General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, The et al v. Orr et al
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE to Ingham County Circuit Court. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, and
THE POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT,
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. 13-13255
v.
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
KEVYN D. ORR, in his official capacity as
the EMERGENCY MANAGER OF THE
CITY OF DETROIT, and RICHARD SNYDER,
in his official capacity as the GOVERNOR OF
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING THIS CASE TO STATE COURT
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION/NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY
This case was transferred to this Court from the Federal District Court for the Western
District of Michigan on July 29, 2013. This Opinion begins with a history of this case:
1.
On July 17, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants for declaratory
relief in the State of Michigan, 30th Judicial Circuit Court in Ingham County. The
Defendants are Kevyn D. Orr, in his official capacity as the Emergency Manager
of the City of Detroit, and Richard Snyder, in his official capacity as the Governor
of the State of Michigan. The Complaint requested that the State Circuit Court
judge declare that state legislation and Article IX of the Michigan Constitution
prevent the Governor and the Emergency Manager from taking any action to
1
impair the City of Detroit’s pension debts.
2.
On July 18, 2013 at 4:06 p.m., Defendant Kevyn Orr, in his official capacity as
Emergency Manager of the City of Detroit, and Richard Snyder, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, filed a Petition for municipal
bankruptcy under Chapter IX of the Bankruptcy Code in the Eastern District of
Michigan.
3.
At 4:25 p.m. on that same date, July 18, 2013, Ingham County Circuit Court
Judge Rosemarie E. Aquilina granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining Defendants from taking any further action
that may: (i) cause the accrued financial benefits of the Retirement Systems or
their participants from in any way being diminished or impaired as mandated by
Article IX, section 24, of the Michigan Constitution; or (ii) otherwise abrogate
Article IX, section 24 of the Michigan Constitution.
4.
On July 18, 2013, the Ingham County Circuit Court denied Defendants’ Request
for Order to Stay Enforcement of Temporary Restraining Order.
5.
On July 19, 2013, the Ingham County Circuit Court entered an Amended
Temporary Restraining Order, and set a hearing date for July 22, 2013 on
Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction; the TRO remained in effect.
6.
On July 19, 2013, the Ingham County Circuit Court ordered an expedited briefing
schedule and reset the hearing for July 24, 2013.
7.
On July 21, 2013, Defendant Orr, in his official capacity as Emergency Manager,
filed a Notice of Removal to United States District Court for the Western District
2
of Michigan. Defendant Snyder, in his official capacity as Governor, did not join
in the Notice of Removal.
8.
On July 22, 2013, Defendant Orr filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
9.
On July 23, 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals granted Defendants’ motion for
a stay pending appeal stating, in pertinent part:
The circuit court’s July 18, 2013 and July 19, 2013 temporary
restraining orders and all further proceedings are STAYED
pending resolution of this appeal or further order of this Court.
10.
On July 23, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
ordered that Plaintiffs file a response to Defendant Orr’s Motion to Transfer
Venue, by July 26, 2013.
11.
On July 29, 2013, having received no response from Plaintiffs on the venue
transfer motion, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
ordered a transfer of venue to the Eastern District of Michigan.
This Court notes that Defendant Orr did not notify the Federal District Court for
the Western District of Michigan, prior to the July 29, 2013 transfer of venue, that
on July 23, 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals had entered a stay of the Ingham
County Circuit Court Judge’s TRO orders.
DISCUSSION
In Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), the Supreme Court held that:
Federal courts have authority to answer . . . questions only if
necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual “case” or
“controversy” . . .. For there to be such a case or controversy, it is
not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a
3
keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,”
which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete
and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not
have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the
merits.
Id. at 2659.
In the instant case, Defendant Orr has removed this case to a federal district court. In
Hollingsworth, the Supreme Court, after reciting that “Article III, § 2 of the Constitution
confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding actual cases or controversies,” stated
that a “person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so”:
This requires the litigant to prove that he has suffered a concrete
and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct, and is likely to be redressed by favorable judicial
decision.
Id. at 2661. The Supreme Court further noted that “Article III demands that ‘an actual
controversy’ persist throughout all stages of litigation.” Id. at 2661 (citing Already, LLC v. Nike,
Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721, 726 (2013)). Thus, the question is whether there is an actual controversy at
this stage of litigation.
In this case, there is no state court order in effect that creates a case or controversy. The
Michigan Court of Appeals Order of July 23, 2013, stayed the order of the Ingham County
Circuit Court, without date, “pending resolution of the appeal or further order of the Court.”
Accordingly, there is no concrete or particularized injury impacting Defendant Orr.
In his Statement of Grounds for Removal to Federal Court, Defendant Orr states:
Judge Aquilina’s order purports to prohibit Mr. Orr from
filing a plan of adjustment in bankruptcy court as authorized
by 11 U.S.C. § 941.
Notice of Removal to United States District Court. The reality is that Judge Aquilina’s order is
4
stayed, and Defendant Orr is now an active participant in the bankruptcy proceeding, without
any court-ordered restraints or restrictions.
Accordingly there are no restrictions in this case that limit Defendant Orr, or indeed even
Plaintiffs, from taking any action in other legal proceedings, including a bankruptcy proceeding.
Thus, there is no substantive risk that harm will occur to Defendant Orr.
Defendant Orr, who removed this case to the federal courts, “lack[s] Article III standing
because [he] cannot demonstrate that the future injury [he] purportedly fear[s] is certainly
impending . . ..” Clapper v. Amnesty International, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1155 (2013).
Accordingly, this case is Remanded to State Court based upon Lack of Federal Court
Jurisdiction/No Case or Controversy.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 7, 2013
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE 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 August 7, 2013.
s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?