The City of Kent has filed a motion in Portage County Common Pleas Court requesting the judge to vacate a decision blocking city officials from collecting fines from landlords for housing code violations.
Portage County Common Pleas Court Judge Becky Doherty issued a summary judgment against the City of Kent on March 29, ruling that the inspection provision in the city’s rental licensing code is unreasonable and unconstitutional, at least as far as it has been applied to a group of Kent landlords and their tenants.
The city’s new motion, filed April 14, asks Doherty to withdraw her summary and to give the city seven days to file “a response for reasons set forth more fully.”
Vacating a court’s decision means withdrawing a previously entered ruling. Such a motion may be granted for a number of reasons, including when a party in the lawsuit can show that they did not have a proper chance to present their side of the case.
Chris Murdock, attorney for the plaintiffs, followed that up on April 18 with a formal response that the court should deny Kent’s request.
The plaintiffs — landlords Bron Roeder, Steve Mileski, J. Mark Seaholts, along with some of their tenants — initially filed the lawsuit on Aug. 8, 2022.
On Feb. 17, Kent asked the court for additional time to file a response against the plaintiffs’ Jan. 26 request for summary judgment. Doherty granted the request on Feb. 24, giving the city 28 days to file the necessary paperwork.
When no paperwork was filed by March 29, Doherty issued the summary judgment.
“This is not about the validity of the licensing code, it’s about the way they enforce the inspection provision,” Murdock said, referring to his Jan. 26 request for summary judgment.
The issues are whether the inspection provision, the fines and the method of collecting the fines are constitutional, he said.
Kent Law Director Hope Jones said a calendar error was to blame for Kent missing the deadline.
In his April 14 request that the court set aside its summary judgment, Eric Fink, assistant law director for the city, stated that, “believing this issue was resolved, [the city’s attorney] removed the deadline from his calendar and moved on to the next topic. … This was neglectful, but it was also an example of excusable neglect,” which in legal circles, is an allowable reason for judges to forgive attorneys who miss deadlines.
Murdock, though, pointed out that Kent had already had 28 days to file a response against the plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment, and then missed a second 28-day deadline.
Wendy DiAlesandro is a former Record Publishing Co. reporter and contributing writer for The Portager.