Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Lumpkin

680 F.3d 841 (6th Cir. 2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P operated a daycare center that provided childcare services for children of low-income parents. P primarily relied on funding contracts under Title XX, which provides government assistance for child care. The agency responsible for distributing and negotiating Title XX funding contracts-decided to discontinue providing public assistance for P's child care services. This was done based on P's failure to provide a safe environment for children. D objected to P's alleged improper use of physical discipline and failure to adequately ensure that its employees did not have disqualifying criminal convictions. P requested an evidentiary hearing but D withdrew with P claiming it was because D had insufficient evidence to prove its allegations against P. P was eventually forced to go out of business. P filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law tort claims of tortious interference with contracts and business relationships. P requested eighty-eight million dollars in damages. D filed a motion to dismiss and P voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice. P again filed suit asserting the same § 1983 and state tort law causes of action. Ds filed a motion to dismiss arguing that P's' claims against the individual defendants had been waived under § 2743.02(A)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code. The court agreed with Ds. The Wee Care III action filed in state court was dismissed as well. P again filed suit in the United States District Court. P alleged that the State and County Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and that the County Defendants tortiously interfered with P's contracts and business relationships, and engaged in a civil conspiracy. Ds filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court granted this motion, concluding that Wee Care's claims were waived because Wee Care IV involves the same act or omission alleged in Wee Care III. P and Ds also both filed motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). Ds alleged immunity from money damages under the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984 (LGAA), and qualified immunity, the state action doctrine. The district court granted Ds' motion. P timely appeals the district court's orders and it is Wee Care IV that is currently before this Court. P again filed suit in the Ohio Court of Claims (Wee Care V), against ODJFS and five individual defendants, raising allegations nearly identical to Wee Care III. The Ohio Court of Claims has stayed proceedings in Wee Care V in response to the appeal of Wee Care IV currently before this Court.