Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Western on Main, L.L.C., a South Dakota

Case Number to be Assigned

limited liability company, Crafty Fox,L.L.C., a
South Dakota limited liability company, Janice
J. Christensen, and Ronald W. Christensen,
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT

vs.

City of Mitchell, a South Dakota municipal
corporation, and Mitchell Area Development
Corporation, a South Dakota nonprofit
corporation.

Jury Trial Requested

Defendants.

Comes now Plaintiffs, Western on Main,L.L.C., a South Dakota limited liability company,
Crafty Fox, L.L.C., a South Dakota limited liability company, Janice J. Christensen, and Ronald

W.Christensen, who for their Complaint against Defendants, state and allege as follows:

JURISDICTION, VENUE & PARTIES

1. This is an action for dmnages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
based upon violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28
U.S.C. § 1343 based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as said

Page 1 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2

claims form part ofthe same case aiid controversy pursuant to Article III ofthe United
States Constitution.

2. Venue is proper in the District of SoUth Dakota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
3. Defendant City of Mitchell, is a South Dakota muiiicipal corporation, organized under the
laws of South Dakota, and situated in the State of South Dakota.

4. Defendant Mitchell Area Develophient Corporation, is a South Dakota nonprofit
cofpofatioii, organized under the laws of South Dakota, with its principle place of
business located in Mitchell, South Dakota.

5. Plaintiff Western on Main^ L.L.C., is a South Dakota limited liability company, organized
under the laws of South Dakota, with its principle place of business located in Mitchell
South Dakota. L.L.C. membership of Westem on Main, L.L.C., is comprised entirely of
Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen atid Plaintiff Ronald W. Christensen.

6. Plaintiff Crafty Fox, L.L.C., is a South Dakota limited liability company, organized under
the laws of South Dakota, with its principle place of business located in Mitchell, South
Dakota. L.L.C. membership of Crafty Fox, L.L.C., is comprised entirely of Plaintiff
Janice J. Christensen and Plaintiff Ronald W. Christensen.

7. Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen is a natural person, and a resident of Mitchell, South
Dakota.

8. Plaintiff Ronald W. Christensen is a natural person, and a resident of Mitchell, South
Dakota.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Plaintiff Westem on Main, L.L.C., is the former owner of certain real property, and the
improvements thereupon, legally identified as:

Page 2 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3

Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 8, Original Town(now city) of Mitchell, Davison
County, South Dakota.

10. Plaintiff Crafty Fox, L.L.C., formerly operated a local arts and crafts store, located upon
the above identified real property formerly owned hy Plaintiff Western on Main, L.L.C.
11. The aforementioned former local arts and crafts store was operated out of the first floor

of a historic 111-year old building (hereinafter,"the building"), situated upon the above
identified real property formerly owned by Plaintiff Western on Main, L.L.C.
12. The aforementioned former local arts and crafts store was managed by, and the day to
day operations of same were run by. Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen.

13. Plaintiff Ronald W. Christensen was also involved in the operation of the former local
arts and crafts store.
14. Both Plaintiffs Janice J. Christensen and Ronald W. Christensen were well known in the

Downtown Mitchell Business Community, as was the former local arts and crafts store.

15. The Downtown Mitchell Business Community consists of several locally owned small
businesses, many of which are located in, and conduct their business out of, older
buildings of similar age and condition as that of the building in which the former local
arts and crafts store was located.

16. The real property formerly owned by Plaintiff Western on Main, L.L.C., has a currently
assessed value of One Hundred Seventy Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Dollars

($170,290.00) per the Davison County Director of Equalization Office.
17. On or about March 19, 2019, Defendant City of Mitchell filed a "nuisance enforcement"
action in Davison County Magistrate Court against Plaintiff Western on Main, L.L.C.

Page 3 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4

18. The aforementioned "nuisance enforcement" action filed in Magistrate Court alleged that
the condition ofthe roof and windows of the building constituted a "public nuisance",
and threatened Plaintiff Western on Main, L.L.C., with possible arrest, fines, and jailtime.
19. Western on Main, L.L.C., is a small, closely held, two member,limited liability
company, with said membership being completely comprised of Plaintiff Janice J.
Christensen and Plaintiff Ronald W. Christensen.

20. While not directly named as parties in the above referenced "nuisance enforcement"

action filed in Magistrate Court, said action had the effect of placing both Plaintiff Janice
J. Christensen and Plaintiff Ronald W. Christensen in fear of potential arrest,jailtime,
and fines, due to the above-described sta:tus of Western on Main, L.L.C., as a small,

closely held, two member,limited liability company, with said membership being
completely comprised of Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen and Plaintiff Ronald W.
Christensen.

21. Despite the filing ofthe above referenced "nuisance enforcement" action in Magistrate
Court by City, the actual condition ofthe roof and windows ofthe building, as well as the
overall condition of the building itself as a whole, was not in fact substantially worse
than, and in many instances was noticeably better than, the overall condition of many of
the other nearby buildings in the Downtown Mitchell Business Community.
22. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned "nuisance enforcement" action was

brought for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating Plaintiff Janice J.
Christensen, and Plaintiff Ronald W. Christensen, who,as stated above, collectively
owned the entirety ofthe controlling membership interest in Western on Main, L.L.C.

Page 4 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5

23. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned "nuisance enforcement" action was

brought without any actual intent on the part of City to fine or jail either Plaintiff Western
on Main, L.L.C., Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen, or Plaintiff Ronald W. Christensen.
24. upon information and belief, the aforementioned "nuisance enforcement" action was

merely a ruse designed by Defendant City in order to coerce Plaintiff Western on Main,
L.L.C., to surrender ownership ofthe building to Defendant City for inadequate,
insufficient, and merely nominal consideration.

25. Defendant City did in fact, shortly after filing the aforementioned "nuisance
enforcement" action, offer to buy the building from Western on Main, L.L.C., for the sum
of One Dollar ($1.00).
26. City was most certainly aware ofthe actual assessed value ofthe building when this offer

to purchase the building for One Dollar ($1.00) was made, yet justified making such a
low offer by making said offer in concert with an offer to also agree to the dismissal of
the "nuisance enforcement" action then currently pending in Magistrate Court.
27. Resultingly, said offer by Defendant City to purchase the building for One Dollar ($1.00)
was coercive in nature, as opposed to representing a bargained for exchange for good and
valuable consideration, and was resultingly more accurately described as an attempted
regulatory taking.
28. Fearing the potential ofjailtime. Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen and Plaintiff Ronald W.

Christensen, in their capacity as owners of the controlling membership interest in
Western on Main, L.L.C., agreed to sell the building to Defendant City for the for the
sum of One Dollar ($1.00).

Page 5 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6

29. As the result ofthe loss of its business location, and the unavailability of any suitable

alternate business site locations, Crafty Fox, L.L.C., was forced to liquidate its inventory
and discontinue operating the aforementioned local arts and crafts store.

30. Almost immediately after obtaining title to the building from Western on Main, L.L.C.,
Defendant City publicly armounced its intention to transfer ownership ofthe building to
Defendarit Mitchell Area Development Corporation, as well as to gift the Mitchell Area

Development Corporation the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousaiid Dollars
($150,000.00)- ostensibly for the purpose of completing repairs to the building

conditions that were previously cited as the underpinning reasoning for the prior
"nuisance enforcement" action brought against Plaintiff Western on Main, L.L.C.

31. Upon information and belief. Defendant City's plan the entire time during the above

described sequence of events was to obtain title to the building, by any means necessary,
in order to transfer ovmership of the building to Defendant Mitchell Area Development
Corporation, and to justify gifting Defendant Mitchell Area Development Corporation the
sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00).
COUNT ONE - CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS

(AS AGAINST CITY OF MITCHELL AND MITCHELL AREA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION)
32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as
if fully set forth again herein.

33. Defendant City of Mitchell and Defendant Mitchell Area Development Corporation
conspired with each other for the purposes of obtaining ownership ofthe building,

thereby depriving Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen ownership of the building vis-a-vis her
membership interest in Western on Main, L.L.C.

Page 6 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7

34. Defendant City of Mitchell and Defendant Mitchell Area Development Corporation, did
in fact, as a result ofthe above described conspiracy, deprive Plaintiff Janice J.
Christensen her ownership interest in the building.
35. The right to own property is a right guaranteed to all citizens ofthe United States via the

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and is applicable to the States
via the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ofthe United States.

36. Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen, as a female small business owner operator, is a member of
a protected class that was denied a right and privilege guaranteed to all citizens ofthe
United States via the actions of Defendant City of Mitchell and Defendant Mitchell Area
Development Corporation, as conspirators.
37. Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen, did in fact suffer a cognizable legal injury as a direct result
of the actions of Defendant City of Mitchell and Defendant Mitchell Area Development
Corporation, as conspirators, with said cognizable legal injury being the loss of her
ownership interest in the building vis-a-vis her membership interest in Western on Main,
L.L.C.

COUNT TWO -INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS

(AS AGAINST CITY OF MITCHELL)

38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as
iffully set forth again herein.
39. Defendant City of Mitchell acted under color of both state and local law during the
entirety ofthe events set forth herein.
40. The result of Defendant City of Mitchell's actions as described herein had the result of

depriving Plaintiffs Janice J. Christensen and Ronald W. Christensen, and Western on

Page 7 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8

Main, L.L.C., oftheir ownership ofthe building vis-a-vis their memhership interest in
Western on Main, L.L.C.

41. The right to own property is a right guaranteed to all citizens of the United States via the

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and is applicable to the States
via the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ofthe United States.

42. Plaintiffs Janice J. Christenson and Ronald W. Christensen, did in fact suffer a Cognizable
legal injury as a direct result ofthe actions of Defendant City of Mitchell, with said
cognizable legal injury being the loss of her their ownership interest in the building vis-avis their membership interest in Western on Main, L.L.C.
COUNT THREE -INVERSE CONDEMNATION

(AS AGAINST CITY OF MITCHELL)
43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as
iffully set forth again herein.

44. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution ofthe United States, as applicable to the States

via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States, guarantees that no property shall he
taken from a private property owner for a public purpose without the payment of"just
compensation" to said property owner.

45. Article VI, Section 13 ofthe South Dakota Constimtion also provides that private
property shall not be taken for public use, or damaged, without the payment of"jUst
compensation".

46. The City of Mitchell, via their "nuisance enforcement action" and the threats of possible
arrest, fines, and jailtime, obtained title to the building without the payment of"just

compensation" to the owner, as it is plainly obvious that the payment of One Dollar

Page 8 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9

($1.00) as compensation for a building currently assessed at a value of One Hundred
Seventy Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Dollars ($170,290.00) is not "just
compensation", and said amount was in fact merely nominal and token consideration.
47. The stated purpose ofthe Mitchell Area Development Corporation is to "further the
economic development ofthe Mitchell community and its environs".

48. As the stated purpose ofthe Mitchell Area Development Corporation targets the entire
"Mitchell community and its environs", the actual purpose ofthe Mitchell Area

Development Corporation is properly viewed as a "public purpose" as contemplated by
both the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution ofthe United States, as applicable to the
States via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article Vl,
Section 13 ofthe South Dakota, constitutions.

49. As Defendant City of Mitchell was planning the entire time to transfer ownership of the
building to Defendant Mitchell Area Development Corporation, and the stated purpose of
the Mitchell Area Development Corporation is properly viewed as a "public purpose".
Defendant City of Mitchell did indeed take property from a private owner,for a public

purpose, and in doing so failed to pay the property owner "just compensation", in
violation of both the United States Constitution and the South Dakota Constitution.
COUNT FOUR - FORCIBLE EXCLUSION EROM REAL PROPERTY

(AS AGAINST CITY OE MITCHELL)
50. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as
if fully set forth again herein.

Page 9 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10

51. South Dakota Law,pursuant to SDCL 21-3-6, authorizes the award oftreble damages for
any instance where any property owner is forcibly ejected or excluded from the
possession of real property.

52. Defendant City of Mitchell, via their actions as outlined above, effectively both forced
and ejected Plaintiffs from real property, of which they had the right to both occupy and
possess, under the threat of arrest and jailtirne pursuant to the "nuisance enforcement
action" then pending in Magistrate Court.
COUNT FIVE ^ STATUTORY NUISANCE

(AS AGAINST CITY OF MITCHELL)

53. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as
if fully set forth again herein.

54. South Dakota Law, pursuant to SDCL 21-10-1(4) recognizes that unlawfully doing an
act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission "in any way renders other
persons insecure in life, or in the use of property" constitutes a nuisance.
55. Defendant City of Mitchell's actions, as outlined above, had the effect of rendering the
individual non-entity Plaintiffs insecure in life - via the prospect oflosing their freedom

due to jail time - as well as all Plaintiffs insecure in their use of property - and indeed
these actions as outlined above had the ultimate effect of not only rendering Plaintiffs
insecure in their Use of said property, but also ultirnately denying Plaintiffs of their
ownership interests in said property.

56. Defendant City of Mitchell's actions, as outlined above, were unlawful in that they were
part of a conspiracy with the Defendant Mitchell Area Development Corporation to

interfere with Plaintiff Janice J. Christensen's civil rights, as well as constituted an

Page 10 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11

unlawful taking of Plaintiffs' real property without the payment ofjust compensation, in
violation of both the Fifth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution as applied to the
states via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article
VI, Section 13 ofthe South Dakota Constitution
COUNT SIX - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS EXPECTANCY

(AS AGAINST CITY OF MITCHELL AND MITCHELL AREA DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION)

57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as
if fully set forth again herein.
58. Plaintiffs had a valid business expectation in the continued existence of, and continued
revenue stream therefrom, the former local arts and crafts store located on the first floor

of the building.

59. Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs' existing and valid business expectation when they
undertook the actions outlined above.

60. Said actions were taken intentionally, and resulted in unjustified interference with, and

the eventual forced liquidation and cessation of business operations, ofthe
aforementioned local arts and crafts store, thereby damaging Plaintiffs' reasonable and
valid business expectation ofthe continued existence of, and continued revenue stream
therefrom, the former local arts and crafts store.
COUNT SEVEN -EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(AS AGAINST CITY OF MITCHELL AND MITCHELL AREA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION)

61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as
if fully set forth again herein.

Page 11 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12

62. The actions taken by Defendants, as outlined above, specifically those that caused the
loss of Plaintiffs' real property, and Plaintiffs' business, have resulted in emotional

distress on the part ofthe individual, non-entity Plaintiffs.
63. Said actions taken by Defendants, as outlined above, were at best negligent with respect
to the emotional state ofthe individual, non-entity Plaintiffs, and at worst constituted
reckless or intentional conduct on the part of Defendants with respect to the emotional
state ofthe individual, non-entity Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs request the following;

A. Pursuant to COUNT ONE,COUNT TWO,and COUNT THREE,an award of damages,
appropriately apportioned between both Defendants, equivalent to either the amount of
the current assessed value ofthe building - One Hundred Seventy Thousand Two

Hundred Ninety Dollars ($170,290.00)- minlis the One Dollar ($1.00) in actual
compensation paid by Defendant City,,or such sum otherwise proVed at trial to be the fair

market value ofthe building.
B. Pursuant to COUNT FOUR,an additional award of damages, appropriately apportioned

between both Defendants, equivalent to TWO TIMES(2X)the amount awarded under
COUNTS ONE,COUNT TWO,and COUNT THREE,such as is necessary to bring the

total award for COUNTS ONE,TWO,THREE,and FOUR to an amount commensurate
with the treble damages portion of SDCL 21-3-6.

C. Pursuant to COUNT FIVE, an amount to be determined at trial, appropriately
apportioned between both Defendants, sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for the

Page 12 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13

insecurity felt by them in both their life and use of their property, as a result of the above
enumerated actions of both Defendants.

D. Pursuant to COUNT SIX, an amount to be determined at trial, appropriately apportioned

between both Defendants, sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for their reasonably
expected continued profits ofthe former local arts and crafts store.
E. Pursuant to COUNT SEVEN,an amount to be determined at trial, appropriately

apportioned between both Defendants, sufficient to compensate the individual non-entity
Plaintiffs for the emotion distress endured as a direct result of the actions of both
Defendants.

F. Any and all prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney fees as allowed by law; and
G. Any such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable in the premises.

Dated this j3 day ofNovember,2019.
James D. t&vlor

^uth DakotaBa Number: 1692
JaflTcs D. T^lor, '.C.
520 North Lawler, Suite 100
P.O. Box 6

Mitchell, SD 57301

(605)996-3882
taylor(@tmlawsd.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Page 13 of 13

 Case 4:19-cv-04187-LLP Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14
JS44 (Rev.09/19)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither rwlace
replace nor suppiement(he
and service of pleadings or other papers as nequiredbylaw, exceptas
the filing a
provided Iw local rules ofcourt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference
llniied
IheUr-'• • in*
• • 1974' is required for (he'
• use of(he; clerk ofCourt for the
nrerence of(he
United Slates
l^ptember
purpose
:of
of^iniiiatina
initiating (he
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ONNEXTPACE OF THISFORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Western on Main, LL.C., Crafty Fox, LLC., Janice J. Christensen,

City of MitcJieii, Mitchell Area Development Corporation

Ronaid W. Christensen

(b) CouncvofResidenceofFlrstListedPlaintiff

Davison

County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant

(EXCEPTIN U.S PLAINTIFFCASES)

Davison

(IN as PLAINTIFFCASES ONLY)
NOTE:

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys(ifKamn)

(c) AtSOTTlcys(Fim Name. Aiidress. and Telephone Number)

James D. Taylor. P.C., 520 N. Lawler. Mitcheii. SD 57301

Unknown.

605-996-3882

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES/Pigeon ■■r mOneBaxJarPMnilff

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Placem "X"inOtvBcaQr^)

(For DIverslly Cares Only)

G 1 U.S. Govemmeni

X3 Fednal Qucttioii

PUunuIT

Citizen ofThis Stale

(U.S Goyemmem Not a Parly)

and One BoxfitrDeJendani)

PTF

DEF

O 1

G

PTF

1

Incoiporaed iv Principal Place

DEF

0 4

0 4

G 5

O 5

G 6

G6

ofBnaneas In This Stale

G 2 U.S. Government

Citizen of Anotbei Stale

G 4 Dtvasiiy

Defendant

O 2

0 2

Incotpocaled nm/Principal Place
ofBusuiess in Another Stale

(Indlcale CliiwahipofPaniei In lum III)

Citizen QC Subject of a

G 3

G 3

Foreign Nation

FnrHvn rmmtnif

Click here for: Nom<

IV. NATURE OF SUIT fl'hcr m A"' in One Hex Only)
O 110 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

O 120 Marine
◦ 130 Miller Act

□ 140 Negotiable Insmjmeni

O 1 SO Recovoy of (Xerpaynieni

□ 310 Airplane
0 315 AirpUne Product
Liability
O 320 AsaulL Ubd &

& Enforceuiait of JuUgment

PERSONAL INJURY

O 365 Personal Injury •
Product Liability

O 1S2 Recoveiy of Defaulted

Liability

Student Loans

(Excludes Veuraiis)

□ 345 Marine Product

Liability
0 350 Mokv Vehicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle

O 195 C«itract Product Liability

0 360 Other Personal

Product Liability
Injuiy

BEAL^dPSgFv'

avtLRiaim

0 210 Land Condemnation

^440 Other Civil Ri^is

O 220 ForecJosiire

0 441 VoQng

O 230 Rent Lease dt Ejectment

0 442 Employment

Injury Product
Liability

O 245 Tort Product Liability

Employmeiu

0 370 Other Fraud

0 450 Commerce

□ 835 Patent - Abbreviated

□ 460 Dcponauoa

□ 470 Ra^eteer Influenced and
Comipi Organixatioas
0 480 Consumer Credit

O 710 Fair Labor Standards

0 371 Truth in Lendtng

0 720 Labor/Managemenl

O 380 Otha Personal

Properfy Damage
0 385 Property Damage

Prodact Liability

0 861 HIA(l395fT)

G 862 Black Lung (923)

Act

G 863 DIWC/DIWW(405(g)>
□ 864 SSID Title XVI

Relations

□ 740 Railway Labor Act

G 865 RSI (405(g))

0 751 Family and Medscal

ajnTTflji -'TrrimTOiw 0 790 Other Labor Llogatiou
Habeas Corpus:
0 791 En^oyee Retirement
0 463 Alien Detainee
Income Security Act

(15 USC 1681 v 1693)
□ 485 Telephone Consumer
Protection Act
0 490CabJe/SatTV
0 850 Securibes/Commoditiea^

Exchange
0 890 Other Scaniuny Actions

Leave Act

0 891 Agricultural AcU
□ 870 Taxes (U.S. PJaioiifr
or Defendant)
O g7] (RS—Third Party

0 893 Environmental Matters
0 895 Freedom of Information
Act

0 896 Arbitratioo

26 USC 7609

O 530 General

□ 899 Administrative Procedure

"BBaRSCRmir

Other:

□ 446 Amer. w/DisablJiiies < □ 540 Mandamus & Other

0 550 Civil Rights

Other
0 448 Education

0 430 Banks and Banking

a 830 Patent

New Drug Application

Sentence

Accommodations

0 410 Aatitrusf

□ 840 Trademark

□ 445 Aitier. w/Disabllidcs * 0 535 Death Peaalty

0 290 All Otlier Real Property

0 376 Qui Tarn (31 USC
3729(a))

i^bqr

0 510 Motions to Vacate

0 443 Housii^

O 240 Torts to Land

0 375 False Claims Act

O 820 CupyiiglHS

Medical Malpractice

I

a 4Z2 Appeal 28 USC I)8

0 400 Slate Reapportioomenc

Personal injury
Product Liability

0 362 Persooal Injury •

JVSjT' '"TS*
OTHER STATUTES

0 423 WithdrawaJ
28 USC 157

PROPERTY RIGHTT

PERSONAL PROPERTY

of Veteran's Benefits
O 160 Stockholders'Sails
O 190 Other Contna
n 196 Franchise

□ 690 Other

0 36S Asbestos Personal

a 340 Marine

O 153 Recovery of Overpayment

of Property 21 U5C88I

Phamiaceurical

O 330 FedenI Employers'

O ISI Medicait Act

0 625 Drug Related Seizure

O 367 Health CM

Slander

n

•TlC(T?TU(a-iH

TORTS

Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision

G 462 Nicuralizaricrn Application
G 465 Othe Immigratica]

0 950 ConsdtotionsJity of

Acticuia

Slate Statutes

0 555 Prison Condition
0 560Ovil DetaineeConditions of
Coflflnemeiit

V. GRICI^ (Place an "X" In One Box Only)

Kl Oiglnal

Proceeding

0 2 Removed frtun
State Court

O 3

Remanded from
Appellate Court

Cite the UJ

42 U.S.d

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause;

O 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

G 5 Transferred from
Another District

(specif)

L '§^(5°1§§

^ ^ Multidistrict
Litigation-

Transfer

□ 8 Multidistrict
Litigation-

Direct File

unless tHeersdy):

consplrat^ to interfere with civil rights, interference with civil rights, inverse condemnation & related state claims

VII. REQUESTED IN

□ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23. F.R.CV.P.

COMPLAINT:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY

DATE

(See uuirvclUins).

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

510,867.00

JURYDEMAND:

n/a

DnCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

il

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT«

AMOUNT

APPLYING tFP

ILTOGE

MAG.JUD(S

K Yes

ONo