Grdinich v. Plan Comm'n for Town of Hebron Ind.
| Decision Date | 09 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO.: 2:18-CV-146-JVB-JEM |
| Parties | JON R. GRDINICH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PLAN COMMISSION FOR THE TOWN OF HEBRON INDIANA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 11], filed by Defendants Plan Commission for the Town of Hebron, Indiana; Town of Hebron, Indiana; and Town Council for the Town of Hebron, Indiana on May 7, 2018. Plaintiffs Jon R. Grdinich, Tammy K. Grdinich, and JRG, LLC filed a response on June 20, 2018. Defendants filed a reply on June 27, 2018. For the reasons below, the Court dismisses one claim and stays the remainder of this cause of action.
BACKGROUND
According to the Complaint, JRG, LLC, which is entirely owned by Jon Grdinich, purchased a two-acre property in 2015 for the purpose of constructing a home for the Grdiniches. Legal title was subsequently conveyed to the Grdiniches. The property contained a pre-existing pond, which had a marshy, mosquito-infested area. Jon Grdinich chose to improve the pond and improve drainage by clearing the overgrowth, excavating, and banking the pond. An application was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for approval. Approval was given in February 2015. Jon Grdinich then sought approval from the Town of Hebron. Jon Grdinich submitted all necessary applications and materials pursuant to Defendants' procedures as explained to him by Hebron officials. The Town of Hebron issued a permit to Jon Grdinich.
During construction, the Town of Hebron regularly inspected and observed the construction of the house and the pond improvements. The Grdiniches moved to the property on September 15, 2015, after being issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Approximately seven months later, the Grdiniches were issued a building violation for violation of Ordinance Number A, Article 2, 2-2-11 § 13. This ordinance does not exist. The violation notice said that the property must be returned to its original grade within 90 days. The violation notice did not notify the Grdiniches of their appeal rights. A subsequent letter from the president of the Hebron Plan Commission to the Grdiniches clarified that the Commission considered the pond to be not permitted.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights by taking private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment, by violating Plaintiffs' procedural and substantive due process rights, by violating Plaintiffs' equal protection rights. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs also allege that estoppel should prevent Defendants from taking action regarding Plaintiffs' pond.
On November 21, 2016, the Plan Commission for the Town of Hebron filed a complaint in Porter County, Indiana, Superior Court against Jon Grdinich and JRG, LLC, seeking a court order requiring Grdinich and JRG, LLC to remove the pond. On January 19, 2017, Jon Grdinich and JRG, LLC filed counterclaims and third party claims against the Plan Commissioner, the Town of Hebron, and the Town of Hebron Town Council.
ANALYSIS
Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint because res judicata bars this lawsuit and, alternatively, because the Colorado River abstention doctrine counsels that this case should be stayed or dismissed. Defendants state that Plaintiffs filed a counterclaim and third party complaint in the Porter County state court case with identical claims to the instant lawsuit and thatthe counterclaim and third party complaint were dismissed. Subsequent to the filing of Defendants' motion, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of five counts in the counterclaim and third party complaint. See Grdinich v. Plan Comm'n for Town of Hebron, 120 N.E.3d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Those counts remain pending in Porter County Superior Court. See Docket, Plan Comm'n for the Town of Hebron, Indiana v. JRG, LLC, No. 64D01-1611-PL-010626 (Porter Cty. Super. Ct. Nov. 21, 2016).
Though Defendants invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a motion to dismiss due to res judicata is properly brought under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Muhammad v. Oliver, 547 F.3d 874, 878 (7th Cir. 2008) ( ).
Likewise, an argument that a case should be dismissed or stayed under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), is not an argument for a finding that there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Instead, under Colorado River, a court may, in certain circumstances, decline to exercise jurisdiction that it properly has. See id. at 820 ( ).
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. Being assured of its subject matter jurisdiction, the Court now turns to Defendants' arguments in favor of dismissing or staying this case.
"Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars any claims that were litigated or could have been litigated in a previous action when three requirements are met: (1) an identity of the causes of action; (2) an identity of the parties or their privies; and (3) a final judgment on the merits." Bell v. Taylor, 827 F.3d 699, 706 (7th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The superior court judge in the state court proceeding dismissed the seven-count Second Amended Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint. Plan Comm'n for the Town of Hebron, Ind. v. JRG LLC, No. 64D01-1611-PL-10626 (Porter Super. Ct. Apr. 5, 2018). However, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Counts 1-4 and 7. Grdinich v. Plan Comm'n for Town of Hebron, 120 N.E.3d 269, 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). These counts remain pending on remand to the superior court. See Docket, Plan Comm'n for the Town of Hebron, Ind., No. 64D01-1611-PL-10626.
Final judgment has been entered as to Counts 5 and 6 of the state court action. Count 5 alleges that Defendants' actions in running an underground storm drainage line through the Grdiniches' property constitutes a taking. Count 6 requests declaratory judgment that Jon Grdinich exhausted his administrative remedies.
It appears that Plaintiffs have brought the claim regarding the storm drainage line in their federal complaint. See (Compl. ¶¶ 91-101, 103, 107, ECF No. 1). The claim for declaratory judgment regarding administrative remedies was not brought in the federal complaint. Thus, the only claim from the state court proceeding that was brought in this proceeding and against which there is a final judgment is the claim regarding the storm drainage line.
"Two claims are one for the purposes of res judicata if they are based on the same, or nearly the same, factual allegations." Czarniecki v. City of Chi., 633 F.3d 545, 550 (7th Cir. 2011)(quoting Brzostowski v. Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc., 49 F.3d 337, 339 (7th Cir. 1992)). Paragraphs 91-101 of the federal complaint, which are the factual allegations regarding the storm drainage line, are nearly identical to paragraphs 130-140 of the Second Amended Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint filed in the state court suit. Plaintiffs present no argument that the two claims are different. The Court finds that identity of claims exists.
Jon Grdinich and JRG LLC are parties to the state court lawsuit. In this federal lawsuit, Tammy Grdinich (Jon's spouse) is also a party. Defendants contend that the spouses have identical interests in the property, so identity of parties should be found. Plaintiffs do not provide a counterargument. By default, the purchase of real estate by a married couple Ind. Code § 32-17-3-1. Having no evidence or argument to the contrary, the Court finds that the Grdiniches are tenants in the entirety of the property at issue. Because "a nonparty may be bound by a judgment because she was adequately represented by someone with the same interests who [wa]s a party to the suit," Baltimore Cty. v. AT&T Corp., 735 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1078 (S.D. Ind. 2010) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 894 (2008)), the Court finds that Tammy Grdinich was adequately represented by her spouse in the state court lawsuit and can be bound by the judgment in that case.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the storm drainage line claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Grdinich, 120 N.E.3d at 280. Such a dismissal is governed by Indiana Trial Rule 12(b)(6). "A Trial Rule 12(B)(6) 'dismissal becomes an adjudication on the merits only after the complaining party opts to appeal the order instead of filing an amended complaint.'" Hartig v. Stratman, 729 N.E.2d 237, 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Platt v. State, 664 N.E.2d 357, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)). Grdinich appealed, so thejudgment on the storm drainage line count is on the merits. As noted above, it is a final judgment, so the final element of res judicata is met. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the storm drainage line claim due to res judicata.
Colorado River abstention "permits federal courts to defer to a 'concurrent state proceeding' as a matter of 'wise judicial administration.'" Adkins v. VIM Recycling, Inc., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial