Mader v. Union Twp., 2:20-CV-01138-CCW

CARLA MADER, MARTIN E. MADER, MIECZYSLAW GNIADEK, SABINE GNIADEK, Plaintiffs, v. UNION TOWNSHIP, HEATHER DAERR, CHARLES TRAX, JR., RICHARD LAWSON, FRANK L. MASSARI, GARY SWEAT, KEVIN DAERR, JESSICA STINER, JARROD D'AMICO, KRIS BOCKSTOCE, MICHAEL E. CRUNY, JAMES HARSHMAN, TRAVIS RICHMOND, and DOES 1-50, Defendants.

No. 2:20-CV-01138-CCW

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 27, 2021

OPINION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE GNIADEKS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND United States District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Gniadek Plaintiffs' claims in the First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 142. For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted.

I. Procedural History

Plaintiffs in this case are two married couples-the Maders and the Gniadeks-each of whom is proceeding pro se. ECF No 19 at ¶¶ 10-15. Both couples reside on Cardox Road a connector road adjacent to Route 88 in Union Township Pennsylvania. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 54, 73; ECF No. 20-4; ECF No. 20-10. Defendants are Union Township and various employees, officials, contractors, and/or members of the Board of Supervisors of the Township. See generally, ECF No. 19 at ¶¶ 17-27.

The Maders and the Gniadeks together filed a 7-count Complaint, ECF No. 1, and then a 26-count First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 19, claiming that Union Township and those acting on its behalf, among other things, took their property without due process, excluded them from public meetings, misused legal procedure, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiffs, negligently disregarded their public duties, trespassed, defamed Plaintiffs, and violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. See generally, ECF No. 19. The Mader Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 126, which the Gniadeks did not join. See ECF No. 126.

The First Amended Complaint remains the operative complaint as to the Gniadeks' claims. For clarity, because the Mader Plaintiffs' allegations in the First Amended Complaint were superseded by the their filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants and the Gniadeks stipulated as to which of the factual allegations and legal claims in the First Amended Complaint the Gniadeks are maintaining. ECF No. 131.

The Gniadeks' claims are set forth in Counts XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XXI, and XXVI of the First Amended Complaint. See generally ECF No. 19; ECF No. 131 at ¶9. They include alleged violations of their federal constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see, e.g., Counts XIII and XIV), as well as state law claims for, e.g., intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, e.g., Count XII). The Court has federal question jurisdiction over the § 1983 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

The First Amended Complaint names the following Defendants^[1]: Union Township, Kris Bockstoce, Michael Cruny, Heather Daerr, Kevin Daerr, Richard Lawson, Frank Massari, Jessica Stiner, Gary Sweat, Charles Trax, Jr., (collectively “Moving Defendants”). See generally, ECF No. 131. The Gniadeks' Count XIII alleges a violation of § 1983 against “Township Officials, ” which, if read broadly, could potentially include the Daerr Defendants, and Defendants Cruny, Lawson, Massari, Stiner, Sweat, and Trax. ECF No. 19 at ¶ 126. Moving Defendants seek to dismiss the Gniadeks' claims in full. See ECF No. 142. Their Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, Moving Defendants' Motion will be GRANTED.

I. Factual Background

As previously mentioned, the Gniadeks live on Cardox Road in Union Township, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 20-10. According to the First Amended Complaint, on or around June 2, 2020, the Gniadeks informed their neighbors, the Maders, that the Gniadeks had received a “sham” easement from Defendant Stiner, Union Township's engineer, which offered the Gniadeks $1.00 as compensation for easements on their property for use in the Township's project to widen Cardox Road to a uniform width (the “Cardox Road Project”). ECF No. 19 at ¶¶ 73, 23.

As Plaintiffs describe it, on or around June 2, 2020, Mr. Gniadek approached Defendant Trax, who also resides on Cardox Road, and who is on the Board of Supervisors of Union Township, while Defendant Trax was conversing with another of their mutual neighbors. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 74-75. Mr. Gniadek was “upset” and approached Defendant Trax, who was “very evasive and unclear” when Mr. Gniadek asked for an explanation about the Cardox Road Project. Id. at ¶ 75. Mr. Gniadek “suggested he may need the services of an attorney and would probably pursue such individual.” Id. Defendant Trax stated that it would not be in Mr. Gniadek's best interest to hire an attorney. Id. Mr. Gniadek reminded Defendant Trax of “past exchanges” with what Mr. Gniadek referred to as previous “township councils” and Defendant Trax responded “[w]e know all about you and we have compiled a book of information about you.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that “Mr. Gniadek was intimidated and emotionally distressed by this and asked [Defendant Trax] if he would like to share any of the information.” Id. Mr. Gniadek then asked if he was being spied on, a question that Defendant Trax ignored. Id.

According to the Gniadeks, the Township has a history of transparency issues, such as failing to post minutes from Township meetings, failing to provide the public with at least 24-hours' notice of changes of time or location of public Township meetings, and being slow to respond to requests for information under Pennsylvania's Right to Know Law. Id. at ¶76-77. Some of the Township residents organized a civic group to hold the Township accountable to the public. Id. at 78. The civic group, spearheaded by Mrs. Mader, wrote a self-proclaimed “Cease and Desist” letter and a notice of claim to the Township and the Board of Supervisors to address possible violations of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act and to address the harassment Mrs. Mader and the civic group perceived to be coming from the Township and its officials. Id. at ¶ 81-82.

According to Plaintiffs, the Township ignored the Cease and Desist letter and Notice of Claim by prohibiting Plaintiffs and other taxpayers from entering the building where the Planning Department's June 24, 2020 4:00 p.m. meeting was being held. Id. at ¶83. At 5:00 p.m. on June 24, 2020, after the 4:00 p.m. Planning Department meeting adjourned, Defendant Lawson, who serves as a Township Supervisor, Treasurer, and Roadmaster, unlocked the doors to the building where the meeting was held for the Deputy Sheriff of Washington County, Pennsylvania. Id. Defendant Cruny, who is an attorney for the Township, id. at ¶ 27, exited the building and stood outside with police and allowed only six people at a time into the building, citing COVID-19 restrictions. Id. at ¶ 84. During the 5:00 p.m. Township Board meeting on June 24, 2020, the Township Board voted to take action against several non-plaintiffs' property within the Township which Plaintiffs describe as “violating due process rights for vacating, condemning, evicting, and selling seized property of residents Anna Banahasky, Richard Curry, and another Rankintown Road resident.” Id. at ¶ 86.

Plaintiffs also allege that the Township held another Planning Department meeting on July 8, 2020 at 4:00 pm. Id. at ¶ 87. The Township had a surveillance van parked next to where Plaintiffs were peacefully gathered with others outside of the building where the meeting was being held. Id. Defendant Kevin Daerr, a Township member of the Peters Creek Sanitary Authority for Union Township, id. at ¶21, “blocked the municipal building front entrance” and videotaped the crowd “to not allow taxpayers into the meeting.” Id. Union Township officials posted on the Union Township Facebook page that the July 8, 2020 Planning Department meeting would be available by Zoom videoconference “[h]owever, they did not open up the meeting to the public to physically attend until 4 pm with their Facebook post. It was actually posted as a comment on the Zoom announcement post, which is not readily visible, that the meeting was now an in-person meeting.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that because they attempted to attend the meeting inperson, they were unable to logon to the meeting to attend by videoconference. Id. According to Plaintiffs, the Zoom meeting was moderated by Defendant Massari, who was then a Township Supervisor as well as the Township's Roadmaster. Id. at ¶¶20, 88. Mrs. Mader asked the Sheriff and Monongahela Police Chief to let the Plaintiffs into the building for the Planning Department meeting. Id. at ¶ 89. Defendant Lawson, a Township Supervisor, Treasure, and Roadmaster, id. at ¶ 19, unlocked the door, but “Township Officials then let some [people] in but would not allow more than [three] or [four] taxpayers in at a time.” Id. at ¶ 89. The First Amended Complaint is silent regarding whether the Gniadeks were able to attend any part of the July 8, 2020 Planning Department or Township meetings. See generally, ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs allege that “Township Officials claimed that due to COVID-19 they could not allow more than a total of [nine] people in, despite that Washington County being in the ‘green phase.' However, Township Officials were not wearing masks and did not require them for entry into the building.” Id. at ¶ 90.

Plaintiffs allege that on July 29, 2020, the Township held an emergency meeting at 8:00 a.m. through which the Board, consisting of Defendants Mrs. Daerr, Trax, Lawson and Massari, voted to establish an easement on the Gniadek's property, along with the properties of several other Cardox Road residents via eminent domain. ECF...