Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District v. Kilpatrick et al

Filing 155

ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule on Non-Party City of Detroit's Motion to Intervene and Terminating Without Prejudice Defendants' 33 Motion to Dismiss; 40 Motion to Dismiss; 41 Motion to Dismiss; 49 Motion to Dismiss; 53 Motion for Sanctions; 58 Motion to Dismiss; 72 Motion to Dismiss; 99 Motion to Dismiss; 111 Motion to Dismiss; 130 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DRAINAGE
DISTRICT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-13101

KWAME KILPATRICK, et al.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON NON-PARTY CITY OF
DETROIT’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND TERMINATING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District initiated
the above-captioned matter against forty defendants. Over the course of the past six
months, approximately 20 Defendants have filed motions to dismiss raising substantially
similar arguments. The court withheld ruling on the motions until Plaintiff served all
Defendants, an event which is soon to occur following the court’s January 10, 2012
order granting Plaintiff’s request to alternatively serve the final three unserved
Defendants. Recently, non-party City of Detroit filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff.
Having reviewed the many motions filed, the court concludes that the most logical and
efficient way to proceed in this case is as follows:
1.

First, the court will adjudicate non-party City of Detroit’s motion to intervene. The
City of Detroit states in its motion that it sought concurrence from Plaintiff and
Defendants prior to filing the motion and nine Defendants indicated that they
would not oppose the relief sought. To the extent any other Defendant desires to

oppose the City of Detroit’s motion, counsel for Defendants are strongly
encouraged to file a consolidated response in opposition to the motion.
Depending upon how many Defendants join the consolidated response, the court
is receptive to reasonable requests to increase the page limit. Plaintiff may also
file a response to the City of Detroit’s motion. All responses shall be filed by
January 27, 2012.
2.

All pending motions to dismiss1 will be terminated without prejudice. Following
resolution of the City of Detroit’s motion to intervene, Defendants may refile joint
motions to dismiss. By filing joint motions, counsel will mitigate client costs and
conserve judicial resources. During the February 10, 2012 status conference,
the court will discuss with counsel the best way to file these motions and
establish a briefing schedule for the motions. In the meantime, the court will toll
all deadlines for the service of motions to dismiss and other responsive pleadings
contemplated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

3.

Finally, at the February 10, 2012 status conference, the court will appoint a “lead
defense attorney” who will assume the responsibility of coordinating Defendants’
motion practice and scheduling. Counsel for Defendants should consult amongst
themselves prior to the status conference to decide who may be best situated to
serve in this capacity.
1

In addition to terminating Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court will also
terminate Defendants’ Mersino Dewatering, Inc., Rodney A. Mersino, and Marco
Mersino’s (collectively the “Merison Defendants”) motion for sanctions pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Merisno Defendants may refile their motion
simultaneously with the joint motions to dismiss, and the court will rule on the motion for
sanctions after the motions to dismiss have been resolved.
2

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Dkt. ## 33, 40, 41, 49, 58,
72, 80, 99, 111, 130] are TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Mersino Defendants’ motion for sanctions
[Dkt. #53] is TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all responses to non-party City of Detroit’s
motion to intervene shall be filed on or before January 27, 2012.
Finally, IT IS ORDERED that all deadlines for the service of responsive pleadings
as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 are tolled pending further order
of the court.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 13, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, January 13, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\11-13101.KILPATRICK.Terminate.Motions.Briefing.Schedule.jrc.wpd

3