Mfs Inc. v. Dilazaro

Decision Date16 February 2011
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 08–2508.
Citation771 F.Supp.2d 382
PartiesMFS, INC., Plaintiff,v.Thomas A. DiLAZARO, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Thomas J. Zagami, Hodes, Ulman, Pessin & Katz, P.A., Columbia, MD, Wayne C. Stansfield, Brooke N. Wallace, Reed Smith LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.Randall J. Henzes, Office of Attorney General, Philadelphia, PA, Douglas G. White, Norristown, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION

SLOMSKY, District Judge.

+-------------------+
                ¦Table of Contents  ¦
                +-------------------+
                
                
I.  INTRODUCTION                                                        387
                II. STATEMENT OF FACTS                                                  388
                
    A.   Testimony of James Hauff                                       389
                
         i.    Mineral Wool Plant                                       389
                         ii.   Notices of Violation and Field Enforcement Order         390
                         iii.  Mineral Wool NESHAP                                      392
                         iv.   Defendant DiLazaro's Public Comments                     393
                         v.    Other Facilities Near MFS                                394
                         vi.   January 2006 Deficiency Letter                           395
                         vii.  Consent Decree Between EPA and MFS                       401
                         viii. Briefing Memorandum                                      403
                         ix.   January 2008 Draft Permit                                404
                
    B.   Testimony of Becky Easley                                      405
                    C.   Testimony of Defendant Thomas DiLazaro                         407
                
         i.   Title V Permits Generally                                 408
                         ii.  Field Enforcement Order                                   408
                         iii. Defendant DiLazaro's Public Comments                      409
                         iv.  MFS's Title V Application                                 410
                
    D.   Testimony of Jack Cahalan                                      410
                    E.   Testimony of Defendant Michael Bedrin                          411
                    F.   Testimony of Defendant Mark Wejkszner                          413
                    G.   Testimony of Defendant Sean Robbins                            413
                
         i.  Defendant Robbins's Comments on the Consent Decree        414
                         ii. December 2007 Meeting with Secretary McGinty              416
                         ii. January 2008 Draft Permit                                 416
                
                III. LEGAL STANDARD                                                     418
                
IV. DISCUSSION                                                          419
                
         Defendants Bedrin, Wejkszner, and Robbins are Entitled to
                    A.   Judgment as a Matter of Law on MFS's First Amendment           419
                         Retaliation Claim
                
         i.  Protected Activity                                        419
                         ii. Adverse Action and Motivating Factor                      419
                
             a.  Briefing Memorandum                                   420
                             b.  Draft Permit                                          426
                
         iii. Causation                                                 430
                
    B.   Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on      433
                         MFS's Due Process Claims
                
         i.  Procedural Due Process                                    433
                
             a.  Fourteenth Amendment Interests                        434
                
                 1.  Property Interest                                  434
                                 2.  Liberty Interest                                   435
                
             b.  Due Process of Law                                    436
                
         ii. Substantive Due Process                                   438
                
             a.  Fourteenth Amendment Interests                        440
                
                 1.  Property Interest                                  440
                                 2.  Liberty Interest                                   441
                
             b.  Defendants' Actions Do Not Shock the Conscience       441
                
    C.   Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on      445
                         MFS's Equal Protection Claim
                
         i.  Similarly Situated and Intentional Treatment              445
                         ii. Rational Basis                                            447
                
    D.   Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity on all Federal   448
                         Claims
                
         i.   First Amendment Retaliation                               449
                         ii.  Procedural and Substantive Due Process                    451
                         iii. Equal Protection                                          452
                         iv.  Questions of Historical Fact                              453
                
         Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on
                    E.   MFS's State Claim for Intentional Interference with            455
                         Prospective Contractual Relations
                
             Defendants are Entitled to Sovereign Immunity on the State
                         i.  Claim                                                      455
                         ii. Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on  458
                             the State Claim
                
                 Prospective Contractual Relationship for Sale of MFS
                             a.  Facility                                               460
                                 Prospective Contract with Armstrong for Continued Sale
                             b.  of Mineral Wool                                        462
                             c.  Long Term Supply Agreements and Employee Retention and 463
                                 Hiring
                
    F.   In the Alternative, a New Trial is Warranted in This Case      464
                
                V.  CONCLUSION                                                          465
                
I. INTRODUCTION

On February 17, 2010, a ten-day jury trial commenced in this case. On March 3, 2010, the Jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Mineral Fiber Services, Inc. (“MFS”) on nearly all of its claims. The Jury found Defendants Thomas DiLazaro, Michael Bedrin, Mark Wejkszner, and Sean Robbins each liable in his individual capacity. Defendants DiLazaro, Bedrin, and Wejkszner were employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP” or “Department”). Defendant Robbins was an attorney employed by the Pennsylvania Governor's Office assigned to the PaDEP. The Jury returned a verdict in favor of MFS and against Defendant DiLazaro in the amount of $2,600,000; against Defendant Bedrin in the amount of $1,625,000; against Defendant Wejkszner in the amount of $650,000; and against Defendant Robbins in the amount of $1,625,000. On March 5, 2010, the Court entered judgment in favor of MFS and against each Defendant for the amount awarded by the Jury. (Doc. No. 115.)

Before the Court is Defendants' Post–Trial Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59 for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial. (Doc. No. 121.) 1 On June 30, 2010, MFS filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants' Post–Trial Motion. (Doc. No. 166.) On August 13, 2010, Defendants filed a Reply in Support of the Motion. (Doc. No. 169.) Defendants' Post–Trial Motion is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow in this Opinion, the Court will grant Defendants' Post–Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, vacate the judgments entered against Defendants, and dismiss this case in its entirety.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 29, 2008, Plaintiff MFS filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The protected rights allegedly violated were the right to petition government for redress of grievances without retaliation (Count I), and the rights guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to substantive and procedural due process and to equal treatment under law (Count II). MFS also alleged that its right under Pennsylvania law not to be subjected to intentional interference with prospective contractual relations was violated (Count III). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff brought this suit against each Defendant in their individual capacity only, since an action against them in their official capacity or against the PaDEP is the same as one against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Defendants in this case are Thomas DiLazaro, the former Program Manager for the Air Quality Program of the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP; 2 Mark Wejkszner, the current Air Quality Program Manager of the Northeast Regional Office; Michael Bedrin, Regional Director of the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP; and Sean Robbins, the attorney assigned to the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP. The PaDEP is an executive agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania responsible for administering and enforcing state environmental laws. While the PaDEP is not a party to this case, the individual Defendants worked for the PaDEP-directly or as counsel-during the relevant time period.3

After the Court ruled on numerous Motions in Limine (Doc. Nos. 82–89), the case proceeded to trial. Testimony of witnesses and exhibits admitted into evidence at trial are set forth infra.4

A. Testimony of James Hauff
i. Mineral Wool Plant

MFS owned a mineral wool manufacturing facility in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. (James Hauff Trial Testimony [“Hauff”], February 17, 2010 [2/17/10], a.m. session [“a.m.”], 57:1–4.) MFS began operating the mineral wool plant in 1988, when it purchased the plant from Bethlehem Steel. ( Id. at 54:14–18.) James Hauff was employed by MFS from March 20, 1989 until January 10, 2007. ( Id. at 50:17–23.) Mr. Hauff was initially the quality control manager at MFS. In March 2002, he became the general manager. ( Id.) At any given time, MFS had between sixty and eighty employees. ( Id. at 74:2–3.)

Mineral wool is a fibrous material which is produced from several raw ingredients. The primary raw...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Smith & Morris Holdings, LLC v. Smith, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-14-803
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 17 Septiembre 2014
    ...Andrews v. Bureau of Codes Admin. Office, No. 08-1669, 2012 WL 610333, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2012) (same); MFS, Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F. Supp. 2d 382, 440-41 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (same); Thornbury Noble, Ltd. v. Thornbury Twp., No. 99-6460, 2002 WL 442827, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2002) (same......
  • Dennis v. DeJong, Civil Action No. 10–cv–06789.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 30 Septiembre 2011
    ...confronting the official to determine whether a reasonable state actor could have believed his conduct was lawful. MFS Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F.Supp.2d 382, 449 (E.D.Pa.2011) (internal quotation omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that the determinatio......
  • Grant v. Winik, Civil Action No. 10–2204.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 11 Junio 2013
    ...and Sanford has therefore been applied by district courts in general substantive due process cases. See, e.g., MFS Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F.Supp.2d 382, 439 (E.D.Pa.2011) (applying three standards delineated in Phillips ). 44. Notably, the Third Circuit has only applied the “deliberate indif......
  • Pioneer Aggregates, Inc. v. Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 21 Septiembre 2012
    ...the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs have alleged any "deprivation of a constitutional right at all." See MFS Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F. Supp. 2d 382, 434 (E.D.Pa 2011) (quoting Culinary Service of Delaware Valley, Inc., v. Borough of Yardley, 385 F. App'x 135,141 (3d Cir. 2010). Plain......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • FLINT OF OUTRAGE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 93 No. 1, November 2017
    • 1 Noviembre 2017
    ...adoption and suggesting that fundamental rights provide the only route to a substantive due process victory); MFS, Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F. Supp. 2d 382, 441 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (describing steps and concluding government conduct did not shock the conscience in land use approval case); cf. Stev......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT