Chandra Law Logo

VICTORY: Rudzik Excavating receives $150,000 settlement and other relief in suits against Mahoning County

Tuesday, February 25, 2025

Settlement represents "total vindication" for the company, says attorney Subodh Chandra.

VICTORY: Rudzik Excavating receives $150,000 settlement and other relief in suits against Mahoning County

Youngstown, OH – Rudzik Excavating has received a $150,000 settlement in exchange for dropping its two lawsuits against Mahoning County and its officials including the company's federal-court First Amendment–retaliation lawsuit and a state-court civil complaint in Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas against the County.

By letters to surety companies, Mahoning County also permanently withdrew its claims against Rudzik Excavating's bid bonds. These claims were the subject of the two lawsuits, which argued that the claims were retaliatory and completely prohibited by Ohio law.

The suits stemmed from allegations that the County commissioners retaliated against the company for publicly criticizing the County's approach to projects.

For more detail, see here.

"The payment and withdrawal of the bogus, retaliatory claims on the company's bid bonds represents total vindication for the company, its owners, and employees—who should have never endured what happened here," said Subodh Chandra, one of Rudzik Excavating's lawyers. "One would hope that under new leadership, the County and its officials will not engage in First Amendment retaliation again."

Rudzik Excavating was represented by Subodh Chandra and Ethan Dawson of The Chandra Law Firm LLC, along with Martin P. Desmond.

The federal lawsuit was captioned Rudzik Excavating v. Mahoning County, et al., N.D. Ohio Case No. 4:24-cv-1876 and is assigned to Judge Benita Y. Pearson. The complaint [as amended on 1/3/25] and exhibits may be found here.

The state-court lawsuit was captioned Rudzik Excavating v. Mahoning County, Mahoning County Court of Common Plea Case No. 2025 CV 00045. That complaint may be found here.

Martin Desmond himself is a former Chandra Law client who was a retaliation victim of after he reported unconstitutional misconduct occurring in former-Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains’s office. Desmond obtained a $550,000 settlement.

Gains resigned in the middle of his term a few months after the case was settled.

Chandra Law and Desmond also teamed-up in the case of Morrison v. Mahoning County, et al., which alleged civil-rights violations, civil liability for criminal acts, defamation, and other state-law claims against several Mahoning County public officials, including the commissioners, county administrator, and prosecuting attorney.

And they teamed up in the case of Christopher Green v. City of East Liverpool, another First Amendment–retaliation case.

Chandra Law represents victims of employment retaliation who engaged in legally protected activity, including First Amendment–protected activity. Chandra Law’s DeCrane v. Eckart, et al. case is the leading Sixth Circuit opinion rounding up First Amendment–retaliation case law in the Sixth Circuit, and Chandra Law’s successful Buddenberg v. Weisdack Sixth Circuit case is also frequently invoked and cited for the proposition that defense lawyers cannot participate in retaliation.

If you have a First Amendment–retaliation, employment–retaliation, or other civil-rights claim, you may use our secure contact form. But first, please study what retaliation the law recognizes.

At Chandra Law, your case is our cause.®

Related Practice Areas
Constitutional LawEmployment RetaliationFirst AmendmentGovernment Ethics, Misconduct, Fraud, & Abuse
Tags
first-amendmentfirst-amendment-retaliationrudzik-excavatingmahoning-county-prosecuting-attorneymahoning-county

Making the right choice in legal representation can make the difference in whether you achieve a result that protects your legal rights and best interests.

Tell Us About Your Case