Lemma Getachew Et Al V City Of Willowick Et Al

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiffs Lemma Getachew and Guenet Indale, black naturalized U.S. citizens from Ethiopia, own Shoregate Towers apartment complex in the City of Willowick, Ohio. Plaintiffs allege racial discrimination by City of Willowick code enforcement officials. After the City learned of Plaintiffs' race and ethnicity in 2021-2022, code enforcement officials allegedly increased enforcement activities including filing thirteen criminal cases for property-maintenance violations, making regular property visits, contacting tenants to encourage complaints, and communicating with Lake Metropolitan Housing Authority. The Court granted judgment on the pleadings, dismissing federal claims (42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985) for failure to identify the federally protected right, and declining supplemental jurisdiction over State-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Issues

  • The court must determine whether certain Defendants should be dismissed from the case because Plaintiffs fail to allege any wrongdoing against them. Defendants Michael Vanni, Stephanie Landgraf, Mandy Gwirtz, Eric Martin, Patricia Kidd, and Michelle Brunson appear only in the complaint's caption or in the section identifying the parties, with no other allegations against them. The only allegation against Ms. Kidd and Ms. Brunson is that they regularly attended hearings, which Plaintiffs do not address in their brief. Therefore, the Court finds that they have abandoned their claims, if any, against these Defendants and dismisses them.
  • The court must determine whether the complaint adequately states a claim for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by identifying the federally protected right that is the subject of the alleged conspiracy. To establish a claim under Section 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege facts showing conspiracy involving two or more persons, for the purpose of depriving a person or class of persons the equal protection of the laws, and an act in furtherance of that conspiracy that causes injury. Because Plaintiffs fail to identify the federally protected right, they fail to provide notice to the Defendants.
  • After dismissing all federal claims, the court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' State-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Section 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Because the Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs' federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' State-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.
  • The court must determine whether the complaint adequately states a claim for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by identifying the specific type of claim being asserted and providing fair notice to Defendants. The complaint alleges various facts but fails to specify whether the claim is for racial discrimination, deprivation of property, or another constitutional violation. Because Plaintiffs do not identify the type of claim in their complaint, they fail to provide fair notice to the Willowick Defendants of the claim against which they must defend.

Holdings

The Court grants Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs' federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 because Plaintiffs fail to identify the federally protected right that is the subject of Defendants' alleged conspiracy and provide fair notice. The Court also dismisses State-law claims without prejudice under supplemental jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court dismisses individual Defendants Michael Vanni, Stephanie Landgraf, Mandy Gwirtz, Eric Martin, Patricia Kidd, and Michelle Brunson for failure to allege wrongdoing.

Remedies

  • Court dismisses Defendants Michael Vanni, Stephanie Landgraf, Mandy Gwirtz, Eric Martin, Patricia Kidd, and Michelle Brunson from the action.
  • Court dismisses Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim (Claim 1) and Section 1985 claim (Claim 8) against the remaining Defendants.
  • Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' State-law claims (Claims 2-7) and dismisses them without prejudice.

Legal Principles

The Court applies Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, which functions as a delayed Rule 12(b)(6) motion evaluated under the Iqbal/Twombly standard. The Court construes well-pled factual allegations as true but rejects naked assertions or conclusory allegations unsupported by material facts. Plaintiffs' federal Section 1983 and Section 1985(3) claims are dismissed for failing to identify the specific federally protected right at issue, providing insufficient notice to Defendants. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over State-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Precedent Name

  • Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill
  • Troutman v. Louisville Metro Dep'tof Corr.
  • Eidson v. Tennessee Dep't of Child.'s Servs.
  • Juergensen v. Midland Funding, LLC
  • Gutierrez v. Lynch
  • Begala v. PNC Bank, Ohio, N.A.
  • Arsan v. Keller
  • Musson Theatrical v. Fed. Express Corp.
  • Iqbal
  • Wilburn v. United States
  • Brown v. Cioffi
  • Holland v. FCA US LLC
  • Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc.
  • Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.
  • Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano
  • Packard v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Columbus
  • Collyer v. Darling
  • Soehnlen v. Fleet Owners Ins. Fund
  • Watkins v. City of Battle Creek
  • Anders v. Cuevas
  • United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs

Cited Statute

  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1985
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)

Judge Name

  • James E. Grimes, Jr.
  • J. Philip Calabrese

Passage Text

  • For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on all claims against Defendants Michael Vanni, Stephanie Landgraf, Mandy Gwirtz, Eric Martin, Patricia Kidd, and Michelle Brunson and the federal claims against the remaining Defendants (Claims 1 and 8). Further, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' State-law claims (Claims 2-7) and DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
  • Generally 'when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims.' Based on its review of the record and because the case remains in its early stages, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' State-law claims against the remaining Defendants.
  • Because Plaintiffs fail to identify the type of claim in their complaint, Plaintiffs fail to provide fair notice to the Willowick Defendants of the claim against which they must defend. Doing so in a brief opposing a motion to dismiss does not provide the notice the Rules require.