The Rock Place II, Inc. v. Woodsonia-204 Ctr., LLC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

The Rock Place II, Inc., ("Rock Place") has sued Woodsonia-204 Center, LLC, ("Woodsonia"), Sanitary and Improvement District No. 596 ("SID 596"), and members of SID 596's Board of Trustees ("Board Members"). Rock Place's remaining claims are for an unlawful taking against SID 596 and for malicious prosecution against Woodsonia and the Board Members. Before the Court is SID 596's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.^[1] Filing 59. The Court will also address SID 596's Motion to Strike Rock Place's Brief in Opposition and Index in Opposition to SID 596's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Filing 76, and Rock Place's Motion for Rule

11 Sanctions. Filing 82. For the reasons stated herein the Court denies SID 596's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, denies SID 596's Motion to Strike, and denies Rock Place's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.

II. BACKGROUND

This case arises from SID 596's eminent-domain proceedings against THG Development, LLC, the owner of property in which plaintiff Rock Place holds a leasehold interest. THG Development, a nonparty, owns approximately 20 acres of land in Elkhorn, Nebraska. Filing 61-1 at 4. Rock Place leases this property from THG Development to operate its landscaping-supply business.^[2] Filing 72-1 at 1-2. SID 596 is a political subdivision of Nebraska located in Douglas County.^[3] Filing 61-2 at 1. It appears that only part of the 20 acres of land owned by THG Development is within SID 596's corporate boundary. Filing 61-2 at 4 (describing how improvements constructed by SID 596 benefitted the property owned by THG Development that is outside of SID 596's corporate boundary).

Sometime in early 2019, SID 596 began preparing to develop the land near THG Development's property. Filing 61-1 at 88. The development included extending a street and constructing an additional access drive to THG Development's property. Filing 61-1 at 38. Part of this development extended onto the portion of THG Development's property that is within SID 596's corporate boundary. Filing 61-1 at 88. Thus, SID 596 needed to condemn part of THG Development's property if it wanted to proceed with construction.

On February 14, 2019, SID 596 commenced an eminent-domain proceeding against THG Development in Nebraska state court. Filing 61-2 at 2. SID 596 sought a fee simple acquisition of about one-third of an acre of THG Development's property and a temporary construction easement of two acres. Filing 61-1 at 38, 88. According to Defendants, at the time the eminent-domain proceedings began, they were unaware that Rock Place had a leasehold interest in THG Development's property. Filing 61-2 at 2. Thus, Defendants did not join Rock Place in the eminent-domain proceedings. Filing 61-2 at 3. During the eminent-domain proceedings, SID 596 filed a petition to appoint a board of appraisers to determine the value of the part of THG Development's property being condemned. Filing 61-1 at 104. The state court granted the petition and appointed three appraisers who determined that the value of the property was $56, 390.00. Filing 61-1 at 106-09, 121-22. SID 596 deposited this amount with the state court. Filing 61-1 at 131.

On April 12, 2019, THG Development appealed the appraisal to the Douglas County District Court and requested that a jury determine the fair market value of the land. Filing 61-1 at 135-37. Defendants refer to this appeal as "THG's Condemnation Proceeding." Filing 60 at 8. Both parties agree that this action is ongoing and awaiting a date for trial by jury. Filing 61-1 at 9; Filing 71 at 23.

Sometime in 2020, SID 596 constructed and maintained several public improvements pursuant to a vote by the Board Members. Filing 61-2 at 4. Because the Board Members believed that the public improvements benefitted the portion of THG Development's property located outside SID 596's corporate boundary, they prepared to levy a special assessment pursuant to

Nebraska Revised Statute § 31-752.^[4] Filing 61-2 at 4. By this time, SID 596 had become aware of Rock Place's leasehold interest of THG Development's property. Filing 61-1 at 11. Therefore, SID 596 allegedly notified THG Development and Rock Place of its intent to levy a special assessment. Filing 61-2 at 4.

On July 23, 2020, SID 596 filed a special-assessment action against THG Development and Rock Place in Nebraska state court, requesting that the court set the amount of the special assessment against THG Development and Rock Place and to impose a superior lien on THG Development's property. Filing 61-2 at 4-5. THG Development filed a separate suit in Nebraska state court to "Declare Special Assessment Determination Invalid, Illegal, and Void," which was consolidated with SID 596's special-assessment lawsuit. Filing 61-1 at 10. The state court ultimately dismissed Rock Place from the suit with prejudice.^[5] Filing 61-1 at 240-47. This special-assessment suit remains pending. Filing 61-1 at 10.

According to Rock Place, it "has suffered and continues to suffer damages" resulting from SID 596's taking of the property in which it has a leasehold interest. Filing 72-1 at 3. Rock Place claims that it has been damaged in three ways: (1) by SID 596 taking fee simple title to the part of THG Development's property that Rock Place leases, (2) by SID 596's temporary construction easement on the property rented by Rock Place, and (3) by the negative consequences to Rock Place's business caused by SID 596's construction. Filing 72-1 at 3-6. Rock Place further contends that SID 596' s actions have disrupted the operation of its business and will require significant work to rectify. Filing 72-1 at 4-7.

On October 12, 2020, Rock Place filed its amended complaint against Defendants. Filing 31. After the Court partially granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Filing 44, only Counts I and VII remain in this case. In Count I, Rock Place seeks damages for SID 596's allegedly unlawful taking of Rock Place's interest in THG Development's property. Filing 31 at 11. In Count VII, Rock Place brings a malicious prosecution claim based on Defendants attempting to levee a special assessment against Rock Place. Filing 31 at 19. SID 596 filed a motion for summary judgment on Count I on July 28, 2021.^[6] Filing 59. On September 10, 2021, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike Rock Place's Brief and Index in Opposition to SID 596's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filing 76. Rock Place filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions on September 21, 2021. Filing 82.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

"Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Garrison v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, 833 F.3d 881, 884 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). "[S]ummary judgment is not disfavored and is designed for every action." Briscoe v. Cnty. of St. Louis, 690 F.3d 1004, 1011 n.2 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1043 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court will view "the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . . drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Whitney v. Guys, Inc., 826 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Hitt v. Harsco Corp., 356 F.3d 920, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2004)). Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, "Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment

motion to be opposed by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the mere pleadings themselves." Se. Mo. Hosp. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 642 F.3d 608, 618 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)). The moving party need not produce evidence showing "an absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Johnson v. Wheeling Mach. Prods., 779 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323). Instead, "the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing' . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Lifecare Int'l, Inc., 250 F.3d 587, 596 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Celotex, 411 U.S. at 325).

In response to the moving party's showing, the nonmoving party's burden is to produce "specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial." Haggenmiller v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 837 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 853 (8th Cir. 2012)). The nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, and must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Wagner v. Gallup, Inc., 788 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042). "[T]here must be more than 'the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute'" between the parties in order to overcome summary judgment. Dick v. Dickinson State Univ., 826 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Vaccav. Viacom Broad, of Mo., Inc., 875 F.2d 1337, 1339 (8th Cir. 1989)).

B. SID 596's Motion to Strike

SID 596 moves to strike parts of Rock Place's Index of Evidence, an affidavit from Michael Haffke, and Rock Place's Brief in Opposition to SID 596's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court denies SID 596's Motion to Strike.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...