Elvis Presley Enters. v. City of Memphis

• Decision Date: 21 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2:18-cv-2718,2:18-cv-2718
• Parties: ELVIS PRESLEY ENTERPRISES, INC., EPPF, LLC, AND GUESTHOUSE AT GRACELAND, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

ELVIS PRESLEY ENTERPRISES, INC., EPPF, LLC, AND GUESTHOUSE AT GRACELAND, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-2718

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

October 21, 2020

ORDER

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation for First Amendment protected conduct. Plaintiffs Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc., EPPF, LLC, and Guesthouse at Graceland, LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs" or "EPE") allege that the City of Memphis ("the City"), through its attorney, took an action adverse to EPE because EPE had filed state court lawsuits affecting the City. (D.E. No. 1 ¶¶ 71-74.) Defendant the City moved for summary judgement (the "Motion") on February 26, 2020. (D.E. No. 199.) The City supplemented its Motion on July 30, 2020, and added a motion for attorneys' fees (the Motion for Fees). (D.E. No. 310.) The parties have responded and replied. (D.E. No. 312; D.E. No. 314; D.E. No. 318-1.) The City moved to exclude testimony from consideration ("Motion to Exclude") on September 14, 2020. (D.E. No. 316.) EPE responded to the Motion to Exclude on September 28, 2020. (D.E. No. 320.) For the following reasons, the Motion to Exclude is DENIED as moot, the Motion for Fees is DENIED, and the Motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

EPE owns and operates Graceland, the former home of Elvis Presley and a tourist attraction in Memphis, Tennessee. (Pl.'s Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts, D.E. No. 312-2 ¶ 1.)

In 2014, EPE undertook the Graceland Project, a planned redevelopment of Graceland. (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, D.E. No. 312-1 ¶ 3.) To help fund the Graceland Project, EPE submitted EPE's Economic Impact Plan for Graceland Economic Development Area (the "Plan") to the City, Shelby County, Tennessee (the "County"), and the Economic Development Growth Engine Industrial Development Board of the City of Memphis and County of Shelby ("EDGE"). (Id.) The Plan included a request for tax increment financing, which would earmark a certain amount of property taxes to support the Graceland Project. (Id.) EDGE, the City, and the County approved the Plan in late 2014. (Id. ¶ 5.)

In 2017, hoping to expand the Graceland Project, EPE submitted its Supplement to Economic Impact Plan for GracelandEconomic Growth Area (the "Supplemental Plan") to EDGE. (Id. ¶ 6.) The Supplemental Plan requested approval, among other things, of an arena capable of seating 6,200 people (the "Arena"). (Id.)

While EDGE considered the Supplemental Plan, Memphis Basketball, LLC ("Memphis Basketball") contacted the City. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Fact, D.E. No. 199-1 ¶ 7.) Memphis Basketball owns and operates the Memphis Grizzlies, a National Basketball Association franchise. (Id. ¶ 1.) Memphis Basketball contended that the City's approval of the Arena would violate a contract between Memphis Basketball and the City (the "Arena Use Agreement"), prohibiting the City from providing public financing for competing entertainment facilities. (Id. ¶ 7.)

EDGE told EPE that EDGE would not move forward with the approval process for the Supplemental Plan based on Memphis Basketball's concerns. (See id. ¶ 11.)

EPE responded by filing a declaratory judgment action in Tennessee Chancery Court. (D.E. No. 312-1 ¶ 12.) EPE asked the court to interpret the Arena Use Agreement. (Id.) EPE contended that the Agreement did not prohibit the City from approving the Arena. (Id.) The Chancery Court dismissed the case, concluding that EPE had to demand that EDGE consider and vote on theSupplemental Plan before EPE could seek a declaratory judgment. (Id. ¶ 13.)

In February 2018, after the Chancery Court's decision, EPE asked EDGE to vote on the Supplemental Plan at its next meeting. (D.E. No. 312-2 ¶ 18.) EDGE did not do so. (See D.E. No. 312-1 ¶ 15.) EPE sued EDGE attempting to force EDGE to vote on the Supplemental Plan. (Complaint, D.E. No. 1 ¶ 56.) Eventually, however, EDGE approved the Supplemental Plan but conditioned its approval on a court order or written agreement declaring that approval of the Arena would not breach the Arena Use Agreement. (Id. ¶ 14)

The County also approved the request in the Supplemental Plan for increased tax increment financing to support the expanded Graceland Project. (Id. ¶ 16.) As EDGE had done, the County conditioned its approval on a court order or written agreement declaring that approval of the Arena would not breach the Arena Use Agreement. (Id.)

In late June 2018, EPE filed a declaratory judgment action in Tennessee Chancery Court against the City, Memphis Basketball, and the County to determine whether approval of the Arena would violate the Arena Use Agreement. (Id. ¶ 17)

While that case was pending, EPE sought to move forward with parts of the expanded Graceland Project. (See D.E. No. 312-1 ¶ 19.) EPE submitted its Application for PlannedDevelopment Approval (the "Development Application") to the Memphis and Shelby County Office of Planning and Development (the "OPD") in August 2018. (Id.) The Development Application included the Arena. (Id. ¶ 21.)

The OPD neither approved nor denied the Development Application. (See id. ¶ 27.) Instead, it decided to table consideration of the Application indefinitely, until the Chancery Court litigation over the Arena had concluded. (Id.) The OPD's decision followed instructions from the Memphis City Attorney. (See id.) In an email, the OPD planning director told EPE that:

Earlier this week, the City Attorney requested that [the Development Application] be deferred until the pending litigation in Chancery Court is concluded. I have conferred with my in-house Division attorney and he agrees. Therefore, [the Development Application] will not be considered . . . until such time as the pending legislation [sic] is concluded.

(Id.)

EPE had two administrative options following deferral of the Development Application. (Id. ¶ 35.) EPE could resubmit the Development Application without including the Arena as part of the application. (Id.) EPE could also appeal the decision to defer consideration of the Development Application by the OPD planning director. (Id.) EPE has not taken either administrative action. (See id. ¶ 36.)

EPE filed its complaint in this case on October 16, 2018. (D.E. No. 1.) EPE alleges that the City, through the city attorney, blocked the OPD from considering the Development Application. (D.E. No. 1 ¶ 82.) EPE alleges that the City did so for two reasons. (Id. ¶¶ 82, 91.) The first is punitive. The City wanted to punish EPE for disagreeing with the City about the contract with Memphis Basketball, obtaining EDGE and the County's conditional approvals of the Supplemental Plan, suing the City twice in Chancery Court, and commenting publicly about those matters. (Id. ¶ 82.) The second reason is coercive. The City wanted to deter EPE from maintaining its latest suit against the City and from pursuing similar conduct designed to protect EPE's rights and interests. (Id. ¶ 91.)

On November 6, 2018, the City filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (D.E. No. 8.) The motion to dismiss was granted on EPE's state law claims of interference with contractual relationships and interference with business relationships and denied on EPE's § 1983 claim. (D.E. No. 63.)

II. Jurisdiction

The Court has federal question jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have original jurisdiction "of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." EPE asserts a right to reliefagainst the City under § 1983. That claim arises under the laws of the United States.

III. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, on motion of a party, the court "shall grant summary judgment if 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). "[T]he moving party is entitled to summary judgment when the nonmoving party 'fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" George v. Youngstown State University, 966 F.3d 446, 458 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)).

The non-moving party has the duty to point out specific evidence in the record sufficient to justify a jury decision in its favor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); InterRoyal Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F.2d 108, 111 (6th Cir. 1989). When confronted with a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine dispute for trial exists if the evidence is "'such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" See Wasek v. Arrow Energy Servs., 682 F.3d 463, 467(6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). "[I]n order to survive a summary judgement motion, the non-moving party 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.'" Lossia v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., 895 F.3d 423, 428 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)).

Although summary judgment must be used carefully, it "is an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action[,] rather than a disfavored procedural shortcut." FDIC v. Jeff Miller Stables, 573 F.3d 289, 294 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

IV. Analysis

A. Ripeness

The City argues that EPE's retaliation claim is not ripe because there has not been a final decision on the Development Application. (D.E. No. 310.) The Court rejected the City's ripeness claim at the motion to dismiss...