Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10934
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rondigo, LLC and Dolores Michaels operate a 72-acre farm in Richmond Township, Michigan; MAEAP verification had previously certified compliance with GAAMPs, which provides immunity from nuisance liability under Michigan law.
- Township officials’ actions included stop-work orders and regulatory actions tied to composting plans and groundwater concerns, culminating in MAEAP-directed plan revisions and a withdrawal of MAEAP verification.
- MDA/Ongoing state oversight triggered multiple inspections and notices requiring updated composting plans, nutrient management plans, and site plans due to groundwater and drainage considerations.
- MDA/MDEQ actions included inspections, letters citing GAAMP nonconformity, and referral to MDEQ for potential pollution concerns after leaves were stockpiled and left in place.
- A federal complaint was filed in January 2008 alleging federal and state-law claims against township officials, a citizens coalition, local residents, and several state employees in their individual capacities; the district court dismissed all state-defendants claims except the equal-protection claim, which was denied qualified immunity and appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit addressed whether the pleaded equal-protection claim was sufficiently alleged to defeat qualified immunity at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly states an equal protection claim. | Rondigo alleges gender-based discrimination and woman-owned status as the basis. | State defendants contend pleadings show insufficient factual basis for discrimination. | No; pleadings improperly rely on legal conclusions without sufficient factual support. |
| Whether Minard was sufficiently similar to Rondigo to support a class-of-one claim. | Minard is similarly situated and treated more favorably, implying discrimination. | Exhibits show Minard was not similarly situated and faced different requirements. | Minard was not sufficiently similarly situated; no plausible class-of-one claim. |
| Whether the district court correctly denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage. | Plaintiffs asserted a clearly established equal protection right and actionable discrimination. | Complaint fails to allege facts showing improper discrimination; immunity should apply. | District court erred; the claim is not plausibly alleging a constitutional violation; reverse and dismiss the equal protection claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; not merely possible facts establish liability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Back v. Hall, 537 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of pleading-stage qualified immunity is limited to facial sufficiency)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (qualifications immunity framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) ( qualified immunity at pleading or summary judgment stage)
- Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005) (equal protection review for class-of-one claims)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (similarly situated; strict requisite comparison standard)
- Warren v. City of Athens, 411 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2005) (requiring near-total rejection of disparate treatment evidence in class-of-one)
- Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction and scope of collateral-order appeal in qualified immunity)