Login | May 26, 2025
6th Circuit says water bill complaint was time-barred
JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 20, 2013
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that a man is not entitled to compensation after he claimed the city of Cleveland over-billed his welding company for its water use.
James Janosek initially approached the city about a discrepancy in his water bill in 2009.
At the time he claimed his company had been overcharged by about $500,000 between 1999 and 2000.
Case summary states that at the time in question, Janosek owned an operated Welded Ring Products Company, which made products for aircraft engines.
The company used a large amount of water to cool its equipment during production and often saw high water bills that it paid to Cleveland’s water department.
In 1999, Janosek installed several closed-loop water chillers to reuse the water from the cooling process and, ideally, to lower water consumption.
“Instead of seeing a decrease in his water bills’ cost, Janosek continued to pay water bills in excess of $150,000 a year between 1999 and 2001. The water bills’ cost did not decrease significantly until 2002, when they dropped to between $10,000 and $25,000 a year,” circuit Judge Boyce Martin wrote in his case summary for the court.
Janosek approached the city’s law department in October 2009 and claimed his company was overcharged by about $500,000 from the time of the water chillers’ installation to the date of the decreased water bills.
He argued that the city was relying only on estimations based on prior usage to calculate its bills and that the amounts did not accurately show a customers’ consumption.
After receiving several complaints, the city spent more than $80 million to install water meters that could automatically read water usage in 2010.
The law department sent Janosek to the city of Cleveland’s Moral Claims Commission, which was established to “consider monetary claims against Cleveland that Cleveland is not legally obligated to pay.”
The commission held a hearing in March 2010, but did not notify Janosek. It later sent him a letter denying his reimbursement claim.
Janosek filed a complaint against Cleveland in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas claiming unjust enrichment, taking without just compensation and negligence.
That action was later moved to federal court and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the case.
The district court found Janosek’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and he failed to state a claim.
On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, Janosek argued the district court could not have determined the timeliness of his claims because he did not list the date that he discovered the discrepancies.
“Under Ohio law, an action against a political subdivision must be brought ‘within two years after the cause of action accrues,’” Martin wrote, citing the Ohio Revised Code.
The three-judge appellate panel found Janosek’s contention states his company was overcharged from 1999 to 2001.
“Thus, Janosek’s causes of action started accruing at the latest in 2001. Janosek did not file a complaint in this case until 2010, nine years after Welding Ring had been over-billed,” Martin stated.
The judges held the complaint listed dates specific enough to determine that the action was brought after the two-year statute of limitations had expired.
They agreed that the district court properly dismissed the case and affirmed its decision.
Fellow 6th Circuit Judge Deborah Cook and District Judge James Graham, who sat by designation, joined Martin to form the majority.
The case is cited Janosek v. Cleveland, case No. 12-4028.
Copyright © 2013 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved