Mfs Inc. v. Dilazaro

771 F.Supp.2d 382

MFS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.Thomas A. DiLAZARO, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 08–2508.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 16, 2011.

Thomas J. Zagami, Hodes, Ulman, Pessin & Katz, P.A., Columbia, MD, Wayne C. Stansfield, Brooke N. Wallace, Reed Smith LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.Randall J. Henzes, Office of Attorney General, Philadelphia, PA, Douglas G. White, Norristown, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION

SLOMSKY, District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦Table of Contents  ¦
+-------------------+

I.  INTRODUCTION                                                        387
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS                                                  388

    A.   Testimony of James Hauff                                       389

         i.    Mineral Wool Plant                                       389
         ii.   Notices of Violation and Field Enforcement Order         390
         iii.  Mineral Wool NESHAP                                      392
         iv.   Defendant DiLazaro's Public Comments                     393
         v.    Other Facilities Near MFS                                394
         vi.   January 2006 Deficiency Letter                           395
         vii.  Consent Decree Between EPA and MFS                       401
         viii. Briefing Memorandum                                      403
         ix.   January 2008 Draft Permit                                404

    B.   Testimony of Becky Easley                                      405
    C.   Testimony of Defendant Thomas DiLazaro                         407

         i.   Title V Permits Generally                                 408
         ii.  Field Enforcement Order                                   408
         iii. Defendant DiLazaro's Public Comments                      409
         iv.  MFS's Title V Application                                 410

    D.   Testimony of Jack Cahalan                                      410
    E.   Testimony of Defendant Michael Bedrin                          411
    F.   Testimony of Defendant Mark Wejkszner                          413
    G.   Testimony of Defendant Sean Robbins                            413

         i.  Defendant Robbins's Comments on the Consent Decree        414
         ii. December 2007 Meeting with Secretary McGinty              416
         ii. January 2008 Draft Permit                                 416

III. LEGAL STANDARD                                                     418

IV. DISCUSSION                                                          419

         Defendants Bedrin, Wejkszner, and Robbins are Entitled to
    A.   Judgment as a Matter of Law on MFS's First Amendment           419
         Retaliation Claim

         i.  Protected Activity                                        419
         ii. Adverse Action and Motivating Factor                      419

             a.  Briefing Memorandum                                   420
             b.  Draft Permit                                          426

         iii. Causation                                                 430

    B.   Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on      433
         MFS's Due Process Claims

         i.  Procedural Due Process                                    433

             a.  Fourteenth Amendment Interests                        434

                 1.  Property Interest                                  434
                 2.  Liberty Interest                                   435

             b.  Due Process of Law                                    436

         ii. Substantive Due Process                                   438

             a.  Fourteenth Amendment Interests                        440

                 1.  Property Interest                                  440
                 2.  Liberty Interest                                   441

             b.  Defendants' Actions Do Not Shock the Conscience       441

    C.   Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on      445
         MFS's Equal Protection Claim

         i.  Similarly Situated and Intentional Treatment              445
         ii. Rational Basis                                            447

    D.   Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity on all Federal   448
         Claims

         i.   First Amendment Retaliation                               449
         ii.  Procedural and Substantive Due Process                    451
         iii. Equal Protection                                          452
         iv.  Questions of Historical Fact                              453

         Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on
    E.   MFS's State Claim for Intentional Interference with            455
         Prospective Contractual Relations

             Defendants are Entitled to Sovereign Immunity on the State
         i.  Claim                                                      455
         ii. Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on  458
             the State Claim

                 Prospective Contractual Relationship for Sale of MFS
             a.  Facility                                               460
                 Prospective Contract with Armstrong for Continued Sale
             b.  of Mineral Wool                                        462
             c.  Long Term Supply Agreements and Employee Retention and 463
                 Hiring

    F.   In the Alternative, a New Trial is Warranted in This Case      464

V.  CONCLUSION                                                          465

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 17, 2010, a ten-day jury trial commenced in this case. On March 3, 2010, the Jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Mineral Fiber Services, Inc. (“MFS”) on nearly all of its claims. The Jury found Defendants Thomas DiLazaro, Michael Bedrin, Mark Wejkszner, and Sean Robbins each liable in his individual capacity. Defendants DiLazaro, Bedrin, and Wejkszner were employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP” or “Department”). Defendant Robbins was an attorney employed by the Pennsylvania Governor's Office assigned to the PaDEP. The Jury returned a verdict in favor of MFS and against Defendant DiLazaro in the amount of $2,600,000; against Defendant Bedrin in the amount of $1,625,000; against Defendant Wejkszner in the amount of $650,000; and against Defendant Robbins in the amount of $1,625,000. On March 5, 2010, the Court entered judgment in favor of MFS and against each Defendant for the amount awarded by the Jury. (Doc. No. 115.)

Before the Court is Defendants' Post–Trial Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59 for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial. (Doc. No. 121.) ¹ On June 30, 2010, MFS filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants' Post–Trial Motion. (Doc. No. 166.) On August 13, 2010, Defendants filed a Reply in Support of the Motion. (Doc. No. 169.) Defendants' Post–Trial Motion is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow in this Opinion, the Court will grant Defendants' Post–Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, vacate the judgments entered against Defendants, and dismiss this case in its entirety.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 29, 2008, Plaintiff MFS filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The protected rights allegedly violated were the right to petition government for redress of grievances without retaliation (Count I), and the rights guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to substantive and procedural due process and to equal treatment under law (Count II). MFS also alleged that its right under Pennsylvania law not to be subjected to intentional interference with prospective contractual relations was violated (Count III). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff brought this suit against each Defendant in their individual capacity only, since an action against them in their official capacity or against the PaDEP is the same as one against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Defendants in this case are Thomas DiLazaro, the former Program Manager for the Air Quality Program of the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP; ² Mark Wejkszner, the current Air Quality Program Manager of the Northeast Regional Office; Michael Bedrin, Regional Director of the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP; and Sean Robbins, the attorney assigned to the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP. The PaDEP is an executive agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania responsible for administering and enforcing state environmental laws. While the PaDEP is not a party to this case, the individual Defendants worked for the PaDEP-directly or as counsel-during the relevant time period.³

After the Court ruled on numerous Motions in Limine (Doc. Nos. 82–89), the case proceeded to trial. Testimony of witnesses and exhibits admitted into evidence at trial are set forth infra.⁴

A. Testimony of James Hauff

i. Mineral Wool Plant

MFS owned a mineral wool manufacturing facility in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. (James Hauff Trial Testimony [“Hauff”], February 17, 2010 [“2/17/10”], a.m. session [“a.m.”], 57:1–4.) MFS began operating the mineral wool plant in 1988, when it purchased the plant from Bethlehem Steel. ( Id. at 54:14–18.) James Hauff was employed by MFS from March 20, 1989 until January 10, 2007. ( Id. at 50:17–23.) Mr. Hauff was initially the quality control manager at MFS. In March 2002, he became the general manager. ( Id.) At any given time, MFS had between sixty and eighty employees. ( Id. at 74:2–3.)

Mineral wool is a fibrous material which is produced from several raw ingredients. The primary raw...