Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor and Vicinity v. Pittsfield Charter Township

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 10, 2016

MUSLIM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ANN ARBOR AND VICINITY, a/k/a MCA, a domestic nonprofit corporation, d/b/a Michigan Islamic Academy, a/k/a MIA, Plaintiff,
v.
PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant.

          Lena F. Masri, CAIR Michigan, Legal Director, Attorney for Plaintiff.

          Thomas R. Meagher, Liza C. Moore, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., Attorneys for Defendants.

          Gadeir I. Abbas, The Law Office of Gadeir Abbas Attorney for Plaintiff.

          Hon. David R. Grand, Magistrate Judge.

          CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF MUSLIM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ANN ARBOR AND VICINITY, D/B/A MICHIGAN ISLAMIC ACADEMY AND DEFENDANT PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP

          MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         RECITALS AND PREAMBLE

         1. On February 22, 2012, MUSLIM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ANN ARBOR AND VICINITY, D/B/A MICHIGAN ISLAMIC ACADEMY ("MIA"), a domestic nonprofit corporation, by and through its attorneys, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Michigan ("CAIR-MI") and The Law Office of Gadeir Abbas, filed this lawsuit against Defendant Pittsfield Charter Township, a Michigan municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Michigan, based upon the denial of MIA's petition to the Township to amend/rezone an existing Planned Unit Development ("PUD") to allow the construction of an Islamic school. Pittsfield Charter Township denied all claims MIA alleged.

         2. This Consent Judgment applies specifically to MIA's Second Amended Complaint, but to the extent, if any, that allegations or defenses to the Complaint or First Amended Complaint are or could be at issue, those allegations and defenses also are covered by this Consent Judgment.

         3. As used in this Consent Judgment, "Plaintiff means the named Plaintiff, "Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor and Vicinity, a/k/a MCA, a domestic nonprofit corporation, d/b/a Michigan Islamic Academy, a/k/a MIA", and any and all persons or entities who have had, currently have, or may at any time have or make claim of right, title or interest in the Property, collectively those persons and entities are referred to as "MIA" or "Plaintiff." "Plaintiff also includes the persons and entities identified in paragraph C of the Other Terms and Conditions, set forth at pages 7 and 8, below.

         4. As used in this Consent Judgment, Defendant Pittsfield Charter Township is referred to as the "Township" or "Pittsfield Township" or "Defendant." Together, Plaintiff and Defendant are referred to as the "Parties." 5. MIA is a domestic nonprofit corporation doing business in Washtenaw County.

         6. Pittsfield Township is a Michigan municipal corporation created under the laws of the State of Michigan.

         7. The "Property" at issue in this lawsuit is generally located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Ellsworth and Golfside Roads in the Township. It is more fully described in Exhibit A.

         8. The Property is currently zoned "PUD" or "Planned Unit Development" under the Township Zoning Ordinance, permitting development consistent with and set forth in the 1992 "Silverleaf PUD, " identified in the Township records as #RZ-92-05.

         9. On or about December 6, 2010, the Township received from Plaintiff an application designated by the Township as #RZ-10-04 to rezone the Property and/or amend the terms of die PUD in a fashion that would allow for development of a school on the Property.

         10. The Township denied Plaintiffs request and Plaintiff filed this lawsuit asserting a variety of claims of wrongdoing by the Township. The Township denies all claims of wrongdoing.

         11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over die matters raised in the Second Amended Complaint and has the authority and jurisdiction to enter this Consent Judgment. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties, and venue is proper.

         12. The Parties have the authority to and have duly authorized the terms and conditions of this Consent Judgment.

         13. MIA further represents tiiat it has full authority to enter into this Consent Judgment on behalf of itself, its assignees and any other person or entity that has any interest in the Property and agrees that all such persons or entities are bound by this Consent Judgment.

         14. All conditions precedent to giving effect to the terms and conditions of this Consent Judgment are in compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of Michigan and Federal law.

         15. The following are merged into this Consent Judgment: (a) all claims and defenses in the Parties' pleadings; and (b) all additional claims and defenses that the Parties could have asserted against each other as of the date of this Consent Judgment that relate to the subject matter of the Second Amended Complaint, including any attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses that might otherwise be billed, chargeable against, or awardable to any party based on statute, contract or otherwise to either party.

         16. References in this Consent Judgment to the Agreed Upon Property Layout are to the certain Agreed Upon Property Layout, bearing the Block Title and seal of David Arthur Consultants, Inc. A copy of the Agreed Upon Property Layout is attached here as Exhibit B. The Agreed Upon Property Layout is on file at the Township.

         17. The Parties have agreed to development, construction and use of the Properly only as provided by this Consent Judgment, specifically including the construction of a school together with a residential development comprised of single-family detached and two-family attached dwellings-as reflected in the Agreed Upon Property Layout attached as Exhibit B.

         18. The Parties agree to treat one another in good faith and mat tiiey will not take or omit any action that will interfere with the spirit or intent of this Consent Judgment. The Parties agree to cooperate in any efforts by Plaintiff to obtain governmental ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.