Herran Properties, LLC v. Lyon County Fiscal Court et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 12/13/2017 Denying as moot 15 Motion to Dismiss; granting 19 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint shall be entered. cc: Counsel (JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-00107-GNS
HERRAN PROPERTIES, LLC
PLAINTIFF
v.
LYON COUNTY FISCAL COURT, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DN 15) and Plaintiff
Herran Properties, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (DN 19). As discussed
below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, and Defendant’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
I.
BACKGROUND
The civil rights claims presented in this case arise from the procedures that Defendants1
implemented to thwart the efforts of Plaintiff Herran Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to develop real
property it owns in Lyon County, Kentucky. According to Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, some
Defendants—including the Lyon County Fiscal Court, the Lyon County Attorney, the Lyon
County PVA, and the Lyon County Coroner (collectively, the “County Defendants”)—believed
that an abandoned cemetery exists on part of Plaintiff’s property. 2 (Compl. ¶¶ 14-22, DN 1). As
1
The term “Defendants” is used to refer to the following: (1) the Lyon County Fiscal Court, (2)
the Lyon County Attorney, (3) the Lyon County Property Value Administrator (“PVA”), (4) the
Lyon County Coroner, (5) the Kentucky State Police (“KSP”), and (6) Eric Fields, a Trooper
with the KSP.
2
Plaintiff claims that there is “no evidence of the existence of a cemetery upon [its] property.”
(Compl. ¶ 17).
1
such, some of the County Defendants, along with Trooper Eric Fields (“Trooper Fields”) of the
KSP, intruded upon Plaintiff’s property without a warrant to search for gravesites. (Compl. ¶¶
19-20). Trooper Fields and the Lyon County Coroner allegedly then signed affidavits declaring
their belief that an abandoned cemetery existed on Plaintiff’s property, and the Lyon County
Attorney used those affidavits to obtain an ex parte order from the Lyon Circuit Court
temporarily enjoining Plaintiff from developing its property. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22; Aff. Ronnie
Patton, DN 1-3; Aff. Eric Fields, DN 1-3). Presently, the County Defendants are seeking an
order from the Lyon Circuit Court permanently enjoining Plaintiff from developing its property.
(Compl. ¶ 24).
Based on this conduct, Plaintiff filed the instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that the County Defendants, Trooper Fields, and the KSP violated either the Fourth or Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.3 In particular, Plaintiff claimed that the County
Defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment when they deprived Plaintiff of the use of its
property without due process, and that the Lyon County PVA and Coroner, along with the KSP
and Trooper Fields, violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched Plaintiff’s property
without a warrant. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-35). Plaintiff listed money damages as the proper remedy for
its claims, and also asked that this Court enjoin the state court proceedings. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-36).
In response, the KSP moved to dismiss the claim against it. (Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, DN
15). Specifically, the KSP argued that principles of sovereign immunity prevent it from being
held liable on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim. (Def.’s Mot. Dismiss 3-4).
Thereafter, Plaintiff moved the Court for leave to file an amended complaint, attaching
the proposed Amended Complaint to its motion. (Pl.’s Mot. Leave File Am. Compl. & Mem.
3
Plaintiff also asserted a state law claim for abuse of process, but that claim is not relevant to
this order. (Compl. ¶¶ 42-48).
2
Law Supp., DN 19; Am. Compl., DN 19-1). In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff proffers
additional facts (presumably uncovered through discovery during the state-court proceedings)
related to the existence of an abandoned cemetery on its property. (See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 24).
Plaintiff also adds two new claims, both of which seek monetary relief: a Fifth Amendment
“takings” claim against the Lyon County PVA and a claim against the KSP for failing to train
Trooper Fields properly. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 50-65).
Defendants then filed a joint response to Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (Defs.’ Resp. Pl.’s
Mot. Leave Am. Compl., DN 20 [hereinafter Defs.’ Resp.]). Defendants argue that this Court
should not grant Plaintiff leave to amend because, if it does, the County Defendants will be
unduly prejudiced. (Defs.’ Resp. ¶¶ 2-5). Defendants also claim that the Eleventh Amendment
bars the claims Plaintiff asserts against the KSP in its proposed Amended Complaint, and, as
such, granting leave so as to include such claims would be futile. (Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 6).
II.
JURISDICTION
This action arises under the laws of the United States and the Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.
III.
A.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint
Plaintiff seeks this Court’s permission to amend its initial complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the . . . the court’s leave.”
Although Rule 15(a)(2) states that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires,”
the Court may deny leave to amend on the basis of undue delay, bad faith by the moving party,
undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the proposed new claim. Duggins v.
Steak ’N Shake, Inc., 195 F.3d 828, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
3
Here, Defendants—and more specifically, the KSP—argue that Plaintiff should not be
granted leave insofar as Plaintiff seeks leave to assert the claims against KSP listed as Counts II
and VI of its proposed amended complaint.4 (Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 6). In particular, Defendants assert
the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims because each seeks monetary damages which would
ultimately be paid from public funds, and, therefore, granting Plaintiff leave to amend and
allowing Plaintiff to present those claims would be futile.
While the Court agrees that KSP may be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from
claims seeking monetary relief, it does not render the proposed Amended Complaint futile in its
entirety as to all claims and for claims asserted against other non-immune parties. Accordingly,
the Court will permit the filing of the Amended Complaint, the parties may challenge the claims
asserted by appropriate motion.
B.
KSP’s Motion to Dismiss
The other motion pending before this Court is the KSP’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of
Plaintiff’s initial Complaint. Because the Amended Complaint subsumes the allegations in the
original Complaint, the Court will deny this motion as moot. See Cedar View, Ltd. v. Colpetzer,
No. 5:05-CV-00782, 2006 WL 456482, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006).
4
Defendants also assert that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the Complaint because:
(1) Defendants disagree with Plaintiff’s characterization of factual allegations in its proposed
Amended Complaint, and (2) amending the Complaint would force Defendants to engage in
additional discovery, thereby unduly prejudicing them. (See Defs.’ Resp. ¶¶ 4-5). Neither
argument is persuasive. Disagreement about whether an alleged fact is true is not a basis to deny
leave. The “need for new discovery is not sufficient to constitute undue prejudice on its own.”
See Duling v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 265 F.R.D. 91, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citations
omitted). Thus, the Court will not deny leave on these grounds.
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (DN 19) is
GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint shall be entered.
2.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DN 15) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
December 13, 2017
cc:
counsel of record
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?