Daily Services, LLC v. Tracy Valentino
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12011
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Daily Services owned by Ryan Mason acquired some I-Force clients after I-Force failed to obtain self-insurance, leading to Bureau-initiated premium recoveries.
- Ohio law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Bureau files judgments or liens for unpaid premiums.
- Bureau initially filed judgments/liens without prior notice; later notices were provided in some instances but not always before actions.
- Daily Services challenged nine separate judgments/liens under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging procedural due process violations in their individual capacities.
- District court granted judgment on the pleadings, finding qualified immunity based on Parratt, and Daily Services appealed.
- Court reviews the pleadings de novo and discusses mootness, the clearly established law prong, and the interplay of Parratt with due process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parratt governs predeprivation due process in this case | Daily Services argues Parratt applies to allow post-deprivation remedies, so predeprivation rights may be ill-defined. | Defendants contend Parratt is relevant to postdeprivation remedies, potentially insulating officials. | Partially true: Parratt applies, but only to postdeprivation analysis; does not determine clearly established predeprivation rights. |
| Whether Daily Services had a clearly established right to predeprivation notice before judgments/liens | Daily Services contends it had a clear right to predeprivation notice under Ohio law and U.S. due process. | Defendants argue uncertainty about Parratt undermines clearly established rights. | The right to predeprivation notice was clearly established in this context. |
| Whether the case is moot given post-deprivation remedies and narrowed judgments/liens | Damages claim remains live even if some judgments/liens were vacated or released. | Post-deprivation remedies render the case moot to the extent relief is unavailable. | Not moot; damages claim remains live and capable of effectual relief. |
| Whether the Parratt doctrine applies given Zinermon factors (random/unauthorized, impracticable, authorized) | Daily Services argues actions were unauthorized, fitting Zinermon, so Parratt should not bar relief. | Defendants maintain actions were not broadly authorized and thus fall under Parratt. | Parratt applies; postdeprivation remedies inadequate here absent alleging inadequate state remedies. |
| Whether Daily Services stated a procedural due process claim after applying Parratt | Plaintiff contends predeprivation rights were violated due to notices not provided. | Defendants say Parratt's applicability negates a due process violation. | Daily Services' procedural due process claim fails under Parratt absent inadequate postdeprivation remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (establishes postdeprivation remedies can satisfy due process for random/unauthorized deprivations)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (extends Parratt to intentional deprivations; focus on state’s ability to provide predeprivation process)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (limits Parratt where deprivation is foreseeable and predeprivation safeguards exist; distinguished from random/unauthorized acts)
- Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2006) (clearly established standard assessed in specific context, not broad proposition)
- Wedgewood Ltd. P’ship I v. Township of Liberty, Ohio, 610 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2010) (discusses established state procedures for mootness analysis)