midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
237 F. Supp. 3d 548
E.D. Ky.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Pauline Roberts died in 1989; title to the Somerset, KY property remained in her name. William Roberts (her son) lived on the property after her death.
  • On May 3, 2013 the Somerset City Attorney mailed a certified letter addressed to the “Estate of Pauline Roberts” alleging the dwelling was unfit and scheduling a nuisance abatement hearing for May 23, 2013. William Roberts signed the return receipt and retained counsel.
  • Roberts’ counsel notified the City of a scheduling conflict; the hearing was informally postponed and counsel met off-the-record with city officials on May 23, 2013. The city recordkeeper did not take minutes at counsel’s direction.
  • Over the following year Roberts did little to remediate the property. In August and September 2014 the City sent additional notices ordering repair or vacation; Roberts did not contest the orders or seek court relief.
  • On September 19, 2014 the City demolished the house. Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural due process and other claims) and later sought to substitute heirs/administrators for the Estate of Pauline Roberts.
  • After motions and a hearing, the court dismissed Count I (procedural due process), denied the substitution motion, dismissed certain counts (including malicious prosecution), and held that some federal and surviving state tort claims may proceed on behalf of the decedent’s estate.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Roberts was denied procedural due process before demolition Notice was inadequate because the initial letter was addressed to a non-existent “Estate of Pauline Roberts” and Roberts wasn’t told he could be summarily ejected Notice satisfied constitutional minima: letter, subsequent notices, and actual notice to Roberts (he retained counsel) gave opportunity to be heard Court: Due process satisfied; Count I dismissed
Whether the off-the-record meeting with counsel deprived Roberts of an opportunity to be heard Informal, unrecorded meeting was not a meaningful hearing and deprived procedural protections The meeting plus written notices and a year-long chance to remedy reduced risk of erroneous deprivation; Mathews balancing favors City given public safety/admin burdens Court: No constitutional violation; process was adequate
Whether substitution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3) of heirs/administratrix for Estate is appropriate Move to substitute Rachelle Bombe and Polly Willman as real parties in interest for multiple claims Substitution is futile because (a) defamation/privacy claims are personal and not pleaded as to them, (b) no due process violation to underpin a § 1983 conspiracy claim, (c) estate status at time of notice made City’s method reasonable Court: Denied substitution as futile
Which claims survive Roberts’ death and may be pursued by his estate Plaintiffs sought to continue all remaining claims through the estate/administratrix Defendants noted statutory limits (KRS § 411.140) and that malicious prosecution and certain personal claims do not survive Court: Malicious prosecution and certain personal claims dismissed; other § 1983 claims (false imprisonment, unlawful arrest, conspiracy to extent based on Fourth Amendment), and certain common-law personal-injury claims may be pursued by estate

Key Cases Cited

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (statement of plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible, not merely conceivable)
  • Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
  • Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balance test for what process is due)
  • Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (due process assessed by constitutional benchmarks, not state procedure)
  • Hall v. Wooten, 506 F.2d 564 (§ 1983 personal-injury claims survive and may be maintained by decedent’s representative)
  • Santana v. City of Tulsa, 359 F.3d 1241 (a party cannot create a due process claim by ignoring established procedures)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Roberts v. Girder
Court Name: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
Date Published: Feb 17, 2017
Citations: 237 F. Supp. 3d 548; 2017 WL 663199; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22716; CIVIL NO. 6:15-160-KKC
Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 6:15-160-KKC
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Ky.
Log In