Wright v. Genesee County Corp., Case No. 08-11066.
| Decision Date | 15 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 08-11066. |
| Citation | 659 F.Supp.2d 842 |
| Parties | Ted WRIGHT d/b/a Roadside Assistance and Robert Petroff, Plaintiffs, v. GENESEE COUNTY CORPORATION, a governmental entity, Captain Christopher Swanson, individually and in his official capacity, and Sheriff Robert J. Pickell, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Andrew L. Campbell, Flint, MI, Edward B. Davison, Gault Davison, Grand Blanc, MI, for Plaintiffs.
H. William Reising, Plunkett & Cooney, Flint, MI, for Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs filed this § 1983 action on March 12, 2008, alleging that various Genesee County, Michigan public officials wrongfully infringed with their status as a preferred vendor to the County for towing services. The matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and for partial summary judgment [Doc. Nos. 20, 21, 46, & 47]. The parties have fully briefed the issues, and the Court declines to hear oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' motions for summary judgment [Doc. Nos. 20 & 46], DENIES the Plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment [Doc. Nos. 21 & 47], and DISMISSES this case in its entirety.
The Plaintiffs, Ted Wright ("Wright") and Robert Petroff ("Petroff"), worked for a towing company known as Roadside Assistance, one of numerous towing companies within Genesee County.
The Genesee County Sheriff's Department ("the Department") provides enforcement services for many townships within Genesee County, including Vienna Township, Michigan. [See Swanson Dep., Def.'s Ex. 1, Doc. No. 20, p. 19]. As a necessary part of conducting business, the Department at times required towing services for vehicles. Prior to September 30, 2001, the agreement for towing services between Vienna Township and the Department required that the Department utilize companies principally located within Vienna Township. [See Def.'s Ex. 2, Doc. No. 20, p. 8, ¶ 15]. However, subsequent agreements between Vienna Township and the Department gave the Department sole discretion as to who could be used as a towing provider.
The Department had an established protocol for contacting towing companies to provide towing services. [Swanson Dep., Def.'s Ex. 1, Doc. No. 20, p. 24]. First, a dispatcher from the Department would contact a particular towing company if there was a request from the scene. Otherwise, a towing company was contacted based upon criteria put out by the Department to be placed on their list of approved towing service providers ("the No-Preference List"). [May 9, 2003 Memorandum Regarding Towing Companies, Def.'s Ex. 3, Doc. No. 20].
From 2001 until 2005, Roadside Assistance was the primary towing company in Vienna Township on the Department's No-Preference List. In late 2005, however, another company—Leonard's Towing—requested to be placed in the rotation for Vienna Township towing jobs. [Swanson Dep., Def.'s Ex. 1, Doc. No. 20, p. 27]. Leonard's Towing had all the necessary criteria for placement on the No-Preference List, and on December 21, 2005 the Department added them to the No-Preference List to alternate tows with the Plaintiffs' company. [See December 21, 2005 Memo, Def.'s Ex. 4, Doc. No. 20].
The Department's placement of Leonard's Towing on the No-Preference List for Vienna Township began an ongoing feud between Leonard's Towing and the Plaintiffs. In May of 2006, because of that feud, Captain Swanson ("Swanson") drafted an express policy concerning wrecker service within Genesee County. [See Wrecker Dispatch Policy, Def.'s Ex. 5, Doc. No. 20]. All wrecker service providers in Genesee County had to abide by the new policy, or risk being removed from the No-Preference List:
In consideration for placement on the Sheriff's Office no preference wrecker service call list, the undersigned wrecker understands and agrees to adhere to the above requirements and conditions. Failure to comply with all of these requirements or misrepresented or falsified information shall be cause for removal from the wrecker call list.
Id. (emphasis added).
Plaintiff Wright admits that he violated that policy by "jumping a tow"—i.e., showing up at a crime scene or accident when he wasn't called to respond:
Mr. Campbell: Objection, cause for a legal conclusion. Answer the question.
A: Yes.
[Wright Dep., Def.'s Ex. 6, Doc. No. 20, pp. 75-76]. Petroff likewise admitted that he was aware of the policy and that he was required to comply with it. [Petroff Dep., Def.'s Ex. 7, Doc. No. 20, p. 39].
Problems with Roadside Assistance continued, and Wright again jumped a tow in February of 2007. This caused Captain Swanson to send out a "last chance notification" indicating that Roadside Assistance would be permanently removed from the No-Preference List if it did not comply with the Department's wrecker service policy. [Swanson Letter, Def.'s Ex. 8, Doc. No. 20].
Roadside Assistance was eventually removed from the No-Preference List after Petroff refused to cooperate with an investigation of a vehicle belonging to Petroff that was reported stolen. Captain Swanson never considered Petroff a suspect in the crime, nor were charges brought against Petroff. [Swanson Dep., Def.'s Ex. 1, Doc. No. 20, pp. 99-102]. After Petroff refused to appear for an interview, Captain Swanson sent Petroff a letter indicating Roadside Assistance was being removed from the County's No-Preference List. Swanson explained the decision as follows:
... because of his relationship as a tow provider [and his] not cooperating with the agency that is in agreement with him to provide service, with all the history, was the determining factor to show he [was] no longer appropriate for us to put in contact with the people we serve.
[Swanson Dep., Def.'s Ex. 1, Doc. No. 20, pp. 103-04]. In response, the Plaintiffs filed the instant action on March 12, 2008.
Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgement as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)).
The Plaintiffs had no contract with the Defendants to be the exclusive provider of towing services for Vienna Township, and likewise had no property interest in their continued status on the No-Preference List. None of the Defendants' actions violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights of free association, procedural due process, or substantive due process. Plaintiff Petroff's individual Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was likewise not infringed upon by the Defendants. No evidence exists of a policy or custom by the County to support a Monell claim by the Plaintiffs. Further, as the Defendants were engaged in a governmental function, they are immune from all of Plaintiff's state-law tort claims. Finally, Defendants did not violate Plaintiffs' rights under the Michigan Constitution. As such, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' motions for summary judgment [Doc. Nos. 20 & 46].
Plaintiffs' claims in this action center around their allegation that the Defendants breached a contract between the parties. No such contract existed between the parties, however. As such, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims [Counts 8 and 9].
Under Michigan law, "[b]efore a contract can be completed, there must be an offer and acceptance." Eerdmans v. Maki, 226 Mich.App. 360, 364-65, 573 N.W.2d 329 (1997). "An offer is defined as the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it." Id. "[A]n acceptance sufficient to create a contract arises where the individual to whom an offer is extended manifests intent to be bound by the offer, and all legal consequences flowing from the offer, though voluntarily undertaking some unequivocal act sufficient for th[a]t purpose." Kraus v. Gerrish Twp., 205 Mich.App. 25, 45, 517 N.W.2d 756 (1994).
Plaintiffs argue that their right to continue on the No-Preference List was contractually protected in two ways: 1) by entering into a contract with the Genesee County Sheriff's Department on or about September 30, 2001 "as the sole exclusive towing provider of impounded vehicles in Vienna Township." [Pl.'s Amended Complaint, Doc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. Scruggs
...Laws § 691.1401(a) – (d) ), and "the operation of a law enforcement agency is a governmental function." Wright v. Genesee Cty. Corp. , 659 F. Supp. 2d 842, 852 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Thus, Oakland County is immune from Fleming's tort claims because the claims arose from its operation of its law......
-
Burns v. Alexander
...or occupation,” unlike “the right to a specific job,” is entitled to substantive due process protection. 34 Wright v. Genesee County Corp., 659 F.Supp.2d 842, 849–850 (E.D.Mich.2009). The standard for determining when an executive officer violates an individual's substantive due process rig......
-
Hartwell v. Houghton Lake Cmty. Sch.
...for the government action, irrespective of whether that reason actually motivated the decision maker. Wright v. Genesee Cty. Corp., 659 F. Supp. 2d 842, 851 (E.D. Mich. 2009); Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court, 601 F. Supp. 2d 886, 904 (E.D. Mich. 2009); Whitney v. City of Milan, 720 F. Supp.......
-
Nadeau v. Nye
...process claim may survive Nye's motion to dismiss only under the “shock-the-conscience” doctrine. See also Wright v. Genesee Cnty. Corp., 659 F.Supp.2d 842, 850 (E.D.Mich.2009) (rejecting plaintiffs' substantive due process claim because “no alleged acts by the Defendants prevented the Plai......