Tuscola Wind III, LLC v. Almer Charter Township et al

Filing 21

ORDER Dismissing 19 Show Cause and Amending Scheduling Order as to Count One. (Motions due by 6/5/2017, Appellant's Briefing due by 7/3/2017, Appellee's Brief due by 7/24/2017, Appellant's Reply Brief due by 8/7/2017, and Oral Argument set for 8/29/2017 at 02:00 PM before District Judge Thomas L. Ludington.) Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sian, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
TUSCOLA WIND III, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 17-cv-10497
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

ALMER CHARTER TOWNSHIP, et al,
Defendant.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING SHOW CAUSE AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER
On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff Tuscola Wind III, LLC, filed a complaint naming the
Almer Charter Township and that Township’s Board of Trustees as Defendants. ECF No. 1.
Count One of the Complaint is “Claim of Appeal.” Compl. at ¶¶ 100–124. Plaintiff alleges that
“Michigan Constitution art. VI, § 28 authorizes courts to review all final decisions of an
administrative body that are quasi-judicial in nature and affect private rights.” Id. at ¶ 102. On
April 13, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause “why this Court has authority to
adjudicate Count One.” ECF No. 19. In response, Plaintiff directed the Court’s attention towards
City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. Surgeons, 521 U.S. 156 (1997). In City of Chicago, the Supreme
Court held that supplemental jurisdiction could be exercised for state claims, even if the state
claims called for deferential on-the-record review of administrative findings.1 Although district
courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in some circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c), there are no compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction here. Because Plaintiff has
demonstrated that a basis for federal jurisdiction over Count One exists, the order to show cause
will be dismissed.
1

In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled the Seventh Circuit’s finding that allowing jurisdiction in such a
scenario was “inconsistent with the character of a court of original jurisdiction. 91 F.3d at 990.

Because Count One will be reviewed under a different standard of review and via
different procedures than the other counts, the scheduling order will be amended to
accommodate the different procedural posture of Count One.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 19, is
DISMISSED.
It is further ORDERED that the Scheduling Order, ECF No. 18, is AMENDED as to
Count One of the Complaint as follows:
Motions regarding Content of the Record:

June 5, 2017

Appellant’s Brief:

July 3, 2017

Appellee’s Brief:

July 24, 2017

Appellant’s Reply Brief:

August 7, 2017

Oral Argument:

August 29, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.

Dated: May 3, 2017

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on May 3, 2017.
s/Michael A. Sian
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager