Filed: Dec. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO APPEAR AT CONTINUED HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF ##73, 76, 77) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On June 20, 2016, Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment (the "Motions"). ( See ECF ##73, 76, 77). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall appear at the United States District Court, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Courtroom 237, Detroit, Michigan, on Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. for a continued hearing o
Summary: ORDER TO APPEAR AT CONTINUED HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF ##73, 76, 77) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On June 20, 2016, Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment (the "Motions"). ( See ECF ##73, 76, 77). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall appear at the United States District Court, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Courtroom 237, Detroit, Michigan, on Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. for a continued hearing on..
More
ORDER TO APPEAR AT CONTINUED HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF ##73, 76, 77)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
On June 20, 2016, Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment (the "Motions"). (See ECF ##73, 76, 77).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall appear at the United States District Court, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Courtroom 237, Detroit, Michigan, on Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. for a continued hearing on the Motions.
At this continued hearing, the parties shall be prepared to discuss and answer questions with respect to the following:
1) Plaintiff should be prepared to address questions concerning Defendant
McBride's argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. (See Estate of McBride Supplemental Br. at 7-10, ECF #102 at 9-12, Pg. ID 2418-21.). Among other things, Plaintiff should be prepared to discuss the impact of the Supreme Court case of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 and its progeny, including Jefferson v. Jefferson County Public School System, 360 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2004) and Mitchell v. Fankhauser, 375 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2004), on Plaintiff's procedural due process claim.
2) All parties should be prepared to address the meaning and impact of M.C.L. § 432.208(7)(c) when read in connection with M.C.L. § 432.208(6)(c) and M.C.L. § 432.208c(1) on the issue of whether the Michigan Gaming Control Board had discretion to revoke Plaintiff's occupational license.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
