Williamson v. Scioto Twp. Trs.
| Decision Date | 05 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:13-CV-683 |
| Parties | Monty R. Williamson, Plaintiff, v. Scioto Township Trustees, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court to consider the motion for summary judgment filed by Scioto Township, Michael E. Struckman, and Terry Brill. Plaintiff Monty R. Williamson has responded and the motion has been fully briefed. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted.
A version of this case was originally filed by Mr. Williamson against Scioto Township, Mr. Struckman and Mr. Brill in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court on August 25, 2010. In that action, Mr. Williamson asserted claims of trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation and sought punitive damages. The state court dismissed the case on August 30, 2011, for Mr. Williamson's "failure to abide by [the] Court's Scheduling Order." See Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29), Exhibit H. On August 9, 2012, Mr. Williamson re-filed suit in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court against the same defendants and asserted the same claims.
On June 18, 2013, Mr. Williamson filed an amended complaint in state court. In the amended complaint, Mr. Williamsonasserted several new claims including a claim for a negligent permit process, an unconstitutional culvert policy, ratification, abuse of office, and willful destruction of evidence. On July 15, 2013, the defendants removed the case to this Court. On October 24, 2013, Mr. Williamson, without leave, filed another proposed amended complaint. The Court denied leave, and the first amended complaint remains at issue here.
Summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial when facts material to the Court's ultimate resolution of the case are in dispute. It may be rendered only when appropriate evidentiary materials, as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), demonstrate the absence of a material factual dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (1962). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that no material facts are in dispute, and the evidence submitted must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). Additionally, the Court must draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654 (1962). The nonmoving party does have the burden, however, after completion of sufficient discovery, to submit evidence in support of any material element of a claim or defense on which that party would bear the burden of proof at trial, even if the moving party has not submitted evidence to negate the existence of that material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). Of course, since "a party seeking summary judgment ... bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, andidentifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact," Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, the responding party is only required to respond to those issues clearly identified by the moving party as being subject to the motion. It is with these standards in mind that the instant motion must be decided.
This case arises from the installation of a driveway culvert on Mr. Williamson's property in early December, 2008, by Scioto Township, the location and installation of which Mr. Williamson objects to, and Scioto Township's decision not to address the situation at Township expense, despite Mr. Williamson's objections. These facts are not in dispute. The following background relating to these undisputed facts is taken from Mr. Williamson's deposition and accompanying exhibits as well as the affidavits and exhibits submitted by defendants.
In 1999, Mr. Williamson acquired over 80 acres of farmland in Scioto Township, Pickaway County, Ohio, located at 11672 Coontz Road, Orient, Ohio. Coontz Road is a Township road. Mr. Williamson's land had belonged to family members and he aspired to build a house on the land although he lived in West Virginia for several years after acquiring it. In 2008, Mr. Williamson spoke with three prospective builders, including Scott Reynolds of Reynolds Contracting. Mr. Reynolds prepared a construction cost estimate of $110,800 but Mr. Williamson contends that he did not hire Mr. Reynolds to construct his house. Despite this, Mr. Reynolds, on October 22, 2008, applied to Scioto Township for a driveway culvert permit. Mr. Reynolds requested that the Township install the culvert. The permit was issued on November 4, 2008. The culvert was installed on or around December 9, 2008, by Keith Kauffeld, a Township Trustee and Mr. Struckman. At the time of the culvert installation Mr. Struckman was a part-time Township employee but was not a trustee. Shortly after its installation, Mr. Williamson became aware of alleged problems with the culvert. These problems included the culvert's alleged improper installation, location and waterflow damaging an outbuilding on the property.
In October, 2009, Mr. Williamson contracted with Denny Grambo of Complete Custom Construction, for the construction of the house. Construction of the home by Mr. Grambo appears to have begun in October, 2009 and was completed in March, 2010. Around this same time, Mr. Williamson contacted Mr. Struckman, by now a Township Trustee, to address problems with the culvert installation dating back to December, 2008. Mr. Struckman met with Mr. Williamson at the property and Mr. Williamson contends that Mr. Struckman stated at the end of the meeting "[w]e didn't want you to build here." Mr. Struckman disputes that he made such a comment.
In this same time period, Mr. Williamson also contacted Mr. Brill to discuss the issues relating to the culvert and Mr. Brill suggested that Mr. Williamson attend an upcoming meeting of the Township Trustees. Mr. Williamson attended a meeting on April 5, 2010, voiced his concerns about the culvert and stated that he had not authorized Mr. Reynolds to act as his agent. The culvert issue was not resolved at that meeting. Mr. Williamson attended another meeting on May 19, 2010 and raised the same issues. At this meeting, a decision was made by the Trustees to solicit an opinion from the county prosecutor about the culvert.
At a meeting held June 2, 2010, the prosecutor's update advising removal and reinstallation of the culvert at the Township's expense was read. Mr. Struckman and Mr. Brill disagreed with the prosecutor's opinion, would not second a motion to follow the prosecutor's advice, and, as a result, the motion was not passed. At the July 7, 2010 meeting Mr. Struckmanand Mr. Brill voted in favor of a resolution seeking a second opinion. The second opinion, received on August 12, 2010, stated that the Township was not liable for relocating the culvert.
In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants raise several issues. First, they contend that, to the extent Mr. Williamson intends to name as a defendant the Scioto Township Trustees, as a distinct entity, it has not been properly served with process. According to defendants, the Trustees (or perhaps more accurately, the Board of Trustees), was not named as a defendant in the original complaint filed in state court and, therefore, was not served. Rather, Mr. Williamson named Scioto Township as a defendant in his original complaint but did not name the [Board of] Trustees as a defendant until he filed his amended complaint. For these reasons, the defendants contend, any claims against the Scioto Township Trustees, as a distinct entity, should be dismissed.
With respect to the claims which defendants construe as arising under federal law - unconstitutional culvert policy, ratification, and abuse of office, - they contend that these claims can arise only under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and, because they were not raised until the first amended complaint was filed in 2013, they are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. With respect to the ratification and abuse of office claims, defendants also argue that these claims fail on their merits - the former because Mr. Williamson is unable to establish the elements of the claim and the latter because they are entitled to legislative immunity.
With respect Mr. Williamson's state law claims other than the inverse condemnation claim, defendants assert that they are immune from suit or that these claims fail on their merits. With respect to the inverse condemnation claim, defendants argue thatthe Court should dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction because the claim is not ripe.
In response to defendants' request for dismissal of the [Board of] Trustees as a defendant, Mr. Williamson argues that "'Scioto Townhship'" has always been a party. He interprets the defendants' argument as suggesting that he was required to name all three trustees as defendants in order to have named Scioto Township as a defendant. Mr. Williamson explains his position as follows:
It is the intent of Plaintiff simply to include the township for injunctive relief and/or inverse condemnation. Trustee Struckman and Trustee Brill were named individually for violating Plaintiff's rights.
In response to defendants' statute of limitations argument as it relates to the purported federal claims, Mr. Williamson makes several statements which the Court will construe most liberally as suggesting that these claims relate back to the date of filing of the original complaint in the Common Pleas Court of Pickaway County on August 25, 2010, and as a result, are not time-barred. Mr. Williamson also argues the merits of each of his claims, both the purported...
To continue reading
Request your trial