Sassamansville Fire Co. No. 1 v. Livelsberger
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-cv-4648 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 2022 |
| Parties | SASSAMANSVILLE FIRE COMPANY NO. 1, Plaintiff, v. MARIE LIVELSBERGER, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Plaintiff Sassamansville Fire Company No. 1 (“Plaintiff, ”) brought this action against Defendant New Hanover Township (the “Township, ”) the individual members of the New Hanover Township Board of Supervisors, Kurt Zebrowski Marie Livelsberger, Boone Flint, William Ross Snook, and Gregory Maskrey (collectively “the Board of Supervisors, ”) and the Manager of New Hanover Township, Jaime Gwynn, (“Defendant Gwynn”) (collectively “Defendants.”). Plaintiff claims Defendants deprived it and its members of their rights and endangered the public when the Board of Supervisors amended the Township of New Hanover Code of Ordinances (the “Township Code”) terminating Plaintiff's recognition as an authorized volunteer fire company in New Hanover Township. Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 8.
Plaintiff brings five claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, denial of substantive due process (Count I), denial of procedural due process (Count II), denial of equal protection (Count III), Monell liability (Count IV), and liability pursuant to state-created danger doctrine (Count V). On the basis of these claims, Plaintiff requests damages for the value of its terminated benefits, its lost income and lost opportunities, punitive damages, and equitable relief to strike the Township's ordinance amending the Township Code, and equitable relief to order the Township Board of Supervisors to engage in “a full and fair process of addressing and responding to [Plaintiff's] questions and concerns, ” “professional and attorneys' fees and costs, ” and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. Id. at ¶ 122.
Plaintiff served New Hanover Township with fire protection and community services for more than fifty years, and understandably is upset that the Township no longer recognizes it as a volunteer fire company. But Plaintiff's grievances against the Township, like any citizen's complaints about how their town is managed, do not rise to the level of constitutional violations. For such issues, redress is found not at the courts, but at the polls. Because we find Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed.
Plaintiff provided volunteer fire and rescue services, community services, and recreational events for the benefits of its members and the residents of New Hanover Township (“the Township”) since the fire company's creation in 1949. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12-13. In August 1995, the Board of Supervisors enacted Section 1-601 of the Township Code granting Plaintiff the authority to participate in mutual aid, training schools, parades, and other municipal functions, and granting Plaintiff access to workmen's compensation benefits and other benefits in the case of death, sickness, or temporary or permanent disability. Id. ¶¶ 15, 18-19. As a Township-recognized volunteer fire company, Plaintiff also had the ability to request federal funds, loans from the State Fire Commissioner and the State Treasurer, and Treasury Department grants pursuant to the Emergency Management Relief Act, 35 P.S. 1221. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.
In or about May 2013, Plaintiff's members accepted a proposal to combine resources with the New Hanover Fire Company and form a new entity called New Hanover Volunteer. Id. ¶ 21. In August 2013, Plaintiff's official representative, Joshua Stouch, issued a letter (the “August 2013 Letter”) indicating that Plaintiff had accepted a proposal to merge with the New Hanover Fire Company and form New Hanover Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services. Id. ¶¶ 21- 22; Am. Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 8-1. In the August 2013 Letter, Plaintiff did not indicate that it would discontinue operations in its own name. Id. ¶ 24.
In Fall 2014, Brian Lee, representing himself as the President of the New Hanover Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services, issued a letter (“the Fall 2014 Letter”) acknowledging that the two volunteer fire companies had formed the New Hanover Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services. The Fall 2014 Letter did not state that Plaintiff would have to or would be expected to discontinue operations in its own name. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25-28; Am. Compl. Ex. B, ECF No. 8-1. No. formal merger documents were ever prepared, executed, or submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations. Am. Compl. ¶ 29.[2]
On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff leased the fire station portion of its real property located at 1865 Hoffmansville Road, Frederick, PA 19435 to the New Hanover Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services. Id. at ¶ 31; Am. Compl. Ex. C, ECF No. 8-1. By December 2015, Plaintiff had “largely discontinued separate, formal responses to emergency calls” because it had transferred its fire house, fire equipment, and fire vehicles to New Hanover Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34 -35. Plaintiff continued to host community social events and raise funds for charity, and some of Plaintiff's individual members continued responding to emergency calls. Id. ¶ 36.
In early 2017, Plaintiff initiated litigation against New Hanover Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County for breach of contract for the merger agreement and the lease agreement, which the parties settled in 2020. Id. ¶¶ 37- 38; Am. Compl. Ex. D, ECF No. 8-1.
In a June 28, 2021 Board meeting, the Board of Supervisors discussed whether Plaintiff still qualifies as a non-profit company for tax purposes and noted that the New Hanover Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services requested to be recognized as the only fire and rescue company in the Township. Am. Compl. ¶ 41. Defendant Township Manager Jamie Gwynn stated that at the Board's July meeting, it would look at amending the Township Fire Company ordinance. Id.
Before the July 1, 2021 meeting, the Board of Supervisors posted the agenda online, but the agenda did not mention potential amendment of the Township Fire Company Ordinance. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. Plaintiff asserts that the Board of Supervisors intentionally “left [the discussion of the ordinance] off the agenda” to deprive Plaintiff of notice. Id. ¶ 51. Additionally, the June 28, 2021 meeting minutes were not posted before the July 1, 2021 meeting. Id. ¶ 52. Lacking notice, none of Plaintiff's members attended the July 1, 2021 meeting. Id. ¶ 54.
In that meeting, the Board authorized the solicitor to advertise the proposed removal of Plaintiff from the Township Fire Company Ordinance and prepare the proposed change for consideration at the Board's August meeting. Id. ¶ 55. On or about July 22, 2021, the Board posted a classified ad on the Township website noticing a public hearing to consider an amendment to delete Sassamansville Fire Company and Sassamansville Firemen's Relief Association from Section 1-601 of the Township Code” (“the Proposed Amendment”). Id. ¶ 60. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants did not return Plaintiff's telephone calls and refused to “engage in any good faith communication with [Plaintiff's] counsel as to the nature of and need for” the Proposed Amendment before the August meeting. Id. ¶ 62 (emphasis in original).
The Board of Supervisors posted the agenda for the meeting on their website. Id. ¶ 63; Am. Compl. Ex. I, ECF No. 8-1. At the August 5, 2021 meeting, the Board behaved “noticeably [less] cooperative and pleasant” with Township residents that attended as Sassamansville Fire Company members than with other Township residents. Am. Compl. ¶ 66. During discussion of other agenda items, the Board of Supervisors “pleasantly accepted questions from the public-at-large, addressed such questions, and participated in meaningful discussions” and “did not interrupt the speaker to demand their name and address.” Id. ¶¶ 68-69.
When the Board of Supervisors began to consider the Proposed Amendment, Plaintiff's counsel “sought clarification on the nature of the Proposed Amendment” but Defendant Gwynn responded that “this is public comment” and insisted that “members of the Township be heard first.” Id. ¶¶ 70-73. Thereafter, when Plaintiff's members stood to speak, Defendant Gwynn would “cut them off and demand that they ‘state their name and address.'” Id. ¶¶ 74, 76. Nevertheless, Plaintiff's members expressed their confusion and concern, informed “the Township Supervisors that they did not execute or file with the DOS a ‘Statement of Merger, '” asked questions, and “vocalized that they did not want or need any Township funding but, rather, just sought to preserve their recognition.” Id. ¶¶ 74-78. Additionally, Plaintiff's members and several Township residents stated “their support for maintaining two (2) volunteer fire companies instead of one, and [said that] Township's residents would only benefit from additional volunteer resources.” Id. ¶ 79. The Board of Supervisors did not interrupt the only person who spoke in favor of the Proposed Amendment and did not ask his name or address. Id. ¶¶ 81-82.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors did not address any of Plaintiff's issues at all, aside from offering that the possibility of Plaintiff serving as a volunteer fire company could be discussed at a later date. Id. ¶ 86. The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to delete Sassamansville Fire Company and Sassamansville Firemen's Relief Association from Section 1-601 of the Township Code. Id. ¶ 90. The ordinance amending the Township Code, in its WHEREAS clauses states “a request was made to New Hanover Township to update and clarify the entity authorized to conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial