YOUNGSTOWN – An attorney representing Youngstown, which is asking the 7th District Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court’s decision denying its request to dismiss a claim filed by the last tenant at the city-owned 20 Federal Place building, argues the business’ filing has legal and factual mistakes.

The city contends the lawsuit filed by Carrier Services Group should be dismissed on the grounds of statutory and qualified immunity — a common defense used by governments in Ohio that gives them immunity from liability in many court cases in which it is performing a government or proprietary function.

Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Judge Maureen Sweeney ruled June 24 that she would not grant summary judgment to the city based on an immunity argument. The city filed an appeal July 23 with the 7th District.

In a Monday filing, Frank Scialdone, an attorney with the Cleveland law firm of Mazanec, Raskin and Ryder, representing the city, wrote: “Nothing in Carrier’s merits brief changes that the city and its employees are immune from any state-law tort claims,” and “nothing in Carrier’s merit brief changes that the individual defendants / appellants are entitled to federal qualified immunity. This court must reverse.”

Scialdone wrote: “Carrier’s brief contains misconceptions about well-established law that require correction or clarification.”

The attorney wrote that Carrier “ignores federal immunity, seemingly confusing it with state-law immunity,” it “spends a great deal of effort arguing that ‘the city’ is liable for a federal due process claim,” but “the city in this appeal does not argue that is is ‘immune’ from any federal claim” because the appeals court doesn’t have jurisdiction.

Scialdone also wrote: “Carrier resorts to unwarranted accusations” that “are incorrect. They are also unnecessary and do not comport with notions of civility that predominate in Ohio appellate practice. As demonstrated in the merits brief and in this reply, those defendants / appellants firmly assert and have demonstrated that that lower court erred. These defendants / appellants generally object to Carrier’s overly zealous tactics.”

Oral arguments from both sides will be heard Feb. 11 by the appeals court.

The city’s summary judgment motion, which Sweeney rejected, was filed Oct. 30, 2024, on its behalf as well as for three co-defendants, Mayor Jamael Tito Brown; Charles Shasho, deputy director of public works; and Jim Murray, the project’s engineer.

Sweeney also rejected the city’s argument that the three co-defendants are protected by qualified immunity.

Sweeney wrote Shasho decided to cut the electric power to Carrier Service Group’s premises as well as fiber optic lines and “destroy and / or remove the leased premises,” while Brown “condoned and authorized” those actions and Murray told subcontractors to follow the directives during a project at 20 Federal Place.

The city argued a $7.4 million project to remove asbestos and partially demolish the building in order to have it redeveloped was “urban renewal.” That project was finished a year ago with nothing done to the downtown building, 20 W. Federal St., since then.

Stephen Pruneski, CSG’s attorney on this case, wrote in a Nov. 26 filing: “The city’s argument is frivolous,” and the project was done “to entice someone to either lease or buy the building to use as a commercial office building.”

In its lawsuit against the city, filed May 11, 2023, CSG, a telecommunications equipment provider that had a location at 20 Federal Place for 10 years, is seeking more than $500,000 in damages.

Pruneski wrote the “city undertook a wide variety of purposeful and intentional acts to interfere with CSG’s use of the premises and damaged their equipment.”

He wrote the city and its contractor “piled dirt, dust and debris outside the entrance to the leased premises inhibiting the ability for anyone to even enter the leased premises,” the “city allowed construction debris to bust open the entrance” and “interfere with sensitive electronic computer equipment,” cut fiber optic lines, terminated electric service and “proceeded to completely destroy” CSG’s space.

The city or its contractor also took CSG equipment, which Pruneski wrote “has now been damaged and is valueless and destroyed, converted and / or lost numerous items of equipment.”

He added: “Unbelievably, the city and its employees also argue that they had no malicious intent to damage CSG’s business by cutting the electricity and fiber optic lines. It is absolutely impossible for any court to conclude, as a matter of law, that the actions of the city were not done with a malicious or reckless purpose.”

Scialdone wrote in a Monday filing that “testimony shows that throughout the course of the project, the city tried to accommodate Carrier. Eventually, however, Carrier’s equipment interfered with everyone’s work. The city only resorted to self-help to remove Carrier after consultation with the law department. Even then, the city asked all persons involved with the removal of Carrier equipment to use care.”

Carrier hasn’t had a valid lease since Sept. 30, 2020, when an old contract expired, and the company failed to renew on a timely basis, Magistrate Dennis J. Sarisky ruled Aug. 23, 2023, and Sweeney upheld Dec. 6, 2023.

Pruneski argued the city accepted payments from the company for renewals for 2021 and 2022 and that Carrier paid yearly and not monthly for nine years.

Invoices for 2021, 2022 and 2023 were given to Carrier by Joyce Gorsky, who worked for the city as an independent contract assisting with 20 Federal Place tenants.

Sarisky agreed with city officials that only the three-member board of control can renew leases and that wasn’t done with Carrier.

In his decision, Sarisky wrote the city needed to give CSG 30 days’ notice of eviction. The city argues it did so on Aug. 24, 2023, while CSG contends the notice had to be 30 days from the date the rent was due under the lease agreement.

There were 19 tenants, taking up about 20 percent of the 332,000-square-foot building before eviction notices were sent in July 2022. Some of the tenants received extensions, including CSG, which stayed in the building the longest.

The evictions occurred because of the project to remove asbestos and partially demolish the building.

The city purchased the building in November 2004 after Phar-Mor, a national retail store company, went out of business. The property was the Phar-Mor Centre, the company’s corporate headquarters. Before that, it was the flagship location of Strouss’ department store for many decades.

The city has twice entered into agreements with companies to redevelop the building. Both have failed.

The latest came when city officials announced Aug. 12 that it ended a nonbinding agreement with Bluelofts Inc., a Dallas business that proposed a $55 million to $60 million project, and that $24 million in state and federal historic preservation tax credits would be forfeited.