CHKRS, LLC v. City of Dublin et al, No. 2:2018cv01366 - Document 65 (S.D. Ohio 2021)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record and granting 59 Defendants' Motion to Supplement the Record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 3/18/21. (sem)

Download PDF

CHKRS, LLC v. City of Dublin et al Doc. 65 Case: 2:18-cv-01366-KAJ Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/18/21 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 870 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CHKRS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-1366 Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Motions to Supplement the Record. (Docs. 58, 59). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 58) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, while Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 59) is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND This case concerns Defendants’ alleged seizure and removal of a portion of Plaintiff’s driveway (the “Driveway”) in July and November of 2016. (See generally Doc. 38). On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff appealed this Court’s grant of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the Sixth Circuit. (Doc. 51). The Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s dueprocess claims, but reversed its decision on Plaintiff’s takings claim and remanded for further proceedings. (Doc. 53). Following the Sixth Circuit’s decision, this Court held a telephonic conference with the parties on February 2, 2021. (See Doc. 54). Shortly thereafter, the Court ordered the parties “to move to supplement the record with any documents relating specifically to the question of Plaintiff’s alleged property interest.” (Doc. 56). On March 4, 2021, the parties filed their respective Motions to Supplement the Record (Docs. 58, 59), and the Court ordered expedited Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:18-cv-01366-KAJ Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/18/21 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 871 briefing. (Doc. 60). The parties timely filed their opposition (Docs. 62, 63) and while Plaintiff filed a reply brief (Doc. 64), Defendants did not. Accordingly, as the time for any such reply has expired, this matter is now ripe for review. II. DISCUSSION In their respective Motions, the parties each request to supplement the record with a number of documents they allege are relevant to the Court’s disposition on remand. (See generally Docs. 58, 59). However, as will be discussed, not all of the parties’ requested supplements are sufficiently related to the relevant question at issue––whether or not Plaintiff had a property interest at the time of the alleged taking. Before delving into the parties’ Motions, however, the Court finds it prudent to establish the nature of this Order. At base, while the Court is allowing the parties to supplement the record here, it is not making any definitive determinations about the ultimate relevance or admissibility of any of these supplemental documents. To the extent the parties plan to make any such arguments, they are directed to do so in their briefing on Defendants’ forthcoming summary judgment motion. (See Doc. 61). At issue here, is simply whether the parties’ proposed supplements are sufficiently relevant to the question of Plaintiff’s alleged property interest at the time of the alleged taking. A. Plaintiff’s Supplements Plaintiff seeks to supplement the record with the following: copies of two email exchanges between Robert Smith, Managing Member of CHKRS, and employees of Defendant City of Dublin; two photos showing the portion of the Driveway that was allegedly removed; a notice that the stone wall which stood on the driveway is a recognized historic site; and a copy of a commitment for title insurance. (Doc. 58 at 3–4). Defendants object to the inclusion of each, 2 Case: 2:18-cv-01366-KAJ Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/18/21 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 872 arguing that “[n]one of these documents relate[] to the issue of CHKRS’s alleged property interest during the time of the alleged taking.” (Doc. 62 at 1). At the outset, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the email communications between Mr. Smith and City of Dublin employees sufficiently “relate to [Plaintiff’s] property interest in 6310 Riverside Drive, Dublin, Ohio.” (Doc. 64 at 1). Conversely, however, the Court finds that the photographs, the notice concerning the historical status of the stone wall, and the commitment for title insurance are not so relevant. While these documents may help in defining an existing property interest, they do not aid in determining whether or not Plaintiff actually had any property interest at the time of the alleged taking (emphasis added). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record (Doc. 58) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file individual copies of the two email exchanges on the public docket within seven (7) days of this Opinion and Order. To be clear, these excluded exhibits may have relevance down the line but not on this threshold issue. B. Defendants’ Supplements Defendants seek to supplement the record with the general warranty deed for the property at issue (Doc. 59-1) as well as copies of three email correspondences––two between Plaintiff’s counsel and closing agent (Docs. 59-2, 59-4) and another between Mr. Smith, Plaintiff’s counsel and closing agent (Doc. 59-3). (See Doc. 59 at 1–2). Defendants argue that each “relate[s] specifically to the question of Plaintiff’s lack of a property interest for purposes of its takings claim.” (Id. at 1). The Court agrees. At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not oppose supplementing the record with the general warranty deed, which is public and already in the record, and the second email correspondence between Plaintiff’s counsel and closing agent (Doc. 59-4). 3 (See Doc. 63). Case: 2:18-cv-01366-KAJ Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/18/21 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 873 Regardless, however, the Court finds these documents sufficiently relate to the question of whether or not Plaintiff had a property interest at the time of the alleged taking. Rather than describing the quality or parameters of an existing property interest, these documents specifically go toward establishing the existence of an alleged property interest at the time of the alleged taking (emphasis added). (See Doc. 59). Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Supplement the Record (Doc. 59) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to docket Docs. 59-1, 59-2, 59-3, and 59-4 as Defendants’ Supplements. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 58) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, while Defendants Motion (Doc. 59) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file copies of the two email exchanges on the public docket within seven (7) days of this Opinion and Order. Furthermore, the Clerk is DIRECTED to docket Docs. 59-1, 59-2, 59-3, and 59-4 as Defendants’ Supplements. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 18, 2021 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

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.