Stanislaw v. Thetford Twp.

1

Joseph P. Stanislaw, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Thetford Township, et al., Defendants.

No. 18-cv-11556

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

August 2, 2023

Kimberly G. Altman, Mag. Judge.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [60]

JUDITH E. LEVY, United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs Joseph P. Stanislaw and Larraine M. Stanislaw bring this case against Defendants Thetford Township, Township attorney Robert Swartwood, and former and current Township officials Dennis Bloss, Stuart Worthing, Marc Angus, and Luther Hatchett in their individual and official capacities.^[1] Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminated against them by denying their applications to operate a used car dealership on their property. Plaintiffs assert federal claims of “class-of- one” equal protection, failure to intervene, and municipal liability brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as an inverse condemnation claim arising under state law.

Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 60.) The motion is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 62, 63.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' federal law claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claim. Accordingly, that claim is dismissed without prejudice.

I. Background

In 1983, Plaintiffs purchased their property in Thetford Township to use as a residence and business. (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.8; ECF No. 622, PageID.921.)

In August 1983, plaintiffs filed a petition for a site-plan review, seeking permission to perform “auto sales and service.” At the time, the local zoning ordinance required that all automobile sales be conducted inside an enclosure ....The planning commission approved plaintiffs' plan, stipulating that they would have to construct a “proper enclosure” within thirty days.

Stanislaw v. Thetford Twp., 515 Fed.Appx. 501, 503 (6th Cir. 2013). “In August 1984, the Stanislaw[]s filed a revised site plan with a fence enclosure for outdoor equipment and vehicles. The Planning Commission approved the revised site plan, which enabled the Stanislaw[]s to sell used vehicles from an indoor structure and store equipment and vehicles from an enclosed area.” (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.9.)

In 1989, Thetford Township passed a new zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 78) that placed Plaintiffs' property in the “General Commercial” zone. (ECF No. 62-2, PageID.923.) Plaintiffs maintained their residence and business on the property “as a previously-approved ‘non-conforming use.'” Stanislaw, 515 Fed.Appx. at 503.

“In 2004, Michigan passed a law requiring that all used vehicle dealers seeking to renew their licenses must obtain written verification from the appropriate local governing authority that the business meets all ‘applicable municipal and zoning requirements.' Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.248.” Stanislaw v. Thetford Twp., No. 20-1660, 2021 WL 3027195, at *1 (6th Cir. July 19, 2021).

To comply with this law, Plaintiffs filed zoning and municipal approval forms with the Township in 2005. (ECF No. 60-4, PageID.586.)

Plaintiffs requested Class B and E licenses.^[2] (Id.) Mark Angus, Thetford Township's building inspector, denied the application on December 12, 2005. (Id. at PageID.587.) According to the zoning and municipal approval forms that Plaintiffs submitted, Plaintiffs' application was denied because the “General Commercial” zoning requirements did not permit a Class E license. (Id.) The forms also indicate that Plaintiffs' property did not meet municipal requirements because Plaintiffs were “[o]perating an Auto Graveyard, which [their property] is not zoned for” and because the “require[d] fence for outside storage . . . is in disrepair.” (Id.) “Angus's denial was accepted by the Township's Zoning Board of Appeals (‘ZBA') and Planning Commission.” Stanislaw, 2021 WL 3027195, at *1. Because of this denial, Plaintiffs could not continue operating their business. (See ECF No. 62, PageID.875.)

Following the denial of their forms, the Stanislaws brought suit in federal district court [(Stanislaw I)] in January 2009, alleging violations of: (1) procedural due process, (2) substantive due process, (3) equal protection, and (4) the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The complaint also included a municipal liability claim against the Township. The Stanislaws named Thetford Township and various Township officials as defendants, including Hatchett, Angus, and Thomas Kulcher, individually and in their official capacities. In October 2010, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts and dismissed the case. The Stanislaws appealed, and [the Sixth Circuit] affirmed the district court judgment on all counts.

Id.

After the district court in Stanislaw I granted summary judgment, Plaintiffs submitted another municipality approval form-this time for Class B and C licenses.^[3] (ECF No. 60-3, PageID.567.) On February 22, 2011, Angus denied Plaintiffs' application “for the same reason set forth in the December 12, 2005 disapproval.” (Id.) The ZBA affirmed the denial and determined that Plaintiffs' “property is properly zoned for a Class B license. If [Plaintiffs] submit a Zoning Approval form for only a Class B License, the Zoning Approval must be approved.” (ECF No. 60-5, PageID.593; ECF No. 60-6, PageID.599.) Subsequently, the Genesee County Circuit Court affirmed the ZBA's decision. (ECF No. 60-7, PageID.641.)

In 2013, the Township initiated blight proceedings against Plaintiffs because there were “approximately 100 vehicles in different stages of deterioration and disrepair on [their] property ....There are also numerous car parts including doors, hoods, axles, bumpers, tires, etc. scattered about the property.” (ECF No. 60-8, PageID.645.) Plaintiffs “entered into a settlement agreement with the Township by promising to remove the used vehicles from their property in exchange for the dismissal of the blight charges.” (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.13.) After the Township verified that Plaintiffs had complied with the settlement agreement, the Township dismissed the blight charges. (Id.; ECF No. 60, PageID.531; ECF No. 60-9.)

On May 14, 2015, Plaintiffs “appeared before the Planning Commission to ascertain the fencing requirements for their property.” (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14.) Members of the Planning Commission “refused to provide [Plaintiffs] with any fencing guidelines” (Id.) and instead “told Plaintiffs that Ordinance No. 78 prohibited them from operating a business and maintaining a residence on the same property.” (ECF No. 30, PageID.406.) The ZBA affirmed the Planning Commission's decision in 2016. Plaintiffs appealed the ZBA's decision to the Genesee County Circuit Court, which remanded the case back to the Township. (Id.; ECF No. 60-12, PageID.667.)

In 2017, Plaintiffs requested an “ordinance interpretation” from the ZBA so that Plaintiffs could “reopen an auto repair garage facility along with a retail car sales business” while maintaining their residence on the property. (ECF No. 60, PageID.532; ECF No. 60-13, PageID.669.) After much discussion, the ZBA ultimately passed a motion that would permit Plaintiffs to maintain both a business and residence on the same property if they complied with all state requirements and “township ordinances including blight” and received the necessary license approvals. (ECF No. 60-14, PageID.739-740.)

On April 2, 2018, Plaintiffs initiated this case in the Genesee County Circuit Court.^[4] (ECF No. 1-1.) The complaint contains four claims: (1) inverse condemnation against the Township and Township officials (Bloss, Worthing, Angus, and Hatchett), (2) “class of one” equal protection against the Township officials, (3) failure to intervene against Township attorney Smartwood, and (4) municipal liability against the Township. (Id. at PageID.16-24.) Plaintiffs allege that the Township's actions have diminished the value of their property and business. (Id. at PageID.19.) Plaintiffs request monetary relief. (Id. at PageID.17, 19, 21, 24.) Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 17, 2018. (ECF No. 1.)

On June 23, 2020, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim to state court. (ECF No. 30.) The Court granted Defendants' motion because claim and issue preclusion barred Plaintiffs' claims and, alternatively, that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a class-of-one equal protection claim in their complaint. (Id.)

On July 19, 2021, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the Court's judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that claim and issue preclusion did not bar Plaintiffs from bringing their equal protection claim. Stanislaw, 2021 WL 3027195, at *6-7. The Sixth Circuit also rejected the Court's alternative basis for dismissal, explaining that

Plaintiffs were not given a proper chance below to respond to the district court's alternative reasoning. The court held that dismissal of the equal protection claim was appropriate even if the claim was not subject to preclusion because the complaint contained “only conclusory allegations” and therefore failed “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” But defendants never raised this argument below, and it was error to rule on this basis without giving the Stanislaws notice of the defect in their pleadings and a chance to respond or request amendment of their complaint.

Id. at *7. Defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment on March 15, 2023. (ECF No. 60.)

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any...