Village of Jewett v. North American Coal Royalty Company et al
ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION in that the 34 Motion for Reconsideration of the 6/8/17 Magistrate Judge's Order is DENIED. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 7/19/17. (sem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
VILLAGE OF JEWETT,
Case No.: 2:14-cv-175
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Vascura
NORTH AMERICAN COAL ROYALTY
COMPANY, et al.,
On June 8, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, Instanter. (Doc. 33, Order). This matter is
now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order.
(See Doc. 34). Defendants have responded in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Docs. 36 and
Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge’s Order “failed to address the issue of whether
federal law finds that rights provided to surface owners under R.C. 5301.56 (in effect prior to
June 30, 2006) are property rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. Because the Order relied solely upon Ohio law and the Ohio
Supreme Court’s proclamation as to what Ohio law provides, the Order is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” (Doc. 34 at 1) (emphasis in original).
Defendants respond that the Ohio Supreme Court decision, Corban v. Chesapeake
Exploration, L.L.C., 2016-Ohio-5796 (Ohio Sept. 15, 2016), effectively resolved the issues in
this case. And because of that, Plaintiff sought to amend its Complaint to add Constitutional
violations, names that Plaintiff’s property interest in the severed mineral rights were protected
under the Fourteenth Amendment and it was unconstitutionally deprived of that property right by
the Corban decision. (Doc. 29-2, Proposed First Amended Complaint).
The Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned Order held that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments
are futile based on the Corban decision, Plaintiff neither acquired nor lost any substantive right
and therefore “has no grounds to challenge the application of the DMA on due process grounds.”
(Doc. 33, Order at 10). Plaintiff’s contention that the Magistrate Judge’s Order is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law for failing to address federal law is incorrect as the Magistrate Judge
applied Sixth Circuit precedent in his Order. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s proposed
amendments would be futile since Plaintiff did not acquire any vested property right and
therefore cannot have a claim for deprivation of that right. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
The Clerk shall remove Document 34 from the Court’s pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?