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.

Meyers v. Village of Oxford

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

August 31, 2017

BRUCE MEYERS, KALLIE ROESNER-MEYERS, and EUGENIA CALOCASSIDES, Plaintiffs,
v.
VILLAGE OF OXFORD, a Michigan home-rule village; JOE YOUNG, in his personal and official capacity as Village Manger of the Village of Oxford; SUE BOSSARDET, in her personal and official capacity as President of the Village of Oxford; and MICHAEL SOLWOLD, in his official capacity only as Acting Police Chief of the Village of Oxford; ROBERT CHARLES DAVIS, in his personal and official capacity as an administrative officer Village Attorney of the Village of Oxford, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [#17]

          Denise Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On May 4, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc No. 17). Plaintiffs filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss on June 8, 2017. (Doc No. 20). Defendants replied on June 22, 2017. (Doc No. 21). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs brought this case after being “removed from their role as reserve officer[s]” by the Defendants on January 10, 2017. (Doc No. 7 at Pg. ID 59). Plaintiffs volunteered to be a part of the Village of Oxford Police Reserve team and the Mounted Unit division. Each Plaintiff was trained and certified to use pistols, rifles, and OC spray with LCSD. (Id. at Pg. ID 57). The main goal of the reserve unit is to:

supplement the patrol division. The reserve officers work mainly on Friday and Saturday nights. They patrol on foot, on bike or patrol car in the downtown area. They also handle most of the traffic control assignments for holiday parades and other special events.

(Id. at Pg. ID 56).

         The Mounted Unit for the Village of Oxford was asked to be a part of the inauguration ceremonies and parade for the swearing in of President Donald J. Trump in Washington, D.C. (Id. at Pg. ID 58). The police chief at the time accepted the offer on behalf on the unit. At the next village council meeting, Defendants being displeased by the news proceeded to question Plaintiffs.

         Defendants approved a motion stating that the “Oxford Village Council has not reviewed, approved, or authorized any mounted police division, reserve or otherwise, within the Village of Oxford; and that such be transmitted also to the Michigan Multi-Jurisdictional Mounted Police Drill Team.” (Id. at Pg. ID 58). The motion was released without first notifying Plaintiffs. As a result, Plaintiffs argue they lost their positions as reservists and their good reputation. (Id. at Pg. ID 59).

         Plaintiffs asked to have a name clearing hearing but were never given one. (Id. at Pg. ID 59). Defendants requested certain documents from Plaintiffs before the hearing could take place. Plaintiffs never gave Defendants any documents believing that it was not necessary to do so under the law. (Id. at Pg. ID 60). In response to not receiving a hearing, Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 27, 2017 and amended the complaint on March 8, 2017. (Doc No. 1 & 7). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 4, 2017. (Doc No.17). Plaintiffs responded on June 8, 2017. (Doc No. 20). Defendants replied on June 22, 2017 (Doc No. 21).

         III. Applicable Law and Analysis

         A. Standard of Review

         A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff's complaint. Accepting all factual allegations as true, the court will review the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Eidson v. Tennessee Dep't of Children's Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir. 2007). As a general rule, to survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state sufficient “facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint must demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that the defendant's conduct was unlawful. Id. at 556. Claims comprised of “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

         B. ...


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.