Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-03865/USCOURTS-ca6-15-03865-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ankney Enterprises, Inc.
Appellee
John Does 1-30
Appellee
Gulfstream Development, Ltd
Appellee
Gulfstream Development, Ltd II
Appellee
Lucas County, Ohio
Appellee
Northwest Ohio Properties, Ltd.
Appellant
Watermark Properties, Ltd. V
Appellee
Waterside Sylvania, LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0159n.06

No. 15-3865

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NORTHWEST OHIO PROPERTIES, LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LUCAS COUNTY; OHIO, WATERMARK 

PROPERTIES, LTD. V; GULFSTREAM 

DEVELOPMENT, LTD; GULFSTREAM 

DEVELOPMENT, LTD II; WATERSIDE 

SYLVANIA, LLC; ANKNEY ENTERPRISES, 

INC.; JOHN DOES 1-30,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

Before: KETHLEDGE, DONALD, and ROTH,

* Circuit Judges. 

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Northwest Ohio Properties sued Lucas County, Ohio

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the County violated Northwest’s Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights by taking a sewage easement across its land. Northwest also asserted various 

state-law tort claims against the County and other defendants. The district court dismissed the 

§ 1983 claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims. We affirm.

Northwest owns 61 acres of land in Lucas County. According to Northwest’s complaint, 

in 2006 Northwest agreed to give Watermark Properties (a real-estate development company) 

and Ankney Enterprises (the company that operated Watermark) an easement for a sewage line

 

*

The Honorable Jane R. Roth, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

 Case: 15-3865 Document: 28-1 Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 1
No. 15-3865

Northwest Ohio Properties v. Lucas County, et al.

-2-

across Northwest’s land. The sewage line would service a nearby housing development planned 

by Watermark. In exchange, Watermark and Ankney agreed to give Northwest two free access 

points to the sewage line. 

Lucas County approved the planned line and oversaw its construction. The line was 

completed in 2007, but without any access points for Northwest. Watermark was placed into 

receivership in 2009. The County then took over operation of the sewage line, collecting sewage 

fees from the residents of Watermark’s development. But the County refused to grant Northwest

the free access points that Watermark and Ankney had promised Northwest. To date Northwest 

has not been compensated in any way for the sewage-line easement.

Northwest thereafter brought this lawsuit, asserting a takings claim under § 1983 and 

other claims under state law. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Northwest’s 

claims. Mokdad v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 807, 810 (6th Cir. 2015).

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause prohibits the federal government from taking 

private property for public use without just compensation. U.S. Const. amend. V. The Clause 

applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 

533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001). 

A governmental body can violate the Takings Clause in two ways. The first is when it 

takes private property for a public purpose without just compensation. See Kelo v. City of New 

London, 545 U.S. 469, 477 (2005). To assert this kind of takings claim against a state or local 

government, the plaintiff must first exhaust any compensation remedies available under state 

law. Vill. of Maineville, Ohio v. Hamilton Twp. Bd. of Trs., 726 F.3d 762, 765 (6th Cir. 2013). 

Here, Northwest itself argues that it never asserted this kind of takings claim. Thus, we move on 

to the second kind, which occurs when a governmental body takes private property for a private 

 Case: 15-3865 Document: 28-1 Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 2
No. 15-3865

Northwest Ohio Properties v. Lucas County, et al.

-3-

purpose. See Kelo, 545 U.S. at 477-78. A plaintiff making this claim against a state or local 

government can proceed directly to federal court because the gravamen of the claim concerns 

whether the taking had a public purpose, not whether the plaintiff received just compensation. 

See Montgomery v. Carter Cty., 226 F.3d 758, 768 (6th Cir. 2000). 

A taking is for a private purpose only if it lacks any “rational connection to a minimally 

plausible conception of the public interest.” Id. Here, Northwest cites no case law in support of 

its argument that its complaint states a claim on this ground. Instead, Northwest merely asserts

that the sewage line benefitted the developer that built the development. But “the government’s 

pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties.” Kelo, 545 U.S. at 485. 

And the provision of sewer rather than septic service to the County’s residents is a minimally 

plausible public purpose. See Key Prop. Grp., LLC v. City of Milford, 995 A.2d 147, 152 (Del. 

2010); Robinson v. City of Ashdown, 783 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Ark. 1990).

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

 Case: 15-3865 Document: 28-1 Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 3