1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION
In Re: A FOREVER RECOVERY, INC., a Michigan corporation, and TIA CORPORATION, Michigan corporation, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:13-cv-00782 Hon. Paul L. Maloney, Chief District Judge v. PENNFIELD TOWNSHIP, Respondent/Defendant. Thomas G. King (P34006) Michael J. Toth (P36310) KREIS, ENDERLE, HUDGINS & BORSOS, P.C. Attorney for Petitioners/Plaintiffs P.O. Box 4010 Kalamazoo, MI 49003 (269) 324-3000 tking@kreisenderle.com Thomas R. Meagher (P32959) Liza C. Moore (P72240) FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant 313 S. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 371-8161 tmeagher@fosterswift.com
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS’ A FOREVER RECOVERY, INC. AND TIA CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
RES
PONDENT/DEFENDANT PENNFIELD TOWNSHIP’S
MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER F.E.D. R. CIV. P. 12(b) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Case 1:13-cv-00782-PLM Doc #29-1 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#481
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Authorities .............................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 Facts ....................................................................................................................... 4 Procedural Background ........................................................................................................ 5 Argument ...................................................................................................................... 5
I.
Federal and State Standard of Pleading
............................................................... 5
II. This Court is without jurisdiction to decide this Motion and based upon the Motion to Remand pending before this Court, this Court should remand the entire case to State Court and allow the State Court to decide all of the allegations contained in the complaint
.................................................. 7
A. The Court Must Remand This Case Unless the Township Establishes That
The Plaintiffs’ F
ederal Claim is Ripe for Review
.................................................... 7
1. The Court Has No Jurisdicti
on Over The Plaintiffs’ Federal
Takings Claim
...................................................................................... 8
2. The Township Must Also Establish That
The Plaintiffs’ Federal Due Process Claim Is Ripe To Establish This Court’s Jurisdiction Of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
....................................................................... 10
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 11
Case 1:13-cv-00782-PLM Doc #29-1 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 12 Page ID#482
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases
AM Rodriguez Assoc Inc v Douglas
, No. 1:08-cv-214 (W.D. Mich. 2009), 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1100998 (November 30, 2009) .....................................................................................................................................10
Ashcroft v Igbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................4
Baker v Gushwa,
354 Mich 241 (1958) ...............................................................................................................5
Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007), ................................................................................................4
Bigelow v. Mich. Dept. of Natural Resources,
970 F.2d 154, 157 (6
th
Cir. 1992) ...............................................6
Bigelow v. Mich. Dept. of Natural Resources,
970 F.2d 154, 157 (6
th
Cir. 1992);
see also
,
Braun v Ann Arbor Twp.,
519 F.3d 564 (2008 6
th
Cir.). .......................................................................................................7
Braun v Ann Arbor Twp.,
519 F.3d 564 (2008 6
th
Cir.). ......................................................................................7
Del-Prairie Stock Farm v Walworth County,
572 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (E.D. Wisc. 2008), ....................................7
Del-Prairie,
572 F. Supp. 2d at 1033, Citing
Keller, supra,
at 219-21 ...............................................................8
DLX v Kentucky
, 381 F. 3d 511 (6
th
Cir. 2004): ..................................................................................................9
Gamble v Eau Claire County
, 5 F.3d 285, 287-288 (7
th
Cir. 1993 ....................................................................10
Id
. at 1032, c
iting
, Michael M. Berger & Gideon Kanner,
Shell Game! You Can’t Get There From Here:
Supreme Court Ripeness Jurisprudence In Taking Cases at Long Last Reaches
............................................7
Lahar v Barnes,
353 Mich. 408 ...........................................................................................................................6
MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v Yolo County
, 477 U.S. 340, 350, n.7, 106 S. Ct. 2561, 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986) ...............................................................................................................................................................8
Macene v MJW, Inc
., 951 F2d 700, 704 (6
th
Cir. 1991). .....................................................................................8
O’Toole v Fortino
, 97 Mich App 797
...................................................................................................................6
San Remo Hotel L.P. v San Francisco,
545 U.S. 323, 347, 125 S. Ct. 2491, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) ...............8
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
520 US 725, 733-734, 117 S. Ct. 1659, 137 L. Ed. 2d 980 (1997). ..............................................................................................................................................................8
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank
, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1985) ............................................................................................................................................7
Other Authorities
28 U.S.C.A. §1738 ...............................................................................................................................................8
the Self Parody State
, 36 Urban Lawyer, 671, 671-672 (2004) and Scott A. Keller,
Judicial Jurisdiction Stripping Masquerading as Ripeness: Eliminating the Williamson County
State Litigation Requirement For Regulatory Takings Claims
, 85 Tex. Law Rev. 199 (2006) (“Keller”)
. ...................................................7
Case 1:13-cv-00782-PLM Doc #29-1 Filed 08/23/13 Page 3 of 12 Page ID#483
