Emmert v. Clackamas County, No. 3:2013cv01317 - Document 26 (D. Or. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State 9 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted 30 days to replead in accordance with this Opinion and Order. Signed on 6/24/14 by Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel. (kb)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF OREGON 9 PORTLAND DIVISION 10 11 13 TERRY W. EMMERT sometimes doing business under the name EMMERT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 14 Plaintiff, 12 15 16 17 v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Defendant. 18 19 20 Hollis K. McMilan HOLLIS K. MCMILAN, P.C. 805 S.W. Broadway, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97205 21 22 23 Kenneth C. Bauman Email: kencbauman@comcast.net 1406 S.W. Upland Dr. Portland, OR 97221 24 Attorneys for Plaintiff 25 27 Stephen L. Madkour Alexander Gordon OFFICE OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY COUNSEL 2051 Kaen Road Oregon City, OR 97045-1819 28 Attorneys for Defendant 26 Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER No. 3:13-cv-01317-HU OPINION AND ORDER 1 HUBEL, Magistrate Judge: 2 Before the Court is Defendant Clackamas County s motion to 3 dismiss Plaintiff Terry Emmert s ( Plaintiff ) complaint without 4 prejudice and with leave to amend, pursuant to Federal Rules of 5 Civil Procedure ( Rule ) 8(a)(2), 9(b) and 12(b)(6). 6 argument and in his response brief, Plaintiff essentially conceded 7 that his complaint fails to state a claim for fraud in light of the 8 requirements imposed by Rule 9(b).1 9 its analysis to Plaintiff s remaining inverse condemnation and At oral The Court will therefore limit 10 equal protection claims. 11 motion (Docket No. 9) to dismiss is granted. 12 For the reasons that follow, Defendant s I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 13 The present action concerns thirteen tracts of land located 14 within Clackamas County that were or are owned by Plaintiff in his 15 individual capacity or as the sole member of Emmert Development 16 Company, an Oregon limited liability company. Those tracts of land 17 are generally referred to by the parties as: (1) the Hubbard Road 18 Properties; (2) the 142nd Avenue East Properties; (3) the 142nd 19 Avenue West Properties; (4) the Morning Way Properties; (5) the Con 20 Battin Road Property; (6) the Sunnyside Road Property; (7) the 21 13171 Property; (8) the 15576 Property; (9) the 14785 Property; 22 (10) the Clear Creek Estates Property; (11) the Emmert View Court 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 For example, at page two of his response brief, Plaintiff states: The Court can spare much time and aggravation sorting through the [Defendant] s blunderbuss motion knowing that [Plaintiff] is prepared to file an amended complaint that repleads his allegations where needed, particularly those related to the fraud claim. (Pl. s Resp. Br. at 2.) Similarly, at page nineteen, Plaintiff reiterates that he will replead the fraud claim with greater specificity [as required under Rule] 9(b). (Pl. s Resp. Br. at 19.) Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 1 Property; (12) the 11791 Property; and (13) the Southeast 114th 2 Properties. 3 Plaintiff s complaint alleges the following facts, which the 4 Court accepts as true.2 5 complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant broke a verbal promise 6 to purchase the Hubbard Road Properties and the 142nd Avenue East 7 Properties, and then proceeded to discourage buyers from purchasing 8 the 142nd Avenue East Properties and threatened to eliminate 9 certain entries and/or attempt to thwart historic uses on two of 10 the Hubbard Road Properties one of which sold in November 2009.3 11 In paragraphs sixteen through nineteen of the complaint, 12 Plaintiff alleges that a potential buyer rescinded an offer to 13 purchase the 142nd Avenue West Properties in June 2008, when it 14 became apparent that a zone change approved by Defendant in July 15 2007 16 paragraphs twenty through twenty-three of the complaint, Plaintiff 17 alleges that Defendant broke a verbal promise to purchase the 18 Morning Way Properties sometime around November 2008, causing him 19 to lose a sale. 20 would In make In paragraphs ten through fifteen of the development paragraphs of twenty-four the land through impossible. twenty-seven of In the 21 complaint, Plaintiff alleges that a light rail project caused a 22 piece of land formerly owned by Defendant to revert to the State of 23 Oregon at some unspecified time, and as a result, a buyer rescinded 24 his offer to purchase the Con Battin Road Property on January 28, 25 26 2 It must be noted that the facts recited below reflect the lack of specificity in Plaintiff s complaint. 27 3 28 The Hubbard Road unspecified time in 2003. Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER Properties were purchased at some 1 2010. In paragraphs twenty-eight through twenty-nine, Plaintiff 2 alleges that he has been unable to obtain access to the Sunnyside 3 Road Property after a road widening project, which in turn has 4 greatly impaired, if not eliminated, Plaintiff s ability to develop 5 or sell the property. 6 In paragraphs thirty through thirty-two of the complaint, 7 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant broke a verbal promise to purchase 8 the 13171 Property, causing Plaintiff to lose to an unspecified 9 purchaser at an unspecified time. In paragraphs thirty-three 10 through thirty-five of the complaint, Plaintiff generally alleges 11 that Defendant broke a verbal promise to purchase the 15576 12 Property. 13 In paragraph thirty-six of the complaint, Plaintiff generally 14 alleges that potential buyers were given false information by 15 Defendant regarding the lots making up the 14785 Property, and an 16 unnamed individual who purchased a lot was given unspecified false 17 information 18 Plaintiff to refund her purchase money. 19 of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that a buyer rescinded his 20 offer to purchase a home at the Clear Creek Estates Property after 21 Defendant repeatedly provided false information regarding the 22 suitability of the septic system. that delayed construction and apparently caused In paragraph thirty-seven 23 In paragraphs thirty-eight through forty of the complaint, 24 Plaintiff alleges that an unnamed developer refused to purchase the 25 remaining lots at the Emmert View Court Property because Defendant 26 caused the developer so many problems on the first four lots on 27 which it wanted to build. 28 has unsuccessfully tried to obtain a building permit from Defendant Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff also alleges that a couple 1 after purchasing a lot in 2006. In paragraphs forty-one through 2 forty-two of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he lost a sale 3 after Defendant misrepresented the boundary lines of the 11791 4 Property and that Defendant has refused to allow Plaintiff to 5 develop or sell the property prior to competing a comprehensive 6 plan. 7 In paragraphs forty-three through forty-four of the complaint, 8 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed to allow him to use the 9 Southeast 114th Properties for storage purposes and then proceeded 10 to cite him for illegal storage. In the process of challenging 11 the citation, presumably at some administrative level, Plaintiff 12 alleges that Defendant s employees lied about whether Plaintiff had 13 received permission to use the Southeast 114th Properties for 14 storage purposes. 15 Based on the foregoing events, Plaintiff filed the present 16 action against Defendant on July 31, 2013, alleging a claim for 17 inverse 18 Constitutions, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of 19 Plaintiff s constitutional right to equal protection under the 20 Fourteenth Amendment, and a claim for common law fraud. 21 February 19, 2014, the Court heard argument on Defendant s pending 22 motion to dismiss. On April 21, 2014, before this Court issued its 23 opinion, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to correct the record, 24 or alternatively, to make roughly 100 pages of exhibits part of the 25 record at the motion to dismiss stage. 26 22, 2014, the Court issued a minute order granting Plaintiff s 27 unopposed motion and clarifying that the aforementioned exhibits condemnation under 28 Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER the Oregon and United States On The following day, April 1 had been received and 2 Defendant s Motion to Dismiss. 4 3 4 admitted as part of the record on II. LEGAL STANDARD A. Rule 8(a)(2) 5 Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a short and plain 6 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 7 relief. 8 notice pleading standard requires that the pleader give the 9 defendant fair notice of what the claim . . . is and the grounds FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Put another way, the federal 10 upon which it rests. 11 2:13 cv 018342013 WL 6564318, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013) 12 (citation omitted). 13 B. 14 Shannon v. County of Sacramento, No. Rule 12(b)(6) A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim 15 upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In 16 considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must 17 accept all of the claimant s material factual allegations as true 18 and view all facts in the light most favorable to the claimant. 19 Reynolds v. Giusto, No. 08-CV-6261, 2009 WL 2523727, at *1 (D. Or. 20 Aug. 18, 2009). 21 standard under Rule 12(b)(6) in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 22 U.S. 544 (2007). 23 sufficient in the pleadings to give proper notice of the claim and The Supreme Court addressed the proper pleading Twombly established the need to include facts 24 25 26 27 28 4 To the extent that [any] factual deficiencies in Plaintiff s claims are cured by facts revealed in his exhibits but not in the body of his complaint, Plaintiff is advised that he should file an amended complaint that specifically alleges those facts instead of relying exhibits to present those facts. Eaves v. Castro, No. 1:09 cv 01647 SKO, 2010 WL 2817609, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2010). Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER 1 its basis: While a complaint attacked [under] Rule 12(b)(6) . . . 2 does 3 obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 4 requires 5 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. 6 at 555 (brackets omitted). not need more detailed than factual labels and allegations, conclusions, a and plaintiff s a formulaic Id. 7 Since Twombly, the Supreme Court has clarified that the 8 pleading standard announced therein is generally applicable to 9 cases governed by the Rules, not only to those cases involving 10 antitrust allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 11 1937, 1949 (2009). 12 guided by two specific principles. 13 accept as true all facts asserted in a pleading, it need not accept 14 as true any legal conclusion set forth in a pleading. 15 the complaint must set forth facts supporting a plausible claim for 16 relief and not merely a possible claim for relief. 17 instructed 18 plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task 19 that 20 experience and common sense. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50 (citing 21 Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007)). 22 concluded: While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a 23 complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. 24 there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume 25 their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise 26 to an entitlement to relief. 27 28 that requires The Iqbal court explained that Twombly was [d]etermining the reviewing First, although the court must whether court to a Id. Id. complaint draw on its Second, The court states a judicial The court When Id. at 1950. The Ninth Circuit further explained the Twombly-Iqbal standard in Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009). Page 7 - OPINION AND ORDER The 1 Moss court reaffirmed the Iqbal holding that a claim has facial 2 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 3 the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 4 liable for the misconduct alleged. Moss, 572 F.3d at 969 (quoting 5 Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). 6 stating: In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, 7 the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inference from 8 that content must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the 9 plaintiff to relief. Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 10 11 12 The court in Moss concluded by III. DISCUSSION A. Equal Protection Plaintiff brings a claim against Defendant under § 1983 for 13 violation of his constitutional right to equal protection. 14 Fourteenth Amendment s Equal Protection Clause provides that no 15 state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 16 protection of the laws. 17 alleges that Defendant, in its regulatory decisions and its 18 conspiracy to block [him] from developing his land, has singled him 19 out for different treatment from other landowners in [Clackamas] 20 County. 21 proceeds under a class of one theory of equal protection. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. (Pl. s Resp. Br. at 7.) The Plaintiff In other words, Plaintiff 22 The Supreme Court has recognized that an equal protection 23 claim can in some circumstances be sustained even if the plaintiff 24 has not alleged class-based discrimination, but instead claims that 25 she has been irrationally singled out as a so-called class of 26 one. 27 (citation omitted). 28 plaintiff Gerhart v. Lake County, 637 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) must To state a plausible class-of-one claim, a allege that Page 8 - OPINION AND ORDER (1) the defendant treated him 1 differently from others similarly situated, (2) the defendant did 2 so intentionally, and (3) there was no rational basis for the 3 difference in treatment. 4 (3d Cir. 2013) (emphasis added); see also Village v. Willowbrook v. 5 Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) ( Our cases have recognized 6 successful equal protection claims brought by a class of one, 7 where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated 8 differently from others similarly situated and that there is no 9 rational basis for the difference in treatment. ). Cooper v. Menges, 541 F. App x 228, 233 10 In Scocca v. Smith, No. C 11 1318 EMC, 2012 WL 2375203 (N.D. 11 Cal. June 22, 2012), the district court expounded on the pleading 12 requirement in a class-of-one equal protection case, stating: 13 [w]here a plaintiff is making a class-of-one claim, the essence of the claim is that only the plaintiff has been discriminated against, and therefore the basis for the differential treatment might well have been because the plaintiff was unique; thus, there is a higher premium for a plaintiff to identify how he or she is similarly situated to others. As the Second Circuit noted in [a 2010 decision], class-of-one plaintiffs must show an extremely high degree of similarity between themselves and the persons to whom they compare themselves. Several [other] courts have [also] indicated that there needs to be specificity in a class-of-one case. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Id. 21 omitted). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 at *5 (internal citations, quotation marks and brackets In Perano v. Township of Tilden, 423 F. App x 234 (3d Cir. 2011), for example, the Third Circuit stated: [Plaintiff] has simply alleged that he was treated differently from other similarly situated residential and commercial developers. Without more specific factual allegations as to the allegedly similarly situated parties, he has not made plausible the conclusion that those parties exist and that they are like him in all relevant aspects. Accordingly, [Plaintiff] has failed to state a[] [plausible class-of-one] Equal Protection claim. Page 9 - OPINION AND ORDER 1 Id. at 238-39 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see 2 also Scocca, 2012 WL 2375203, at *6 (concluding that the plaintiff 3 failed to state a plausible class-of-one Equal Protection claim 4 because he only alleged in conclusory terms that he was similarly 5 situated with seventy other people who were apparently treated 6 differently). 7 Here, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has 8 failed to state a plausible class-of-one claim under the Equal 9 Protection Clause. The complaint alleges [t]here are no other 10 similarly property 11 Clackamas County known to [Plaintiff] who have been subjected to 12 the same and/or similar interference with their efforts to sell 13 and/or develop their properties. 14 the test backwards. 15 property owners who have had the same or similar treatment by 16 Defendant that supports this type of claim. It is the existence of 17 such similarly situated property owners who weren t treated in the 18 alleged manner that gives rise to the claim. Plaintiff must allege 19 with particularity who these others are. 20 Mosley, 787 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ( Vinatieri has 21 not explained to whom he was similarly situated. . . . The equal 22 protection claim must be dismissed, although Vinatieri may amend 23 the 24 14 0286 UA, 2014 WL 1347180, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2014) ( While 25 Plaintiff claims that he was treated differently than the other 26 subtenants at the premises, Plaintiff has not alleged that his 27 circumstances were similar to those of any other subtenant in all 28 relevant respects. ). FAC situated if he can owners and/or developers (Compl. ¶ 56.) within Plaintiff has It is not the absence of similarly situated do so. ); Page 10 - OPINION AND ORDER Shapiro v. See Vinatieri v. Suvorov, No. SACV 1 In short, the Court grants Defendant s motion to dismiss 2 Plaintiff s class-of-one equal protection claim with leave to 3 replead in accordance with the authorities cited in this Opinion 4 and Order. 5 B. 6 Inverse Condemnation Plaintiff also brings a claim against Defendant for inverse 7 condemnation. 8 paragraph fifty of his complaint, Plaintiff alleges a taking of 9 property without payment of just compensation in violation of 10 Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, as well as the 11 Fifth 12 briefing, Plaintiff focuses his arguments on the viability of a 13 state law claim for inverse condemnation, and at one point, 14 seemingly suggests that the Court should disregard Defendant s 15 reliance on a federal takings case. 16 federal constitution does not become relevant until the Oregon 17 constitutional claim is resolved . . . . ). 18 characterizes his inverse condemnation claim as claims [pleaded] 19 under both the Oregon and federal constitutions, citing paragraph 20 fifty of his complaint. Amendment Though styled as a single claim for relief, in to the United States Constitution. In his (Pl. s Resp. at 16) ( But the But Plaintiff also (Pl. s Resp. at 9.) 21 Inverse condemnation is simply a popular term for a takings 22 claim in which the government has taken property without formal 23 condemnation proceedings. 24 W. Linn, 428 F. App x 700, 701 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011). 25 for an unconstitutional taking are not necessarily identical under 26 the provisions of the state and federal constitutions, however. 27 Ferguson v. City of Mill City, 120 Or. App. 210, 213 (1993). 28 Indeed, Page 11 - OPINION AND ORDER W. Linn Corporate Park, LLC v. City of The criteria 1 2 3 4 [t]he Oregon Supreme Court has observed that the basic thrust of the two constitutional provisions is generally the same but has cautioned that the criteria used to determine if a taking for public use has occurred within the meaning of the Oregon Constitution are not necessarily identical to those pronounced from time to time by the United States Supreme Court under the fifth amendment. 5 6 Schoonover v. Klamath County, 105 Or. App. 611, 614 (1991) (citing 7 Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or. 254, 259 n.5 (1982)). 8 An example that illustrates the importance of the distinction 9 is David Hill Development, LLC v. City of Forest Grove, 688 F. 10 Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Or. 2010), where Judge Acosta undertook separate 11 state and federal takings analyses and ultimately granted summary 12 judgment on the plaintiff s state law inverse condemnation claim 13 and denied summary judgment on the plaintiff s federal inverse 14 condemnation claim. 15 Judge Acosta also noted that state law takings claims are subject 16 to a six-year statute of limitations under ORS 12.080(4), while 17 federal takings claims brought under § 1983 are governed by 18 Oregon s 19 claims. 20 two-year Id. at 1197 & 1209-11. statute of limitations Later in his opinion, for personal injury Id. at 1223. In the Ninth Circuit, [t]aking claims must be brought under 21 § 1983. Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates v. City of Morgan Hill, 22 353 F.3d 651, 655 (9th Cir. 2003); Golden Gate Hotel Ass n v. City 23 & County of San Francisco, 18 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1994) 24 ( [A]ll claims of unjust taking ha[ve] to be brought pursuant to 25 Section 1983 (citing Azul-Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 26 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1992))). 27 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements that a right 28 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was Page 12 - OPINION AND ORDER To state a claim under § 1 violated; and that the alleged violation was committed by a person 2 acting under the color of state law. 3 14 0411 PJH, 2014 WL 644557, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014) 4 (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)). Taylor v. Fields, No. C 5 In White v. Valley County, No. 1:09 cv 494 EJL CWD, 2011 WL 6 4583846 (D. Idaho Sept. 30, 2011), for example, the plaintiffs 7 filed 8 recommendation, arguing, among other things, that they should be 9 allowed to bring a direct action under the Takings Clause without objections to the magistrate judge s and 10 pleading it under § 1983. 11 acknowledged that the plaintiffs were not alone in their view, 12 id. (citing Lawyer v. Hilton Head Pub. Serv. Dist. No. 1, 220 F.3d 13 298, 303 n.4 (4th Cir. 2000)), but nonetheless concluded that he 14 was bound by Ninth Circuit precedent requiring that taking claims 15 be brought pursuant to § 1983. 16 statute of limitations for personal injury actions, the Court went 17 on to conclude that one of the plaintiff s federal constitutional 18 claims (including a federal takings claim) were barred. Id. at *8. 19 Here, Plaintiff explicitly invokes § 1983 with respect to his 20 class-of-one equal protection claim, in addition to asserting that 21 the alleged equal protection violation was done under color of 22 laws, ordinances, and regulations of the State of Oregon and 23 Clackamas County. 24 either with respect to his inverse condemnation claim. 25 cannot 26 jurisdiction in this case is wholly based upon Plaintiff s § 1983 27 claims. 28 plausible § 1983 claims, this Court would lack federal question overlook Id. at *7. report Id. (Compl. ¶ 54.) these The district judge Borrowing Idaho s two-year Yet, Plaintiff fails to do deficiencies because The Court subject-matter Consequently, if Plaintiff s complaint fails to state Page 13 - OPINION AND ORDER 1 jurisdiction. Miller v. Kashani, No. CV 12 5649 CAS (AN), 2012 WL 2 4088689, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012). 3 In summary, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to 4 state a plausible takings claim under § 1983, or a plausible class- 5 of-one equal protection claim under § 1983. 6 Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, but declines to address any 7 state law claim at this time. 8 06-201(RS), 2006 WL 3411875, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2006) 9 ( [T]he Court concludes that Bean has failed to allege a cognizable 10 federal claim against Shapiro or Villasenor, and thus has failed to 11 allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. 12 Because the Court concludes that Bean has failed to allege a 13 cognizable federal claim, the Court need not address Bean s state 14 law claims. . . . [T]he Court will grant Bean one final opportunity 15 to attempt to allege a viable federal claim. ); see also Wiley v. 16 Dep t of Children & Family Servs., No. CV 12 04334 GHK (AJW), 2013 17 WL 5775187, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013) ( The complaint fails 18 to state a federal claim, and no diversity jurisdiction exists 19 against the County. Accordingly, the Court should decline to 20 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff s state law 21 claims. ). 22 The Court grants See Bean v. Shapiro, No. C IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons stated, Defendant s motion (Docket No. 9) to 24 dismiss is granted. Plaintiff is granted thirty days (30) leave to 25 replead in accordance with this Opinion and Order. The parties are 26 expected to confer about the form of the amended complaint before 27 it is filed to attempt to eliminate another round of motions to 28 Page 14 - OPINION AND ORDER 1 dismiss. Once filed, Defendant will have forty-five (45) days to 2 respond to the amended complaint. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated this 24th day of June, 2014. 5 /s/ Dennis J. Hubel _________________________________ DENNIS J. HUBEL United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 15 - OPINION AND ORDER

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.