United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
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,
PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant.
F. Masri, CAIR Michigan, Legal Director, Attorney for
R. Meagher, Liza C. Moore, Foster, Swift, Collins &
Smith, P.C., Attorneys for Defendants.
I. Abbas, The Law Office of Gadeir Abbas Attorney for
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Pittsfield Township is a Michigan municipal corporation
created under the laws of the State of Michigan.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Parties have the authority to and have duly authorized the
terms and conditions of this Consent Judgment.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 ...