Gadd v. City of Warren

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: PEARSON, J.
• Decision Date: 31 December 2014
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 4:13cv1686
• Citation: Gadd v. City of Warren, CASE NO. 4:13cv1686 (N.D. Ohio Dec 31, 2014)
• Parties: LINDA J. GADD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WARREN, et al., Defendants.

LINDA J. GADD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WARREN, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:13cv1686

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

December 31, 2014

PEARSON, J.

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 26]

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants City of Warren, Warren City Counsel, and Councilmen Bob Dean, Eddie Colbert, and Vincent Flask. ECF No. 26. The Court has been advised, having reviewed the record, including the parties' briefs and the applicable law. For the reasons provided below, the Court hereby grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In 1995, Plaintiff Linda Gadd, along with her husband Richard, purchased the Olympic Inn, a bar in the city of Warren. ECF No. 35 at 14. Gadd and her husband had operated the bar—renamed Gadd's Olympic Inn—until Richard passed away in 2009. ECF No. 35 at 22. Gadd continued to operate the bar following her husband's death. ECF No. 35 at 23. By 2011, however, Gadd began to consider selling Gadd's Olympic Inn because of the hours and the bar's location. ECF No. 35 at 24-25. The demographics of the neighborhood surrounding the bar had changed from 2009 to 2011. Gadd testified that she heard gun shots, fights and other loud noises emanating from the Olympic Inn's parking lot at night. ECF No. 35 at 25-27. A local gang alsorobbed a customer and the bar in 2011. ECF No. 35 at 57-58. During the first seven months of 2012, the Warren Police reported being called to the premises of Gadd's Olympic Inn twenty-seven (27) times to break up fights and investigate gunshots heard in the area. ECF No. 26-6 at 2. On numerous occasions, police found weapons and spent shell casings in the bar's parking lot. ECF No. 26-6 at 2.

On the night of August 4, 2012, Anthony Price, Sr. got into a fight with a patron of the Olympic Inn. ECF No. 35 at 53. After Price left the bar, someone shot at him while he was in the Olympic Inn's parking lot. ECF No. 26-3 ¶ 4. In response, Price retrieved the gun he kept in his car to defend himself. ECF No. 26-3 ¶ 5. Price started shooting across the Olympic Inn's parking lot in different directions in an attempt to scare off his attacker. ECF No. 26-3 ¶ 6. In the process of defending himself, Price shot a resident of the neighborhood. ECF No. 26-6 at 2. Pamela Dial had been asleep in her home when the bullet fired by Price went through her walls and struck her in the head. ECF No. 26-6 at 2. Gadd closed the Olympic Inn shortly thereafter. ECF No. 35 at 49.

On August 8, 2012, Warren City Council issued a notice for a Special Meeting to be held on August 13, 2012 for the purpose of voting to object to the renewal of Gadd's Olympic Inn's liquor license. ECF No. 26-4 at 2. The notice of special meeting was provided to local media by the Clerk of Warren City Council. ECF No. 26-4 at 1. At some point between the shooting and August 10, 2012 Gadd testified that she learned, through her daughter, that City Council had been considering taking away the bar's license, but that Defendant Vince Flask wanted to meet with Gadd to try to "resolve some of the issues." ECF No. 35 at 64. It was agreed that Gaddwould meet with Flask at a Panera restaurant in Warren on August 10, 2012. ECF No. 35 at 61. Gadd asked her sister Loretta and family friend John Homilitas to attend the meeting at Panera with her. ECF No. 35 at 72.

The parties dispute what occurred during the August 10th meeting at Panera. Gadd maintains that Defendant Eddie Colbert arrived at the meeting late; and told Gadd that the City Council had already decided to object to her license renewal and that Gadd should not attend the Special Council meeting. ECF No. 35 at 72. Gadd further testified that Colbert swore at her during the meeting, and was unmoved by Gadd's requests to work out the problems with the bar so as to not interfere with a sale Gadd believed she had arranged.¹ ECF No. 35 at 73-74. Homilitas recalled Colbert saying something about guaranteeing Gadd's Olympic Inn would not reopen, but did not remember any person at Panera discussing Gadd's liquor license or that a vote had already occurred. ECF No. 34 at 8-9. Colbert denies making any of these comments. According to Colbert, he stated that no decisions would be made prior to the Special Meeting. ECF No. 33 at 21. Colbert also testified that he was surprised that, during the meeting at Panera, Gadd had denied that the Olympic Inn had problems with crime and violence. ECF No. 33 at 22.

Gadd attended the Special Meeting. She testified that Defendant Bob Dean (through a mutual acquaintance) had encouraged her to attend the meeting. ECF No. 35 at 82. Gaddarrived after the meeting had started. ECF No. 35 at 91. Consequently, she did not sign up to speak at the beginning of the meeting—an opportunity afforded to all Warren residents. ECF No. 33 at 34. Gadd testified that she lost the vote and left after she saw Defendant Dean signal her to leave. ECF No. 35 at 92. Colbert testified that he witnessed Gadd arrive late to the meeting and that she had left before council voted to object to her license. ECF No. 33 at 34. City Council unanimously passed the resolution to object to the renewal of a liquor license for Gadd's Olympic Inn. ECF No. 26-4 at 4.

The Council's resolution did not revoke Gadd's liquor license. Rather, the objection to renewal was submitted to the Ohio Division of Liquor Control pursuant to R.C. § 4303.292. The Division of Liquor Control held a hearing to evaluate whether the Division would renew Gadd's liquor license. ECF No. 26-6 at 1. Gadd testified at this hearing, and had the opportunity to present evidence from other witnesses. ECF No. 35 at 101. The Division rejected Gadd's request for renewal of her liquor license. The report issued by the Division indicates that it based its conclusion on the testimony presented at the hearing as well as an independent investigation. ECF No. 26-6 at 1. Specifically, the Division found that Gadd's Olympic Inn had been connected to several violent events escalating in seriousness during 2012. ECF No. 26-6 at 2. The Division also considered evidence presented by the Warren City Police about the frequency of gun related activity in the area surrounding the bar. ECF No. 26-6 at 2.

Gadd exercised her right to appeal the Division's decision to the Liquor Control Commission. ECF No. 26-7. The Liquor Control Commission also conducted a hearing, during which Gadd testified and had the opportunity to present other evidence. ECF No. 35 at 101.The Liquor Control Commission affirmed the decision of the Division of Liquor Control. ECF No. 26-8. Gadd then appealed this decision to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. ECF No. 26-9. The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the decision not to renew Gadd's liquor license, finding that ample evidence supported the Commission's denial of Gadd's liquor license ECF No. 26-10. Specifically, the Court of Common Pleas noted that numerous witnesses complained of the violence of the area surrounding Gadd's Olympic Inn, and that these incidents continued despite numerous attempts taken by Gadd to curb the violence. ECF No. 26-10 at 5. The Court found this testimony was "reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supporting that the operation of Olympic Inn bar not only threatened public safety and the safety of the responding officers, but placed a drain on the resources of the Warren Police Department." ECF No. 26-10 at 5-6.

Gadd filed this instant lawsuit on August 2, 2013, alleging eight causes of action. ECF No. 1. Gadd's Complaint alleges that she was deprived of her constitutional right to procedural due process when her license was not renewed. The Complaint also alleges numerous state law claims, including violation of sunshine laws, tortious interference with contract and business relationship, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and slander of title. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Gadd's claims. ECF No. 26. Gadd opposed the motion (ECF No. 36); Defendants replied. ECF No. 39. The matter is ripe for adjudication.

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriately granted when the pleadings, the discovery anddisclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show "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); see also Johnson v. Karnes, 398 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2005). The moving party is not required to file affidavits or other similar materials negating a claim on which its opponent bears the burden of proof, so long as the movant relies upon the absence of the essential element in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party must "show that the non-moving party has failed to establish an essential element of his case upon which he would bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial." Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 403 (6th Cir. 1992).

After the movant makes a properly supported motion, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute. An opposing party may not simply rely on its pleadings; rather, it must "produce evidence that results in a conflict of material fact to be resolved by a jury." Cox v. Ky. Dep't of Transp., 53 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1995). To defeat the motion, the non-moving party must "show that there is doubt as to the material facts and that the record, taken as a whole, does not lead to a judgment for the movant." Guarino, 980 F.2d at 403. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party when deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio...