.4th 989

CENTRAL SPECIALTIES, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant

v.Jonathan LARGE; Mahnomen County, Defendants - Appellees

No. 20-3027

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 11, 2021

Filed: November 24, 2021

Hugh D. Brown, Kyle E. Hart, Fabyanske & Westra, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ryan Douglas Fullerton, Michael Thomas Rengel, Attorney, Fergus Falls, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Central Specialties, Inc. (CSI), which won a contract to perform road work on state highways across three Minnesota counties, filed this action against Mahnomen County and its Engineer, Jonathan Large, after Large stopped two of CSI's trucks for exceeding the posted weight limit on the road on which they were traveling. CSI asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and claims under state law for trespass to chattel and tortious interference with contract. The district court¹ granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and CSI appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I.

In late 2016, CSI, a road and highway construction company, was awarded a contract by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to perform road work on State Highway 59, which crosses three Minnesota counties: Becker, Polk, and Mahnomen. As part of its contract, CSI proposed certain existing county roads be designated haul roads, which CSI would use to haul material away from the project site. Although CSI was responsible for proposing haul roads, MnDOT retained the ultimate authority to determine which roads would be designated as haul roads. When a haul road is designated, it comes under the jurisdiction of MnDOT and is no longer under the purview of the county in which the road is located. However, counties retain an interest in the selection of haul roads because counties are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all county roads, and the specific uses of a given road can impact the road's condition. When the haul road is released back to a county, MnDOT reimburses the county for the use, but additional expenses related to any deterioration of the road from its use as a haul road are difficult to ascertain, often leaving the county with the responsibility to pay for repairs.

In April 2017, at a preconstruction meeting, CSI proposed the roads it wished to be designated as haul roads. CSI proposed that it use County State Aid Highways (CSAH) 5, 6, and 10, each with an 80,000-pound limit. Large, who as the County Engineer for Mahnomen County was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all county roads, objected to the designation of the specific CSAH as haul roads because they were already in generally poor condition and he did not believe they could sustain CSI's proposed loads over the course of the construction project. Large further objected to the designation of CSAH 5 and 10 as haul roads because they were scheduled to undergo extensive repairs later in 2017. MnDOT conducted testing of the roads based on Large's stated concerns and confirmed Large's belief that the roads were in generally poor condition, which could be exacerbated by use as haul roads. In an email with a county engineer from another county, Large expressed the necessity of an agreement between Mahnomen County and MnDOT for payment of damages sustained to haul roads during their period of designation because, without an agreement, he believed that MnDOT would not be able to hold CSI accountable for damages sustained to the haul roads and that Mahnomen County would ultimately be left financially responsible for any repair costs. In May 2017, MnDOT notified CSI that it would designate as haul roads portions of CSAH 5 and 10 with a nine-ton weight restriction and CSAH 6 with a seven-ton weight restriction. MnDOT did not designate all of the roads CSI proposed to be used as haul roads.

After construction began, CSI notified both Large and MnDOT that it intended to use portions of CSAH 6 and 10 that were not designated as haul roads as a return route for its empty trucks and that it would continue using the designated portions of CSAH 5 and 10. Large responded by reiterating to CSI that it needed to use designated haul roads for all truck trips, regardless of whether trucks were loaded or unloaded, noting that CSI did not have an agreement with Mahnomen County to use a non-designated route. Large also referenced ongoing construction on CSAH 10. CSI then emailed the MnDOT Project Manager, asking him to designate the roads as to their legal limits or to direct CSI to not use the road. On July 17, 2017, the MnDOT Project Manager responded that MnDOT had already designated haul roads for the project and that if CSI chose to use alternate routes, the matter was solely between CSI and the local road authority. Despite this directive, CSI stated that it intended to use the roads without any agreement with Large or Mahnomen County.

On the morning of July 18, 2017, the Mahnomen County Board of Commissioners approved a weight restriction to CSAH 10, lowering it from a five-ton axle weight to a five-ton total weight limit. County officials posted signs with the new weight restrictions before noon that day, and Large spoke with the MnDOT Project Manager just before 1:00 p.m. to inform him of the change. Large asked the Project Manager to inform CSI of the weight restriction change, which he did via an email sent at 1:19 p.m. Shortly after 2:00 p.m., Large observed two CSI trucks driving on CSAH 10 in a work zone. Large was unable to ascertain whether the trucks were loaded or unloaded but concluded that even an empty truck would be in violation of the new, reduced weight restriction. Large, driving in a marked Mahnomen County truck, used his vehicle to block the road and motioned to the drivers to pull over. The drivers complied with Large's request to pull over, after which Large called the local sheriff's office, which told him that it did not have the capacity to handle the situation. Large then called the White Earth Tribal Police, who responded to the scene but determined that they did not have authority to cite the drivers. Finally, state troopers arrived and weighed the vehicles. The troopers cited the driver of the first CSI truck for exceeding the posted weight limit. This driver later testified that she pulled over when she came upon Large's vehicle blocking the road. She stated that Large told her that she could not haul on the road, pointed to a sign showing the new weight restriction, and stated that she needed to wait until law enforcement arrived. The driver asserted that she and the second truck driver stayed at the location from 2:11 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Large testified that he was at the scene for roughly one and a half to two hours before leaving and that law enforcement also permitted the trucks to leave. The driver of the second CSI truck testified that, while he and the other truck were stopped, he observed individuals changing the weight restriction signs along CSAH 10. He also observed other large trucks driving on the highway without being stopped by Large.

CSI then filed this action against Large and Mahnomen County, bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, CSI alleged that Large violated the Fourth Amendment by exceeding the scope of his authority and detaining the CSI trucks for roughly three hours and asserted that the County was liable as Large's employer. CSI also alleged that Large violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving CSI of equal protection and due process when he selectively changed and then selectively enforced the weight limits against CSI and by failing to give appropriate notice of the change in the weight restrictions, again asserting that the County was liable as Large's employer. CSI also brought state law claims of tortious interference with contract and trespass to chattel, asserting that defendants interfered with CSI's performance of its contract with MnDOT by changing the weight restrictions and enforcing them and that Large's detention of the trucks was so significant as to amount to a trespass.

Large and the County moved for summary judgment on all claims, which the district court granted. As to CSI's Fourth Amendment claim, the district court determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because even assuming that Large had seized the vehicles, the duration of the seizure was reasonable and Large, with his responsibilities as County Engineer, had sufficient reason to investigate the trucks after witnessing what he believed to be the trucks in violation of the posted weight limits. In addition to the absence of a constitutional violation, the district court also determined that it was not clearly established that only a law enforcement officer could request commercial activity to come to a brief halt to ensure compliance with local laws. As to the Fourteenth Amendment claims, the district court determined that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on both CSI's equal protection and due process claims. With respect to the due process claim, the district court concluded that CSI failed to show a constitutional violation because CSI's assertion that it had no notice of the change in weight restrictions was unsupported, and regardless, CSI presented no authority recognizing a right to pre-deprivation notice in the context of the lowering of the highway weight limit. The district court also determined that it was not clearly established that a county could not change the weight restrictions on a road based on specific indications that its roads would be used for increased loads or traffic. With respect to the equal protection claim, the district court determined that CSI failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation because Large had a rational...