IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION

INFINIUM BUILDERS LLC and KE )

HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a ASCENT )
CONSTRUCTION, On Behalf of )
Themselves and All Others Similarly ) CLASS ACTION
Situated, )
) CASE NO. ______________
Plaintiffs, )
) JUDGE _________________
v. )
) JURY DEMAND
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF )
NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, )
)
Defendant. )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs Infinium Builders LLC and KE Holdings LLC d/b/a Ascent Construction

bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for injunctive relief,

damages, and other legal and equitable relief on behalf of themselves and all others who suffered

an unconstitutional taking as a result of the sidewalk ordinance enacted by Defendant Metropolitan

Government of Nashville & Davidson County. The sidewalk ordinance conditions building

permits on either the construction of a sidewalk or a contribution to the city s sidewalk fund.

Plaintiffs seek this relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the Tennessee common law

of unjust enrichment.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs constitutional claims

because they raise a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Specifically, their claims arise

under Constitution of the United States and are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law unjust

enrichment claims pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

4. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs

enrichment claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1357 because the state law claims are so related to the

claims under the U.S. Constitution and Section 1983 that they form part of the same case or

controversy.

5. Venue for this action properly lies in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District

of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant resides in this judicial district and

because the claims arose in this judicial district.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

6. Plaintiff Infinium Builders LLC is a Tennessee limited liability company with a

principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee.

7. Plaintiff KE Holdings LLC d/b/a Ascent Construction is a Mississippi limited

liability company registered to do business in Tennessee. Its principal place of business is located

in Nashville, Tennessee.

B. Defendant

8. Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County is a

governmental entity located in the Nashville Division of the Middle District of Tennessee.

IV. FACTS

A. The Sidewalk Ordinance

9. On September 1, 2019, Defendant the Metropolitan Government of Nashville &

Davidson County ( Metro -1659, an ordinance requiring

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2

applicants who meet certain requirements to build a sidewalk in order to receive a building permit

(the Sidewalk Ordinance or the Ordinance ). A copy of the Sidewalk Ordinance is attached as

Exhibit A.

10. The Sidewalk Ordinance is codified at Metro Code § 17.20.120 et seq.

11. In describing its purpose, the Sidewalk Ordinance describes the need for sidewalks,

which it say

12. The Ordinance applies to construction or redevelopment of single-family

residential, two-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential property within

c Covered Property

13. Under the Sidewalk Ordinance, applicants for building permits for Covered

Property have three options: (1) build a sidewalk on the property; (2) contribute to the Fund; or

(3) buy, and get approved for, a waiver.

14. If an applicant builds a sidewalk on their property or replaces an existing sidewalk

in need of repair, the new sidewalk must cover all property frontage and must comply with

epartment of Public Works.

15. In lieu of construction of a sidewalk, applicants may make a financial contribution

to the fund for the pedestrian benefit zone Fund

16. An applicant he average linear foot

sidewalk project cost, as determined by the Department of Public Works, with a maximum

contribution of not more than three percent of the total construction value of the building permit.

17.

sidewalks and bikeways plan; if the contribution is not allocated within ten years for use in the

same pedestrian benefit zone as the property, it will be refunded to the applicant.

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3

 18. Alternatively, in lieu of construction or the Fund Contribution, an applicant subject

to the Sidewalk Ordinance

19. The Zoning Administrator may only waive the Sidewalk Ordinance under certain

circumstances outlined in the Ordinance, including, inter alia, steep topography, affordable

housing, certain historic properties, or if the construction of the Covered Property is required due

to a natural disaster.

20. Metro Code § 17.20.125 provides for a right to appeal or seek a variance from the

Sidewalk Ordinance.

21. In order to appeal to Metr applicant must first

obtain a determination about the application of the Ordinance from the Zoning Administrator.

22. Metro has continuously enforced the Sidewalk Ordinance since its promulgation in

2019.

23. In July 2020, the Sidewalk Ordinance was amended to add § 17.20.120.C.2.c,

which requires applicants for building permits for certain multi-family and nonresidential Covered

Properties to

Urban Forestry Recommended Tree List.

B. The Knight Case

24. In October 2020, two owners of Covered Property sued Metro in this Court, seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that the Sidewalk Ordinance is unconstitutional. See

Complaint, Knight v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, No. 3:20-

cv- Knight v. Metro ).

25. In Knight v. Metro, the property owners alleged the Sidewalk Ordinance constitutes

a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Complaint, Knight, ECF

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4

No. 1, at ¶ 134-149.

26. The Knight plaintiffs reasoned that the Supreme Court has held the government

may not condition permits upon an owner's agreement to a taking without just compensation.

Complaint, Knight, ECF No. 1, at ¶ 136.

27. The Knight plaintiffs asked this Court, among other things, to enjoin Metro from

enforcing the Sidewalk Ordinance and for the return of their Fund contributions as restitution for

the Fifth Amendment violation. Complaint, Knight, ECF No. 1, at ¶ 164-65.

28. In November 2021, this Court entered summary judgment in favor of Metro. See

Mem. Op., Knight, ECF No. 40. The Court applied the Penn Central balancing test to determine

whether the Sidewalk Ordinance constituted a taking and found that it did not. Id.

29. The Knight plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,

arguing the Nollan-Dolan unconstitutional-conditions test should be applied to the Sidewalk

Ordinance instead of the test from Penn Central. Knight v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson

Cty., 67 F.4th 816, 827 (6th Cir. 2023).

30. In its May 10, 2023 opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that the Nollan-Dolan test

applied to the constitutional analysis of the Sidewalk Ordinance. Id. at 828.

31. Applying the Nollan-Dolan test, the Sixth Circuit held the application of the

Sidewalk Ordinance there was an unconstitutional taking because Metro had failed to show a

nexus and rough proportionality between the conditions that it imposed on the Knight

plaintiffs and the purported government purpose.

32. Having held that the Knight plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, the Sixth

Circuit remanded the case to this Court for a determination of the appropriate remedy.

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5

C. The Named Plaintiffs

i. Ascent Construction

33. At the time of the actions that gave rise to this litigation, Plaintiff KE Holdings LLC

d/b/a Ascent Construction ) owned properties in Davidson County at 1323 Harding

Place, 1407 Harding Place, 3998 Harding Place, 4000 Harding Place, 796 Montrose Avenue, and

2509 Vaulx Lane Ascent Lots .

34. Ascent built new single and two-family homes on the Ascent Lots between 2022

and 2023.

35. As a condition of Ascent Metro required

Ascent to pay $31,620.00 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as required under Metro

Code § 17.20.120. Ascent paid this amount to the Fund.

36. As a condition of Ascent Metro required

Ascent to pay $22,450.91 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as required under Metro

Code § 17.20.120. Ascent paid this amount to the Fund.

37. As a condition of Ascent 3998 Harding Place, Metro required

Ascent to pay $2,913.09 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as required under Metro

Code § 17.20.120. Ascent paid this amount to the Fund.

38. As a condition of Ascent Metro required

Ascent to pay $13,857.00 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as required under Metro

Code § 17.20.120. Ascent paid this amount to the Fund.

39. As a condition of Ascent Metro

required Ascent to pay $14,200.27 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as required under

Metro Code § 17.20.120. Ascent paid this amount to the Fund.

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6

 40. As a condition of Ascent t 2509 Vaulx Lane, Metro required

Ascent to pay $14,230.70 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as required under Metro

Code § 17.20.120. Ascent paid this amount to the Fund.

ii. Infinium Builders

41. At the time of the actions that gave rise to this litigation, Plaintiff Infinium Builders

Infinium submitted applications for building permits for properties in Davidson County at 600

A and B Freedom Court, 2421 14th Avenue North, 2423 14th Avenue North, 5298 Georgia

Avenue, 5300 Georgia Avenue, 80 A and B Brookwood Terrace, 6216 A and B Henry Ford Drive,

1311 A and B Otay Street, 2928 Glenmeade Drive, 4017 A and B Indiana Avenue, 1603 A and B

22nd Avenue North, 2123 A and B Scott Avenue, and 1621 A and B Porter Avenue Infinium

Lots .

42. Infinium built new single and two-family homes on each of the Infinium Lots

between 2022 and 2023.

43. As a condition of Infinium Metro

required Infinium to pay $8,500.00 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as required under

Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium paid this amount to the Fund.

44. As a condition of Infinium

Metro required Infinium to pay $11,271.60 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as

required under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium paid this amount to the Fund.

45. As a condition of Infinium

Metro required Infinium to pay $11,120.94 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as

required under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium paid this amount to the Fund.

46. As a condition of Infinium building permits at 80 A and B Brookwood Terrace,

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7

Metro required Infinium to pay $21,948.00 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as

required under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium paid this amount to the Fund.

47. As a condition of Infinium ing permits at 6216 A and B Henry Ford Drive,

Metro required Infinium to pay $18,648.52 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as

required under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium paid this amount to the Fund.

48. As a condition of Infinium ermits at 1311 A and B Otay Street, Metro

required Infinium to pay $19,725.00 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as required

under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium paid this amount to the Fund.

49. As a condition of Infinium 2926 and 2928 Glenmeade Drive,

Metro required Infinium to pay $19,725.00 to the Fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk, as

required under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium paid this amount to the Fund.

50. As a condition of Infinium

Metro required Infinium

sidewalk design standards, as required under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium destroyed the

existing sidewalk and reconstructed a new sidewalk in compliance with this requirement.

51. As a condition of Infinium

Metro required Infinium

sidewalk design standards, as required under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium destroyed the

existing sidewalk and reconstructed a new sidewalk in compliance with this requirement.

52. As a condition of Infinium Metro

required Infinium

under Metro Code § 17.20.120. At the time of construction there were no sidewalks on that side

of the street. Infinium constructed new sidewalks in compliance with this requirement.

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8

 53.

sidewalk design standards, as required under Metro Code § 17.20.120. Infinium destroyed the

existing sidewalk and reconstructed a new sidewalk in compliance with this requirement.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

54. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and, pursuant to Rule 23

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following class:

All individuals and entities who complied with the Sidewalk

Ordinance by either building a sidewalk or paying a fee in lieu of a
sidewalk.

55. Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent.

56. The Rule 23 Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is

impractical, satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). Upon information and belief, the

Rule 23 Class consists of thousands of putative class members who have complied with the

Sidewalk Ordinance.

57. All members of the Rule 23 Class share the same pivotal questions of law and fact,

thereby satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). For example, some common questions

include: (a) whether the Sidewalk Ordinance violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution; (b) whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by the compliance of

members of the Rule 23 Class with the Sidewalk Ordinance; and (c) whether and to what extent

Defendant members of the Rule 23 Class have been damaged by the Sidewalk Ordinance.

58. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class, thus satisfying

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). The Sidewalk Ordinance was applied in the same way

to Plaintiffs and all members of the Rule 23 Class, who all either built a sidewalk or paid a fee in
9

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9

lieu of building a sidewalk. In other words, the Named Plaintiffs claims do not arise out of any

facts unique to them.

59. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Rule

23 Class. Further, Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel experienced in representing classes

of individuals asserting complex legal claims, thus satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(a)(4) and (g).

60. By applying the Sidewalk Ordinance consistently as a condition on building

permits sought by Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class, Defendant has acted on grounds that apply

generally to all members of the Rule 23 Class, such that final injunctive relief and corresponding

declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled

to pursue their claims as a class action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

61. By applying the Sidewalk Ordinance consistently as a condition on building

permits sought by Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class, Defendant has created a scenario where

questions of law and fact common to Rule 23 Class Members predominate over any questions

affecting only individual members. Thus, a class action is superior for adjudication of this matter

to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue their claims as a class action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(b)(3).

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
(Violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution)

62. All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

63. Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves and the Rule 23 Class.

64. Defendant has conditioned the issuance of building permits to Plaintiffs and the

10

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10

Rule 23 Class on compliance with the provisions of the Sidewalk Ordinance.

65. Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class have complied with the Sidewalk Ordinance by

either building a sidewalk or paying fee in lieu of building a sidewalk.

66. Conditioning the issuance of building permits on building a sidewalk or paying a

fee in lieu of building a sidewalk constitutes an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth

Amendment of the United States Constitution. See generally Knight v. Metro. Gov t of Nashville

& Davidson Cnty., Tenn., 67 F.4th 816 (6th Cir. 2023).

67. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class

for its violations of their Fifth Amendment rights for damages, restitution, and other legal and

equitable relief.

COUNT II
(Unjust Enrichment)

68. All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

69. Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves and the Rule 23 Class.

70. Under Tennessee law, a claim for unjust enrichment has three required elements:

upon the defendant by the plaintiff, [2] appreciation by the defendant of

such benefit, [3] and acceptance of such benefit under such circumstances that it would be

Paschall s, Inc. v.

Dozier, 407 S.W.2d 150, 155 (Tenn. 1966).

71. Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class have conferred benefits on Defendant, including,

among other things, the payment of fees to Defendants and the construction of sidewalks at no cost

to Defendant.

72. Defendant has appreciated these benefits.

73. Defendant received these benefits by imposing an unconstitutional and unjust

11

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11

condition on the issuance of building permits that Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class provide these

benefits to Defendant and give up their right to receive just compensation for the unconstitutional

taking of their property.

74. These circumstances make it inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefits

conferred on it by Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class without paying them the value of those benefits.

75. Thus, Defendant has been unjustly enriched, and Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class

are entitled to all appropriate monetary and non-monetary relief.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief on behalf of themselves and the

Rule 23 Class:

A. An order permitting this litigation to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

B.

allowing them to pursue such claim individually, should this Court deny their request for class

certification in accordance with Rule 23;

C. A finding that Defendant has violated the Fifth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and

the Rule 23 Class;

D. A finding that Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and

the Rule 23 Class;

E. An award to Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class of all monetary relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the Tennessee common law of unjust enrichment, including, but not limited to,

compensatory, consequential, incidental, and all other available economic damages; restitution;

and pre- and post-judgment interest to the fullest extent permitted under the law and in equity;

F. Injunctive relief, including a permanent injunction, prohibiting Defendant from

12

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12

enforcing the Sidewalk Ordinance;

G. Litigation costs, expenses, and Plaintiffs

permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and,

H. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper in law and equity.

VIII. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a jury as to all claims so triable.

Dated: August 30, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David W. Garrison

DAVID W. GARRISON (No. 24968)
SCOTT P. TIFT (No. 27592)
JOSHUA A. FRANK (No. 33294)
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Ave North
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
[email protected]
[email protected]

R. ALEX DICKERSON (No. 27184)

SARAH M. FERRARO (No. 38383)
THOMPSON BURTON PLLC
Palmer Plaza
1801 West End Avenue, Suite 1550
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 465-6000
Facsimile: (615) 807-3048
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1-1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 14
Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1-1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 15
Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1-1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 16
Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1-1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 17
Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1-1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 18
Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1-1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 19
Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1-1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 20
JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
INFINIUM BUILDERS LLC and KE HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE &
ASCENT CONSTRUCTION, On Behalf of Themselves DAVIDSON COUNTY
and All
(b) County of Others
ResidenceSimilarly Situated
of First Listed Plaintiff Davidson County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
David W. Garrison, Scott P. Tift, Joshua A. Frank, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC, 200 31st Ave North,
Nashville, TN 37203, (615) 244-2202
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Unconstitutional taking under Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and unjust enrichment under Tennessee state law
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE Aleta A. Trauger DOCKET NUMBER 3:20-cv-00922
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Aug 30, 2023 /s/ David W. Garrison
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT #
CaseAMOUNT
3:23-cv-00924 APPLYING IFP
Document 1-2 JUDGE
Filed 08/30/23 MAG. JUDGE
Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 21
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 04/21)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statute.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 3:23-cv-00924 Document 1-2 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 22