Vuyanich v. S. Huntingdon Twp.

679 F.Supp.3d 205

Timothy E. VUYANICH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH HUNTINGDON TOWNSHIP, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1342

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Signed June 28, 2023

Alexander W. Brown, Bernard P. Matthews, Jr., Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek and Eck, PLLC, Greensburg, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Dennis St. J. Mulvihill, Amy V. Sims, William C. Robinson, III, Robb Leonard Mulvihill LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants South Huntingdon Township, Supervisor Eddie Troup, Supervisor Matthew Jennewine, Supervisor Richard Gates.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Timothy E. Vuyanich ("Mr. Vuyanich") and Carol L. Vuyanich (collectively "Plaintiffs") treated their property, which is partially situated in Smithton Borough and partially situated in South Huntingdon Township, as a junkyard. It ultimately resulted in a criminal misdemeanor conviction against Mr. Vuyanich. After authorization by a Pennsylvania state court judge, Smithton Borough and other affiliated entities cleaned up Plaintiffs' property by hauling away vehicles and other items. Plaintiffs filed suit asserting a number of claims that various defendants wrongly entered their properly and removed chattels. (ECF No. 1). The Defendants remaining in the case are South Huntingdon Township, Supervisor Eddie Troup ("Troup"),¹ Supervisor Matthew Jennewine ("Jennewine"), and Supervisor Richard Gates ("Gates") (collectively the "South Huntingdon Defendants").² The South Huntingdon Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs as to the claims against them contained in Counts I and IV of Plaintiffs' complaint. (ECF No. 131). Count I asserts a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against South Huntingdon Township, and Count IV asserts a Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim against all of the South Huntingdon Defendants. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs filed a Partial Summary Judgment Motion only as to liability on their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against South Huntingdon Township (Count I). (ECF No. 139). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the South Huntingdon Defendants' motion and deny Plaintiffs' motion.

I. FACTUAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs' property, located at 303 Third Street, Smithton, Pennsylvania 15479, is partially situated in Smithton Borough and partially situated in South Huntingdon Township. Only seven percent of the property is in Smithton Borough, but that is the part adjacent to and connected to Third Street in Smithton Borough. Thus, all of Plaintiffs' neighbors are Smithton residents. Plaintiffs treated their property as a junkyard,³ and since 2002 they were subjected to numerous ordinance actions and/or private criminal complaints pursued by South Huntingdon Township. (ECF No. 135, p. 3); (ECF No. 149, p. 3); (ECF No. 141, p. 1); (ECF No. 146, p. 1). At some point, South Huntingdon Township stopped pursing actions related to Plaintiffs' property. (ECF No. 135, p. 4); (ECF No. 149, p. 3). Smithton Borough also received frequent complaints about the state of Plaintiffs' property, and Smithton Police Chief Michael R. Natale ("Chief Natale") was made aware of the issues with Plaintiffs' property during his orientation in 2014. In the course of six to eight years, Smithton Borough pursued approximately fifty court actions against Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 135, p. 4); (ECF No. 149, p. 4).

On February 29, 2016, Smithton Borough's Solicitor, Blaine Black ("Solicitor Black"), wrote to South Huntingdon Township's Solicitor, Christopher Huffman ("Solicitor Huffman"), regarding Plaintiffs' property, and advised:

Smithton Borough would like to prosecute the property owner for various violations of its Ordinances since he refuses to move junk and other debris from the property. We are requesting that South Huntingdon Township relinquish any jurisdiction over to Smithton Borough for such Ordinance violations. Smithton Borough is willing to handle any and all prosecution and code enforcement relating to this property at no cost or expense to South Huntingdon Township. Currently, Smithton Borough Police Department is charged with the enforcement of its Ordinances. However, Borough Council is considering the hiring of a private code enforcement company to handle enforcement.

(ECF No. 138-7); (ECF No. 135, pp. 4-5); (ECF No. 149, p. 5); (ECF No. 141, p. 2); (ECF No. 146, pp. 2-3). At a South Huntingdon Township meeting on March 17, 2016, attended by South Huntingdon Township Supervisors Troup, Gates, and William Sherbondy ("Sherbondy"), Solicitor Huffman was authorized to send a letter to Solicitor Black. More specifically, the following was recorded in the meeting minutes:

William Sherbondy made a motion to have Chris Huffman send a letter to Smithton Borough [ ] to file charges against Carol and Tim Vuyanich. Richard Gates seconded. Eddie Troup, Richard [ ] [,] William Sherbondy all voted yes.

(ECF No. 138-8, p. 2).⁴ Solicitor Huffman then sent a March 18, 2016 letter to Solicitor Black stating in pertinent part,

Please be advised that the South Huntingdon Township Supervisors have approved your request that South Huntingdon Township relinquish jurisdiction over to Smithton Borough for prosecution of any South Huntingdon Township Ordinance and/or Code violation which may occur on the portion of the [Vuyanich] property that is located in South Huntingdon Township. This letter shall serve as official notification that South Huntingdon Township is granting Smithton Borough the right to enforce and prosecute any violation of South Huntingdon Township ordinance or code as it relates to the [Vuyanich] property.

(ECF No. 138-9, p. 2). And, according to Solicitor Huffman, he wrote the letter to notify Smithton Borough that it could pursue its own ordinance efforts, but South Huntingdon Township did not want to be involved. (ECF No. 138-29, pp. 5-12). He did not believe it was an inter-municipal cooperation agreement. (ECF No. 138-29, p. 13). According to Solicitor Black, he did not request South Huntingdon Township relinquish jurisdiction over all portions of the property; he was simply seeking to enforce violations of the Smithton Borough code on the portion of the property in its jurisdiction. (ECF No. 147-1, pp. 3, 5-8).

A criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Vuyanich in a state court before a magisterial district judge at Complaint/Incident Number 20180702M0010 with Chief Natale as the affiant. (ECF No. 138-10). Mr. Vuyanich was charged with three separate offenses: public nuisance, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6504; abandonment of vehicles, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A § 3712(B) (5 counts); and discarding an icebox in a place accessible to a child, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6502(A). (ECF No. 138-10). None of these criminal charges related to any violations of South Huntingdon Township's ordinances. Rather, they all dealt with violations of Smithton Borough ordinances. (ECF No. 135, p. 6); (ECF No. 149, p. 10). The case was held over for further proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County at Docket Number CP-65-CR-0003869-2018. (ECF No. 142-14); (ECF No. 141, p. 3); (ECF No. 146, p. 4). Five status conferences were held before Judge Feliciani, and none were attended by any representative of South Huntingdon Township. During the January 10, 2019 status conference, the Westmoreland County assistant district attorney stated that she was attempting to obtain a monetary grant to assist Mr. Vuyanich with cleaning the property, and she requested a continuance of ninety days to confirm that Plaintiffs were taking steps to clean the property. At an April 9, 2019 status conference, Mr. Vuyanich's attorney explained that Mr. Vuyanich was incapable of cleaning the property himself and that he was willing to cooperate. Judge Feliciani continued the case for another sixty days on the condition that Mr. Vuyanich, "with whatever help he's getting, will abate the problem that's persisted since 2014 or earlier." (ECF No. 135, p. 7); (ECF No. 149, p. 10). At a June 18, 2019 status conference, Judge Feliciani recognized that Smithton Borough had been trying to get the property cleaned "for months, if not longer." Judge Feliciani ordered that Mr. Vuyanich had twenty days to remove any items he wanted to keep from his vehicles, and after the twenty days expired, Smithton Borough was authorized to remove the vehicles "or whatever else is on the property." Judge Feliciani also issued a written order following the conference authorizing Smithton Borough to clean the property. (ECF No. 135, p. 8); (ECF No. 149, p. 12); (ECF No. 138-14).

The cleanup of Plaintiffs' property commenced in July 2019. It involved Smithton Borough's cleanup contractor, Dale Cooper ("Cooper"), and several of his crewmembers. (ECF No. 135, p. 8); (ECF No. 149, p. 15). Cooper agreed to remove abandoned vehicles, cleanup garbage and take "all metals and items" off Plaintiffs' property for $3,500.00. (ECF No. 141, p. 3); (ECF No. 146, p. 4). Smithton Borough emailed Chief Natale on July 2, 2019, to inform him that Cooper was "good to go with the clean-up" and that Cooper had "found someone that will take the cars and was able to line up helpers." (ECF No. 150-19); (ECF No. 141, p. 6); (ECF No. 146, p. 8).

From July 9, 2019 through October 3, 2019, Cooper was at the property cleaning for approximately thirty days. He removed numerous vehicles and other garbage/junk from the property. None of the removed items were inventoried. During the process, the property line between the two municipalities was unclear to some individuals and Cooper's crew may have entered a portion of the property in South Huntingdon Township and cleaned up some items. The South Huntingdon supervisors did not personally participate in cleaning up and removing chattel from Plaintiffs' property. (ECF No. 135, pp. 8-9); (ECF No. 149,...