Schooner Creek Farm 2

Case 1:20-cv-00518-RLY-DML Document 17 Filed 04/13/20 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 71
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SCHOONER CREEK FARM, )

SARAH DYE, and DOUGLAS MACKEY )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 1:20-cv-00518-RLY-DML
)
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, )
)
And, )
)
JOHN HAMILTON, in his official capacity )
As Mayor of the City of Bloomington, Indiana and )
in his individual capacity, )
)
And, )
)
PAULA MCDEVITT, in her official capacity )
as Administrator of the Bloomington Parks and, )
Recreation Department in her individual capacity, )
)
And, )
)
MARCIA VELDMAN, in her official capacity )
As the Program Coordination for the Bloomington )
Community Farmers Market and in her individual )
capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
)
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, )
)
And, )
)
JOHN HAMILTON, in his official capacity )
As Mayor of the City of Bloomington, Indiana and )
in his individual capacity, )
)
And, )
)
PAULA MCDEVITT, in her official capacity )
as Administrator of the Bloomington Parks and, )

Recreation Department in her individual capacity,
)
)
And, )
)
MARCIA VELDMAN, in her official capacity )
As the Program Coordination for the Bloomington )
Community Farmers Market and in her individual )
capacity, )
)
Counter-claim Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
SARAH DYE, and DOUGLAS MACKEY, )
)
Counter-claim Defendants. )
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND
COUNTER-CLAIMS
Come now the City of Bloomington, John Hamilton, Paula McDevitt, and Marcia Veldman
(collectively, the “Defendants”), by counsel, and answer the plaintiffs’ complaint as follows:
I. Parties.
1. Schooner Creek Farm is an unincorporated entity in the agriculture business with
principal place of business in Brown County, Indiana.
ANSWER: Based on information and belief, Defendants admit that the real property
which Dye and Mackey call “Schooner Creek Farm” is located in Brown County, Indiana.
Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of all other
allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.
2. Sarah Dye is a partner in Schooner Creek Farm and a resident of Brown County,
Indiana.
ANSWER: Based on information and belief, Defendants admit that Sarah Dye is a
2
resident of Brown County, Indiana. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief about the truth of all other allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint and, therefore, deny
those allegations.
3. Douglas Mackey is a partner in Schooner Creek Farm and a resident of Brown
County, Indiana.
ANSWER: Based on information and belief, the defendants admit that Douglas Mackey
is a resident of Brown County, Indiana. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of all other allegations in paragraph 3 of the complaint and, therefore,
deny those allegations.
4. Defendant, City of Bloomington, Indiana, is a municipality located in Monroe
County, Indiana.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 4 of the plaintiffs’ complaint
5. Defendant, John Hamilton, is the duly elected mayor of the City of Bloomington
and its chief executive agent.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that John Hamilton is the duly elected mayor of the City
of Bloomington and the city “executive.” Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 5 of
the complaint.
6. Defendant, Paula McDevitt, is the duly appointed Administrator of the
Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department.
3
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 6 of the complaint.
7. Defendant, Marcia Veldman, is the duly appointed Program Coordinator for the
Bloomington Community Farmers’ Market.
II. Jurisdiction and Venue
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The claims herein arise under the First Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and
Article One of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the
claims asserted in this action but deny that Plaintiffs’ claims have merit.
9. This Court has personal jurisdiction of the Defendants because the Defendants are
located within this District, and engaged in wrongdoing in this District.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the Court has personal jurisdiction over them but deny
that they engaged in wrongdoing.
10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(1) & (2).
ANSWER: Defendants admit that venue is proper in this Court
4
III. Factual Background
11. SCF is a family operated farm. Its primary produce is vegetable products; Snap
Peas, Cucumbers, Sweet Potatoes, and the like.
ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.
12. SCF’s primary source of income is the sale of its produce at the Bloomington
Community Farmer’s Market (“Market”).
13. The Market is, quite literally, the public square, and exists as a traditional public
forum within the City of Bloomington.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13 of the complaint.
14. SCF has rented vending space at the Market for approximately a decade.
15. The Market is operated by the Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department with
input from the Farmers Market Advisory Council.
16. As a vendor at the Market, SCF’s conduct within the Market is governed, in part,
5
by the Bloomington Community Farmers’ Market Farm Vendor Contract and the Farm Vendor
Handbook.
17. On or about May, 2019, various non-parties to this suit, via their social media
accounts, publicly alleged SCF and its proprietors were Nazis and/or white supremacists.
ANSWER: Based on information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations in
paragraph 17 of the complaint.
18. The defamatory statements continued, and still continue, to circulate around social
media. Ultimately, SCF, Ms. Dye, and Mr. Mackey were doxed1 on or about June 1, 2019.
19. On June 8, 2019, following the doxing, protestors began attending the Market. The
protesters would position themselves in front of the SCF vending space and solicit a boycott of
SCF.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that on June 8, 2019, certain protestors attended the
market, positioned themselves near the SCF vending space, and solicited a boycott of SCF.
Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the other
1 Dox: to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or
revenge. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dox
6
20. On June 8, 2019, SCF requested the assistance of the City in removing the
protesters through Program Coordinator, Marcia Veldman. Ms. Veldman advised SCF that the
City would not take action against the protesters.
21. Throughout June and July, 2019 the protesters continued to appear at the Market
each Saturday and continually escalated their efforts to solicit a boycott of SCF and interfere with
SCF’s commerce.
the truth of allegations in paragraph 21 of the complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.
22. On June 17, 2019, Bloomington Mayor, John Hamilton, made a public statement
regarding the Market in which he accepted the allegations regarding SCF’s political positions as
true, lamented the restrictions of the First Amendment placed on governments, and called for the
community to intervene where the local government could not. From his statement, in relevant
part:
Recent allegations about a vendor at our City’s farmers market having

white-supremacist affiliations have alarmed and activated our
community. Including me, personally and as Mayor…
The City will not tolerate any vendor displays or behaviors at the
market inconsistent with [the] fundamentally welcoming environment.
We will vigorously protect against any behaviors that threaten those
values. On the other hand, we must also comply with the US
Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits governments from
restricting individuals’ rights to believe and speak as they choose,
within very wide ranges, including those who sell at (or attend) a City-
run farmers market.
Repeatedly and consistently throughout the last century, the US
7
Supreme court has said that government may not silence or punish
people for disfavored beliefs, in cases involving viewpoints including
Communists, anarchists, civil rights protesters, and Nazis. Our
constitutional government’s prescription for odious speech isn’t
government control or censorship. It’s MORE SPEECH. That is, our
community, including this Mayor, can make clear our values, even
when our government cannot directly intervene.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that the above-indented paragraph consists of excerpts
from a statement made by the Mayor on about June 17, 2019. Defendants deny all other allegations
in paragraph 22 of the complaint.
23. On or about June 17, 2019, a public petition was submitted to the Market through
its Farmers’ Market Advisory Counsel [sic] seeking the expulsion of SCF from the Market
(“Petition”).
24. The Petition alleged that SCF and Ms. Dye held a political position that the
petitioners believed created a hostile and unsafe atmosphere in the Market.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the petition alleged that the owners of SCF and
specifically, Sarah Dye, held certain political views that the petitioners believed created a hostile
and unsafe atmosphere in the Market. Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 24 of
the complaint.
25. The Petition threatened its petitioners would file a complaint with the Indiana State
Department of Health and the US Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights
against the Market if the Market failed to take action against SCF.
8
26. Publicly available copies of the Petition omit the signatories other than the author,
activist Abby Ang, however, the Petition states to have the support of 230 residents.
the truth of the allegation in paragraph 26 of the complaint.
27. On June 27, 2019 the City published its, “Clarification of Long-standing Rules of
Behavior for the Bloomington Community Farmer’s Market”.
28. The Long-Standing Rules of Behavior provide the time, place, and manner
restrictions on political speech in the Market. The Rules of Behavior state that Signs and
distribution of literature by the public is permitted in designated areas around the Market
boundaries, but prohibited within the Vendor area.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the rules provide the time, place, and manner restrictions
on speech in the Market. Defendants further admit that the rules provide that signs and the
distribution of literature at the Market by the public can occur in certain areas, but is not permitted
in certain areas, including where the farm vendors are set up. Defendants deny all other allegations
29. The Rules of Behavior also outline the steps the City is required to take to enforce
its time, place, and manner restrictions, stating:
9
• Interruption of commerce is not permitted;

• Individuals interrupting the Market by yelling or causing a scene is not permitted;
• Market staff will ask any persons causing disruption to relocate to a free speech
area;
• If this is not successful market staff or vendor will contact BPD;
• BPD will reiterate request to move if not compliant this will lead to arrest.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the bulleted items in paragraph 29 appear in the rules of
behavior relating to customer and vendor interactions. Defendants deny all other allegations in
paragraph 29 of the complaint.
30. The Rules of Behavior are consistent with the Farm Vendor Handbook which
requires that information sharing occur only in a designated area: “Information Alley”. Information
Alley participants are required to pay a $10 application fee as well as a $10 daily space fee.
Information Alley is the designated public forum for expressive activity within the Market;
expressive activity is otherwise prohibited in the vending space.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that Information Alley is the designated area in which
community groups, organizations, businesses and individuals interested in sharing information
may do so and that there is a $10 application fee and a $10 daily space fee. Defendants deny all
other allegations in paragraph 30 of the complaint.
31. At the Market of July 20, 2019, the ongoing protests escalated further to include
members of the self-proclaimed anti fascists, Antifa black bloc. The black bloc protesters, clad in
black hoods, black sunglasses, and black masks, blockaded the SCF vending space.
10
32. On or about July 31, 2019, Mayor Hamilton announced the Market would be closed
for the following two weeks and, again, made a public statement regarding the Market. In this
statement, the Mayor announced his support for the boycotters:
As a community, then, one thing we must do together is fight against

racism and bigotry and their legacies, wherever they arise, including at
our Farmers’ Market. Like many, I have spoken out condemning
connections to white supremacy in our market. We know active
community members have organized education and advocacy
campaigns, as well as economic responses including boycotts, and I am
fully supportive of those efforts.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that on or about July 31, 2019, the Mayor announced that
the Market would be closed for the following two weeks. The Defendants also admit that the
above-indented paragraph consists of excerpts from a statement made by the Mayor on about July
31, 2019. Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 32 of the complaint.
33. During the two-week closure of the Market, local activist group, No Space for Hate
(“NSFH”), a group organized specifically to respond to SCF’s presence in the Market, posted
numerous articles and reposts on its website and on its Facebook page calling for boycotts of SCF,
publishing photos of Ms. Dye, and implying SCF was somehow linked to white supremacist
violence elsewhere in the United States.
ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge of information sufficient to admit the truth of
the allegations in paragraph 33 of the complaint.
34. On August 13, 2019, Mayor Hamilton, again, made a public statement regarding
the Market. The Mayor announced the pending reopening of the Market on August 17, 2019. In
his statement, Mayor Hamilton analogized the “local situation” to recent instances of mass
11
shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio and called for a community response:
Our community market faces a community challenge that must be met

with a community response…Of particular note are the focused efforts
from advocates and volunteers, organized as “No Space for Hate,”
directly to address issues at the Farmers’ Market.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that on or about August 13, 2019, the Mayor made a
public statement announcing the Market would reopen on August 17, 2019. The Defendants admit
that the above-indented paragraph consists of excerpts from a statement made by the Mayor on
about August 13, 2019. Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 34 of the complaint.
35. Mayor Hamilton’s repeated public statements endorsing those who would harass
SCF in an effort to force them from the Market displays a callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s
Constitutional rights.
36. The Market provided NSFH with an area to set up a tent as well as information
about where NSFH could disseminate information. The Market waived the fees normally required
of groups who wish to disseminate information at the Market.
37. On August 17, 2019, the Market reopened as scheduled. Protesters, apparently
members of NSFH, attended the market to solicit a boycott of SCF.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that the Market reopened on August 17, 2019. Defendants
admit that protesters appearing to solicit a boycott of SCF attended the market on that date.
Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the other
12
38. The NSFH protesters marched back and forth in front of the SCF vending space, or
simply stood still in front of the space, wearing purple t-shirts with a quote by political activist,
Cornel West, on the front and the phrase, “Boycott Schooner Creek-Defund White Supremacy”
on the back. This particular subset of protesters has been referred to as “The Purple Shirt Brigade”
in local media.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that protestors wearing purple t-shirts with the quoted
phrase were in the area of SCF’s booth space and that those protestors have been referred to as
“The Purple Shirt Brigade” by the local media. Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph
38 of the complaint.
39. The Purple Shirt Brigade formed a physical barrier restricting Market shoppers’
access to SCF vending space and attempted to persuade shoppers transacting with SCF to cease
doing business with SCF.
40. The Purple Shirt Brigade was allowed to disrupt commerce at the Market and
protest at the Market in violation of the Market Rules of Behavior. The City refused to enforce its
own time, place, and manner restrictions and allowed NSFH and the Purple Shirt Brigade to
proceed with its boycott.
13
41. Program Coordinator, Marcia Veldman, acknowledged in an interview on
September 23, 2019 she chooses to selectively enforce the Market’s time, place, and manner
restrictions in favor of The Purple Shirt Brigade.
42. The Purple Shirt Brigade and NSFH have actively protested at each and every
Saturday Market since, at least, August 17, 2019.
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 42 of the complaint.
43. SCF has repeatedly requested the City uniformly enforce its time, place, and
manner restrictions in the Market; the City has repeatedly declined to do so to SCF’s detriment.
44. The City responded to the repeated disruptions in the Market, not by enforcing its
Rules of Behavior against the protesters, but by having the Bloomington Police Department ask
SCF to relocate its vending space from its prime, center-Market location to a space on the periphery
of the Market.
45. The City further responded to the repeated disruptions in the Market, by coercing
SCF into terminating its relationship with its longtime stand-assistant alleging that the mere
presence of the stand-assistant made the protesters uncomfortable. The stand assistant was absent
14
from the Market for several weeks and his relationship with SCF was only restored by SCF’s
request to the City through counsel.
46. On September 12, 2019, the City requested SCF attend a mediation with City
officials. At the mediation, the City requested that SCF refrain from posting political signage in
its vending space. SCF has complied with the City’s request.
47. The Defendants have allowed the Purple Shirt Brigade, at all times, to display its
political signage in the vending area of the Market, including the area directly in front of and
around SCF’s vending space.
48. At the mediation, the City requested that SCF refrain from advocating for any
political position in a manner that would suggest the position is endorsed by the Market.
49. The Defendants have publicly endorsed the political activism in the Market by the
Purple Shirt Brigade and NSFH.
50. At the mediation, the City requested that SCF refrain from any political discourse
15
of any kind at the Market, unless the discourse was restricted to the Information Alley.
51. The Defendants have allowed, and continue to allow, The Purple Shirt Brigade and
NSFH to engage in its political discourse, discourse specifically targeted at SCF, outside of
Information Alley, within the Market vending space, and in violation of the City’s own, published,
time, space, and manner restrictions on public speech in the Market.
52. Where the City could not, as Mayor Hamilton stated, “directly intervene” against
SCF, it has instead indirectly intervened through its selective enforcement of its own rules. It has
done so to SCF’s detriment and in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States of America and in violation of Article One, Section 9 of the
Constitution of the State of Indiana.
53. SCF, Sarah Dye, and Douglas Mackey seek redress for the deprivation of their
rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America by
the Constitution of the State of Indiana as follows:
ANSWER: Defendants acknowledge that the plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit to seek
redress for the claimed deprivation of their rights, but deny that there has been any deprivation of
their rights.
16
IV – Claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983
COUNT 1 - Violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
54. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above and incorporate the allegations herein.
ANSWER: Defendants restate and incorporate herein their answers to paragraphs 1
through 53 above.
55. The First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause, incorporated and made
applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
prohibits viewpoint discrimination by a government entity.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the general statement of law asserted in paragraph 55 of
the complaint.
56. Defendants’ prohibiting SCF’s political speech in the Market while endorsing that
of the protesters including, but not limited to, NSFH and The Purple Shirt Brigade constitutes
viewpoint discrimination.
ANSWER: Defendants deny that they have engaged in any viewpoint discrimination
and further deny all other allegations in paragraph 56 of the complaint.
57. Defendants’ prohibitions make a distinction based on the motivating ideologies of
the speakers, in this case the differing viewpoints between SCF and the groups that boycott SCF.
58. Defendants’ waiver of the rental fees for NSFH space rental while requiring SCF
17
to pay a rental fee if it were to utilize an information space imposes a financial burden on SCF
based on the perception of their particular view and constitutes viewpoint discrimination. The
rental fee is an access barrier which must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral; Defendants’
selective waiver is, on its face, not viewpoint neutral.
ANSWER: Defendants deny that they have waived rental fees for NSFH and further
deny all other allegations in paragraph 58 of the complaint.
59. Defendants’ selective enforcement of its regulations relating to the time, place, and
manner restrictions on speech in the Market based on the perception of the particular views of the
speaker constitutes viewpoint discrimination. The content discrimination here is not intended to
preserve the purpose of the Market as a public forum, but rather to humiliate SCF and coerce its
exit from the Market.
60. Defendants’ time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in the Market, as
applied and enforced, are not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
61. Defendants’ conduct chills and deters the free expression of differing political
viewpoints within the public square and violates SCF’s right to Free Speech under the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
18
62. As a result of Defendants’ conduct SCF has been deprived of a Constitutionally
protected right and has also suffered pecuniary damages.
COUNT II – Violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
63. Plaintiffs’ reallege all matters set forth above and incorporate the allegations herein.
through 62 above.
64. The First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause, incorporated and made
applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
prohibits content-based, prior restraint on speech.
the complaint.
65. Defendants’ prohibition on SCF’s displaying political signage in the Market based
on the Defendants’ perception of the content of the signage constitutes prior restraint.
66. Defendants’ prohibition of SCF’s engaging in any political discourse in the Market
based on the Defendants’ perception of the content of the discourse constitutes prior restraint.
19
67. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct SCF has been deprived of a Constitutionally
protected right.
COUNT III – Violation of the Right to Free Association under the First Amendment
through 67 above.
69. The First Amendment, incorporated and made applicable to the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, recognizes and protects the right
to freedom of association.
the complaint.
70. Defendants’ coercing SCF to terminate its relationship with its stand-assistant
based on the protesters’ perception of the stand-assistant violates SCF’s right to freely associate.
71. All of the Defendants’ actions alleged herein are based on Defendants’ perception
of SCF’s affiliation with a political group wholly independent of the Market, and Defendants’
actions violate SCF’s right to freely associate.
20
72. Defendants’ conduct chills and deters vendors from associating with political
organizations, even outside the Market, lest they be subject to retaliation for their associations.
COUNT IV – Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
74. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above and incorporate the allegations
herein.
through 73 above.
75. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a
government entity treat similarly situated persons alike and that regulations apply with equal force
to similarly situated persons.
the complaint.
76. Defendants’ imposed a time, place, and manner restriction on SCF’s discourse in
the Market.
21
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 76 of the complaint, but deny
the implied allegation that those restrictions were applied to SCF any differently than they were
applied to any other vendor in the market.
77. Defendants’ elected to not enforce the same time, place, and manner restriction
against those that were, specifically, targeting and speaking out against SCF.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in in paragraph 77 of the complaint.
78. The discrimination against SCF is sufficient, standing alone, to constitute a
violation of the Equal Protection Clause, but here Defendants’ conduct goes beyond that.
Defendants’ selective enforcement of its time, place, and manner restrictions is intended to, and
does, cause financial loss to SCF and coerce SCF to vacate the Market.
79. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of SCF’s right to Equal Protection of
the laws.
protected rights and has also suffered pecuniary damages.
22
COUNT V – Deprivation of Liberty without Due Process of Law
through 80 above.
82. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a government
entity from censoring speech pursuant to vague standards that grant unbridled discretion.
the complaint.
83. The arbitrary determination by Market officials as to what is and is not forbidden
speech violates this standard.
84. Citizens of common intelligence must, therefore, guess as to whether their
particular form of expression will be of the type that Market officials prohibit in the Market, allow
in the Market, or, indeed, publicly endorse in the Market.
85. Citizens of common intelligence must guess as to whether they will be required to
pay a fee to distribute information in the Market or not, and as to whether they will be required to
restrict their expression to “Information Alley” or will be free to express themselves throughout
the vending space in the Market.
23
86. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of SCF’s right to Due Process.
protected right.
COUNT VI – Deprivation of Property without Due Process of Law
through 87 above.
89. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a government
entity from depriving a citizen of property without due process of law.
the complaint.
90. SCF has a property right in its vending space. The vending space is let to SCF
pursuant to the Farm Vendor Contract. The Farm Vendor Contract incorporates the Farm Vendor
Handbook into its terms.
24
91. The Farm Vendor Handbook employs a Vendor Point System in order to allocate
space at the Market. The Vendor Point System is effectively a system of seniority which allows
vendors who have participated in the Market most consistently to reserve the favored vending
spaces in the future.
ANSWER: Defendants admit that the Farm Vendor Handbook employs a point system
which allows vendors with seniority to select their spaces. Defendants deny all other allegations
92. As one of the vendors with the most points, SCF enjoys a prime and valuable
vending space within the Market.
93. Defendants’ conduct has deprived SCF of the use and value of its vending space.
94. Defendants’ conduct has deprived SCF of the future use and future value of its
vending space.
95. Such deprivation required due process of law which was denied to SCF.
25
COUNT VII – Violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution
through 96 above.
98. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibits restraint on
the free interchange of thought or opinion and prohibits restraint on the right to speak freely on
any subject whatever.
the complaint.
99. Defendants’ prior restraint of SCF’s engaging in political discourse in the Market
constitutes an unconstitutional restraint on the free interchange of thought or opinion.
100. Defendants’ allowed a “Heckler’s Veto” against SCF by permitting parties who
were specifically speaking out against SCF to promulgate their thoughts and opinions in the
Market while disallowing SCF to do so.
26
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that: (a) Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their complaint;
(b) the Court enters a judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs; (c) the Court award
Defendants their costs in this action; and (d) the Court grants Defendants all other relief just and
proper in the premises.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses:
1. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Schooner Creek is not a legal entity that can sue or be sued and is not a proper party
to this lawsuit.
3. Schooner Creek lacks standing to pursue the claims in this action.
4. Plaintiffs have contractually agreed not to sue the defendants and have waived,
released, and discharged their claims in this action. Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore barred.
5. The doctrine of qualified immunity immunizes Hamilton, McDevitt, and Veldman
from the claims asserted against each them in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6. There is no right of action for money damages under the Indiana Constitution, and
Plaintiffs’ state law claims are otherwise barred by common law immunity and the statutory
immunities afforded by the Indiana Tort Claims Act, including but not limited to Indiana Code §
34-13-3-3(7) and (8).
7. Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Hamilton, McDevitt, and Veldman in their
27
personal capacities are barred by Indiana Code § 34-13-3-5(b).
8. Plaintiffs’ claims may barred by the doctrines of equitable or judicial estoppel.
9. Plaintiffs have contractually agreed to indemnify the defendants with respect to any
judgment or settlement of this action. As a result, Plaintiffs have no damages.
10. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that: (a) Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their complaint;
(b) the Court enters a judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs; (c) the Court award
Defendants their costs in this action; and (d) the Court grants Defendants all other relief just and
proper in the premises.
COUNTER-CLAIMS
Come now the City of Bloomington, John Hamilton, Paula McDevitt, and Marcia Veldman
(collectively, the “Counter-claim plaintiffs”), by counsel, and assert the following counter-claims:
Jurisdiction and Venue
1. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these counter-claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a) because they are so related to the plaintiffs’ claims that they form part of the same case
and controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
2. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Parties
3. The City of Bloomington is a political subdivision of the State of Indiana.
4. At all relevant times, John Hamilton was (and still is) is the duly elected Mayor of
the City of Bloomington.
28
5. At all relevant times, Paula McDevitt was (and still is) an employee of the City of
Bloomington and serves as the Administrator of the City of Bloomington’s Parks and Recreation
Department.
6. At all relevant times, Marcia Veldman was (and still is) an employee of the City of
Bloomington and serves as the Program Coordinator for the City’s Farmer’s Market.
7. Sarah Dye is a natural person and resident of Brown County, Indiana.
8. Douglas Mackey is a natural person and resident of Brown County, Indiana.
Facts
9. On or about February 25, 2019, both Sarah Dye and Douglas Mackey affixed their
signatures to and thereby entered into a contract with the City of Bloomington titled “2019
Bloomington Community Farmers’ Market Farm Vendor Contract” (hereafter, “2019 Contract”),
a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
10. In the 2019 Contract, Dye and Mackey are referred to as “Vendors.”
11. In consideration for the privilege of participating in the 2019 Bloomington
Community Farmers’ Market, Dye and Mackey, as Vendors, agreed to the provisions of the 2019
Contract, including but not limited to the language in paragraph 8 titled “Covenant Not to Sue”
and paragraph 10 titled “Liability and Indemnification.”
12. Paragraph 8 of the 2019 Contract provides:
8. COVENANT NOT TO SUE

The Vendor will not institute any action or suit at law or in
equity against the City or the City’s agents or employees as
a result of operations under this Agreement. The Vendor
will not aid in the institution or prosecution of any claim for
damages, costs, loss of services, expenses or compensation
for or on account of any damages, loss or injury to person or
property as a result of operation under this Agreement.
29
13. Paragraph 10 of the 2019 Contract provides:
10 LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION

The Vendor is solely responsible for damages from the sale
of unsafe and unsound goods. The Vendor is solely
responsible for damages or personal injury resulting from the
use of umbrellas and other weather protection devices. The
Vendor hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, release,
waive and forever discharge the City of Bloomington,
Indiana, its employees, agents, and officers, and the
members of the Farmers’ Market Advisory Council, for all
bodily and personal injuries, including injuries resulting in
death, and property damage, claims actions, damages,
liabilities and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees
and court costs, which may occur as a result of the Vendor’s
participation in the Market, whether or not sounding in tort
or contract, and whether or not caused by a negligent act or
omission of the City of Bloomington, its employees, agents,
or officers or Farmers’ Market Advisory Council.
14. On February 14, 2020, Dye and Mackey filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana captioned Schooner Creek Farm, et al., v. City of
Bloomington, Indiana, et al., which is now pending as Cause No. 1:20-cv-518-RLY-DML
(hereafter, the “Federal Lawsuit”).
15. The Federal Lawsuit seeks money damages not only from the City, but also from
Hamilton, McDevitt, and Veldman personally, for losses that Dye and Mackey claim they
sustained as a result of their participation in the 2019 Bloomington Community Farmers’ Market.
Claims
Count I -- Breach of Contract
16. The 2019 Contract between the City and Dye and Mackey is a valid contract.
17. By filing the Federal Lawsuit, Dye and Mackey breached paragraph 8 of the 2019
Contract.
30
18. The City is has suffered damages as a result of Dye’s and Mackey’s breach,
including but not limited to the lost time and wages expended by the City’s elected officials,
employees, and agents in addressing the Federal Lawsuit, including the City’s attorneys’ fees and
costs in defending the Federal Lawsuit.
Count II – Indemnity
19. The 2019 Contract between the City and Dye and Mackey is a valid contract.
20. Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the 2019 Contract, Dye and Mackey are contractually
obligated to indemnify the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the City, Hamilton, McDevitt and
Veldman in defending the Federal Lawsuit.
21. Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the 2019 Contract, Dye and Mackey are contractually
obligated to indemnify any judgment or settlement of the Federal Lawsuit incurred by the City,
Hamilton, McDevitt, and/or Veldman.
22. Because Dye and Mackey must indemnify the City, Hamilton, McDevitt, and
Veldman, Dye and Mackey gain nothing by pursuing the Federal Lawsuit.
WHEREFORE, Counter-claim plaintiffs pray that the Court: (a) enter a judgment in their
favor on all of the counter-claims; (b) award them money damages in an amount sufficient to
compensate them for the losses and injuries caused by the Federal Lawsuit, including their
attorneys’ fees and costs; and (d) grant them all other relief that is just and proper in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
/s/ Pamela G. Schneeman

Pamela G. Schneeman
Attorney No. 18142-53
31
Attorney for Defendants,

City of Bloomington, Mayor John Hamilton
Paula McDevitt and Marcia Veldman

3077 East 98th Street, Suite 240
Indianapolis, IN 46280
Telephone: (317) 844-3830
Fax: (317) 573-4194
Email: [email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 13, 2020, a copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER-CLAIMS
was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of
the Court’s CM/ECF system.
Michael Jay Bruzzese

ORZESKE & BLACKWELL, P.C
50 East 91st Street
Suite 104
Jacob Alexander Catt

ORZESKE & BLACKWELL, P.C
50 East 91st Street
Suite 104
s/Pamela G. Schneeman
Pamela G. Schneeman

3077 East 98th Street, Suite 240
Phone: 317-844-3830
Fax: 317-573-4194
32

Schooner Creek Farm 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schooner Creek Farm 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schooner Creek Farm 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:20-cv-00518-RLY-DML Document 17 Filed 04/13/20 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 71

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SCHOONER CREEK FARM, )

as Administrator of the Bloomington Parks and, )

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Schooner Creek Farm is an unincorporated entity in the agriculture business with

principal place of business in Brown County, Indiana.

allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.

3. Douglas Mackey is a partner in Schooner Creek Farm and a resident of Brown

is a resident of Brown County, Indiana. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to

deny those allegations.

4. Defendant, City of Bloomington, Indiana, is a municipality located in Monroe

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 4 of the plaintiffs’ complaint

and its chief executive agent.

6. Defendant, Paula McDevitt, is the duly appointed Administrator of the

Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 6 of the complaint.

Bloomington Community Farmers’ Market.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 7 of the complaint.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

Article One of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

located within this District, and engaged in wrongdoing in this District.

that they engaged in wrongdoing.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that venue is proper in this Court

III. Factual Background

Peas, Cucumbers, Sweet Potatoes, and the like.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

Community Farmer’s Market (“Market”).

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

forum within the City of Bloomington.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13 of the complaint.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 14 of the complaint.

input from the Farmers Market Advisory Council.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 15 of the complaint.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 16 of the complaint.

ANSWER: Based on information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations in

paragraph 17 of the complaint.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

allegations in paragraph 19 of the complaint and, therefore, deny those allegations.

City would not take action against the protesters.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 20 of the complaint.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

Recent allegations about a vendor at our City’s farmers market having

Repeatedly and consistently throughout the last century, the US

ANSWER: Defendants admit that the above-indented paragraph consists of excerpts

in paragraph 22 of the complaint.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 23 of the complaint.

petitioners believed created a hostile and unsafe atmosphere in the Market.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 25 of the complaint.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

the truth of the allegation in paragraph 26 of the complaint.

Behavior for the Bloomington Community Farmer’s Market”.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 27 of the complaint.

boundaries, but prohibited within the Vendor area.

in paragraph 28 of the complaint.

its time, place, and manner restrictions, stating:

• Interruption of commerce is not permitted;

paragraph 29 of the complaint.

expressive activity is otherwise prohibited in the vending space.