718 F.3d 578
6th Cir.2013Background
- Janosek’s Welded Ring sought overcharges from Cleveland Water Department (1999–2001).
- He alleged unjust enrichment, taking without just compensation under Ohio Constitution, negligence, and federal due process in a §1983 claim.
- District court dismissed for statute of limitations and lack of a protectable property interest.
- Accrual times: unjust enrichment when benefit conferred; taking when the act occurred; negligence at the time of conduct.
- Complaint shows accrual latest 2001; filed 2010, nine years after accrual; claims time-barred.
- Moral Claims Commission proceedings offering a discretionary, non-mandatory remedy did not create a protected property interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio statute of limitations barred the state claims | Janosek argues lack of clear discovery date makes timing unclear | City argues accrual by 2001 and timely filing not shown | Time-barred; accrual occurred by 2001 and suit filed 2010 is untimely |
| Whether accrual rules apply without discovery rule change | No special discovery rule argued | Accrual dates determine timeliness | Claims accrued by 2001; timely filing not shown |
| Whether due process claim has a protected property interest | Moral Claims Commission procedure implied an entitlement | Entitlement is discretionary and not a property interest | No protected interest; due process claim fails |
| Whether the Moral Claims Commission hearing created a property interest | Hearing scheduling evidence of entitlement | Hearing discretionary; not a right to payment | Hearing scheduling does not create a property interest; due process claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (procedural due process requires legitimate entitlement)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (entitlement must be judicially cognizable; discretion governs)
- Richardson v. Township of Brady, 218 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2000) (protectable property interests require more than abstract need)
- Desai v. Franklin, 895 N.E.2d 875 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (unjust enrichment accrues when benefit conferred)
- Koe-Krompecher v. City of Columbus, 2005 WL 3316846 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (taking claim accrues at time of taking)
- Collins v. Sotka, 692 N.E.2d 581 (Ohio 1998) (negligence accrues at time of negligent act)
- Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mortg. Co., 947 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 2011) (statute accrual and limitations principles)
- U.S. Citizens Ass’n v. Sebelius, 705 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2013) (review of pleadings for plausibility; favorable-view standard)
- Dudenhoefer v. Fifth Third Bancorp, 692 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012) (pleading plausibility standard)