Greenlee v. Sandy's Towing and Recovery Inc., 3:16-cv-00064

In November 2013 Kiel Greenlee drove a 1991 Nissan that crashed; Miami Township police arranged for Sandy’s Towing to tow and store the car. Plaintiffs (Kiel and his mother Gloria) did not pay towing/storage charges and the vehicle remained with Sandy’s.
Plaintiffs sued Miami Township in 2014 (Greenlee I) alleging improper towing; that case was dismissed with prejudice and the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Plaintiffs then filed this pro se action against Sandy’s Towing and others asserting federal claims (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986) and multiple Ohio statutory claims, seeking $570,000,000.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing claim preclusion (res judicata) based on Greenlee I and other defenses; Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment asserting Sandy’s acted under color of state law and denying privity with Miami Township.
Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Scheduling Order to disclose lay witnesses; the court issued and later enforced a bar order excluding Plaintiffs’ lay witness testimony.
The magistrate judge concluded all claims arise from the same transaction litigated in Greenlee I, found privity between Miami Township and Sandy’s (principal-agent), and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars the suit	Greenlee: No privity between Sandy’s and Miami Township (statutory definitions preclude employer-employee privity) so prior judgment doesn’t bind Sandy’s	Sandy’s: Greenlee I is final; Sandy’s was in privity with Miami Township (principal-agent) and the claims are identical	Res judicata applies; dismissal with prejudice granted
Whether Sandy’s acted under color of state law for § 1983 liability	Greenlee: Sandy’s acted as joint/willful participant with police and is a state actor	Sandy’s: Not disputed that an agency relationship existed; but prior case resolved the transaction	Agency/principal relationship supports finding of privity; claims precluded by prior judgment
Whether Plaintiffs may present lay witness evidence at trial	Greenlee: Bar order was erroneous; witnesses were known and disclosure unnecessary	Sandy’s: Plaintiffs failed to comply with Scheduling Order; court properly issued show-cause and bar orders	Court enforced Scheduling Order and barred Plaintiffs’ lay witness testimony as sanction
Whether Plaintiffs’ Ohio statutory/criminal claims salvage the suit	Greenlee: Towing/storage without compliance with Ohio law (e.g., R.C. 4513.61) amounted to theft and deprived property without due process	Sandy’s: All claims arise from same transaction adjudicated in Greenlee I	All claims (federal and state) barred by claim preclusion; dismissed

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (legal standard for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt)
Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470 (claim preclusion bars claims that were or could have been raised)
Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 (effect of judgment in precluding relitigation)
Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (final judgment effect)
Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 521 (elements of res judicata)
Kane v. Magna Mixer Co., 71 F.3d 555 (claim preclusion standard)