Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lawsuit Against Middleburg Heights Employees
Lawsuit Against Middleburg Heights Employees
PageID #: 1
and
and
JANE DOE*
individually and in her official capacity.
City of Middleburg Heights
15700 Bagley Road
Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130
and
and
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
2079 East Ninth Street
1
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 2 of 38. PageID #: 2
Defendants.
COMES NOW, John D’Angelo, the above-named Plaintiff, by and through his counsel of
record, Michela Huth and Richard Rosenthal, and complain of Defendants as follows:
I. Introduction
This is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages arising under
U.S.C. Section 1983 as a result of the unconstitutional seizure of his property (two dogs and ten
puppies), violation of the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and violation of
due process in contravention of Plaintiff’s rights to due process and guarantee against
unreasonable search under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States and Article 1, of the Ohio Constitution. Plaintiff also seeks attorney fees and costs
Pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, John D’Angelo (“Plaintiff”) moves this
Court for a temporary and/or permanent restraining order and preliminary and/or permanent
injunction against all Defendants, Laura Takacs (“Takacs”), Jim Steinmetz (“Steinmetz),
Middleburg Heights, and Cuyahoga County, enjoining them from illegally and unconstitutionally
seizing unregistered dogs from persons who are traveling through Ohio, requiring Defendants to
provide a notice of a right to a hearing, and provide an immediate deprivation hearing, and
2
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 3 of 38. PageID #: 3
1. This Court has jurisdiction as Plaintiff’s claims are based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges, and
2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.A § 1331)
as this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States.
3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) as this action seeks to
remedy deprivations, under color of law, of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and applicable federal laws.
4. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief and compensatory damages are sought under 28
5. Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
6. Plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees and costs are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
which authorizes the award of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing parties pursuant to 42
U.S.C § 1983.
located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and the events giving rise to this claim occurred in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.
IV. Parties
8. Plaintiff John D’Angelo is a resident of California, and he is the owner of all the dogs,
which Defendants’ seized, and have incarcerated, retained and possibly destroyed.
3
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 4 of 38. PageID #: 4
9. D’Angelo is temporarily staying in Tuscarawas County, Ohio until he can get his dogs
back.
11. At all relevant times, Middleburg Heights acted by and through its agents, servants, and
employees, including but not limited to its employees, both named in this action, and unknown
12. Defendant Laura Takacs, in her Official and Individual Capacity, is an Animal Control
Officer (“ACO”) for the City of Middleburg Heights, and is one of the persons who illegally
13. Defendant Takacs is a “full-time ACO for the City of Middleburg Heights.”
14. Defendant Jim Steinmetz, in his Official and Individual Capacity, is a police officer with
Defendant City of Middleburg Heights, and was one of the persons who illegally seized
Plaintiff’s dogs.
15. Defendant Jane Doe, upon information and belief, is an animal control officer employed
by the City of Middleburg Heights, Ohio, and was one of the persons who illegally seized
Plaintiff’s dogs.
16. Defendant Cuyahoga County is a County located in Ohio, and upon information and
V. Facts
17. On July 2, 2018 Plaintiff D’Angelo arrived in Medina County, Ohio from Georgia.
1
This information was relayed, on July 10, 2018 to Attorney Michela Huth by a person named Mindy who works at
the Cuyahoga County Animal Shelter.
4
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 5 of 38. PageID #: 5
located at 7219 Engle Road, Middleburg Heights 44130, with his two adult dogs and ten puppies.
19. His adult dogs are, 1) named Dazey, who is three years old, and 2) Sasquatch, who is a
year old.
22. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life
activities.
23. On July 4, 2018 the Middleburg Heights police arrived at his hotel room due to the fact
that friends who were visiting with D’Angelo had removed the smoke alarm in the room so they
could smoke cigarettes. At the time of the removal of the smoke alarm, D’Angelo was not in the
24. Nothing further occurred with the police during that incident.
25. At about 9:00 a.m. the next morning, July 5, 2018, while D’Angelo was still sleeping, a
26. He opened the door and Defendant Takacs, the Animal Control Officer for Middleburg
Heights, Ohio, along with another unknown City employee was standing at the door.
27. During the conversation with Tackacs and the unknown City employee, some people
28. Tackacs told D’Angelo that he “needs to leave and go to the farm with the Jesus people.”
29. D’Angelo told Takacs that he did not want to go to the Jesus people’s Christian farm in
New York and that due to his PTSD and having them in the room cornering and reprimanding
5
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 6 of 38. PageID #: 6
30. He asked Takacs and the other unknown City employee to leave, however they did not.
31. Takacs told D’Angelo that they could take his dogs because he did not have County Dog
Tags.
32. Again, Takacs told D’Angelo that because he did not have dog tags they could take his
dogs, but Takacs said “they were not going to take [his] dogs since they saw that [D’Angelo] was
33. Takacs and the other city employee then left the room, and immediately pulled into the ‘5
Guys Burger’ restaurant adjacent to the hotel, and sat there in their vehicles.
34. After they left the room, D’Angelo decided to leave the hotel with his dogs, as soon as
possible.
35. He arranged a ride, and as he was loading up his property into the vehicle, Animal
Control swooped in from a ‘5 Guys Burger’ restaurant, which was adjacent to the hotel.
37. As D’Angelo was attempting to load his property into the vehicle, Takacs told D’Angelo
that she was issuing him a citation for failure to register his dogs, and that he needed to sign the
citation.
39. He was not given a citation at any time, and as of the date of the filing of this Complaint,
40. D’Angelo attempted to put his dogs in the car, and at that point Takacs told D’Angelo
they were taking my dogs and told D’Angelo that there was nothing he could do about it.
41. At that point, as set forth in the video, attached as Exhibit A, D’Angelo said he had
6
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 7 of 38. PageID #: 7
43. As set forth in the video, Exhibit A, protested this illegal seizure, and informed Takacs
and Steinmetz that Dazey (the dog with the puppies) could bite him. This occurred at they were
45. Steinmetz, Takacs, and the unidentified city employee took the dogs into their vehicles
and left.
46. At no time have Defendants ever provided D’Angelo notice of how to redeem his dogs,
47. The only information he was provided was a business card of Takacs and a business card
of Officer Steinmetz.
48. D’Angelo has called Takacs at least three times and left messages about how to get his
49. After July 5, 2018, D’Angelo’s attorney, Michela Huth placed five telephone calls to
Takacs, the sergeant in charge of the Middleburg Heights police department, and to the Chief of
Police in an attempt to locate the dogs and explain that they needed to return the dogs to the legal
owner as soon as possible. As of the filing of this Complaint, no returned phone calls have been
50. Attorney Michela Huth, D’Angelo and others have placed many phone calls to various
51. It was not until July 10, 2018 that it was discovered that the dogs are at Cuyahoga County
Animal Shelter.
7
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 8 of 38. PageID #: 8
52. Tammy Collins called the Middleburg Heights Police Department on July 9, 2018 and
after asking to speak to the Lieutenant and Chief of Police, then spoke to an employee in the
service department who informed her the dogs are located at the Middleburgh Height Police
53. Tammy Collins asked the employee if the dogs had been altered in any fashion and
whether they were still alive. This employee transferred her to a woman named Micky at
Middleburg Heights City Hall. Micky informed Collins that she did not know if they were still
alive and/or if they had been altered. She put Collins on hold and called Takacs, however she
54. Sergeant Carruthers informed Attorney Huth on July 9, 2018, that the dogs are not at the
police station. He said they are either at the Cuyahoga Pound Animal Shelter or Middleburg
55. On July 10, 2018 Middleburg Heights Law Director, Gary Ebert contacted Plaintiff’s
attorney, Michela Huth, and informed her that there was a hearing in Middleburg Heights
Municipal Court on July 18, 2018. Attorney Huth asked him what type of hearing, and he said
he did not know, but would try to get more details the next day.
56. D’Angelo’s dogs have been in the possession of Defendants for five days, and he has no
way of finding them, visiting them, and has no ability to engage in a process to redeem them
57. On July 10, 2018 D’Angelo’s attorney Michela Huth was informed by the Shelter
Administrator (Mindy Naticchion) of Cuyahoga County Animal Shelter that it has possession of
the dogs.
8
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 9 of 38. PageID #: 9
58. Attorney Huth was informed that Cuyahoga County will not return the dogs to D’Angelo,
but instead will do whatever the City of Middleburg Height tells them to do.
59. Cuyahoga County, by and through Mindy Naticchion the Shelter Administrator, that it
60. Cuyahoga County has had possession of the dogs since July 5, 2018.
61. As of the time of the filing of this Complaint, neither D’Angelo nor his attorneys have
been informed as to what process or procedure he can utilize to redeem his dogs.
62. Today, July 10, 2018 Attorney Huth texted Gary Ebert cell phone, Middleburg Heights
Law Director, Gary Ebert, to obtain his email address so that he could be given notice of the
63. Having not heard back from him, Attorney Huth telephoned Mr. Ebert’s cell phone and
left a message informing him that if he did not provide his email, the Certificate of Service of the
TRO would indicate that an email was requested but not given.
64. Today July 10, 2018 at 3:38 p.m. in response to the above call Gary Ebert, Mr. Ebert
returned the call to Attorney Huth and indicated the dogs are being held at the Cuyahoga County
66. Mr. Ebert stated the dogs would be returned to D’Angelo sometime, but that D’Angelo
67. Attorney Huth informed him that the dogs are D’Angelo’s property and they must be
68. As of the filing of this Complaint, the dogs have still not been released to D’Angelo.
9
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 10 of 38. PageID #: 10
69. Mr. Ebert also informed Attorney Huth, in the same conversation on July 10, 2018, that
D’Angelo has been charged with four criminal violations, but a majority of the details were not
70. Mr. Ebert stated he would email those charges to Attorney Huth, but so far, that email has
71. The only charge Mr. Ebert revealed was dog at large, which is preposterous because the
72. D’Angelo is temporarily staying in Tuscarawas County until he can get his dogs back.
COUNT I
Injunctive Relief
73. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations contained in all numbered
74. R.C. 955.05 violates the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Ohio.
75. R.C. 955.05 is being applied to impound a person’s property (dogs in this case) when
they are traveling through, and/or temporarily in, Middleburg Heights with dogs who do not have
76. R.C. 955.05 is being applied to persons who are staying in a hotel in Middleburg Heights
77. R.C. 955.05 is being applied to persons who have no intention of habitually residing in
Middleburg Heights or Cuyahoga Heights, but rather are staying in a hotel in Middleburg
10
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 11 of 38. PageID #: 11
78. If not enjoined by this Court, Defendants and their agents, representatives, and employees
will continue to implement the provisions of the challenged law, and other similar policies and
practice, that deny Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, their constitutional rights without due
process, and in violation of their right to be secure in their person and property.
79. In particular, the Defendants’ enforcement policies will deprive Plaintiff, and others
similarly situation, of the opportunity to own property permitted by the law, but denied by the
80. Also, the Defendants’ enforcement policies will deprive Plaintiffs of the opportunity to
enter Middleburg Heights jurisdiction with dogs that are not licensed in Cuyahoga County.
81. The Defendants’ enforcement policies have, and has and will in the future, subject
82. This course of conduct has caused, and will continue to cause, Plaintiffs to suffer real and
immediate threat of irreparable injury, as a result of the existence, operation, enforcement, and
83. Immediate irreparable injury includes, but is not limited to, loss of property,
84. Defendants are acting and threatening to act under color of state law to deprive Plaintiff,
85. Plaintiff has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law for such an injury.
86. The challenged law violates the Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to
be secure in persons and property under the Fourth amendment, the Commerce Clause, and 42
11
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 12 of 38. PageID #: 12
87. Accordingly, injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other authority is
appropriate.
88. Plaintiffs seeks an order requiring all Defendants to immediately return his dogs to him.
89. Plaintiff also seeks an order barring Defendants from enforcing R.C. 955.05 against
persons who are temporarily located in, and/or traveling through, the City of Middleburg
Heights.
COUNT II
Declaratory Relief
90. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations contained in all numbered
91. An actual and immediate controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to their
92. Plaintiff contends that R.C. 955.05 is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff and facially
unconstitutional.
93. The challenged Ordinance violates the Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment,
violates the right to be secure in persons and property as set forth by the Fourth Amendment,
violates the dormant Commerce Clause, and violates the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well
95. Without such a declaration, Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, will be uncertain of
COUNT III
12
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 13 of 38. PageID #: 13
Fourth Amendment
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
97. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
98. As stated previously, a seizure of plaintiff’s dogs occurred on the fifth day of July, 2018,
after Defendants took possession of D’Angelo’s dogs and did not return them to him.
99. A continued retention of Plaintiff’s property, his dogs, without first obtaining a warrant,
100. Plaintiffs has been deprived of visitation with their dogs, and of being able to provide
their choice of care, food, medical attention, exercise and other indicia of ownership to their
dogs.
101. The seizure of Plaintiff’s dogs is unreasonable because there exists no explicit statutory
authority to seize a dog when a person is temporarily in Ohio, or in a specific County in Ohio.
102. The seizure and retention of the dogs is unreasonable because there are no rules,
103. The seizure is unreasonable because the animal control officers and police officers have
no required specific training or specialized knowledge regarding when to impound a dog for
failure to register, and regarding what the process or procedure, including a deprivation hearing,
104. The seizure is unreasonable because the length of the seizure and retention is completely
unknown to D’Angelo and others who have had their dogs seized, impounded and retained by
13
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 14 of 38. PageID #: 14
105. The seizure is unreasonable because of the absence of any rules, guidelines, procedures,
policies, regulations or uniform standards to limit the unfettered discretion of the police officers
and animal control officer in enforcing R.C. 955.05, and the lack of any review process or means
to challenge the propriety of the seizure and retention of Plaintiff’s dogs after seizure and
106. Plaintiff has not been provided with the necessary due process, including an opportunity
107. Defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
108. R.C. 955.05, on its face, and as enforced by defendants, is unconstitutional because it
permits warrantless seizures while at the same time vesting ultimate discretion and authority in
the Defendants’ police officers and animal control officers to seize plaintiffs’ property, with no
109. Defendants’ seizure of Plaintiff’s dogs is an infringement of both property and liberty
right.
110. Plaintiffs is entitled to his costs, including their reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
111. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57 Plaintiff seek a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Due Process Clause
112. Plaintiff, and other similarly situated, have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer
serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from
14
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 15 of 38. PageID #: 15
continuing their unlawful policies, practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods,
113. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
COUNT III
Due Process
Fourteenth Amendment3
Deprivation Of Property And Liberty
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
114. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
115. Defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving Plaintiff, and others similarly
situated, of their liberty and property rights secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
116. Defendants knew, or should have known, that their above-described conduct violated
Plaintiff’s due process rights which are secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
117. Defendants, by their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law,
have deprived Plaintiff of his right to his own property, which he has a “legitimate claim of
entitlement to.”4
118. Defendants, by their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law,
have deprived Plaintiff of his right to his own liberty and property.
3
Fourteenth Amendment provides, “No state shall ….deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.”
4
See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-74, 577 (1972).
15
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 16 of 38. PageID #: 16
119. The acts of the Defendants impermissibly violate Plaintiff’s substantive and procedural
due process rights by applying the R.C. 955.05 contrary to constitutional parameters, and by
120. Defendants and their employees and agents violated Plaintiffs’ right to be free from
121. Among other violations of the Constitution, Defendants have failed to provide a
122. Plaintiff has been provided, nor does there exist, any information as to how he must
123. There exists no process for him to get his dogs back.
124. Defendants’ unlawful actions were done with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff of
125. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the acts of the Defendants and their employees and
agents were intentional in failing to protect and preserve Plaintiff’s person and property and that,
at minimum, Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the likely consequence that harm would
result from illegal depriving a person’s registered service dog and companion dogs.
126. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the acts of the Defendants and their employees and
agents were intentional in failing to protect and preserve Plaintiff’s person and property and that,
at minimum, Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the likely consequence that harm would
result from illegal depriving Plaintiff of his companion animals and his registered service dog.
127. The seizure of Plaintiff’s property by Middleburg Heights employees and agents, and the
retention of that property by Cuyahoga County, is being conducted pursuant to a policy, practice,
16
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 17 of 38. PageID #: 17
128. R.C. 955.05, as applied, violates the due process rights of Plaintiffs in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and unconstitutionally deprived him of
129. There is no mechanism which exists for these Plaintiffs to prevent unconstitutional
application and enforcement of said seizure under the purported authority of 955.05, or any other
130. Defendants’ actions to enforce 955.05, arbitrarily deprives Plaintiff of his property and
liberty because the application of the statute is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, without a
real or substantial relation to the object sought to be attained, and violates basic concepts of
fairness.
“immediately”, violates due process because it arbitrarily deprives Plaintiffs of their property.
132. Retaining a person’s dogs, based upon Defendants’ untenable interpretations of who
knows what law, violates due process because it arbitrarily deprives Plaintiff of his property.
133. Plaintiff’s property was seized for purportedly violating R.C. 955.05, and there is no
134. Defendant Cuyahoga County claims that they cannot release the dogs without Authority
from Defendant Middleburg Heights. Thus, they are also illegally retaining D’Angelo’s dogs
135. Due to the lack of any rules, standards, policies, procedures or regulations, the law fails
to inform a person of reasonable intelligence what behavior is prohibited, what the appropriate
range of punishment for any specific behavior should be, and it fails to provide any basis for
17
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 18 of 38. PageID #: 18
136. There are no rules nor uniform standards for determining a violation thereunder, and each
police officer or animal control officer therefore enforces the statute according to his own whims
with no oversight or guidance of any sort, causing the enforcement of R.C. 955.05 to be, by
definition, arbitrary and capricious, and violative of both the due process clause and equal
137. As stated previously, a seizure of plaintiff’s dogs occurred on the fifth day of July, 2018,
after Defendants took possession of D’Angelo’s dogs and did not return them to him.
138. A continued retention of Plaintiff’s property, his dogs, without first obtaining a warrant,
139. Plaintiffs has been deprived of visitation with their dogs, and of being able to provide
their choice of care, food, medical attention, exercise and other indicia of ownership to their
dogs.
140. The seizure of Plaintiff’s dogs is unreasonable because there exists no explicit statutory
141. The seizure and retention of the dogs is unreasonable because there are no rules,
142. The seizure is unreasonable because the animal control officers and police officers have
no required specific training or specialized knowledge regarding when to impound a dog for
failure to register, and regarding what the process or procedure is for a person to redeem their
18
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 19 of 38. PageID #: 19
143. The seizure is unreasonable because the length of the seizure and retention is completely
unknown to D’Angelo and others who have had their dogs seized, impounded and retained by
144. The seizure is unreasonable because of the absence of any rules, guidelines, procedures,
policies, regulations or uniform standards to limit the unfettered discretion of the police officers
and animal control officer in enforcing R.C. 955.05, and the lack of any review process or means
to challenge the propriety of the seizure and retention of Plaintiff’s dogs after seizure and
145. Plaintiff has not been provided with the necessary due process, including an opportunity
146. Defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
147. R.C. 955.05, on its face, and as enforced by Defendants, is unconstitutional because it
permits warrantless seizures while at the same time vesting ultimate discretion and authority in
the Defendants’ police officers and animal control officers to seize and retain Plaintiff’s
property, with no rules or procedures that police officers and animal control officers must follow.
148. Defendants’ seizure of Plaintiff’s dogs is an infringement of both property and liberty
right.
149. Plaintiffs is entitled to his costs, including their reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
150. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57 Plaintiff seek a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Due Process Clause
19
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 20 of 38. PageID #: 20
151. Plaintiff, and other similarly situated, have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer
serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from
continuing their unlawful policies, practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods,
152. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
COUNT IV
Fourteenth Amendment
Violation of Due Process Clause
Void for Vagueness – Arbitrary Enforcement5 or “Law by Cop”6
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
153. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
154. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived, and continue to deprive,
Plaintiff of his right secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
5
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with
sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a
manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson,
461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983); see also Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015) (“A
law is vague when “it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or [is]
so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.”); see also Cleveland v. Anderson, 13 Ohio
App.2d 83, 90, 234 N.E.2d 304, 309-310 ([I]f if an ordinance which is designed to regulate
conduct does not lay down ascertainable rules and guidelines to govern its enforcement. This
ordinance represents an unconstitutional exercise of the police power * * * and is therefore
void.”).
6
“Law by Cop” is a phrase coined by Peter W. Low & Joel S. Johnson, Changing the
Vocabulary of the Vagueness Doctrine, 101 Va.L.Rev. 2051, 2053 (2015). “Law by cop” is a
term used to describe “police invention and enforcement of new crimes on the street.” Id. at
2074. “This is “a violation of due process under a version of the Bouie principle.” Id. at 2074-75,
citing Bouie v. City of Columbia,378 U.S. 347, 350 (1964).
20
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 21 of 38. PageID #: 21
155. Ohio Revised Code 955.057 is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth
156. The power to define what is prohibited under R.C. 955.05 is left to those who enforce it.
157. The wholesale delegation of this discretion is impermissible under the Constitution.
158. R.C. 955.05 provides “for government by the moment-to-moment” opinions of a police
159. In order to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, the Statute must provide
160. The Statute lacks explicit standards for those charged with its enforcement.
161. The enforcement is left to the complete discretion of police officers and animal control
162. Ultimate discretion and authority for enforcing R.C. 955.05 is vested in Middleburg
7
955.05 Registration of dog or dog kennel during year.
After the thirty-first day of January of any year, except as otherwise provided in section
955.012 or 955.16 of the Revised Code, every person, immediately upon becoming the
owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog more than three months of age or brought from
outside the state during any year, shall file like applications, with fees, as required by
section 955.01 of the Revised Code, for registration for a period of one year or three
years or an application for permanent registration. If the application is not filed and the
fee paid, within thirty days after the dog is acquired, becomes three months of age, or is
brought from outside the state, the auditor shall assess a penalty in an amount equal to the
registration fee for one year upon the owner, keeper, or harborer, which shall be paid with
the registration fee. Thereafter, the owner, keeper, or harborer shall register the dog as
provided in section 955.01 of the Revised Code, as applicable.
8
See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 579 (1965) (separate opinion of Mr. Justice Black).
9
City of Akron v. Rowland, 67 Ohio St.3d 374, 381, 1993 Ohio 222, 618 N.E.2d 138 (1993); see
also, Kelleys Island v. Joyce, 146 Ohio App.3d 92, 98, 765 N.E.2d 387, 391 (6th Dist.2001).
21
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 22 of 38. PageID #: 22
163. Ultimate discretion and authority for retaining Plaintiff’s dogs is vested in Middleburg
Heights employees, namely police officers and animal control officers, and Cuyahoga County
164. The Statute prescribes no standards, procedures, guidelines or rules to guide police
officers and animal control officers in the enforcement of the Statute and in limiting the
165. Middleburg Heights has not set forth any rules, promulgated regulations, or published
any guidelines or directives or other material to delineate what is a proper exercise of such
discretion.
166. Cuyahoga County has not set forth any rules, promulgated regulations, or published any
167. R.C. 955.05 grants Defendants unlimited, unfettered, and unguided discretion to interpret
168. Acting under color of state law, Defendants have unbridled discretion to enforce R.C.
955.05, without providing notice to dog owners as to when, why, and how the Ordinance would
169. By exercising unlimited, unguided discretion over application and enforcement of R.C.
955.05, Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiff’s
right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
22
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 23 of 38. PageID #: 23
170. Middleburg Heights procedures, policies, practices, methods, and standards, leave the
government actors “free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and
171. The Ordinance makes criminal, activities which are normally innocent, and “may be a
172. “[I]t is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its
173. The Defendants’ wholesale delegation of discretion to the police officers and animal
174. The Ordinance enables the police and animal control officers to decide for themselves
175. The police and animal control officers have written the law on the street.
177. Police and animal control officers are not authorized, under the Constitution, to makeup
178. The manner in which Middleburg Heights applies R.C. 955.05 “does not provide for
government by clearly defined laws, but rather for government by the moment-to-moment
10
Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-03 (1966).
11
Id.
12
See Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 163 (1972).
13
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972).
14
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 579 (1965).
23
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 24 of 38. PageID #: 24
179. Middleburg Heights policies, procedures, guidelines, standards and methods enable its
employees and agents to conduct enforcement of R.C. 955.05 in a manner which creates “law by
cop.”
180. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
181. Plaintiff is entitled to their costs, including their reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
182. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Due Process Clause
183. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods, which have directly and proximately
184. An actual controversy exists between the parties, and Plaintiff is suffering an ongoing and
irreparable harm by Defendants’ acts, and the harm will continue unless R.C. 955.0515 is
15
955.05 Registration of dog or dog kennel during year.
After the thirty-first day of January of any year, except as otherwise provided in section
955.012 or 955.16 of the Revised Code, every person, immediately upon becoming the
owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog more than three months of age or brought from
outside the state during any year, shall file like applications, with fees, as required by
section 955.01 of the Revised Code, for registration for a period of one year or three
years or an application for permanent registration. If the application is not filed and the
fee paid, within thirty days after the dog is acquired, becomes three months of age, or is
brought from outside the state, the auditor shall assess a penalty in an amount equal to the
registration fee for one year upon the owner, keeper, or harborer, which shall be paid with
24
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 25 of 38. PageID #: 25
185. Plaintiff is entitled to his costs, including his reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. § 1988.
186. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that R.C. 955.05 violates the Due Process Clause of
187. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods, which have directly and proximately
COUNT V
Violation of Due Process Clause
Facially Overbroad16
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
188. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
190. R.C. 955.05 is utilizing the word “immediately” in the law encompasses protected
the registration fee. Thereafter, the owner, keeper, or harborer shall register the dog as
provided in section 955.01 of the Revised Code, as applicable.
16
“Likewise, laws which broadly forbid conduct or activities which are protected by the Federal
Constitution, such as, for instance, the discussion of political matters, are void on their face.”
Coates, 402 U.S. 611, 616 (Black, J., concurring) (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88
(1940)).
25
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 26 of 38. PageID #: 26
192. R.C. 955.05 is unconstitutionally overbroad because the word “Immediately” is vague.
193. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
194. The statute is facially unconstitutional because there are no rules, policies, procedures,
guidelines, practices or regulations regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the statute,
and thus, the statute is constitutionally void as applied until such time as the Defendants
promulgates such rules, policies, procedures, guidelines, practices or regulations regarding the
195. Plaintiff is entitled to his costs, including his reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
196. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Due Process Clause
197. Plaintiffs has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
his constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods, which have directly and proximately
COUNT VI
Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process
Retroactive Punishment
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
26
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 27 of 38. PageID #: 27
198. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every allegation contained in the preceding
199. Defendants’ interpretation of R.C. 955.05 violates the Due Process Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as applied to Plaintiff, and others
200. Defendants’ interpretation of R.C. 955.05, and their enforcement of R.C. 955.05, and
prosecution premised upon R.C. 955.05, based upon their application of said Statute, is unfair,
201. Defendants’ interpretations of R.C. 955.05, and any enforcement and prosecution based
retroactive punishment.
202. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
203. Plaintiff is entitled to their costs, including their reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
204. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Due Process Clause
205. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods, which have directly and proximately
27
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 28 of 38. PageID #: 28
COUNT VII
Fifth Amendment
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
206. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
207. The scope of the privilege protecting a person from compelled disclosure, under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, protects “information which would furnish a link
in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual
208. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by seizing his dogs because he
209. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by seizing his dogs because
after he refused to answer Defendant Takacs questions, she called the police for back-up.
210. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by calling and having the police
211. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by coercing him through police
212. Defendants have apparently criminally charged D’Angelo with four criminal violations,
however other than a preposterous ‘dog at large’ charge, neither he nor his attorney have any
213. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
17
See Convertino v. DOJ, 795 F.3d 587, 593 (6th Cir. 2015), quoting Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S.
449, 461, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42L.Ed.2d 574 (1975).461, citing Hoffman, Hoffman v. United States,
341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951).
28
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 29 of 38. PageID #: 29
214. Plaintiff is entitled to their costs, including their reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
215. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Fifth Amendment
216. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods, which have directly and proximately
COUNT VIII
Violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132)
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
217. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
218. Defendants seizure, impoundment, and retention of Plaintiff’s service dog is a violation
220. Plaintiff has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life
activities' of an individual.
221. Under either Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff was denied full and fair treatment because of a
disability.
222. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
29
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 30 of 38. PageID #: 30
223. Plaintiff is entitled to his costs, including his reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
224. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, Plaintiff seek a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Due Process Clause
225. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods, which have directly and proximately
COUNT IX
Violation of Civil Rights Act
Dormant Commerce Clause
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
226. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
227. Defendants, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of the State of
Ohio and the City of Middleburg Heights, have subjected and have caused to be subjected, and
are subjecting, and causing to be subjected, Plaintiff, and others similarly situated to the
deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States – specifically, the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
229. Without relief from this Court, Defendants, acting under color of statute, ordinance,
regulation custom or usage of the State of Ohio and the City of Middleburg Heights, will
30
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 31 of 38. PageID #: 31
continue to subject, and causing to be subjected, Plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges,
230. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
231. Plaintiff is entitled to his costs, including his reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
232. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Due Process Clause
233. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods, which have directly and proximately
COUNT X
Violation of Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution
234. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
235. R.C. 955.05 grants Defendants, and their employees and agents, discretion to interpret
236. R.C. 955.05, on its face and as applied to the facts of this case, violated the due process
rights of Plaintiffs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
31
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 32 of 38. PageID #: 32
237. The acts of the Defendants in enforcing R.C. 955.05 were actions taken under color of
state law.
238. The acts of the Defendants in enforcing or threatening to enforce the Statute deprives
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, of their property in violation of the Fourteenth
239. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
57, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 505.14 violates the Due Process Clause
240. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries and damages as a direct and proximate
result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, as will more fully appear at trial.
241. Plaintiff is entitled to his costs, including his reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant 42
U.S.C. 1988.
242. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, customs, procedures, standards and/or methods, which have directly and proximately
COUNT XI
Monell Claim
243. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
244. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County,
acting through the individual defendants, developed, implement, enforced, encouraged and
32
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 33 of 38. PageID #: 33
245. Defendants’ unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent
to deprive the Plaintiff of his conditional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
246. Defendants Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County maintains a policy and/or custom
of deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizens of the United States, and such policy and/or
247. Defendant Police, Animal Control Officers, Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County
Policymakers and unknown supervisors, knew, or should have known, that the Defendants would
confront situations such as the events which form the basis of the actions herein stated.
248. The failure to provide the police officers and the animal control officers with proper and
adequate training failed to furnish these individuals with appropriate knowledge to make proper
and informed decisions which resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
249. Defendants Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County pursued an official policy and/or
custom of failing to provide adequate training, monitoring, and supervision of their police
officers and animal control officers in the performance of their duties and the protection of the
250. Defendants Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County failed to provide adequate
training, monitoring, and supervision of its police officers and license technicians, in the
performance of their duties and to ensure the constitutional protections of citizens who come in
33
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 34 of 38. PageID #: 34
251. Defendant Middleburg Heights’ and Cuyahoga County’s failure to provide adequate
training, monitoring, and supervision of its police officers and animal control officers resulted in
252. Defendant Middleburg Heights, its Supervisors and Policymakers knew, or should have
known, that the Police Officers and the animal control officers named herein were acting in such
a way as to violate the constitutional rights of citizens they encounter while performing their
duties, and were aware of such constitutional violations, or should have been aware of such
253. Defendant Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County, their Supervisors and
Policymakers knew, maintains a municipal policy and/or custom of deliberate indifference to the
rights of the citizens with whom the Police and animal control officers come into contact with
and this policy and/or custom is part of a pattern of constitutional violations by failing to
properly investigate allegations of police and animal control officer’s misconduct and not
properly disciplining police officers and animal control officers who commit acts of misconduct.
254. Defendant Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County, its Supervisors and Policymakers
pursued an official policy and/or custom of a falling to investigate and discipline their police
officers and license technicians in the performance of their duties and their actions violated the
255. Defendant Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County, their Supervisors and
Policymakers failed to provide adequate training, monitoring, and/or supervision of the police
officers and animal control officers in the performance of their duties and ensure the
constitutional protections of citizens who come in contact with Middleburg Heights police
34
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 35 of 38. PageID #: 35
256. Defendant Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County, their Supervisors and
Policymakers failure to provide adequate training, monitoring, and supervision of its police
officers and animal control officers resulted in deprivation of clearly established constitutional
protects for citizens who would come in contact with police officers and animal control officers.
257. Middleburg Heights police officers and animal control officers, on the scene at the time
of the seizure of the dogs, and at all times subsequent to the seizure of the dogs, had a legal duty
and ample opportunity to intervene and prevent the illegal seizure, and return the dogs to their
owner.
258. Cuyahoga County had a legal duty and ample opportunity to return D’Angelo’s dogs to
259. The failure of said Defendants to intervene was part of the pattern, practice, and custom
on behalf of the City of Middleburg Heights to not intervene or report such incidents, but remain
quiet to maintain silence and tacit acknowledgment and approval of such actions.
260. The failure of Middleburg Heights and Cuyahoga County, and their employees and
agents, to intervene or report such illegal, unlawful and improper activities subjects Middleburg
Heights and Cuyahoga County to liability for the harm suffered by the Plaintiff due to the
conduct of animal control officer Takacs, the unknown other animal control officer, and police
officer Steinmetz, and the conduct of the animal shelter in impounding the dogs and refusing to
through its actions of the individual Defendants set forth in the caption of this Complaint, were
and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and/or customs developed,
35
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 36 of 38. PageID #: 36
including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the
on the part of its police officers, agents and animal control officers; (b) to properly and
adequately monitor and discipline its police officers and animal control officers, including
Defendants, and (c) to adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police and
animal control officers, and instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated by City of Middleburg
Heights.
262. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Middleburg Heights, acting through its
police and animal control officer defendants developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and
sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or
prosecution without reasonable supplication or probable cause, individuals who have a property
interest in their animals and a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
263. Defendants’ unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent
to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
264. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
265. As a direct and proximate result of the acts as stated herein by each of the Defendants, the
Plaintiff’s conditional rights have been violated which has caused him to suffer physical, mental,
and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
266. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to
his constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined form continuing their unlawful policies,
practices, and/or customs which have directly and proximately caused such constitutional abuses.
COUNT XII
36
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 37 of 38. PageID #: 37
267. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
R.C. 955.05 grants Defendants, and their employees and agents, discretion to interpret what
a. An Order enjoining and restraining the Defendants from impounding dogs from
people who are traveling through Middleburg Heights, Ohio.
e. An Order declaring R.C. 955.05 violates the U.S. Constitution and the
Constitution of Ohio;
h. An Order to ensure that the public has accurate notice of how to redeem their
dogs after they have been seized, impounded and retained under an alleged failure
to register violation.
37
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/10/18 38 of 38. PageID #: 38
Respectfully submitted,
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues raised in this Complaint as set forth
in this pleading.
38
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/10/18 1 of 8. PageID #: 39
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/10/18 2 of 8. PageID #: 40
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/10/18 3 of 8. PageID #: 41
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/10/18 4 of 8. PageID #: 42
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/10/18 5 of 8. PageID #: 43
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/10/18 6 of 8. PageID #: 44
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/10/18 7 of 8. PageID #: 45
Case: 1:18-cv-01574-JG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/10/18 8 of 8. PageID #: 46