591 F. App'x 508
6th Cir.2015Background
- Cooper signed an Ohio cognovit note for $334,175, agreeing that the creditor could obtain judgment without notice or hearing upon default.
- He defaulted and a cognovit judgment was entered against him; he later pursued years of state litigation regarding the instrument.
- Cooper filed a § 1983 suit in federal district court alleging the cognovit process violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, plus various state-law claims; he sought class certification.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment on all federal claims, holding defendants were not state actors and thus not liable under § 1983, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and denied class certification as moot.
- Cooper appealed, assigning as error only the district court’s state-actor ruling, but his opening brief contained virtually no legal argument on that point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are state actors for § 1983 purposes | Cognovit enforcement and related conduct violated due process (argued generally) | Defendants are private actors; no state action is shown | Court affirmed: defendants not state actors; § 1983 claim fails |
| Whether cognovit notes are per se unconstitutional | Implied challenge to cognovit as violating due process | Cognovits are not automatically unconstitutional; enforcement is a private action | Court did not reach substantive validity; cited Overmyer but focused on waiver |
| Whether appellant preserved issues on appeal | Cooper contended district court erred re: state action (but provided no legal argument) | Defendants argued issues waived due to lack of appellate argument | Court held Cooper waived arguments by failing to brief them and forfeited the appeal |
| District court’s dismissal of state-law claims | Cooper sought federal adjudication including state claims | Defendants sought dismissal of federal claims; district court declined supplemental jurisdiction | Court affirmed dismissal of federal claims; district court’s dismissal of state claims without prejudice not disturbed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellison v. Garbarino, 48 F.3d 192 (6th Cir. 1995) (review standard for state-actor determination under § 1983)
- Marks v. Newcourt Credit Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2003) (appellate waiver where issues not presented in opening brief)
- United States v. Newsom, 452 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2006) (issues waived if not raised on appeal)
- Sommer v. Davis, 317 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2003) (abandonment of arguments not raised in opening brief)
- Robert N. Clemens Trust v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 485 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2007) (minimal briefing can avoid waiver, but absent reference leads to waiver)
- D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174 (1972) (cognovit notes are not per se unconstitutional)