Paterek v. Village of Armada, Michigan, 801 F.3d 630

Background

John and Cynthia Paterek and their company (PME) operated injection-molding businesses under Special Approval Land Use permits (SALUs) in the Village of Armada; SALUs contained conditions (e.g., limitations on outside storage, hours, employee count).
Longstanding disputes between PME (and John Paterek as a public figure) and Commissioner Ben Delecke escalated after the Patereks successfully appealed Planning Commission limits in 1995; Plaintiffs allege Delecke thereafter harassed and retaliated against them.
From 2011–2013, conflicts included threats to remove Paterek from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), repeated enforcement actions for alleged SALU violations (outside storage, a barbeque grill), and many municipal tickets and threatened prosecutions.
In 2013 PME expanded into a neighboring workshop; the Village demanded a new Certificate of Occupancy (COO) and issued daily fines despite evidence that the preexisting SALU ran with the land; the district court enjoined further tickets and ordered inspections and issuance of COOs consistent with existing SALUs.
The Village later issued a COO for the workshop that imposed strict operating-hour limits contrary to the SALU; Plaintiffs moved for civil and criminal contempt and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation, substantive and procedural due process, equal protection) and under FOIA.
The district court denied the contempt motions and granted summary judgment to Defendants on the constitutional claims (but Plaintiffs won the FOIA claim). Plaintiffs appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Civil contempt — did Village violate court order by issuing COO with new time restriction and delay apartment inspection?	Paterek: Village violated the November 27, 2013 order requiring a COO "in conformance with the existing SALU"; the imposed hours conflicted with SALU and thus breached the order; contempt relief appropriate.	Village/District Ct: Order was not sufficiently specific about COO conditions or inspection timing; no clear, definite violation proven.	Court of Appeals: Vacated denial of civil contempt as erroneous for failing to find Village violated clear order by issuing a COO inconsistent with the SALU; remanded. District court did not abuse discretion re: apartment-inspection timing.
2) First Amendment retaliation — was enforcement motivated by Paterek's protected speech?	Paterek: Repeated adverse actions (tickets, prosecutions, loss of DDA chair) were motivated by retaliation for past protected speech and escalating animus by Delecke.	Defendants: Temporal gaps and legitimate enforcement actions negate causation/motive.	Court of Appeals: Reversed summary judgment — genuine issues of material fact exist (timing, disparate treatment, Council letter, Delecke's statements) sufficient to let jury decide causation/motive.
3) Substantive due process — were enforcement and permitting actions arbitrary and capricious?	Paterek: SALU and COO entitlements created protected property interests; Village acted arbitrarily (selective enforcement, insistence on new SALU/COO, unilateral hour restrictions).	Defendants: No cognizable deprivation; prosecutions dismissed and no permanent loss of rights.	Court of Appeals: Reversed summary judgment — disputed facts (disparate treatment, odd permit handling, COO terms) could support arbitrary-and-capricious finding.
4) Equal protection (class-of-one) — was PME treated differently without rational basis?	Paterek: Other local businesses received COO leniency or were not ticketed; Delecke admitted personality conflict; disparate treatment indicates animus/no rational basis.	Defendants: Actions were lawful and not targeted; differences explained by legitimate reasons.	Court of Appeals: Reversed summary judgment — factual disputes (comparators and admitted animus) preclude resolving claim at summary judgment.

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (establishes that nonmoving party must present more than a scintilla to avoid summary judgment)
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability) (municipalities liable when unconstitutional action stems from policy, custom, or authorized decisionmaker)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity) (two-step inquiry on constitutional violation and whether right was clearly established)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law) (courts must avoid defining clearly established law at high level of generality)
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. en banc) (First Amendment retaliation elements and standards)
Warren v. City of Athens, 411 F.3d 697 (substantive due process) (zoning actions arbitrary and capricious can implicate substantive due process)
Colling v. Barry, 841 F.2d 1297 (civil contempt remedy) (civil contempt intended to remedy deprivation or loss)