L.L. Nelson Enterprises, Inc. v. County of St. Louis, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4962

Landlords Moving, a private eviction-moving firm, alleged a county kickback scheme where deputies referred eviction work to preferred private movers for cash.
The scheme allegedly favored private mover IEA, while Landlords Moving was sidelined after opposing the scheme in 2003–2004.
A February 2004 eviction-referral schedule allegedly discriminated against Landlords Moving by listing it last and IEA first.
Main announced to deputies that Landlords Moving would be put out of business after complaints about the schedule; she allegedly implemented procedures disadvantaging Landlords Moving.
Landlords Moving cooperated with a federal investigation into county officials; Plaintiffs asserted retaliatory actions against them in 2004–2005.
The amended complaint asserted four counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a § 1985 claim for retaliation and sought declaratory and injunctive relief; district court dismissed most claims and entered final judgment as to several defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Main's First Amendment retaliation claim survives pleading	Landlords Moving alleges protected petitioning activity and retaliation.	Defendants contend no protected public-concern speech and lack of adverse action.	Yes, against Main; retaliation plausibly alleged.
Whether other county supervisors can be held liable under § 1983	Overall, Buckles, and Fox acted with or failed to halt retaliation.	Supervisors cannot be liable for conspiracies without showing personal involvement or improper motive.	Yes for Main only; others properly dismissed.
Whether § 1985 claim is pled plausibly against IEA or County	Alleges conspiracy to retaliate for Nelson-Smith's federal testimony.	Intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars conspiracies among county actors and private parties without joint participation.	No viable § 1985 claim; IEA improperly alleged to participate.
Whether declaratory relief claim survives with the First Amendment ruling	Relief sought to define rights and remedies related to retaliation claims.	No independent basis for jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act.	Remanded; reversed dismissal along with the First Amendment ruling.

Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 271 U.S. 583 (1936) (unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies to private burdens on constitutional rights)
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) (government cannot condition a benefit on giving up a constitutional right where not related to the property)
Roma Construction Co. v. Russo, 96 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 1996) (coercive extortion not voluntary payment; due process implications)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public concern test for speech; when government acts as sovereign may permit less protection)
Umbehr v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (public-contract relationship limits First Amendment protection to matters of public concern)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; supervisory liability requires adequate motive allegations)
Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121 (1998) (speech/retaliation protections in witness contexts)
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom)
L.A. County v. Humphries, 131 S. Ct. 447 (2010) (municipal liability for constitutional rights depends on policy or custom)