Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham
Decision Date | 02 March 2007 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 06-2122-KHV. |
Citation | 511 F.Supp.2d 1065 |
Parties | CONTINENTAL COAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Matt CUNNINGHAM, Laura Cunningham, and Board of County Commissioners of Linn County, Kansas, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
C. Christian Kirley, John K. Power, Leonard L. Wagner, Robert D. Maher, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.
Michael K. Seek, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP, Samuel P. Logan, Wendell F. Cowan, Jr., Foulston Siefkin LLP, Overland Park, KS, for Defendants.
On April 3, 2006, Continental Coal, Inc. ("Continental") filed suit against Matt and Laura Cunningham and the Board of County Commissioners of Linn County, Kansas ("Board"). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Continental alleges that by attempting to modify the hours of operation of a conditional use permit for it to mine coal on certain property in Linn County, Kansas, defendants violated Continental's rights to procedural due process and equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Continental also asserts state law claims for tortious interference with contracts, business relationships and prospective business relationships, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Of Defendant Board Of County Commissioners of Linn County, Kansas (Doc. # 19) filed July 14, 2006 and the Motion To Dismiss Of Defendants Matt And Laura Cunningham (Doc. # 32) filed July 26, 2006. Because defendants have already filed answers, their motions are treated as ones for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). See Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 n. 2 (10th Cir.2002). For reasons stated below, the Court sustains defendants' motions in part. Standards For Motions For Judgment On The Pleadings Under Rule 12(c)
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is governed by the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Atl. Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank, 226 F.3d 1138, 1160 (10th Cir.2000); Mock v. T.G. & Y, 971 F.2d 522, 528 (10th Cir.1992). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of its claim which would entitle it to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381, 1384 (10th Cir.1997). The Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of plaintiff. See Shaw v. Valdez, 819 F.2d 965, 968 (10th Cir.1987). In reviewing the sufficiency of plaintiffs complaint, the issue is not whether plaintiff will prevail, but whether it is entitled to offer evidence to support its claims. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Although plaintiff need not precisely state each element of its claims, it must plead minimal factual allegations on those material elements that must be proved. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991).
Plaintiff objects that the documents attached to the Board's memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss are outside the pleadings. See Memorandum In Opposition To Motion To Dismiss Of Defendant Board Of County Commissioners Of Linn County, Kansas (Doc. # 38) filed August 18, 2006 at 40. On a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider (1) indisputably authentic copies of documents if plaintiff referred to them in the cornplaint and the documents are central to the claims; and (2) facts which are subject to judicial notice. See GFF, 130 F.3d at 1384 ( ); Fed.R.Evid. 201(b) ( ).
The Court has considered several documents outside plaintiffs complaint which are referred to in the complaint and are central to plaintiffs claims. These include (1) the conditional use permit issued November 10, 2003; (2) a position letter from Linn County Counselor; (3) Linn County. Zoning Regulations; (4) a letter from plaintiff's president to the Board; and (5) the conditional use permit issued November 18, 2005. See Exhibits 1, 3, 5-7 to Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss Of Defendant Board Of County Commissioners Of Linn County, Kansas ("Board's Memorandum") (Doc. # 20) filed July 14, 2006. Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of the documents or deny that it referenced them in the complaint, but it argues that the complaint contained only limited allegations about the documents and did not incorporate them in their entirety. Even though plaintiff did not expressly `incorporate the documents which are attached to the Board's motion, they are central to its claim and should be considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See GFF Corp., 130 F.3d at 1385 ( ).
The Court has also considered pleadings, court orders, motions and certified transcripts of hearings from the state. court case of Cunningham v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Linn County, Kan, Case No. 03CV312 in the District Court of Linn County, Kansas. See Exhibits 2, 4, 8-12 to Board's Memorandum (Doc. # 20). Those documents are subject to judicial notice. See Trusdale v. Bell, 85 Fed.Appx. 691, 693 (10th Cir.2003) ( ); Stack v. McCotter, 79 Fed.Appx. 383, 391 (10th Cir.2003) ( ); St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1979) ( ); Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n. 6 (9th Cir.2006) ( ); Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir.1999) ( ). Plaintiff argues that because the complaint does not refer to the transcripts of the state court hearings on February 10. and March 17, 2006, the Court should ignore them for purposes of defendants' motions. Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of the certified transcripts. Plaintiff actually participated in the hearing on February 10, 2006 and the complaint refers to both proceedings and orders entered by the state court based on those proceedings. See Complaint (Doc. # 1) ¶¶ 157-162, 168-173, 175-76. Therefore the Court overrules plaintiffs objection to use of the transcripts. Plaintiff also complains that it did not know of or participate in the hearing on March 17, 2006, but notice of a proceeding is not a requirement for the Court to take judicial notice of the certified transcript of that proceeding. Of course, the state court documents are admitted only for the purpose of establishing that various allegations and statements were made and that the hearings took place, not for the truth of the allegations or statements.
Plaintiffs complaint, as supplemented by the documents attached to the Board's motion, alleges the following facts:
On September 19, 2003, Continental submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Linn County, Kansas an application for a conditional use permit ("CUP") application and conceptual plan for Lucky Strike Mine in Linn County. Continental proposed to operate a coal mine on land within Linn County on which it had obtained mineral leases and ownership rights. On October 22, 2003, the Board granted Continental a CUP. A condition of the CUP was that Continental's mining operations "be conducted as proposed on all submitted plans and documents as amended." Complaint (Doc. # 1) 1123. The plans and documents which Continental submitted contained only two provisions which related to hours of operation. Continental's application stated that Id., ¶ 25. Continental's application also stated that, "[t]he applicant does not propose to work nights or weekends; except under rare situations, therefore the impacts of noise should be minimal." Id., ¶ 26.
On December 10, 2003, Matt and Laura Cunningham, residents of Linn County filed suit against the Board in the District Court of Linn County, Kansas. See Case No. 03-CV-312. The Cunninghams challenged the reasonableness of Continental's CUP under K. S.A. § 12-760(a), which provides as follows:
12-760. Same; appeals to district court. (a) Within 30 days of the final decision of the city or county, any person aggrieved thereby may maintain an action in the district court of the county to determine the reasonableness of such final decision.
The Cunninghams alleged that they had purchased a 113 acre tract on July 14, 2000 including a hilltop residence and other residential improvements thereon known as the Cedar Crest Lodge, a bed and breakfast facility, which overlooked Continental's proposed mining operation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Owens v. State
...converting a 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Cont'l Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1071 (D. Kan. 2007) (considering "pleadings, court orders, motions and certified transcripts of hearings from [a related] state court......
-
Bledsoe v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Jefferson
..."pleadings, court orders, motions and certified transcripts of hearings from the state court case." Cont'l Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham , 511 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1070–71 (D. Kan. 2007) (citing Trusdale v. Bell , 85 F. App'x 691, 693 (10th Cir. 2003) (noting magistrate judge took judicial notice o......
-
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't of Transp.
...of law for the court,” unless the existence of this right or interest turns on disputed factual issues.); Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham, 511 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1079 (D.Kan.2007) (the existence of a “protectable interest is a question of law for the Court.”). The plaintiffs contend they ......
-
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't of Transp.
...law for the court," unless the existence of this right or interest turns on disputed factual issues.); Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079 (D. Kan. 2007) (the existence of a "protectable interest is a question of law for the Court."). The plaintiffs contend they......