462 F. App'x 500
6th Cir.2011Background
- Hines, a former Cleveland city attorney, sued over being barred from portions of settlement proceeds from a city FLSA action.
- A successor attorney settled the FLSA action with a provision preventing Hines from sharing settlement proceeds.
- The district court dismissed federal claims against the Tyson Defendants, remanded state-law claims against them, and granted summary judgment for the City Defendants.
- The district court relied on two disciplinary rules (DR 1-102 and DR 2-107) to justify limiting Hines’s recovery.
- On appeal, Hines challenges the tortious-interference ruling and the dismissal of civil-conspiracy and §1983 claims against the Tyson Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City Defendants’ settlement action improperly tortiously interfered with Hines’s contract | Hines alleges improper interference by the City to deprive him of fees | City Defendants had a legitimate objective to avoid a conflict-of-interest by Hines | Yes, City Defendants acted with justification; no liability for tortious interference |
| Whether Tyson Defendants can be held liable under §1983 or civil conspiracy for actions tied to city actions | Tyson Defendants conspired with state actors to deprive rights | No state action; private party cannot be liable absent sufficient action | District court properly dismissed federal §1983 claim against Tyson Defendants; state-action not established |
| Whether Monell and related liability claims against the City survive | City policy or custom caused constitutional violation | No unconstitutional policy; conclusory assertions fail | Monell claim properly dismissed; no policy or custom shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Fred Siegel Co. L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 707 N.E.2d 853 (Ohio 1999) (properly analyzes lack of privilege in tortious interference claims)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1982) (joint action theory limited to prejudgment attachment contexts)
- Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2007) (recognizes state-action implications for private parties in some conspiracies)
- Hill v. Langer, 86 F. App’x 163 (6th Cir. 2004) (limits joint action theory to narrow contexts)
- Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2008) (no municipal liability without unconstitutional policy or practice evidence)
- Scotty’s Contracting & Stone, Inc. v. United States, 326 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2003) (judicial notice of related proceedings permissible in some contexts)
- Pennington v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2009) (denial of state-law questions where not unsettled issues)