WHITE’S LANDING FISHERIES, INC., DEAN KOCH, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE; MARY COLE MERTZ, Department of Natural Resources, sued in both her individual and official capacities; KENDRA WECKER, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, sued in both her individual and official capacities; UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; DEB HAALAND, Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 23, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: George Katchmer, Bloomingburg, Ohio, for Appellant. Casey Chapman, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for State of Ohio Appellees.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: George Katchmer, Bloomingburg, Ohio, for Appellant. Casey Chapman, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for State of Ohio Appellees.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, STRANCH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Dean Koch appeals the dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Koch is a commercial fisherman in Erie County, Ohio, and the owner of White’s Landing Fisheries, Inc. Koch and White’s Landing, which is not a party to this appeal, brought this suit after the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife, amended a rule to limit seine commercial fishing licensees’ ability to catch yellow perch. Koch and White’s Landing asserted claims under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, as well as breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy claims, against ODNR, ODNR Director Mary Mertz and Division of Wildlife Chief Kendra Wecker in their individual and official capacities, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Deb Haaland in her now-former official capacity as Secretary of the Interior. The district court dismissed with prejudice Koch’s claims against Ohio and the state officials. It dismissed his takings claims, reasoning that the Takings Clause does not protect the value of his fishing license. In the alternative, the court also concluded that sovereign immunity would bar each claim against Ohio and the state defendants, as state officials, even if the takings and state law claims did not fail on their own. The court also dismissed Koch’s state law claims because they were insufficiently pled. Finally, the district court dismissed, seemingly without prejudice, all claims against the federal defendants for defective service. We affirm in part the district court’s dismissal of Koch’s complaint based on sovereign immunity, which bars Koch’s takings and state law claims against Ohio and the state officials. Because we affirm based on the district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse in part and remand with instructions for the district court to dismiss Koch’s claims without prejudice.

Attachments: