UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JAMES MARCH,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No: 1:23-CV-00656-WCG

TOWN OF GRAND CHUTE, RONALD WOLFF,

JASON VAN EPEREN and JEFFREY INGS,

Defendant.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendants Town of Grand Chute, Ronald Wolff, Jason Van Eperen, and Jeffrey Ings

(“Defendants”), by their attorneys, Attolles Law, s.c., answer Plaintiff’s Complaint, dated May 25,

2023 (ECF No. 1), as follows. Except as otherwise admitted herein, the Defendants deny each and

every allegation contained in the Complaint. The headings contained within the Complaint are not

substantive allegations to which a response is required, but to the extent a response is required

Defendants deny the allegations in the headings. Defendants answer the Complaint as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Answering Paragraph 1, Defendants admit this Court has subject matter jurisdiction

over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants further aver that to the extent Paragraph

1 relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) for subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) is

redundant and without legal effect since the elimination of the amount in controversy requirement

from 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 554 (7th Cir. 2005).

2. Answering Paragraph 2, Defendants admit.

Case 1:23-cv-00656-WCG Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 7 Document 17

 PARTIES

3. Answering Paragraph 3, Defendants admit on information and belief.

4. Answering Paragraph 4, Defendants admit.

5. Answering Paragraph 5, Defendants admit that Defendant Wolff is an elected

member of the Board of Supervisors for the Town of Grand Chute and resides at 5090 Milkweed

Trail, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913. Defendants further admit that Plaintiff is suing Defendant

Wolff in his individual capacity based on an act—Defendant Wolff’s vote to terminate Plaintiff

March from the position of Town Administrator—that was done while Defendant Wolff was

carrying out duties as an elected officer of the Town. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations

in Paragraph 5 and deny that Defendant Wolff’s vote to terminate Plaintiff March from the position

of Town Administrator violated Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

6. Answering Paragraph 6, Defendants admit that Defendant Van Eperen is the elected

Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors for the Town of Grand Chute and resides at 5711 West

Broadway Drive, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913. Defendants further admit that Plaintiff is suing

Defendant Van Eperen in his individual capacity based on an act—Defendant Van Eperen’s vote

to terminate Plaintiff March from the position of Town Administrator—that was done while

Defendant Van Eperen was carrying out duties as an elected officer of the Town. Defendants

otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 6 and deny that Defendant Van Eperen’s vote to

terminate Plaintiff March from the position of Town Administrator violated Plaintiff’s rights under

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

7. Answering Paragraph 7, Defendants admit that Defendant Ings is an elected

member of the Board of Supervisors for the Town of Grand Chute and resides at 4650 North Gillett

Case 1:23-cv-00656-WCG Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 7 Document 17

Street, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913. Defendants further admit that Plaintiff is suing Defendant Ings

in his individual capacity based on an act—Defendant Ings’ vote to terminate Plaintiff March from

the position of Town Administrator—that was done while Defendant Ings was carrying out duties

as an elected officer of the Town. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 7 and

deny that Defendant Ings’ vote to terminate Plaintiff March from the position of Town

Administrator violated Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Answering Paragraph 8, Defendants admit that Plaintiff March was the Town

Administrator for the Town of Grand Chute from 2008 through June 2, 2023. Defendants

otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 8.

9. Answering Paragraph 9, Defendants admit that Plaintiff March was employed as

Town Administrator pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 60.37. Defendants state that the terms of Wis. Stat.

§ 60.37 are the best evidence of their contents and speak for themselves. Defendants deny any

characterization of Wis. Stat. § 60.37 that is inconsistent with its terms.

10. Answering Paragraph 10, Defendants deny.

11. Answering Paragraph 11, Defendants deny. To the extent Plaintiff intended to

reference a search warrant dated March 21, 2022, which is publicly available at Docket No. 66 of

Case No. 3:22-cv-00177-wmc in the Western District of Wisconsin, Defendants state that the terms

of the search warrant are the best evidence of its contents and speak for themselves.

12. Answering Paragraph 12, Defendants admit that after March 21, 2022, the

individual defendants were either told by others, told by Plaintiff himself, or saw stories in the

media that Plaintiff had been interviewed by the DOJ. Defendants further admit the individual

Case 1:23-cv-00656-WCG Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 7 Document 17

defendants were made aware (or became aware) that other Town officers (including one or more

of the named defendants) had been interviewed by DOJ. Defendants further admit that certain of

the individual defendants were aware (or became aware) that DOJ was interviewing other Town

employees in addition to the Plaintiff. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 12.

Defendants further deny any implication that Plaintiff’s participation in any interviews with DOJ

caused Defendants to terminate Plaintiff.

13. Answering Paragraph 13, Defendants deny.

14. Answering Paragraph 14, Defendants deny.

15. Answering Paragraph 15, Defendants aver that the referenced contract is the best

evidence of its contents and denies any characterization of the contract that is inconsistent with its

terms. Defendants deny that the written contract stated the Town agreed to employ Plaintiff March

until his employment was terminated “in good faith.” Defendants further aver that a provision in

a written contract with a town administrator that requires a two-thirds vote of the Town Board to

terminate the administrator is illegal and unenforceable. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations

in Paragraph 15.

16. Answering Paragraph 16, Defendants deny.

17. Answering Paragraph 17, Defendants deny.

18. Answering Paragraph 18, Defendants deny.

19. Answering Paragraph 19, Defendants deny.

20. Answering Paragraph 20, Defendants aver this is a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants lack knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 20, which has

the effect of a denial.

Case 1:23-cv-00656-WCG Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 7 Document 17

 21. Answering Paragraph 21, Defendants deny.

22. Answering Paragraph 22, Defendants admit that counsel for the Town informed

counsel for Plaintiff March that a town board lacks authority to enter into a contract with a town

administrator that requires a two-thirds majority vote to terminate the town administrator.

Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 22.

23. Answering Paragraph 23, Defendants state that Wis. Stat. § 60.37 is the best

evidence of its contents and denies Plaintiff’s characterization to the extent Plaintiff’s

characterization is inconsistent with the terms of Wis. Stat. § 60.37. The Defendants further deny

any implication that Wis. Stat. § 60.37 authorizes a town board to enter into an agreement with a

town administrator that would require a two-thirds vote to terminate a town administrator, like

Plaintiff, who was employed to serve at the pleasure of the town board. See Adamczyk v. Town of

Caledonia, 52 Wis. 2d 270, 190 N.W.2d 137 (1971).

24. Answering Paragraph 24, Defendants deny.

25. Answering Paragraph 25, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25, which has the effect of a denial.

26. Answering Paragraph 26, Defendants deny.

27. Answering Paragraph 27, Defendants admit that on May 2, 2023, the Town Board

met in closed session and in open session voted 4-1 to terminate the Plaintiff from his position as

Town Administrator. The Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 27.

28. Answering Paragraph 28, the Defendants admit that prior to the May 2, 2023

meeting, the Town sent a notice of the Board Agenda and that the notice did not reference Wis.

Stat. § 19.85(1)(b). The Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 28, including the

allegation that a notice under Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(b) was necessary to terminate Plaintiff from his

Case 1:23-cv-00656-WCG Filed 07/11/23 Page 5 of 7 Document 17

position as Town Administrator. Defendants aver that the May 2, 2023 meeting was properly

noticed under Wisconsin’s Open Meetings laws.

ANSWER TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

29. Answering Paragraph 29, Defendants deny.

30. Answering Paragraph 30, Defendants deny.

31. Answering Paragraph 31, Defendants deny.

32. Answering Paragraph 32, Defendants deny.

33. Answering Plaintiff’s Relief Requested, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled

to all or any of the relief requested.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants assert the following defenses without admitting any of the allegations

contained in the Complaint, and without conceding that they bear the burden of proof as to any of

these defenses or assuming any burden of proof they do not have as a matter of law.

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. The Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by qualified immunity.

3. The Plaintiff cannot prove a constitutional violation by the Town or Defendants

Wolff, Van Eperen, or Ings.

4. The Plaintiff cannot prove that the Town or Defendants Wolff, Van Eperen, or Ings

acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

5. The Plaintiff cannot prove that, but for any protected speech the Plaintiff might

have made, the Town and Defendants Wolff, Van Eperen, or Ings would not have terminated him

from his position as Town Administrator.

Case 1:23-cv-00656-WCG Filed 07/11/23 Page 6 of 7 Document 17

 6. The Plaintiff cannot prove that he has suffered damages as a result of the

Defendants’ termination of him from his position as Town Administrator.

7. The Plaintiff has failed to mitigate any damages he may have suffered as a result of

the Defendants’ termination of him from his position as Town Administrator.

WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in its

entirety and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 11th day of July, 2023.

ATTOLLES LAW, s.c.

Attorneys for Defendants Town of Grand Chute, Ronald
Wolff, Jason Van Eperen, and Jeffrey Ings.

By: /s/ Matthew J. Thome___________

MATTHEW J. THOME
State Bar No.: 1113463

P.O. ADDRESS:
222 E. Erie St., Ste. 210
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 285-0825
mthome@attolles.com

Case 1:23-cv-00656-WCG Filed 07/11/23 Page 7 of 7 Document 17