## Facts

- Wee Care Child Center, Inc. operated a licensed Ohio day-care facility serving low-income families; Tonya L. Brown owned and operated the center.
- The facility’s operating license expired in December 2005; Wee Care applied for renewal, but the application remained pending for roughly fifteen months (Dec. 2005–Mar. 2007).
- During the pendency of the renewal process, state regulators issued multiple “expired licenses” that reduced Wee Care’s authorized capacity from 88 to 38 children.
- Regulators pursued denial of renewal based on allegations including improper physical discipline and failure to ensure staff lacked disqualifying criminal convictions.
- Wee Care depended on Title XX public assistance funding administered locally; during the licensing dispute, county officials discontinued public assistance payments for Wee Care’s services.
- Wee Care alleged that the licensing delays/denial process and the funding cutoff disrupted third-party contractual relationships (e.g., insurance and workers’ compensation) and contributed to the center’s closure.
- Wee Care and Brown filed multiple prior state and federal lawsuits arising from the same licensing and funding controversies.
- In this federal action, they sued state and county officials asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1 of the Sherman Act, and state-law tort theories.
- The district court dismissed claims against state defendants under Rule 12(b)(6), granted judgment on the pleadings to county defendants under Rule 12(c) based on Local Government Antitrust Act (LGAA) immunity from antitrust damages, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether, given the extensive prior litigation, many federal claims in this action were waived, abandoned, or otherwise barred based on what was (or should have been) raised previously.
2. Whether the LGAA barred plaintiffs’ Sherman Act damages claims against county entities and officials for actions taken in an official capacity.
3. Whether any non-waived federal claims were adequately stated and, if not, whether the district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court held that many of plaintiffs’ federal claims were waived due to the prior litigation history and failure to properly preserve and present claims.
- The court held that any remaining, unwaived antitrust damages claims against county officials were barred by the LGAA.
- With all federal claims properly disposed of, the court upheld the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- Repetitive litigation over the same underlying dispute can result in waiver or forfeiture of claims, including where claims were previously litigated, could have been raised earlier, or are not properly preserved on appeal.
- The Local Government Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 34–36, bars recovery of damages (and related monetary relief) for antitrust violations from a local government and its officials or employees acting in an official capacity.
- When federal claims are dismissed at the pleading stage, a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs’ federal theories were largely waived in light of prior litigation, and any surviving Sherman Act damages claims against county officials were barred by the LGAA; the district court therefore acted within its discretion in declining to hear the remaining state-law claims.


Wee Care Child Ctr., Inc. v. Lumpkin, 680 F.3d 841 (6th Cir. 2012)