Crystal Ludwig v. Township of Van Buren
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12511
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ludwig, an exotic dancer, challenges Van Buren Township nudity ordinances under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Garter Belt, Inc. operates the club where Ludwig works and was previously enjoined against the same ordinances.
- Garter Belt I (state court) yielded a judgment and permanent injunction finding the nudity ordinance constitutional; Garter Belt II was dismissed on abstention.
- Bates v. Van Buren Twp. (2002–2005) held res judicata barred similar § 1983 claims by another dancer of Garter Belt.
- District court applied Michigan res judicata (Adair) to bar Ludwig’s suit, treating Ludwig as bound through her employment/privy with Garter Belt.
- Ludwig argued Taylor v. Sturgell limits “virtual representation,” challenging the use of preclusion against a non-party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan res judicata bars Ludwig’s appeal | Ludwig asserts she is not adequately represented by Garter Belt and is not in privity. | Van Buren and district court contend Ludwig is bound as an employee/privy via Garter Belt and the injunction. | No; Michigan res judicata applies, binding Ludwig through privity with Garter Belt. |
| Whether application of res judicata violates due process | Taylor v. Sturgell bars broad virtual representation; due process concerns may arise. | State-law preclusion is not an extreme application and does not offend due process. | Not unconstitutional; Michigan rule not an extreme application that violates due process. |
| Whether Ludwig is bound by the Garter Belt I injunction as a current employee | Her status as an employee does not automatically bind her to prior injunctions. | Injunctions bind the parties, officers, agents, and employees; Ludwig is bound through employment relationship. | Ludwig is bound; cannot relitigate issues already resolved against Garter Belt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (limits on virtual representation; preserves limited nonparty preclusion categories)
- Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996) (extreme preclusion may violate federal rights; defers to due process concerns)
- Adair v. State, 680 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. 2004) (broad Michigan res judicata bar: same parties, merits, and same matter could be resolved)
- Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1930) (injunction binding on employees under corporate control)
- United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 1994) (employees bound by employer conduct in related litigation)
- Exec. Arts Studio v. City of Grand Rapids, 391 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2004) (preclusion effects of state judgments by federal courts)