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.

KBT Group, LLC v. City of Eastpointe

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

April 10, 2019

KBT Group, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
City of Eastpointe, Defendant.

          Stephanie Dawkins Davis Judge

          ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION [43] TO THE ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY [42] AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [35] AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY [37]

          Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge

         Plaintiff brings this suit against the City of Eastpointe for taking what it alleges are illegal and unconstitutional regulatory actions against its property at 23155 Beechwood, after the City deemed it a “dangerous property.” Plaintiff brings the suit as a putative class action and challenges both the means by which the “dangerous property” designation is assigned and the City's actions in furtherance of its scheme.

         There has been some confusion about which owner of 23155 Beechwood is the proper Plaintiff to bring this suit. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend its Complaint to address this matter on March 14, 2019. Defendant objected on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case, and that Objection is now before the Court. Because this matter concerns the parties' procedural rights, a detailed procedural history is warranted.

         Procedural History

          On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff, H&J Solutions, brought this action against the City of Eastpointe. [Dkt. #1.]. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer [6] stating that it “lack[ed] knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted” in regard to Plaintiff's assertion that jurisdiction by this Court is proper (¶¶ 44-48), and in regard to the portion of the complaint that described the injuries H&J suffered as a result of the City's actions (¶¶ 37-40).

         On September 21, 2018, after some discovery, Plaintiff moved to substitute-in KBT as Plaintiff. It noted that both H&J and KBT are controlled by the same people, and that it was KBT, not H&J, who had “title to the property at issue prior to the invoice being issued for the City's unlawful fees.” (Dkt. 15, pg. 5). Defendant filed a response to that Motion on October 5, 2018 stating that “The City of Eastpointe does not object to the substitution, ” but also reserving “additional defenses created by the substitution created by the transfer of a property interest [sic] during the pendency of this litigation.” Among these defenses was that KBT does not have standing, because it did not participate in the Dangerous Buildings hearing.

         On October 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to Amend [23], clarifying that H&J was the manager of KBT and that the property was transferred on February 10, 2017 for liability purposes and in order to put title in a Michigan company.

         On February 15, 2019, after another three months of discovery, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Standing [35]. It argued that H&J Solutions lacked standing to bring this suit because KBT, not H&J, sustained the alleged injuries giving rise to the suit. On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay [37] Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [35] pending the outcome of its motions for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [15, 23]. Defendant filed a Response to the Motion to Stay [38] on February 27, 2019. On March 14, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's First Motion to Substitute Party [15]. The Magistrate Judge noted that Defendant did not object to the substitution in its response and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 10 days. The Amended Complaint [44] was filed on March 19, 2019.

         Defendant objected to this Order on March 18, 2019. It argued that the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and that the Magistrate Judge's Order is a “nullity, ” because the Court never had jurisdiction.

         Standard of Review

         Objections to orders on non-dispositive matters by Magistrate Judges are heard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

(a) Nondispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must ...

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.