SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
Plaintiffs wish to use a parcel of property in the City of Detroit, that was formerly a golf course, as a cemetery. In this action, Plaintiffs assert two federal Constitutional claims: 1) that they were denied due process with respect to the zoning decisions relating to the property (Count (III); and 2) that the zoning decisions resulted in the taking of private property without payment of just compensation (Count IV). Plaintiffs also ask the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over two state-law claims: 1) an appeal of the zoning decision (Count I); and 2) alleged violations of Michigan's Open Meetings Act (Count II). The matter is currently before the Court on three Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants, which all raise the same issues. The parties have briefed the issues and the Court heard oral argument on April 23, 2015.
In the pending motions, Defendants ask this Court to abstain from hearing Plaintiffs' federal claims (Counts III and IV) under either the Burford or Pullman abstention doctrines. They also ask the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims (Counts I and II). As explained below, this Court concludes that Defendants have not established that the Court should abstain from hearing the federal claims under either the Burford or Pullman doctrines. Thus, Plaintiff's federal claims shall proceed in this action. With respect to Plaintiffs' state-law claims, however, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and shall dismiss them without prejudice.
Plaintiffs the Detroit Memorial Park Association, Inc. ("DMPA") and Greater
The property at issue in this action "was a park and golf course that the City [of Detroit] owned until 2007, when the City determined it could no longer afford the losses in operating the course." (Compl. at ¶ 3). Greater Grace, a nearby church, purchased the property from the City of Detroit. (Id.). Greater Grace has negotiated a contract to sell the property to the DMPA. The DMPA wishes to use the property as a cemetery. But the City of Detroit's Buildings Safety Engineering & Environmental Department ("BSEED") denied the DMPA's conditional use application for the property zoned R1. The DMPA then appealed that decision to Defendant Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Detroit ("ZBA") and the ZBA denied the appeal. The individual Defendants are members of the ZBA (Weed, Huxley, McIlwain, Beverly and Evelyn Smith, Thomas, and Williams), the BSEED (Stapleton), and the Detroit Planning and Development Department (Sharpley).
Plaintiffs filed the action in federal court based upon federal-question jurisdiction over Counts III and IV. Plaintiffs ask this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state-law claims. (Compl. at ¶ 21). Notably, Plaintiffs made a demand for a jury. (Compl. at Pg. ID 64). Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts four counts.
The first count in Plaintiffs' Complaint is titled, "Count I — Claim Of Appeal And Declaratory Judgment."
Under Michigan law, a party aggrieved by a decision of the zoning board of appeals "may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located." Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606. That state-law statute provides that the "circuit court shall review the record and decision to ensure that the decision": (a) "Complies with the constitution and laws of the state;" (b) "Is based upon proper procedure;" (c) "Is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record;" and (d) "Represents the reasonable exercise of discretion granted by law to the zoning board of appeals." The circuit court reviewing a decision by a zoning board of appeals "may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision," "order further proceedings on conditions that the court considers proper," or "may make other orders as justice requires."
In Count I, Plaintiffs seek to have their zoning appeal decided in federal court. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs also filed an appeal in Wayne County Circuit Court appealing the adverse decision from the ZBA. (See Exs. A & B to Docket Entry No. 4).
Second, Plaintiff's Complaint includes "Count II — Violations Of Michigan Open Meetings Act." In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that the ZBA and the individual Defendants have violated Michigan's Open Meetings Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.261 et seq., in connection with their deliberations and meetings. Plaintiffs ask the Court to find that Defendants have violated the Open Meetings Act in their individual and official capacities, award Plaintiff's
Michigan's Open Meetings Act provides that "any person may commence a civil action in the circuit court to challenge the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of the act." Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270(1). The circuit court may invalidate any decision made by a public body under various circumstances. Id. Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270(2). The Open Meetings Act also allows a person to file suit to enjoin further noncompliance with the act. Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.271(1). The Open Meetings Act provides that a public official who intentionally violates the act can be fined $500.00. Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.273.
Third, Plaintiff's Complaint includes "Count III 42 U.S.C. § 1983." In Count III, Plaintiffs assert that, in connection with the decisions rendered by the BSEED and ZBA, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' due process rights under the United States Constitution and Michigan's Constitution. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief as to Count III.
Fourth, Plaintiff's Complaint includes "Count IV Taking Of Private Property Without Just Compensation." In Count IV, Plaintiffs allege that the "decisions of the ZBA, and the decisions of" the BSEED have "resulted in the taking of private property without payment of just compensation," in violation of the United States Constitution and Michigan's Constitution.
Defendants have filed the following three Motions to Dismiss: 1) the City of Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals' Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 4); 2) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Weed, Williams, Huxley, Thomas, Evelyn Smith, Stapleton, and Sharpley (Docket Entry No. 17); and 3) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Beverly Bee Smith (Docket Entry No. 19). All three motions are brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and all three motions raise the same challenges.
In the pending motions, Defendants ask the Court to abstain from hearing Plaintiffs' federal claims, and also ask the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims.
In all three of the pending Motions to Dismiss, Defendants' primary argument is that under the Burford and Pullman abstention doctrines, this Court should abstain from hearing Plaintiff's federal claims (Counts III & IV).
As a backdrop to their abstention arguments, Defendants assert that "there is no disputing that the BZA's actions in this matter were undertaken pursuant to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (`MZEA'), MCL § 125.3101" et seq. and the "MZEA provides the exclusive method to appeal decisions made by boards of zoning appeals, namely by appeal to the circuit court." (Docket Entry No. 4 at 4). Defendants assert that "[b]ecause land disputes implicate important local issues, federal courts, routinely abstain from becoming involved in such disputes unless and until it is clearly necessary and appropriate to do so." Id.
Defendants first contend that this Court should abstain from hearing Plaintiffs' federal claims under the Burford abstention doctrine. In support of its argument that
In response, Plaintiffs contend that this Court should not abstain from hearing their federal claims under Burford and direct the Court to Saginaw Housing Comm'n v. Bannum, Inc., 576 F.3d 620 (6th Cir.2009). Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' Burford abstention argument should be rejected because: 1) "Defendants have not made a strong showing of the coherent state policies or highly complex, unsettled state law issues required for Burford abstention;" and 2) the Sixth Circuit has expressly rejected the very cases that Defendants rely on.
Based on Saginaw Housing, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs.
As noted in Saginaw Housing, "[a]bstention is `an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it,'" and a district court's decision to abstain under Burford is reviewed de novo. Saginaw Housing, 576 F.3d at 625 (quoting Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries, Int'l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 467 (6th Cir.2009)). The Supreme Court has summarized the Burford abstention doctrine as follows:
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 361, 109 S.Ct. 2506, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989).
In Saginaw Housing, the Sixth Circuit addressed an issue of first impression concerning the Burford abstention doctrine:
Saginaw Housing, 576 F.3d at 626. In so holding the Sixth Circuit explained that "[e]very case in which we have found Burford abstention appropriate has involved evidence that federal involvement would disrupt a coherent state policy. See Adrian Energy Assocs. v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 481 F.3d 414, 424 (6th Cir.2007) (state utility regulation); Ellis v. Gallatin Steel Co., 390 F.3d 461, 480-81 (6th Cir. 2004) (state air pollution regulation); Caudill v. Eubanks Farms, Inc., 301 F.3d 658, 665 (6th Cir.2002) (state corporate dissolution procedures); MacDonald v. Village of Northport, Mich., 164 F.3d 964, 968 (6th Cir.1999) (state land plat supervision); Coal. for Health Concern, 60 F.3d [1188], at 1194-95 [(6th Cir.1995)] (state hazardous waste removal regulation); Ada-Cascade Watch Co. [v. Cascade Resource Recovery, Inc.], 720 F.2d [897], at 904-05 [(6th Cir.1983)] (state hazardous waste treatment regulation)." Id.
The Court noted that "emphasis on state policy is in keeping with the Supreme Court's emphasis on the disruption of state regulatory processes:"
Id. at 626 (italics added for emphasis). Therefore, you "look to state policy to determine if Burford abstention is warranted." Id. (emphasis added).
The Sixth Circuit then went on to consider the state policy at interest in that case and found that it did not warrant Burford abstention:
Saginaw Housing, 576 F.3d at 627 (italics added for emphasis).
Id. at 628.
In addition, the Sixth Circuit discussed the Fourth Circuit's Pomponio decision that Defendants rely on in this case and
Saginaw Housing, 576 F.3d at 628.
Accordingly, Defendants' reliance on Pomponio is misplaced, because the Sixth Circuit has expressly rejected its approach as it relates to local zoning ordinances. And Defendants' reliance on MacDonald is misplaced because it can be distinguished in that it did not involve a local ordinance.
Under Saginaw Housing, this Court must look to "state policy to determine if Burford abstention is warranted."
In their motions, Defendants assert that "[a]ny conclusions reached by this Court might be, `disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial concern'" but they direct the Court to nothing more than land use laws. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has found that "while land use policy is undoubtedly of substantial public concern, there is no evidence that the state's interest in that policy has led to the type of coherent state policy that would warrant Burford abstention." Saginaw Housing, 576 F.3d at 628.
Defendants' opening briefs did not discuss Saginaw Housing. In the one Reply Brief that Defendants filed (Docket Entry No. 23), Defendants try to distinguish this case from Saginaw Housing and argue that this case is analogous to MacDonald:
(Id. at 5-6) (emphasis in original).
A careful reading of Saginaw Housing, however, shows why this case is not analogous to MacDonald. In Saginaw Housing, the Sixth Circuit explained that "[i]n most cases in which we have applied Burford, the creation of an agency to promulgate and administer the state policy has served as evidence of the state's level of concern and of its desire for uniform application of the policy." Saginaw Housing, 576 F.3d at 627. The Saginaw Housing Court then explained that while there was not an agency devoted to the implement the state policy at issue in MacDonald, particular features of the regulatory
Saginaw Housing, 576 F.3d at 628 (italics added for emphasis).
Here, the Defendants point to Michigan's Zoning Enabling Act to justify Burford abstention. But unlike the statutory scheme at issue in MacDonald, this act does not require the state as a mandatory party to appeals of zoning decisions. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606. Thus, the statute simply does not have the key features that justified Burford abstention in MacDonald.
This Court concludes that Defendants have not established that Burford abstention is warranted in this action.
Defendants' motions also ask this Court to abstain from hearing Plaintiffs' federal claims based upon the Pullman abstention doctrine. This argument is made in the same cursory fashion in all three motions:
(Defs.' Motions at 5-6).
In response, Plaintiffs agree that the two requirements for Pullman abstention are: 1) an unclear state law; and 2) the likelihood that a decision on the state issue would obviate the need to decide the federal question. But Plaintiffs assert that, in this case, "Pullman abstention is simply inappropriate:"
(Pls.' Resp. Br. at 24). Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants have not established the second requirement either because even if Plaintiffs prevail on their zoning appeal, they still intend to pursue their federal claims in this case and pursue a monetary damages award. (Id. at 24-25).
The Court concludes that Defendants have not established that this Court should abstain from hearing Plaintiff's federal claims based upon the Pullman doctrine.
Pullman abstention is "appropriate only when state law is unclear and a clarification of that law would preclude the need to adjudicate the federal question." Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219, 233 (6th Cir.2011); see also Anderson v. Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487, 491 (6th Cir.2001) (the "classic reason to apply the Pullman abstention doctrine is where the remanded state-law question is an independent and unsettled issue best decided by the state courts.").
As Plaintiffs note in opposing the motions, Defendants have not identified any unclear state laws that are at issue in this case. As such, Pullman abstention is not warranted. Id.; see also Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston Cnty., 150 Fed. Appx. 633, 635 (9th Cir.2005) (The requirements for Pullman abstention are not satisfied here because the County has not identified an unsettled issue of state or local law that would be determinative of the federal claims.); Chiropractic America v. Lavecchia, 180 F.3d 99, 114 (3rd Cir. 1999) (Because Defendants have "not identified a single specific issue of state law that is both unclear and relevant to the issues the federal court has been asked to address," Pullman abstention would be inappropriate.); Kelly v. Lopeman, 680 F.Supp. 1101, 1106 (S.D.Ohio 1987) ("[A]bstention under the Pullman doctrine is inappropriate because there have been no uncertain issues of state law or ambiguous state statutes which have been identified.") 15192 Thirteen Mile Rd. v. City of Warren, 593 F.Supp. 147, 152 (D.C.Mich.1984) (Declining to abstain from hearing claims where "Defendant has not identified any uncertain state law issues which would require abstention under Pullman.").
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' requests that the Court abstain from hearing Plaintiffs' federal claims and
In the pending motions, Defendants challenge Count I & II of Plaintiff's Complaint in a single paragraph:
(Defs.' Briefs at 3).
Defendants' argument fails to appreciate that Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Counts III & IV (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331) and that Plaintiffs ask the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
In their Reply Brief, Defendants argue that this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims.
Plaintiffs assert that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims, which are the claims alleging violations of Michigan's Open Meetings Act and the zoning appeal. Plaintiffs assert that this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their zoning appeal and rely on Dubuc v. Green Oak Twp., 810 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich. 1992) and Hucul Advtg., LLC v. Charter Twp. of Gaines, 748 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2014).
Dubuc, was not a case in which the district court was asked to proceed over an appeal of a zoning decision. Dubuc, 810 F.Supp. at 870 ("This action asserts federal and constitutional claims, alleging violations of plaintiff's first, fifth, and four-teenth amendment rights. It is not an appeal from a determination of the zoning board of appeals.").
Hucul, however, supports Plaintiffs' position that this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the zoning appeal claim, if it chooses to do so.
The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, originally set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), was codified by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Section 1367 grants a district court broad discretion to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims that are "so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
In determining whether to retain jurisdiction over state-law claims, a district court should consider and weigh several factors, including the "values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 951 (6th Cir.2010) (citations omitted). That is because the doctrine of pendent or supplemental jurisdiction is a "doctrine of discretion" and its justification lies in "considerations of judicial economy, convenience
Section 1367 further provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when:
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Count I of Plaintiffs' complaint, the zoning appeal claim, is the heart of this matter and this Court concludes that it substantially predominates over the federal claims in this action. That zoning appeal claim predominates over the federal claims in this action in terms of proof, scope of issues raised, and comprehensiveness of remedies. It is the only claim that can potentially give Plaintiffs the ultimate relief they seek — an outright reversal of the zoning decision.
This Court also concludes that the interest in judicial economy, which provides the basic justification for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, would not be served by having Plaintiffs' state-law claims proceed in this action along with their federal claims. Plaintiffs' federal claims (Counts III and IV) will be tried by a jury.
Accordingly, this not the typical situation where an additional state-law claim or two would be included in a single jury trial. Rather, there would be two separate trials if this Court were to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims. And the federal court would be deciding the state-law claims.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have already filed an appeal of the zoning decision in Wayne County Circuit Court.
Under these rather unique circumstances, the Court concludes that the better course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims.
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED Defendants Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The motions are DENIED to the extent that this Court concludes that Defendants have not established that the Court should abstain from hearing the federal claims under either the Burford or Pullman doctrines. Thus, Plaintiff's federal claims (Counts III and IV) shall proceed in this action.
With respect to Plaintiffs' state-law claims, however, this Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER those claims and, therefore, Counts I and II of Plaintiffs' Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
