Pegross v. Oakland County Treasurer et al
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER granting 34 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHERMAN PEGROSS d/b/a
ROSENBLUM & FRANKEL
INVESTMENT COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-13072
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
THE OAKLAND COUNTY
TREASURER, ANDREW MEISNER,
THE OAKLAND COUNTY TREASURER’S
OFFICE AND THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed July 31,
2013, which has been fully briefed. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(f)(2), the court did not
hear oral argument. Finding that Plaintiff has failed to set forth specific facts,
evidence, and legal authority in support of his claims, the court grants summary
judgment in favor of Defendants.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff Sherman Pegross contends that he is the “designated agent” of
several taxpayers in Oakland County. Pegross claims that the defendant Oakland
County Treasurer entered into agreements with him to pay delinquent property
taxes on four properties in West Bloomfield and Birmingham, Michigan. Pegross
asserts that the Treasurer then rescinded these agreements and foreclosed upon
these properties, despite having accepted payments from Plaintiff. Pegross
contends that these properties have been taken in violation of his due process and
equal protection rights. Pegross’s complaint also contains claims of breach of
contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff does not have an interest in the four
properties referenced in the complaint and that Plaintiff misrepresented his interest
in those properties in an attempt to gain ownership of them through fraud.1
Plaintiff denies these allegations and maintains that he entered into written and oral
purchase agreements with the owners of the properties. Plaintiff has not, however,
provided copies of any such written agreements.
Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to stop Oakland County from
selling the properties at a tax foreclosure sale. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion,
finding that Plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or
irreparable harm. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal
1
Defendants detail the status of each of the four properties in their brief. Plaintiff
has not set forth specific facts disputing Defendants’ recitation. See Defs.’ Br. at 6-11.
-2-
without prejudice after the close of discovery. The court denied that motion as
well, finding that Defendants would be prejudiced if the case were dismissed
without prejudice. Defendants have now moved for summary judgment.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the facts
and any reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The party opposing summary judgment,
however, must present more than a “mere scintilla” of evidence; the evidence must
be such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
II.
Claims against Oakland County Treasurer’s Office
Plaintiff has sued the Oakland County Treasurer, Andrew Meisner; the
Oakland County Treasurer’s Office, and Oakland County. The Oakland County
Treasurer’s Office is not a separate legal entity subject to suit. See, e.g., Sumner v.
Wayne County, 94 F. Supp.2d 822 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (Wayne County Sheriff’s
-3-
Department not a legal entity subject to suit). Accordingly, the Oakland County
Treasurer’s Office will be dismissed as a defendant.
III.
Claims against Andrew Meisner
A.
Federal Claims
Plaintiff contends that Oakland County Treasurer Andrew Meisner violated
his due process and equal protection rights by breaching the tax payment
agreements between Oakland County and Plaintiff.2 Plaintiff’s claims fail for
several reasons, including that he has not demonstrated that he had an interest in
the properties the county foreclosed upon, or that a constitutional violation
occurred. Moreover, Plaintiff has not presented facts demonstrating that Meisner
was personally involved in any alleged violation of his constitutional rights.
Liability of a supervisor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such as Meisner, must be based
upon more than the right to control employees. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436
U.S. 658, 691 (1978). See also Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir.
1984). At a minimum, a plaintiff must show that a supervisory official implicitly
authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of a
2
In his response, Plaintiff contends that he was discriminated against based upon
his race and criminal background. These claims were not pleaded in the complaint and
cannot be raised now. In any event, Plaintiff has not supported these allegations with
evidence.
-4-
subordinate. Id. Here, the record is devoid of facts that Meisner condoned
unconstitutional conduct and, therefore, summary judgment is appropriate.
B.
State Claims
Plaintiff also sets forth claims for breach of contract and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. With respect to the emotional distress claim, or
any other state law tort claim, Meisner is entitled to absolute immunity. See
M.C.L. 691.1407(5); Rose v. Saginaw County, 353 F. Supp.2d 900, 924-25 (E.D.
Mich. 2005).
As for the breach of contract claim, Defendants contend that Oakland
County entered into tax payment arrangements, and agreed to forbear from
foreclosing, with respect to the four properties because Plaintiff represented
himself as the property owner. When the county determined that Plaintiff did not
have an interest in the properties, it rescinded the agreements. Defendants contend
that these agreements were induced by fraud and that they are therefore voidable.
See Custom Data Solutions, Inc. v. Preferred Capital, Inc., 274 Mich. App. 239,
243 (2006) (“Fraud in the inducement to enter a contract renders the contract
voidable at the option of the defrauded party.”) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not
presented evidence that he had an interest in the properties at issue. At this stage,
Plaintiff cannot rest upon his allegations and must provide evidentiary support.
-5-
Because he has not done so, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s contract claim.
IV.
Claims against Oakland County
A.
Federal Claims
Like a supervisor, a municipality such as Oakland County cannot be held
liable under § 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior. “Instead, it is when
execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or
by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts
the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under §1983. A plaintiff
bringing a § 1983 claim against a municipality must therefore identify the policy or
custom that caused her injury.” Ford v. County of Grand Traverse, 535 F.3d 483,
495 (6th Cir. 2008). “The claimant has the burden of proof for establishing the
existence of an unconstitutional policy and demonstrating the link between the
policy and the alleged injuries at issue.” Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d
810, 819 (6th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has not identified an Oakland County policy or
custom that caused his constitutional rights to be violated. Therefore, summary
judgment in favor of Oakland County on Plaintiff’s constitutional claims brought
pursuant to § 1983 is appropriate.
-6-
B.
State Law Claims
Oakland County is entitled to statutory immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s
tort claims. Pursuant to M.C.L. 691.1407(1), “a governmental agency is immune
from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or
discharge of a governmental function.” Id. See also Jones v. Muskegon County,
625 F.3d 935, 947 (6th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff has not set forth any facts defeating
Oakland County’s immunity under this provision. Accordingly, the court will
grant summary judgment in favor of Oakland County with respect to Plaintiff’s tort
claims. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim also fails for the reasons stated above.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: October 11, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date,
October 11, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager
-7-
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?