IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Melissa A. Ullmo Plaintiff, V. Ohio Turnpike
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case: 1:15-cv-00822-DAP Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/01/15 1 of 28. PageID #: 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Melissa A. Ullmo ) CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00822 ) Plaintiff, ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster ) v. ) ) Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure ) Commission ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission (the “Commission”) moves this Court to dismiss this action under Federal Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum, which is incorporated by reference, each of the seven counts asserted in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Melissa A. Ullmo against the Commission fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed. Case: 1:15-cv-00822-DAP Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/01/15 2 of 28. PageID #: 37 Dated: June 1, 2015 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ronald D. Holman, II Ronald D. Holman, II (0036776) [email protected] David H. Wallace (0037210) [email protected] Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. (0078352) [email protected] TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 Mark R. Musson (0081110) [email protected] Assistant General Counsel OHIO TURNPIKE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION 682 Prospect Street Berea, Ohio 44017 Telephone: (440) 234-2081 Facsimile: (440) 234-7392 Attorneys for Defendant Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission - 2 - Case: 1:15-cv-00822-DAP Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/01/15 3 of 28. PageID #: 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Melissa A. Ullmo ) CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00822 ) Plaintiff, ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster ) v. ) ) Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure ) Commission ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS Ronald D. Holman, II (0036776) Mark R. Musson (0081110) [email protected] [email protected] David H. Wallace (0037210) Assistant General Counsel [email protected] OHIO TURNPIKE AND INFRASTRUCTURE Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. (0078352) COMMISSION [email protected] 682 Prospect Street TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP Berea, Ohio 44017 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Telephone: (440) 234-2081 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302 Facsimile: (440) 234-7392 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 Attorneys for Defendant Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission Case: 1:15-cv-00822-DAP Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/01/15 4 of 28. PageID #: 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FACTS…………………………………………………………….. 3 ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………....… 4 I. The Commission is permitted to charge tolls that do not discriminate against interstate commerce, so Plaintiff’s Commerce Clause claims should be dismissed.. 4 A. The Infrastructure Program is protected by the market-participant doctrine. ........................................................................................................................................ 5 B. The Commission is permitted to charge tolls that are uniformly applied and do not further economic protectionism.................................................................... 8 II. The Commission is permitted to charge travelers a toll, so Plaintiff’s right-to- interstate-travel claim should be dismissed................................................................... 12 III. No court has recognized a right to intrastate travel in the Ohio Constitution, so Plaintiff’s intrastate-travel claim should be dismissed................................................. 16 IV. The tolls at issue are expressly authorized by Ohio law, so Plaintiff’s unlawful- tax-or-user-fee claim should be dismissed..................................................................... 18 V. The Commission’s toll program bears a rational relationship to the legitimate government interest of facilitating funding for highway improvements, so Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim should be dismissed. .............................................. 19 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 20 Case: 1:15-cv-00822-DAP Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/01/15 5 of 28. PageID #: 40 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Angus Partners, LLC v. Walder, 52 F. Supp.3d 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).......................... 10, 11, 12 Attorney Gen’l of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986) ........................................ 14, 15 Commercial Money Ctr., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2007) ............ 11 Doe v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 490 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2007) .............................................. 20 Endsley v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 2000) .................................................... 5, 6, 7 Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Auth. Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707(1972)................................................................................................... 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) ........................................................................... 20 Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005)....................................................................................... 8 Hannemann v. S. Door County Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2012) ................................. 16 Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915) ................................................................................. 5 Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 (1976);..................................................... 5, 8, 9 Janes v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 977 F. Supp.2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)................. 12 Johnson v. Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2002)............................................................ 16, 17 League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007)................ 14, 15 LensCrafters, Inc. v. Robinson, 403 F.3d 798 (6th Cir. 2005)...................................................... 4 McBurney v. Young, --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1709 (2013)..................................................... 4, 8, 9 Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 1999)...................................................................... 13, 17 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, Mich., 510 U.S. 355 (1994)................... 9, 10, 11, 12 Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002)............................................................ 20 Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980)..................................................................................... 5 Ritchie v. Coldwater Cmty. Sch., 947 F. Supp.2d 791 (W.D. Mich. 2013).............................. 16 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) ................................................................................... 13, 14, 15 Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 711 F.3d 253 (2013)............................................................ 7, 11 Selevan v.N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2009)........................................................ 7 So.-Cent. Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984)...................................................... 6 State v. Burnett, 93 Ohio St.3d 419, 755 N.E.2d 857 (2001) .................................................... 16 United Haulers Ass’n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330 (2007).................................................................................................................. 10 Wedgewood Ltd. P’ship I. v. Twp. of Liberty, Ohio, 456 F. Supp.2d 904 (S.D. Ohio 2006)..... 20 White v. Mass. Council of Const. Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204 (1983)...................................... 5 Yerger v. Mass. Turnpike Auth., 395 Fed. Appx. 878 (2010) ................................................... 20 CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUES Article I, § 8, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution................................................................................ 4 Article IV, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution.................................................................................... 13 G.C. 1201........................................................................................................................................ 1 R.C. 5537.01................................................................................................................................. 18 - ii - Case: 1:15-cv-00822-DAP Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/01/15 6 of 28. PageID #: 41 R.C. 5537.03......................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 18 R.C. 5537.04................................................................................................................................. 18 R.C. 5537.13........................................................................................................................... 18, 19 R.C. 5537.18....................................................................................................................... 2, 18, 19 R.C. 5537.23................................................................................................................................. 18 R.C. Chapter 5537......................................................................................................................