L.L. Nelson Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. County of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., No. 10-3467 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseLandlords Moving brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 against defendants. Landlords Moving alleged that deputy sheriffs executed an illegal kickback scheme in which they funneled eviction business to private moving companies in exchange for cash payments. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim against all three defendants and entered a final judgment under Rule 54(b). Landlords Moving appealed. The court reversed the dismissal of Landlords Moving's claim against defendant Laurie Main for alleged violations of Landlords Moving's rights under the First Amendment; reversed the dismissal of Landlords Moving's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to that claim; and affirmed the dismissal of all other claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Case - civil rights. Dismissal of amended complaint alleging violations of constitutional rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief is affirmed as to all defendants and claims except claim of retaliation against Laurie Main. Payment of a bribery demanded by public official does not raise a due process or takings clause violation or violate the equal protections clause. District court erred in dismissing retaliation claim, as Landlords Moving engaged in protected activity, an adverse action sufficient to chill a person of ordinary firmness was plead, and allegations supported an inference that Main knew of protected activity and acted with retaliatory motive. Complaint did not adequately allege First Amendment claim against other defendants. Intimidation claim under section 1985 failed because all co-conspirators were county employees acting within the scope of their employment. Declaratory judgment act claim was properly dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.