Eagle Auto Parts, Inc. et al v. City of Cleveland

Filing 17

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/29/15 granting, in part, plaintiffs' request for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court orders that defendant return the fork lifts, car crushers and front-end loaders by 5:00 p.m. on 7/29/15. Plaintiffs will post a $1000 bond. The Temporary Restraining Order will be in effect for fourteen days. (Related Doc. 1 ) (M,G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
EAGLE AUTO PARTS, INC, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-01450

OPINION AND ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 1-1]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On July 22, 2015, Plaintiffs Eagle Auto Parts, Inc.; Eagle Auto Parts; Charity Towing LLC;
Danielle Agnello; and Carmine Agnello filed a replevin action in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court. With their lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) for the return of
particular heavy machinery that the City of Cleveland (“Cleveland”) seized on July 14 and 15, 2015.1/
On July 23, 2015, Cleveland removed the case to this Court based upon federal question
jurisdiction.2/
At its core, this case asks whether Cleveland has the right to sit on a business’s needed
equipment simply because the equipment might later be subject to forfeiture, and whether
investigating police can seize equipment to shut a business down without hearing or process.
Intervenor the State of Ohio (“Ohio”) makes no serious argument that Cleveland needs to hold the
equipment for evidentiary reasons.

1/

Doc. 1-1.

2/

Doc. 1. The City stated, “Plaintiffs must be alleging a violation of the United States Constitution in their First
and only Cause of Action” because Plaintiffs claimed that the seizure of property violated their Fourth Amendment and
Due Process rights. Id. at 2.
1

Case No. 1:15-CV-01450
Gwin, J.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO. The
Court ORDERS that Cleveland return the fork lifts, car crusher, and front-end loader seized from
Plaintiffs by 5:00 P.M. on July 29, 2015. Other than the fork lifts, car crushers and front-end loaders,
Cleveland is not required to return the other items seized in the July 14 and 15, 2015, searches.
The TRO will become effective upon the Plaintiffs’s posting of a $1,000 bond. The TRO will
be in effect for fourteen days after that time.
I. Background and Arguments at the Hearing
In removing the case to this Court, Cleveland took the position that Plaintiffs’ claims
implicate Fourth Amendment rights. On July 27, 2015, Ohio, acting by and through the Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor, was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings.3/ On July 28, 2015, the Court
held a hearing on the TRO motion.
Cleveland Police have conducted a long-term investigation into illegal car scrapping at Eagle
Auto Parts. The County Prosecutor “ha[s] assisted the Cleveland Division of Police in this long-term
investigation.”4/ After obtaining a search warrant, the Cleveland Police seized machinery and other
items from Eagle Auto Parts. Cleveland Police remain in possession of the seized items. Plaintiff
Carmine Agnello, co-owner of Eagle Auto Parts, was arrested and later released on charges relating
to illegal car scrapping. He has not been indicted on any charges.
Plaintiffs seek return of certain heavy equipment, namely forklifts, a front-end loader, and a
crusher. Plaintiffs say this equipment has limited evidentiary value and is needed to operate

3/

Doc. 7.

4/

Doc. 16 at 7.
2

Case No. 1:15-CV-01450
Gwin, J.
businesses which employ some thirty people. Pursuant to their arguments at the hearing,5/ Plaintiffs
do not seek return of other items seized in the search and do not seek return of records that seemingly
have greater value in any later prosecution.
Independent of the merits of Plaintiffs’ request for the return of the machinery, the County
Prosecutor argues that Younger abstention counsels against federal court decision of whether federal
law or Ohio law allows recovery of the machinery pending some later decision on forfeiture. The
County Prosecutor asked the Court not to act even though a different state actor, the City of
Cleveland, removed the case to this Court.
In making their case, Plaintiffs cited to Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 26:
Physical property, other than contraband, as defined by statute, under the control of
a Prosecuting Attorney for use as evidence in a hearing or trial should be returned to
the owner at the earliest possible time. To facilitate the early return of such property,
where appropriate, and by court order, photographs, as defined in Evid. R. 1001(2),
may be taken of the property and introduced as evidence in the hearing or trial.6/
In response, Ohio cited to Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 and Ohio Revised Code §
2981.11(A)(1). Both include language that property seized pursuant to a warrant “shall” be kept in
the custody of the law enforcement agency that seized it.7/ The County Prosecutor argued that Ohio
Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 and Ohio Revised Code § 2981.11(A)(1) supercede Rule 26’s
requirement that property “should be returned . . . at the earliest possible time.”
II. Analysis
5/

Id. at 3.

6/

Ohio Crim. R. 26.

7/

Rule 41 provides: “Property seized under a warrant shall be kept for use as evidence by the court which issued
the warrant or by the law enforcement agency which executed the warrant.” Ohio Crim. R. 41. Ohio Revised Code §
2981.11(A)(1) states: “Any property that has been lost, abandoned, stolen, seized pursuant to a search warrant, or
otherwise lawfully seized or forfeited and that is in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall be kept safely by the
agency, pending the time it no longer is needed as evidence or for another lawful purpose.” Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.11
(A)(1).
3

Case No. 1:15-CV-01450
Gwin, J.
A. Younger Abstention
The Court finds that Cleveland, by removing the case to this Court, waived the argument for
Younger abstention. “Younger abstention requires a federal court to abstain from granting injunctive
or declaratory relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings.”8/ But “[i]f the State
voluntarily chooses to submit to a federal forum, principles of comity do not demand that the federal
court force the case back into the State’s own system.”9/
Cleveland is conducting the investigation and Cleveland has possession of the machinery
because it executed the search warrants. Cleveland removed the case to this Court. The County
Prosecutor now disagrees with Cleveland’s decision to ask a federal court decide this case.
The Supreme Court has found a waiver of a Younger abstention in “cases [where] the State
expressly urged this Court or the District Court to proceed to an adjudication of the constitutional
merits.”10/ Cleveland has done this, thus waiving the Younger argument. The County Prosecutor, a
different state actor within Ohio, cannot simply undo Cleveland’s decision.
Furthermore, the Court finds that the animating purpose of Younger abstention – avoiding
interference in state proceedings – does not apply here. The Court is ordering the return of limited
industrial equipment. When asked, the County Prosecutor could not identify any evidentiary purpose
for continued retention of the fork lifts, the front-end loader, or the crusher. The County Prosecutor
could not identify any reason why photographs of the machinery could not substitute for the
machinery itself.
The Court foresees that the County Prosecutor will use photographs of the equipment, rather
8/

O’Neill v. Coughlan, 511 F.3d 638, 643 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40-41 (1971)).

9/

Ohio Bureau of Emp’t Servs. v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471, 480 (1977).

10/

Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 626 (1986).
4

Case No. 1:15-CV-01450
Gwin, J.
bringing the actual equipment itself, to the grand jury or to a petit jury. Cleveland is not required to
turn over the cash, records, cell phones, and computers that it seized pursuant to the warrants. The
criminal investigation will not be compromised or disrupted as a result.
B. Temporary Restraining Order Factors
The Court applies the traditional four-part test to determine whether a TRO is appropriate.
The Court considers whether: (1) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the
TRO is necessary to prevent irreparable injury, (3) the injury to the plaintiff outweighs any harm to
the nonmovant, and (4) the TRO would serve the public interest.11/
The Plaintiffs have substantial likelihood of success on the merits. At the hearing, Ohio
acknowledged that retaining the forklifts, the crusher, and the front-end loader was unnecessary for
any evidentiary purpose related to charges that might be brought. Ohio instead said the forklift, the
crusher, and the front-end loader were being held because Ohio might later seek forfeiture of these
items. Ohio also says it should be able to hold the machinery to shut Defendants’ businesses down.
Ohio has specific forfeiture procedures that cabin a prosecutor’s ability to interminably hold
seized property. Ohio must give the property owner notice “as soon as practical after the seizure.”12/
Ohio Revised Code. § 2981.03 allows a party whose property has been seized for potential forfeiture
to obtain conditional release of that property. At the hearing, Plaintiffs said they sought release of the
machinery under this provision.
To obtain release, Plaintiffs need to show: 1) they have a possessory interest in the property;
2) sufficient ties to the community to provide assurance that the property will be available at the time

11/

See, e.g., Summit County Democratic Cent. & Exec. Comm. v. Blackwell, 388 F.3d 547, 550–51 (6th Cir.
2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
12/

Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.03(A)(2).
5

Case No. 1:15-CV-01450
Gwin, J.
of trial; and 3) that the failure to conditionally release the property will cause a substantial hardship
to the claimant.13/
In determining whether a substantial hardship exists, this Court considers the likely hardship
upon the Plaintiffs from Cleveland’s continued possession; the risk that the property will be
destroyed, or lost; and whether withholding the property would prevent a legitimate business from
functioning, or would prevent an innocent person from maintaining employment.14/
These factors support the return of the fork lifts, the crusher, and the front-end loader.
Ohio made unpersuasive arguments that Plaintiff Agnello cannot be entrusted with such
industrial equipment due to his criminal history relating to scrapping yards. Additionally, Ohio
argued that the property may be subject to forfeiture. But Ohio can seize the property after actually
securing a forfeiture order. Ohio did not show why it must hold the machinery in the interim.
The Court finds strong evidence of an irreparable injury. Plaintiffs argued – and neither
Cleveland nor Ohio denied – that the seizure of the heavy machinery effectively shuts down
Plaintiffs’ businesses. The Plaintiffs noted that dozens of individuals depend on the businesses for
their livelihoods and that no work can be done without the forklifts, loader, and crusher.
In a similar vein, the Court finds that the injury to the Plaintiffs greatly outweighs any harm
to Cleveland or Ohio. The Plaintiffs will be shut down as long as Cleveland holds their machinery.
Ohio has not shown that its investigation or eventual criminal case will be prejudiced if it cannot
continue to warehouse the machinery in question. Ohio never argued that it must present the
machines themselves to a grand jury or at trial. The bulk of the evidence seized will remain under

13/

Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.03(D)(3).

14/

Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.03(D)(4).
6

Case No. 1:15-CV-01450
Gwin, J.
Cleveland or Ohio’s control.15/
Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 26 exists precisely for cases such as this: photographs of
the industrial equipment, rather than possession of the equipment itself, adequately serve the County
Prosecutor’s investigatory needs. Rule 26 contemplates a balance between the state’s need to hold
evidence and an individual’s need to retain his property pending trial.
Finally, the Court finds that the public interest points in favor of a TRO. Ohio has an interest
in prosecuting the case, but has not shown how that interest will be compromised. The public interest
is better served by letting businesses operate, especially before any indictments against that business
or its owners have been returned.
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’ request for a TRO. The
Court ORDERS that Cleveland return the fork lifts, car crushers, and front-end loaders seized from
Plaintiffs by 5:00 P.M. on July 29, 2015. The Plaintiffs will post a $1,000 bond. The TRO will be
in effect for fourteen days after that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 29, 2015

15/

The Sixth Circuit has observed that evidence that is not “needed for an ongoing or proposed specific
investigation” should be returned to its owners. See Sovereign News Co. v. United States, 690 F.2d 569, 578 (6th Cir.
1982) (emphasis added.).
7