McClure v. Lincoln Cnty. & Lincoln Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
| Decision Date | 22 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-00324-EJL-CWD |
| Parties | RAYBURN "RAY" McCLURE, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN COUNTY AND LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CRESLEY McConnell, and ROY HUBERT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS and MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO INCLUDE PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DKT. 10, 27); AND
Pending before the Court are three motions. First, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Idaho state court's denial of Defendants' request to issue a protective order and to strike purportedly attorney-client privileged information from an affidavit. (Dkt. 10.) Second, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss five of McClure's claims, and also a motion to dismiss Hubert and McConnell as defendants named in their official capacities. (Dkt. 10.) Third, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to include claims for punitive damages. (Dkt. 27.)
The Court heard oral argument from the parties on all three motions on February 3, 2016. (Dkt. 33.) After review of the record, consideration of the parties' arguments and relevant legal authorities, and otherwise being fully advised, the Court issues the following report and recommendation on the motion to partially dismiss and motion for leave to amend, and order on the motion for reconsideration.
This is the second lawsuit between Plaintiff Rayburn McClure and Defendant Lincoln County. It is necessary to provide some background of the first action (McClure I) to gain a clearer understanding of this second action presently before the Court.
In September of 2008, Lincoln County awarded McClure a one year janitorial contract. McClure I 2nd Am. Compl., ¶ VII. (Dkt. 30-3 at 3.) In October of 2009, McClure rebid the janitorial contract in competition with Suzanne McConnell and McConnell Construction. Id. at ¶ VIII. At that time, Suzanne McConnell held the position of Lincoln County Planning and Zoning Administrator. Id. at ¶ IX. Suzanne McConnell lost the bid; Lincoln County awarded McClure an additional two year janitorial contract for 2011 and 2012. Id.
In January of 2011, Suzanne McConnell was elected Lincoln County Clerk. Id. at ¶ XII. McClure was appointed to fill the position of Planning and Zoning Administrator.Id. at ¶ XIV. Lincoln County awarded McClure an additional contract for 2013. Id. at ¶ XLIII. McClure alleged in McClure I that Suzanne McConnell continued in her efforts to have McClure removed from the janitorial contract by damaging his business reputation after losing the bid from October of 2009 through May of 2012. Id. at ¶ XXXV.
In July of 2012, McClure filed suit against Suzanne McConnell in both her individual capacity and her official capacity as county clerk, Lincoln County, and the Lincoln County Board Commissioners, alleging defamation and a host of other claims in state court in the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss., § A. (Dkt. 2-3 at 2.) In January of 2014, McClure I settled and the case was dismissed. 2nd. Am. Compl., ¶ 9. (Dkt. 6-1 at 3.)
In this lawsuit, McClure alleges the issues stemming from McClure I caused concern throughout the local media. Id. at ¶ 10. McClure alleges there were media reports and general questions pertaining to Suzanne McConnell's actions and her responses to his claims in McClure I. Id. As a result, on April 15, 2014, McClure spoke to the media about the details of McClure I. Id.; see also Pl.'s Motion for Leave to Amend to Include Punitive Damages, Ex. 4. (Dkt. 27-4 at. 1.)
On April 28, 2014, McClure was terminated by the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners from his position as the Lincoln County Planning and Zoning Administrator. 2nd. Am. Compl., ¶ 15. (Dkt. 6-1 at 4.) McClure alleges the reasons for his termination stem wholly from the Board's animosity toward McClure, which arose in part due to McClure's media interviews regarding McClure I. Id. at ¶ 11.
The Board consists of three elected Commissioners. At all times relevant to the allegations in the action, those members included: Cresley McConnell (Suzanne McConnell's husband), Roy Hubert, and Chairwoman, Marsha Hiatt. Hiatt was McClure's designated supervisor. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. On April 24, 2014, the Board met in an executive session to discuss McClure and his employment with the County. Id. at ¶ 11. Ultimately, the Board decided it would formally discipline McClure for granting interviews to the media with regard to McClure I. Id. The Board opted not to terminate McClure's employment because he had received no prior verbal or written disciplinary actions. Id. By this point, Hiatt and Lincoln County Prosecutor Scott Paul had formally recused themselves from matters relating to McClure's employment.
On April 28, 2014, Hubert and McConnell invited McClure to attend an executive session of the Board of Commissions, where they provided McClure with a written notice of termination of his employment. 2nd. Am. Compl., ¶ 15. (Dkt. 6-1 at 4.) During themeeting, McClure requested three times for his attorney to be present; his requests were denied. Id. at ¶ 15. Because the decision to terminate McClure's employment was different than the agreement the Board had reached during the executive session on April 24, 2014 (to discipline McClure), McClure alleges, that at some point between the two meetings, Hubert and McConnell had to have met in secret to discuss McClure's termination. Id. at ¶ 16. If this was the case, no notice was given with regard to this "secret" executive session. Id.
McClure alleges McConnell and Hubert had irreconcilable conflicts of interests and should have recused themselves from matters related to his employment. 2nd. Am. Compl., ¶ 18. (Dkt. 6-1 at 4.) McClure alleges his termination provided McConnell with a direct benefit because the Board later appointed Suzanne McConnell to replace McClure as Planning and Zoning Administrator. Id. at ¶ 20. McClure further alleges Hubert had pending actions before McClure as the Planning and Zoning Administrator and that terminating McClure's employment facilitated a positive decision on Hubert's pending actions, which McClure had unfavorably viewed. Id. at ¶ 22, 23.
Pursuant to the Lincoln County Personnel Manual, the procedure to dispute termination of employment is to provide the Board with a written grievance within three days of the termination. Id. at ¶ 24. Although he believed two-thirds of the Board were biased against him (McConnell and Hubert), McClure filed a grievance with the Board. Id. The Board determined McClure's grievance was untimely and upheld the termination decision.
This case has a lengthy procedural history before reaching this Court. On May 15, 2014, McClure filed his second lawsuit in less than two years against Lincoln County and the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners in state court in the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho. See Complaint. (Dkt. 1-2.) The original complaint alleged three violations of the Idaho Open Meeting Law. Id. On October 27, 2014, McClure amended his complaint to add Cresley McConnell and Roy Hubert as named party defendants and to allege negligence claims against them and Lincoln County. See Am. Compl. (Dkt. 1-4.)
On November 7, 2014, Defendants moved for partial dismissal of McClure's amended complaint. See Def.'s Partial Dismissal Mot. (Dkts. 1-10, 1-11.) Specifically, Defendants sought to dismiss all claims with the exception of the Idaho Open Meeting Law claims. Id. Defendants sought also to dismiss Hubert and McConnell as parties named in their official capacities and the Board as a named party defendant. Id. In his opposition to the motion, McClure filed the Affidavit of Marsha Hiatt—McClure's former supervisor and former Lincoln County Commissioner. (Dkt. 2-4) (hereinafter "Hiatt Affidavit.") Defendants objected to the state court's consideration of the testimony in the Hiatt Affidavit on relevancy and foundational grounds. Defs' Briefing re: Matters Outside the Complaint. (Dkt. 2-9 at 3.)
On account of the Hiatt Affidavit and other materials submitted in connection with the partial motion to dismiss, the state court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, in part. On February 25, 2015, the state court issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, Defendants' motion for partial dismissal. SeeOrder re: Mot. to Dismiss. (Dkt. 2-15.) Specifically, the court dismissed the Board of Commissioners as a named party defendant, and dismissed the wrongful termination claim asserted against Lincoln County,3 finding the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because McClure failed to seek judicial review of the Board's termination decision pursuant to I.C. § 31-1605 and the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act. Id. The state court denied the motion to dismiss Defendants McConnell and Hubert as named party defendants.4 Id. It is unclear to what extent the state court considered the testimony in the Hiatt Affidavit when deciding the motion to dismiss.
Nearly three months after the state court rendered its decision on the motion to dismiss, however, Defendants attempted to challenge the Hiatt Affidavit on an alternative ground. On May 29, 2015, they filed a Motion for Protective Order asking the court to strike paragraphs in the Hiatt Affidavit on the ground the paragraphs contained information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. See Def.'s Mot. For Protective Order. (Dkt. 3-7.) Defendants explained that they did not raise the attorney-client privilege objection as part of their previous objections, because it was not readily apparent to them until shortly after the hearing on the motion for partial dismissalthat the Affidavit contained privileged communications. Id. The purportedly privileged...
To continue reading
Request your trial