Elkins v. Dist. of D.C.
Decision Date | 03 May 2010 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 04-480 (RMC) |
Citation | 710 F.Supp.2d 53 |
Parties | Laura ELKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Gregory Thomas Jaeger, Roger Joseph Marzulla, Nancie G. Marzulla, Marzulla & Marzulla, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Martha J. Mullen, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Andrew J. Saindon, D.C. Office of Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
This case concerns the seizure of documents at the home of Laura Elkins and John Robbins pursuant to a search warrant that authorized only a search of the home. The parties have litigated the legality of both the search and the seizure of documents since 2004, and this Court held that the search was valid, but that Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to the unreasonable seizure of documents. Trial was scheduled for April 2010 to determine whether Plaintiffs were entitled to compensatory and/or punitive damages. However, at the pretrial conference on March 8, 2010, Plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment for nominal damages against the remaining defendants (Toni Williams-Cherry, Denzil Noble, and Gregory Love) in furtherance of Plaintiffs' plan to appeal this Court's ruling that the search was valid.1 Plaintiffs believe that their claim that Defendants conducted an illegal search of their home supports compensatory and punitive damages. As explained below, Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment will be granted in part and judgment for nominal damages will be entered against Toni Williams-Cherry and Denzil Noble. Gregory Love will be dismissed as a defendant.
Plaintiffs obtained building permits and approvals from the D.C. Historic Preservation Office and the Building and Land Regulation Administration of the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs ("DCRA") for construction at their historic home on Capitol Hill. After constructionbegan, city officials believed that Plaintiffs were building in violation of their permits, and they obtained a warrant to conduct a search of Plaintiffs' home in order to find evidence of illegal construction. The officers inspected the residence and took photos. Also, although the warrant did not authorize it, officials seized certain documents during the search.
In the context of proceedings on the District of Columbia's notice to Plaintiffs of proposed revocation of the building permits, Plaintiffs and the District litigated the legality of both the search and seizure before the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH"). On November 22, 2005, the Hearing Officer found that while the search was valid, the seizure of documents was not constitutionally permissible because it was not expressly authorized by the search warrant, citing Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 559, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). See Pls.' Mot. for Partial Summ. J. [Dkt. # 42], Ex. 21 ("OAH Order on Mot. to Suppress") at 13-16, 21. This Court held that collateral estoppel precluded the relitigation of these issues and thus that Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to the unreasonable seizure of documents. See Elkins I, 527 F.Supp.2d at 46. This Court explained:
Subsequently, this Court determined that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover nominal damages for the unconstitutional seizure and at trial they might recover compensatory and/or punitive damages caused by the document seizure alone. Elkins v. District of Columbia, 610 F.Supp.2d 52, 63-64 (D.D.C.2009) (" Elkins II ") 3 This Court clarified in a later opinion that "Plaintiffs may not proceed on any claim for damages caused by actions other than the seizure alone, for example, on any claim for damages caused by the search of their home including the entering of children's rooms and the opening of drawers, damages caused by the permit revocation proceeding, damages caused by the April 24, 2002 stop-work order, or damages caused by any other stop-work order." Elkins v. District of Columbia, 636 F.Supp.2d 29, 32 (D.D.C.2009) (" Elkins III ").4
Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of both Elkins I and Elkins III, and reconsideration was denied. See Elkins v. District of Columbia, 685 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2010) (Elkins IV). In Elkins IV, the Plaintiffs argued that this Court should not have applied collateral estoppel in Elkins I because the underlying decision of the Hearing Officer was patently erroneous. See Winder v. Erste, 511 F.Supp.2d 160, 176 (D.D.C.2007) (, )aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 566 F.3d 209 (D.C.Cir.2009). The Hearing Officer relied on Groh, 540 U.S. at 558, 124 S.Ct. 1284, in finding that the seizure of documents was not constitutionally permissible because the seizure was not expressly authorized by the warrant. Under Groh, a search warrant's lack of particularity regarding the items to be seized caused the Supreme Court to find that the warrant was invalid in its entirety. Id. Plaintiffs argued that the warrant at issue here should have been found to be similarly invalid in its entirety, and thus Plaintiff should be permitted to pursue damages caused by the search of their home.
This Court rejected Plaintiffs' argument, explaining that Plaintiffs overstated Groh's application to this case:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McGee
...the granting of a building permit on implied consent to search the premises without a warrant? See Elkins v. District of Columbia , 710 F. Supp. 2d 53, 56–61, 65 (D.D.C. 2010), vacated on other grounds , 690 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In short, the replacement of the established, fact-based......
-
Elkins v. Columbia
...remaining defendants, but stipulated that she was entitled to no more than nominal damages from each. See Elkins v. District of Columbia (Elkins V), 710 F.Supp.2d 53, 60 (D.D.C.2010). Finally, in May 2010, the district court entered judgment against Noble and Williams–Cherry and assessed no......
-
Uhar & Co., Inc. v. Jacob
.......May 3, 2010.710 F.Supp.2d 47 Gary Charles Adler, Roetzel & Andress, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Kenneth A. Martin, The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, McLean, VA, for ......
-
Elkins v. Dist. of Columbia
...defendants, but stipulated that she was entitled to no more than nominal damages from each. See Elkins v. District of Columbia (Elkins V), 710 F. Supp. 2d 53, 60 (D.D.C. 2010). Finally, in May 2010, the district court entered judgment against Noble and Williams-Cherry and assessed nominal d......