Lawsuit Filed Against Highland Heights, Neighbor

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

NORTHERN DIVISION

GARY HUNTER ) 12 Jillian Court ) Highland Heights, Kentucky 41076 ) ) COMPLAINT WITH and ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)JENNIFER HUNTER ) Cause No. 12 Jillian Court ) Highland Heights, Kentucky 41076 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, )KENTUCKY ) Serve: Jean A. Rauf ) 176 Johns Hill Road ) Highland Heights, KY 41076 )

)and )

)JAYSAC COMPANY, LLC )

Serve: Steven A. Crawford ) 423 Knollwood Drive )

Highland Heights, KY 41076 ) ) and ) ) GREG MEYERS ) Mayor of Highland Heights )

Serve: Jean A. Rauf ) 176 Johns Hill Road ) Highland Heights, KY 41076 )

)and )

)JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 10, )

)all whose true names are unknown, ) )

Defendants. )

Case: 2:15-cv-00176-WOB-CJS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/07/15 Page: 1 of 14 - Page ID#: 1

2

Come now the Plaintiffs Gary and Jennifer Hunter to bring their Complaint with

Jury Demand for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Highland

Heights, Kentucky, Jaysac Company, LLC, Mayor Greg Meyers, and Defendants John

and Jane Does 1 through 10. For their Complaint, they state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for money damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution, and under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky

against the City of Highland Heights, Kentucky, Jaysac Company, LLC, Mayor Greg

Meyers in his official capacity, and against John and Jane Does 1-10.

2. Plaintiffs, Gary and Jennifer Hunter, allege that in violation of the Fifth

Amendment Taking Clause, the City of Highland Heights, Kentucky has wrongfully

deprived them of their property without just compensation.

3. The Hunters further allege that the City unconstitutionally implemented

its policies and took actions in support of its unconstitutional decisions that have

deprived them of their property in violation of their rights to substantive and procedural

due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343

over the Plaintiffs’ cause of action arising under the Constitution of the United States, 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and

2202. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ causes of action

under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.


3

5. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Kentucky because the events or omissions that have given rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims

occurred in Campbell County, Kentucky. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

6. Divisional venue is in the Northern Division in the Covington jury division

pursuant to the Joint Local Rules of Civil Procedure, LR 3.1 and 3.2.

PARTIES

7. Gary and Jennifer Hunter (the “Hunters”) live at 12 Jillian Court in the

City of Highland Heights, Campbell County, Kentucky.

8. Defendant City of Highland Heights, Campbell County, Kentucky (the

“City”) is a Home Rule Class city as defined by KRS § 81.005 and operates under a

Mayor-Council form of government as defined by KRS § 83A.130.

9. Defendant Greg Meyers is the Mayor of Highland Heights and is made a

defendant only to enjoin him from taking official actions in violation of the Hunters’

constitutional rights, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, and the ordinances adopted by the

City.

10. Defendant Jaysac Company, LLC (“Jaysac”) is a Kentucky Limited

Liability Company that resides in Highland Heights, Kentucky. Jaysac is member-

managed and the records on file with the Kentucky Secretary of State’s office indicate

that Steve Crawford is the LLC’s sole member. Steve Crawford, while not an individual

defendant, was at all times relevant the Chairperson of the City’s Planning & Zoning

board. Through his influence with the Board, he was able to manipulate the established

City policies to his benefit in a manner that has injured the Hunters.

11. Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 10 are each an officer, agent or

employee of the City, who, through action or by a refusal to act, could have prevented


4

the expenditure, and/or are the members of the city legislative body who voted for the

expenditures of public funds to benefit Jaysac, a private entity. The Hunters contend

John and Jane Does 1 through 10 violated the Kentucky Constitution § 179 by expending

City funds for a private purpose.

FACTUAL BACKBROUND

12. Jillian Court in Highland Heights, Kentucky is a public street that has been

accepted for maintenance by the City pursuant to KRS § 82.400.

13. The Hunters have lived in their home on Jillian Court since 1997. During

that time, the developed portion of Jillian Court terminated in a dead-end at the foot of

their driveway.

14. This developed portion, however, does not terminate at the end of the

City’s property, but instead stops short of the adjoining parcel owned by Jaysac. For

about 100 feet between the end of the developed street and Jaysac’s property, Jillian

Court was undeveloped land.

15. In January of 2014, the City’s Planning & Zoning board voted to permit

Jaysac to convert the undeveloped portion of Jillian Court to Jaysac’s private use as a

private drive. That driveway does not comply with the City’s established zoning and

land use regulations. See Exhibit A.

16. Since that time, Jaysac has removed the landscape buffer that was planted

at the end of the City street, laid dirt and gravel, graded the area, and has now created a

private drive to benefit property that it owns at the end of Jillian Court. The pictures,

attached as Exhibit B, show the landscape buffer before Jaysac removed it, the work that


5

Jaysac has performed to convert the property dedicated as a City street into a private

drive that serves only Jaysac property, and the mess left by the activity.

17. In addition to Jaysac’s private expenditures, the City has expended monies

in excess of $9,000 from the City’s accounts to maintain and to improve the portion of

Jillian Court used by Jaysac. An accounting of those expenditures is attached as Exhibit

C.

18. The Hunters have steadfastly opposed the private use of the public street

in front of their home. Mr. Hunter has voiced his objections at City Council meetings

and has developed a record of the City’s improper expenditures through multiple Open

Records requests.

19. Despite Mr. Hunter’s vigorous objections, the City has chosen to permit

Jaysac to develop the public street as a private driveway to access its private property.

20. The City has recently approved a grading permit that will allow Jaysac to

fully install its private driveway across a public road. The permit is attached as Exhibit

D.

21. In early September 2015, Dave Whitacre, the City Engineer, approved a

Grading Permit Application submitted by Mr. Crawford. Mr. Whitacre notified the

Hunters’ neighbor, Frank Dietrich, of the extensive plans for development and use of the

public street as a private drive. Mr. Whitacre’s letter is attached as Exhibit E.

22. Jaysac began to grade the property on October 5, 2015.

23. Pursuant to KRS § 82.405, which governs how a City may abandon a street

and discontinue its public use, the Hunters claim an interest in the property now under

Jaysac’s control.


6

24. Pursuant to KRS § 82.405, the Hunters have a first claim on the property

taken. Because the City has ignored these rights, the Hunters property interests have

been given to Jaysac without due process and just compensation.

25. Further, the City’s illegal abandonment of the street to Jaysac has

diminished the value of the Hunters’ property without due process and just

compensation.

26. No reasonable, certain, and adequate procedures exist for the Hunters to

obtain compensation for the City’s illegal conduct.

27. The Hunters have complained to the City Council about the City’s conduct

without any result. There is no mechanism to obtain compensation from the City, but to

the extent public comment at City council is a form of redress, it is inadequate and has

been exhausted.

28. In this matter, Mayor Meyers and others executed a governmental policy

officially adopted by the City, made by the City’s lawmakers and others, whose edicts

and acts represent the official policy of the City.

29. The City has unconstitutionally implemented and executed the City’s

zoning and land use policies by granting public property to a private use through a

process that has deprived the Hunters of their interest in the property and caused their

property to lose value, all without due process or just compensation.

30. The City’s Planning & Zoning board used the City’s policies in an

unconstitutional manner.

31. Further, the City, through the Mayor and John and Jane Does 1-10,

implemented the Planning & Zoning board’s decision by its expenditures and by its

grant of various permits that allowed Jaysac to claim a legal privilege to act.


7

32. This policy also violated the Hunters’ substantive due process rights

because the policy gave over the use of public property to a private entity in violation of

state law in a manner that damaged the Hunters.

33. This policy further violated the Hunters’ substantive due process rights

because it used public funds to the benefit of the private entity in a manner that

damaged the Hunters.

34. This policy further violates the Hunters’ substantive due process rights,

because it provided no procedural due process protections to the Hunters.

35. The City and its policy denigrated the Hunters’ rights when it ignored their

pleas and refused to prevent the conduct that benefited a company owned by a City

official.

36. These official acts that have deprived the Hunters of their substantive due

process rights, shock the conscience, and constitute gross negligence, oppression, fraud

and malice as defined by KRS § 411.184.

37. The City’s policies and conduct constitute an abuse of authority that

transcends the bounds of ordinary tort law so as to establish a deprivation of the

Hunters’ constitutional rights. No tort or other remedy exists to right the wrongs

imposed by the City.

38. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the defendants, the Hunters

have suffered the following injury and damages:

a. The City’s actions have violated their constitutional rights under the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by taking

their property and diminishing its value without due process and just

compensation;


8

b. The City’s policies violate their substantive due process rights; and

c. The City has caused them to suffer injuries distinct from those of the

general public in that the illegal driveway under construction in front of

their home violates their particular statutory rights, creates an eyesore,

and has diminished the value of their property.

39. Because of the City’s continued illegal acts, the Hunters now seek

injunctive relief to stop Jaysac from further use of the public street for its private access,

for re-payment to the City of monies wrongfully expended by the City to further Jaysac’s

private use of a public street, and for compensation for the damages they have suffered.

Count 1 (Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the City of Highland Heights)

40. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1-39.

41. This Count states a claim against the City of Highland Heights.

42. As stated above, through its elected, appointed, and other governmental

officials, the City unconstitutionally implemented a City policy that allowed a private

entity to wrongfully use a public road for a private purpose.

43. The City’s unconstitutional use of its policy to convert public property to a

private use was the moving force for the deprivation of the Hunters’ constitutional

rights.

44. The City’s illegal and unconstitutional policy has caused the Hunters

particular economic damages, including the diminished value of their property, the

expenditure of attorney fees to protect their legal rights, the loss the opportunity to

complete Jillian Court, which has reduced the value of the Hunter’s home, and the loss


9

of their opportunity to acquire the property for their own purposes, which could have

increased the value of their home.

45. The Hunters claim damages against the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the

injuries set forth above.

Count 2 (Violation of KRS § 82.405)

46. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1-45.

47. This count states a claim against the City of Highland Heights.

48. As stated above, the City has turned over use of an undeveloped public

street to a private company for its private benefit.

49. The City has not, however, taken the appropriate steps to first close the

portion of Jillian Court that Jaysac has developed.

50. KRS § 82.405 governs the procedure for closing a public way. It requires

that all abutting property owners agree to the closure and that the City enact an

ordinance that states its compliance with the statute. If the abutting property owners do

not agree to closure of the public way, then the City must initiate an action in the Circuit

Court to close the public way. Highland Heights has not complied with KRS § 82.405.

51. The Hunters claim that they have suffered a distinct injury different from

that of the general public; namely, they are guaranteed certain statutory rights by KRS §

82.405, which they have been denied.

52. The City’s denial of these particular rights has caused the Hunters

particular economic damages, including the diminished value of their property, the

expenditure of attorney fees to protect their legal rights, the loss the opportunity to

complete Jillian Court, which has reduced the value of the Hunters’ home, and the loss


10

of their opportunity to acquire the property for their own purposes, which could have

increased the value of their home.

53. A person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the

offender such damages as he sustained by reason of the violation, although a penalty or

forfeiture is imposed for such violation. KRS § 446.070.

54. The Hunters seek to enforce their statutory rights and to recover for the

economic damages they have suffered.

Count 3 (Violation of § 92.340)

55. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1-54.

56. This Count states a claim against Mayor Hunter and John and Jane Does 1

through 10.

57. KRS § 92.340 mandates that if, in any city of the home rule class, any city

tax revenue is expended for a purpose other than that for which the tax was levied or the

license fee imposed, each officer, agent or employee who, by a refusal to act, could have

prevented the expenditure, and the members of the city legislative body who voted for

the expenditure, shall be jointly and severally liable to the city for the amount so

expended.

58. It further states that the amount may be recovered from them in an action

upon their bonds, or personally. The city attorney shall prosecute to recovery all such

actions. If he fails to do so for six (6) months after the money has been expended, any

taxpayer may prosecute such action for the use and benefit of the city.

59. Finally, a recovery under this subsection shall not bar a criminal

prosecution. Any indebtedness contracted by a city of the home rule class in violation of


11

this subsection or of KRS § 92.330 or § 91A.030(13) shall be void, the contract shall not

be enforceable by the person with whom made, the city shall never assume the same,

and money paid under any such contract may be recovered back by the city.

60. In violation of KRS § 92.340, Mayor Hunter and John and Jane Does 1

through 10 have authorized the expenditures of money for the benefit of Jaysac as

outlined at Exhibit C. These expenditures were to advance the interests of a private

company and were not for a public purpose.

61. The Kentucky Constitution § 179 states that “The General Assembly shall

not authorize any . . . city . . . to . . . appropriate money for . . . any corporation . . .”

62. Despite the mandate of the Commonwealth’s Constitution, the City

nevertheless has donated public property and monies for the benefit of Jaysac, a

company owned and controlled by Steven A. Crawford, the Chairperson of the City’s

Planning & Zoning board.

63. The Hunters assert that most of the expenditures outlined in Exhibit C

were made more than six months ago. Accordingly, they bring this action against Mayor

Meyers and John and Jane Does 1 through 10 to hold them jointly and severally liable

for the illegal expenditures.

Count 5 (Declaratory Judgment To Enjoin Jaysac, Mayor Meyers and the City)

64. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1-63.

65. This Count states a claim against Jaysac, Mayor Meyers and the City.

66. Mayor Meyers is the duly elected mayor of the City.


12

67. Pursuant to KRS § 83A.130, the Mayor is the executive authority of the

city, who shall enforce the mayor-council plan, city ordinances and orders, and all

applicable statutes.

68. Here, Mayor Meyers has authorized that the City expend funds to benefit

Jaysac’s private use of a public road. Such expenditures are not for a public purpose and

violate the City’s ordinances and Kentucky Constitution § 179.

69. As well, he has permitted the City Engineer to issue a grading permit to

Jaysac that will lead to construction of a street over a public road that does not conform

to the City’s standard street requirements.

70. Jaysac has begun to grade the public street to convert it into a private

drive, which has created a continuing controversy over the rights of the City and Jaysac

to use the public street for a private purpose.

71. The City has adopted a zoning ordinance.

72. The City Engineer has authorized Jaysac to improve the public street for a

private use.

73. Section 9.22 of the ordinance requires that streets conform to the City’s

Subdivision Regulations.

74. The City has not adopted Subdivision Regulations, at least none that can

be found through a search of the City’s publicly available records.

75. As a general rule, City streets must be built to standards far in excess of the

standards that the City has accepted for Jaysac’s proposed private driveway.

76. The Hunters seek a declaratory judgment to prevent Jaysac from building

a private drive across a public street in violation of the law.


13

77. As well, Hunter seeks a declaratory judgment to prevent the City and the

Mayor from authorizing any city official to assist Jaysac, to prevent the Mayor from

expending funds to aid Jaysac, and to mandate that any street built across this public

road comply with the City’s zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.

78. Finally, the Hunters seek such declaratory judgment to prevent Jaysac and

others from using this portion of the public street for a private purpose.

WHEREFORE, the Hunters pray for the following relief:

A. Enter a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants;

B. Enter a judgment that declares the City’s policies and conduct

unconstitutional;

C. Award compensatory and punitive damages to the Plaintiffs;

D. Award counsel reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988 and any other applicable provisions of law;

E. Enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction to (1) prevent

Jaysac from building a private drive across a public road, (2) prevent the

City, its elected representatives and agents, Jaysac, and John and Jane

Does 1-10 from taking action assist Jaysac in its illegal use of a public

street; and (3) to prevent Jaysac and others from using Jillian Court as a

private driveway;

F. Enter a judgment in favor of the City against Mayor Meyers and John and

Jane Does 1-10 for reimbursement of the improperly spent monies; and

G. Grant the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be just and proper

under the circumstances, including but not limited to injunctive relief.

Jury Trial Demand


14

Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all claims for damages.

Respectfully Submitted,

_/s/ Todd V. McMurtry__________ Todd V. McMurtry (KBA #82101) Kyle M. Winslow (KBA# 95343)

HEMMER DEFRANK WESSELS PLLC 250 Grandview Drive, Suite 500 Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky 41017 (859) 344-1188 (859) 578-3869 (fax)

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs


Case: 2:15-cv-00176-WOB-CJS Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 10/07/15 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 15























Date post:	05-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thercnews
View:	451 times
Download:	3 times

Lawsuit Filed Against Highland Heights, Neighbor

Documents