Armatas v. Haws

STEVEN A. ARMATAS, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT MICHAEL HAWS, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 5:19-cv-02667

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

January 4, 2021

JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN B. BURKE

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

This case and a half dozen related legal proceedings¹ arose from a dispute over the interpretation of a Plain Township, Ohio, zoning ordinance that limits the height of hedges in residential areas to 8 feet (referred to in the Complaint as "the Hedge Ordinance").² Plaintiff Steven A. Armatas ("Plaintiff" or "Armatas") asserted that "hedge" includes a row of trees and, in 2016, asked the Township to enforce the Hedge Ordinance by removing his neighbor's 20-foot high row of evergreen trees growing at his rear property line. Plain Township authorities denied Armatas' request, contending that the Hedge Ordinance did not apply to trees. On November 14, 2019, Armatas filed his 6-Count Complaint in this Court against the members of the Plain Township Board of Trustees³ ("Board of Trustees") and the Zoning Director for Plain Township⁴ in their individual capacities ("Defendants"). Doc. 1.

Defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 17) ("Defendants' Motion), which is fully briefed. Plaintiff filed an opposition (Doc. 18) and Defendants filed a reply (Doc. 19). As set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Court GRANT Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's federal law claims and enter Judgment in favor of Defendants on those claims; dismiss the state law declaratory judgment claim without prejudice; and dismiss as moot the claim for punitive damages.

I. Plaintiff's Complaint

A. Claims

The Complaint contains the following six claims for relief:

1. Count I - Fraud: alleges that, on or about September 8, 2016,⁵ Zoning Director Ferrara made materially false statements regarding "trees and hedges" and the Hedge Ordinance to Armatas or thereafter learned that the statements were materially false and failed to inform Armatas. Doc. 1, pp. 14-15, ¶¶ 62-69.

2. Count II - Violation of Federal Civil Rights: alleges that, in attempting to adopt an Amendment to the Hedge Ordinance in the fall of 2017,⁶ the Defendants did not act to advance a legitimate governmental interest but rather attempted to hide their mistakes and harm Armatas. Doc 1, pp. 15-19, ¶¶ 70-85.

3. Count III - Civil Conspiracy: alleges that the Board of Trustees' and Ferrara's interests are aligned and they engaged in a conspiracy to hide that: Ferrara never visited Armatas' property to inspect the property line and what was planted there; Ferrara admitted on a videotape that a row of trees could constitute a hedge under the Hedge Ordinance; and that one purpose of the proposed Hedge Ordinance amendment was to "stop the litigation" filed by Plaintiff against Haws and Ferrara. Doc. 1, pp. 19-20, ¶¶ 86-90.

4. Count IV - Unconstitutional Passage of Bill of Attainder: alleges that Defendants violated the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Sections 9 and 10), which prohibits Bills of Attainder, by passing a zoning ordinance amendment that favors the property rights of one resident over another, continues to allow damage to accrue to Plaintiff's property, and punishes Plaintiff for filing a lawsuit against two of the Defendants,. Doc. 1, pp. 20-22, ¶¶ 91-101.

5. Count V⁷ - Action for Declaratory Judgment under Ohio's Declaratory Judgment Act: seeks a declaratory judgment "that the amended version of Section 602.10, which was enacted by Defendants on November 14, 2017, be declared invalidly enacted, and/or struck down and declared null and void on the grounds (a) the amendment failed to advance a legitimate public interest, and instead was passed solely to advance the personal interests of the named Defendants; (b) the amendment constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder; and (c) the Defendants failed to follow the appropriate ratification procedure under Ohio law." Doc. 1, pp. 22-25, ¶¶ 102-115.

6. Count VI⁸ - Punitive Damages: alleges that "Defendants' actions have no foundation in law and are intended solely to harm Plaintiff and promote their own personal interests, Defendants' activities constitute willful and malicious conduct against Plaintiff and thus entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive and exemplary damages under Ohio law." Doc. 1, pp. 25-26, ¶¶ 116-118.

B. Factual Allegations⁹

Plaintiff alleges that the Hedge Ordinance - in effect since at least 1990 - provides in part "that all 'fences, walls, or hedges in Plain Township...must meet zoning regulations with regards to height... In all Residential Districts, they...may not exceed 8 feet in height in or along the edge of a rear or side yard. They may be placed up to the property line.'" Doc. 1, pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 4-5.

On September 8, 2016, Armatas went to the Administrative Offices of Plain Township and spoke with Defendant Ferrara and Ms. Vicki L. Lloyd ("Lloyd"), Zoning Assistant for Plain Township. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ 6. Armatas identified himself as an attorney and resident of Plain Township. Id. at ¶ 7. Armatas notified Ferrara and Lloyd that there was "a row of densely-packed, 20-foot high 'evergreen' and/or 'Christmas trees,' [hereinafter "trees"] which had been intentionally planted and cultivated by his neighbors . . . along the rear properly line separating the Armatas property from the adjoining [neighbors'] Residence." Id. Armatas informed Ferrara that it was his belief that the trees violated "the Hedge Ordinance because such artificial barrier constituted a 'fence, wall, or hedge' along a boundary in excess of 8 feet tall." Id. at ¶ 8. Armatas and Ferrara engaged in a discussion as to the contents of the Hedge Ordinance and Ferrara reviewed the copy of the Hedge Ordinance that Armatas had brought with him and other materials in his office. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶¶ 9-10. Thereafter, Ferrara informed Armatas that he was "not going to do anything about" it because "he felt 'trees and hedges' to be different things[.]" Doc. 1, p. 4, ¶ 11.

Armatas asked Ferrara if there was a procedure for Armatas to "appeal [Ferrara's] 'decision' not to act to another body or person within Plain Township." Id. at ¶ 13. Ferrara informed Armatas that the Plain Township Zoning Commission ("Zoning Commission") and the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") would not have jurisdiction because there was no variance or permit being requested but, if he wanted to discuss the issue further, he could contact the Board of Trustees. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. Ferrara was not willing to coordinate a discussion between Armatas and the Board of Trustees but informed Armatas that he could communicate directly with the Board of Trustees if he wanted to discuss the issue with them. Id. at ¶ 14. After Armatas visited Ferrara on September 8, 2016, Ferrara did not "come out to or visit the properties to personally examine and/or take photographs of hedges." Id. at ¶ 12.

Later in the afternoon on September 8, 2016, Armatas called Board member Haws and left a voicemail message explaining how he interpreted the Hedge Ordinance and recounting his conversation with Ferrara. Doc. 1, p. 5, ¶ 17. On September 9, 2016, Haws returned Armatas' call and left a voicemail explaining he had visited the Armatas property earlier and he had concluded that the zoning office was factually correct in what it had relayed to Armatas - the trees had a right to be on the other property and the trees did not meet the criteria of a bush, hedge, wall or fence. Doc. 1, p. 5, ¶ 18. Haws also informed Armatas that there was no avenue to appeal through Plain Township so Armatas could only resolve the matter with his neighbor through "mediation, small claims court, or civil litigation[.]" Id. at ¶19.

1. State Court Litigation.¹⁰

On or about October 14, 2016, Armatas filed an Original Writ of Mandamus (the "2016 Writ Action") with the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals against Defendants Haws, Leno and Sabo in their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of Plain Township and against Defendant Ferrara in his official capacity as Plain Township Zoning Director. Doc. 1, p. 5, ¶ 20. In the Writ Action, Armatas requested that the court order the Board of Trustees and Ferrara to enforce the Hedge Ordinance and oversee removal of the trees because, he alleged, they had caused significant damage to Armatas' property over the years. Doc. 1, pp. 5-6, ¶ 21. Armatas provided the court with dictionary definitions for the word "hedge" and argued that a "hedge" could include various type of plants, including evergreen trees and bushes "as long as its components [were] in sufficient proximity to form a type of barrier[]" and explained why both evergreen trees and shrubs are effectively "hedges." Doc. 1, p. 6, ¶¶ 22-23. Armatas urged the court to turn to the common dictionary definition of "hedge" because the word "hedge" was not defined in the Plain Township Zoning Resolution. Id. at ¶ 24. In response, the defendants argued that Armatas had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit and therefore forfeited his right to seek mandamus. Doc. 1, p. 7, ¶¶ 28-29. They argued that Armatas had the right to appeal the Zoning Director's decision to the BZA but did not do so. Id. at ¶ 28. The Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed Armatas' writ action on or about May 1, 2017, on the basis that Armatas "has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of utilizing the township's appellate process[.]" Doc. 1, pp. 7-8, ¶ 30.

On or about June 13, 2017, Armatas filed a lawsuit against Haws and Ferrara in their individual capacities in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, alleging they committed fraud by falsely claiming on September 8, 2016, and September 9, 2016, that Armatas had no appeal process through Plain Township to challenge Ferrara's decision not to take action with respect to the Hedge Ordinance in relation to the Armatas' neighboring property ("2017 Fraud Action"). Doc. 1, p. 8, ¶ 34. On...