Yunger v. Hamilton County of et al
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for a More Definitive Statement, to the extent that the Court DISMISSES Hamilton County as a Defendant in this matter, while Defendant Engineers and Boa rd of Commissioners remain party to this action; granting 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, to the extent that the Court permits clarification that he is suing Defendant Engineers in their official capacities. Plaintiff is directed to file an Amended Complaint forthwithreflecting such clarification, and deleting Hamilton County as a Defendant.Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 12/27/2012. (km1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MATTHEW J. YUNGER,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO,
et al.,
Defendants.
NO.
1:12-CV-00251
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss
and
Motion
for
a
More
Definite
Statement
(doc.
2),
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (doc. 6), Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend His Complaint (doc. 7), and Defendants’ Combined Reply and
Response (docs. 8, 9).
Motion to Amend.
Plaintiff filed no Reply in support of his
For the reasons indicated herein, the Court
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend His Complaint, consistent
with this decision.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend His Complaint, as acknowledged by Defendants,
satisfies Defendants’ request for a more definite statement as to
Defendant Engineers Hubbard and Brayshaw, who are being sued in
their official capacity.
As such, while noting the liberal
standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend to the extent that it allows for such
clarification in an Amended Complaint.
The Court further finds that the balance of the parties’
arguments center on whether Hamilton County and its Commissioners
are named as proper defendants in this matter.
The Court agrees
with Defendants that the County itself is not a legal entity
capable of being sued, it is not sui juris.
McGuire v. Ameritech
Services, Inc., 253 F.Supp.2d 988, 1015 (S.D. Ohio 2003)(counties
are not sui juris, they are held accountable through their elected
representatives, to wit, their commissioners).
As such Defendant
Hamilton County is dismissed from this matter, and Plaintiff is
directed to Amend his Complaint to reflect that Hamilton County is
not a party.
The question of whether the Commissioners should remain
party to this suit is less clear.
Defendants cite to two cases,
both which were at the stage of summary judgment, one which was an
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the other which involved
specific duties created by statute in relation to the juvenile
court system (docs. 2, 8, 9, citing Spangler v. Wenninger, No.
1:06-CV-229,
2008
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
86369
*25-27
(S.D.
Ohio,
September 3, 2008), Burton v. Hamilton County Juvenile Court, No.
1:04-CV-368, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39775 *9 (S.D. Ohio, December 5,
2005)).
existence
Municipality liability under Section 1983 requires the
of
an
unconstitutional
supervisory right of control.
policy
and
not
merely
a
This case, by contrast, is brought
2
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), which by express
definition
defines
“employers”
to
include
“any
person
acting
directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation
to an employee, and includes a public agency.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
Moreover, although the parties disagree as to the interpretation
of the statutory role of the Board of County Commissioners in
relation to the County Engineer, it is clear under Ohio Revised
Code
§§
305.15
and
305.17
that
Commissioners
have
statutory
authority to hire engineers and to set their compensation.1
The
parties’ briefing does not clarify adequately whether Plaintiff was
working under such statutory sections, nor to what degree, if any,
the Commissioners may have even acted “indirectly” in relation to
Plaintiff’s interests, and therefore qualified as an “employer”
under the FLSA.
As such, and noting that this matter is before the
Court on a motion to dismiss, the Court finds Plaintiff has alleged
a plausible claim against the Board, unless and until further
discovery shows the Board had absolutely no role in relation to
Plaintiff’s interests in this matter.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 2) to the extent that it
DISMISSES Hamilton County as a Defendant in this matter, while
1
This stands in contrast to Burton, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
39775 *9, cited by Defendants, which involved a juvenile court
employee appointed by the court system.
3
Defendant Engineers and Board of Commissioners remain party to this
action.
The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend His
Complaint (doc. 7), to the extent that it permits clarification
that he is suing Defendant Engineers in their official capacities.
Plaintiff is directed to file an Amended Complaint forthwith
reflecting such clarification, and deleting Hamilton County as a
Defendant.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 27, 2012
s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge
4
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?