Toledo Memorial Park and Mausoleum v. City of Sylvania
3:23-cv-01795
| N.D. Ohio | Dec 2, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, Toledo Memorial Park and Mausoleum (TMP), is a nonprofit that owns property in Sylvania, Ohio, where it operates a cemetery.
- The City of Sylvania planned a road improvement project requiring acquisition of part of TMP’s property, including a commemorative stone wall.
- Negotiations took place for compensation and scope of the taking; the City offered $430,075 initially, and later up to $498,000, but TMP rejected the offers.
- The parties entered a Right of Entry (ROE) contract allowing the City construction access while negotiations continued; TMP later demanded the City commence formal appropriation proceedings, which the City did not do.
- TMP filed suit, asserting federal and state takings claims; the City responded with several affirmative defenses, including that full compensation was already paid.
- TMP moved to strike the City’s Seventh and Eighth Affirmative Defenses, arguing they were insufficient and redundant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City's Seventh and Eighth Affirmative Defenses are valid affirmative defenses | These are not proper affirmative defenses; they merely deny elements of TMP's case and are redundant. | The defenses are valid because they assert TMP suffered no injury and was fully compensated. | Not proper affirmative defenses; stricken as insufficient and redundant. |
| Whether repeating compensation arguments as affirmative defenses confuses the issues | These statements are already made elsewhere and add confusion. | Necessary to preserve Defendant’s position. | Redundant and confusing; unnecessary as affirmative defenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. City of Cleveland, 797 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1986) (purpose of motions to strike is to avoid unnecessary litigation of spurious issues)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Transp. Indem. Co., 795 F.2d 538 (6th Cir. 1986) (affirmative defenses must raise matters extraneous to plaintiff's prima facie case)
- Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 901 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2018) (purporting to deny plaintiff’s claims is not an affirmative defense)