Haire v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Clerk of Courts
| Decision Date | 04 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1308 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER HAIRE, Plaintiff, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the following, fully briefed motions:
Plaintiff Christopher Haire contends, among other things, that the charging of a $6.95 convenience fee to plaintiffs who filed civil lawsuits online in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas from January 1, 2011 to September 9, 2014, absent authorization under Ohio Revised Code 301.28, constituted a violation of their substantive due process rights under the United States Constitution.
Because the Court finds no constitutional violation, the Court dismisses with prejudice the federal claim asserted in Count IV of the Complaint. Because the Court dismisses the federal claim, the Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss without prejudice the state-law claims asserted in Counts I-III.
On June 13, 2014, Plaintiff Christopher Haire filed a putative class action on behalf of all litigants filing civil cases in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (the "County Court"), between January 1, 2011 through September 9, 2014, via the court's electronic filing system. He brought the case against Andrea Rocco in her official capacity as Clerk of Courts, and the case was assigned No. CV-14-828279. The state court complaint sought a declaration, under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2721, that the Clerk unlawfully assessed and collected a convenience fee from civil litigants who filed their lawsuits via the court's electronic filing system. Plaintiff claimed that the convenience fee was unlawful because it was not authorized pursuant to O.R.C. 301.28. Specifically, Plaintiff asserted that when filing his complaint electronically, the payment screen of the e-filing system showed, prior to confirmation, that he would be charged a convenience fee of $6.95 in addition to the $250 filing fee. He accepted the convenience fee that he now asserts is illegal.
On September 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint for the purpose of adding additional Cuyahoga County defendants along with the vendors whose financial transaction devices were used to accept the filing fees. He also sought to bring two state-law declaratory judgment claims and a state-law claim for conversion. After extensive discovery including the deposition of Ms. Rocco, and before a ruling on his motion for leave, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the state case on September 15, 2015.
That same day, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint in federal court, bringing a putative class action "on behalf of all customers and users of Cuyahoga County services who [were] charged a 'convenience fee' for using a financial transaction device from January 1, 2011through September 9, 2015, while paying for county services." (Doc #: 1 ¶ 56.) He brought this case against the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Court, the County's Treasurer and Fiscal Officer, vendors Point and Pay, LLC and Official Payments Corporation,1 and John Doe county and vendor defendants. The instant complaint brings two state-law declaratory judgment claims, a state-law conversion claim, and a federal constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of his substantive due process rights.
The Cuyahoga County Defendants, Official Payments, and Point and Pay have moved to dismiss the claims under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). The Cuyahoga County Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the sole federal claim because (1) Plaintiff fails to assert a constitutional violation,
(2) the collection of a small administrative fee for filing complaints using the Court's electronic filing system is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, and (3) passing along the $6.95 convenience fees to e-filing users does not shock the conscience. The County Defendants also assert that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue the Fiscal Officer and Treasurer because he has suffered no injury at their hands; and he is without standing to assert the state-law claims because the challenged provision of the Ohio Revised Code does not create a private right of action.
Official Payments seeks dismissal of the federal claim against it because Plaintiff has failed to assert a constitutional violation and Official Payments is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983 claims. Official Payments also contends that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue it.
Point and Pay asks the Court to dismiss the federal claim because Plaintiff has failed to state a constitutional violation and Point and Pay is not a state actor. Point and Pay also asks the Court to dismiss the conversion claim because the improper charge of convenience fees does not amount to conversion, as a matter of law and, in any event, the conversion claims relating to January 1, 2011, through July 1, 2011, are time barred.
Under O.R.C. 301.28, a county may authorize its departments to accept payments via financial transaction devices after January 1, 1999, only upon passing a resolution authorizing such payments. (Compl. ¶ 12.) The resolution authorizing acceptance of payments via financial transaction devices may also pass on the surcharges from the provider onto the payee as a "convenience fee." (Id. ¶ 13.)
On November 3, 2009, county voters approved the adoption of a county charter form of government to replace the statutory form of government governed by three county commissioners.
On January 1, 2011, the County became fully operational under the charter adopted by the voters in November 2009. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Article 13.06 of the Charter addressed how laws in force at the time of transition to a charter government would be treated. Specifically, Article 13.06 provides that all resolutions from the prior commissioner form of county government were repealed or superseded to the extent they were inconsistent or interfered with the effective operation of the Charter or of ordinances or resolutions enacted pursuant to the Charter. (Id. ¶ 22.)
// On April 12, 2011, the County entered into an agreement with Point and Pay, LLC for the purpose of accepting payment via financial transaction devices. (Compl. ¶ 31.) On October 14, 2011, the County entered into an agreement with Official Payments Corp. for the same purpose. (Id. ¶ 36.)
In May of 2013, the County Court began phasing in electronic filing of designated civil cases in an effort to modernize and streamline the litigation process and make case management more efficient. (See generally In Re: Electronic Filing of Court Documents, Temporary Admin. Order, Doc #: 30, Ex. R.) The Court directed the Clerk to "establish a means to accept payment of deposits and fees electronically, including the process for filing an affidavit of indigency." (Id., Sec. XIV(B).) The Clerk thereafter offered litigants the ability to pay filing fees and costs online using credit or debit cards via its agreements with Point and Pay and Official Payments, passing the vendor's cost of processing online payments of fees and costs to the persons litigating cases in that Court. However, the Court directed the Clerk to "continue to accept for filing any document in paper form in all cases until further order of the Court." (Id., Sec. III.)
On June 1, 2014, electronic filing of court documents in all civil cases became mandatory. (Compl. ¶ 25.) It is undisputed that, to this day, the Clerk of Courts does not turn away civil litigants who wish to file their actions in person and pay the filing fees via check, money order, or cash without incurring a convenience fee. However, the only way to pay filing fees when filing a civil suit online is via credit card, debit card or electronic check and payment of a $6.95 fee for the convenience of doing so. (Id. ¶ 26.)
On June 12, 2014, eleven days after electronic filing of civil cases became mandatory, Plaintiff filed a civil suit in the County Court via the Court's electronic filing system. (Compl.¶¶ 27-28.) In addition to the $250 filing fee, he was forced to pay a convenience fee of $6.95. (Id. 29-30.) Plaintiff maintains that, because the County had failed to pass a resolution authorizing such payments following the change of government from home rule to a charter government, the assessment of a convenience fee was unauthorized. Because the convenience fee was unauthorized by County resolution, it automatically constituted a substantive due process violation.
On August 12, 2014, the County Executive introduced proposed ordinance number O2014-0025, which would allow the County to accept payments via financial transaction devices. (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41.) Plaintiff asserts that the ordinance was prompted, at least in part, in response to his filing of the state court case two months earlier. (Id. ¶ 39.) On September 9, 2014, the ordinance was passed under Chapter 718 of the Cuyahoga County Code, and was to be applied retroactively. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 43, 53-54.)
IV. Standard of Review
When determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, accepting all factual allegations as true, and determine whether the Complaint contains "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds for relief "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. Although a Complaint need not...
To continue reading
Request your trial