Fontain v. Lane

• Decision Date: 11 October 2022
• Docket Number: 1:19-cv-304
• Parties: MARCUS FONTAIN, Plaintiff, v. APRIL L. LANE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

MARCUS FONTAIN, Plaintiff, v. APRIL L. LANE, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-304

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

October 11, 2022

McFarland, J.

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Karen L. Litkovitz Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Marcus Fontain filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 26, 2019, against April L. Lane Jeffrey S. Lane, Harjinder Sandhu, Jasreen K. Sandhu, Brian J. O'Connell, Zachary D. Prendergast, and Does 1 through 11.^[1] Plaintiff alleges that defendants, a court-appointed receiver, lawyers, and others, violated his federal constitutional rights through their actions in connection with a state court lawsuit concerning his ownership rights of the Dina Towers Condominium Building (“Dina Towers”) in Hamilton County, Ohio. (Doc. 1). This matter is before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 8, 9) and plaintiff's response in opposition (Doc. 46). This matter is also before the Court on plaintiff's request, and amended request, for judicial notice of the ruling of the Ohio First District Court of Appeals under Fed.R.Evid. 201(b) (Docs. 12, 13) plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and supplement the complaint (Doc. 16), plaintiff's omnibus motion to strike (Doc. 23), plaintiff's motions to set the case on the trial calendar and motion for electronic filing privileges (Docs. 24, 26, 64), plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 50), defendants' response in opposition to plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Docs. 53, 56) plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of sanctions for fraud upon the Court for submission of false and misleading pleadings (Doc. 57), and plaintiff's “motion for declaratory judgment, equitable and injunctive relief, motion for disciplinary referral, criminal referrals and for sanctions and rule 57 speedy hearing” (Doc. 62). The Court's previous stay of this matter is lifted in light of the conclusion of plaintiff's related state court proceedings.

I. Complaint and Procedural Background

The complaint alleges that plaintiff has a 60% ownership, or 18 units, in Dina Towers. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Harjinder and Jasreen Sandhu, owners of eight units in Dina Towers, filed a lawsuit in state court to divest plaintiff of his property ownership rights. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 29-30). Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven Martin appointed a receiver to manage the affairs of the Dina Towers during the litigation. (Id. at ¶ 40). Plaintiff alleges that the case ultimately settled, was dismissed with prejudice, and is therefore “procedurally closed.” (Id. at ¶ 32). Plaintiff states that the settlement agreement allowed the receiver to manage Dina Towers for six months, and the receivership therefore ended on February 11, 2019. (Id. At ¶ 42).

Plaintiff alleges that despite the case being dismissed with prejudice, the defendants refiled a lawsuit over the property and numerous motions remain pending in state court. (Id. at ¶¶ 32, 50). Plaintiff alleges that “[o]ne of the Motions pending ins [sic] asking for an Order to- allow the foreclosure-on the [sic] all the owners of the condominium units, and especially the Fontain's to pay for a sham deficit of the Receiver and to pay for the Receiver's lawyer.” (Id. at ¶ 32). Plaintiff alleges that after the receivership ended, the state court issued a restraining order against plaintiff and his wife and agreed to extend the receivership “in violation of the Agreed Entry of Dismissal with prejudice and in breach of the Settlement Agreement.” (Id. at ¶¶ 62-63).

Plaintiff alleges that the state court, which was without jurisdiction over the matter, scheduled a hearing for April 30, 2019 to hear the pending motions in the action. (Id. at ¶ 54).

On April 26, 2019, plaintiff filed the instant federal action based on the actions set forth above and alleging violations of his rights under the due process clause, the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and state law. (Id. at ¶¶ 113-178). Plaintiff also sought a temporary restraining order from this federal Court enjoining “the Defendants from continuing the litigation in the State case pending further proceedings in this Court. . . .” (Doc. 4 at 2). Plaintiff argued that Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Terry Nestor, who replaced Judge Martin, had no authority to extend the receivership authorized by Judge Martin. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff alleged that defendants have violated his constitutional rights by obtaining a restraining order against him and extending the receivership beyond February 11, 2019. (Id.). Plaintiff also filed an amended motion for a TRO. (Doc. 5). In an affidavit accompanying the motion, plaintiff continues to express discontent with the state court proceedings and alleges that the state court is devoid of jurisdiction over the case. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that the state court continues to allow defendants to breach the settlement agreement reached in August 2018 and violate the agreed entry of dismissal with prejudice in violation of his due process rights. (Id. at 4).

On May 9, 2019, the undersigned recommended that this Court abstain from exercising its jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims against defendants pending the conclusion of the state court proceedings. (Doc. 7). Thereafter, the District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 11).

Defendants then filed motions to dismiss in May 2019 (Docs. 8, 9), and plaintiff has filed nine motions (Docs. 12, 13, 16, 23, 24, 26, 50, 62, 64), all of which remain pending in light of the Court's stay of this case pending the conclusion of the state court proceedings.

During the stay of the federal proceedings, this federal Court requested periodic status reports from the parties, and what follows are the updates on the state court proceedings.

While this federal court case was stayed, plaintiff pursued an appeal of the receivership action, including the imposition of costs by the state trial court against plaintiff. The Ohio First District Court of Appeals remanded for reconsideration of costs plaintiff was ordered to pay. On remand, the trial court determined that plaintiff did not owe any additional monies for the receivership fees and costs. See H&R Cincy Props., LLC v. Fontain, Case No. C1900574, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 558, at *12 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2021). Plaintiff did not appeal and the trial court's decision in the receivership action became final. See H&R Cincy Props., LLC v. Fontain, No. A1705644 (Ohio Com. Pl. Dec. 12, 2019) (docket sheet); Ohio App. R. 3(A), 4(A)(1) (providing for 30 days to file an appeal).

In the meantime, plaintiff filed a pro se action against Harjinder and Jasreen Sandhu, H&R Cincy Properties, LLC, and Brian O'Connell (the Sandhu defendants) and the receiver appointed in the receivership action, the receiver's wife, and the receiver's counsel (the receiver defendants). See Fontain v. Sandhu, No. A-1901296 (Ohio Com. Pl. Dec. 12, 2019). The Sandhu defendants moved to dismiss Fontain's claims, arguing that the action was an impermissible collateral attack on the rulings in the receivership action. The receiver defendants also filed a motion to dismiss. On December 12, 2019, the trial court granted both motions to dismiss, agreeing that Fontain's claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the judgment entered against Fontain in the receivership action. See Id. (Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss, 12/13/2019; Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' Claims with Prejudice, 12/13/2019).

Plaintiff appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. See Fontain v. Sandhu, No. C- 200011, 2021 WL 3520944, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2021).^[2] That court summarized the two inter-related state court proceedings as follows:

Case No. A-1705644 [the receivership action]

In October of 2017, a complaint was filed against plaintiff-appellant Marcus Fontain, and other defendants alleging illegal actions involving a condominium association. Plaintiffs in that action moved for the appointment of a receiver to take control of the association and manage the property during the litigation. On August 10, 2018, the trial court in that case appointed Prodigy Properties as the receiver. * * *

Shortly after the receiver was appointed, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. As part of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that the receivership would end on February 11, 2019. The receiver was not a party to this agreement. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order on September 26, 2018, dismissing all claims against all defendants, except for the claims against Cinvexco, LLC. The trial court's entry expressly left those claims pending. The entry also stated:

In addition, the Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of a Receiver, entered on August 10, 2018, shall remain in effect to and including February 11, 2019, at which time the Receiver shall make his final report to the Court, and the parties shall submit to the Court a Final Entry.

The plaintiffs and the receiver subsequently filed respective motions to extend the receivership. On February 13, 2019, the trial court extended the receivership “until further order of the court.” The trial court ultimately terminated the receivership in its final entry on September 12, 2019[.] * * * On October 9, 2019, defendants in that action appealed the trial court's final entry, arguing only that the trial court erred in requiring the dismissed defendants to pay the costs of the receiver incurred after February 11, 2019[.] The assignment of error was sustained, and the cause was remanded to the trial court to reassess fees. For ease of reading, this cause will be referred to as the “receivership action.”

The Current Action

...