Thomas Simstad v. Gerald Scheub
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4911
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Tom and Marla Simstad (developers) submitted Deer Ridge South subdivision plans to the Lake County Plan Commission beginning in October 2004; final Commission approval occurred in October 2006 after multiple denials and revisions.
- The Simstads allege the approval was intentionally delayed (causing economic loss) in retaliation for their 1996 political support of a Scheub opponent; defendants included Commission member Gerald Scheub, Executive Director Ned Kovachevich, and Lake County.
- Plaintiffs asserted First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) claims, RICO claims, and Indiana state-law claims; RICO was dismissed pretrial and several claims were resolved by JMOL at trial.
- Procedurally: lengthy pretrial history (motions to dismiss, discovery stays, belated answers, withdrawal of deemed admissions), trial in December 2014, post-trial judgment for defendants; Simstads appeal several rulings.
- District court granted JMOL on First Amendment retaliation, individual-capacity claim against Kovachevich, and state-law tort claims (statute-of-notice); jury found for defendants on the Equal Protection claim that reached the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of defendants' belated answer and withdrawal of deemed admissions | District court should not allow late answer or withdrawal; prejudiced Simstads | Excusable neglect due to long hiatus, attorney changes, and equitable discretion; merits adjudication favors permitting pleading | District court did not abuse discretion; late answer and withdrawal of admissions allowed and discovery reopened for plaintiffs only |
| First Amendment retaliation (1996 political activity caused delays) | 9-year gap justified by alleged animus; delays in approval show retaliatory motive | No causal link or evidence tying 1996 political activity to 2004–06 approval process; delays explained by legitimate planning concerns | JMOL for defendants: insufficient evidence that protected activity was a motivating factor; no reasonable jury could find causation |
| Equal Protection — individual liability against Executive Director Kovachevich | Kovachevich influenced Commission and harbored animus; his conduct should be imputed to decisionmakers | He lacked final policymaking vote; limited influence; rational bases existed for delays (wetlands, entrances, road issues) | JMOL for Kovachevich: plaintiffs failed to identify animus or overcome rational-basis review; no individual liability warranted |
| State-law tort claims (Indiana Tort Claims Act notice) | Notice period should run from final approval (Oct 2006) or continuing wrong; notice filed Feb 2007 thus timely | Statutory notice triggered by earlier adverse acts (Nov 2005 denial); plaintiffs appealed state denial then, so claim accrued earlier | JMOL for defendants: notice was untimely (triggered by Nov 2005 denial); continuing-wrong doctrine did not apply |
| Jury instructions — cat’s-paw and class-of-one theories | Court should have instructed jury on cat’s-paw and class-of-one Equal Protection theories | Insufficient evidence of subordinate animus or absence of any rational basis to require those instructions | No new trial: insufficient evidence to justify instruction on either theory; district court properly refused |
Key Cases Cited
- Radentz v. Marion Cnty., 640 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (time gap between wrongful statements and adverse action is relevant to causation in constitutional claims)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (cat’s-paw theory of imputed motive in employment contexts)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability cannot be premised on respondeat superior)
- Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (factors for excusable neglect and equitable consideration of late filings)
- Lock Realty Corp. IX v. U.S. Health, LP, 707 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for procedural case-management rulings)
- Mommaerts v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 472 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2007) (excusable neglect standard applied to late filings)