Dorman v. Clinton, Township of

Filing 169

ORDER Directing Parties to File Supplemental Briefs by Monday, July 11, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 169, PageID.6013 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL DORMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-cv-12552
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS
BY MONDAY, JULY 11, 2022, AT 10:00 a.m.
Now before the Court is a dispute between the parties over punitive damages.
Defendant Clinton Township has objected to any effort by Plaintiffs to seek punitive
damages. The basis for that objection was twofold: (1) Plaintiffs did not specifically
make a claim for punitive damages (or otherwise properly plead a claim for punitive
damages) in their Amended Complaint and (2) Plaintiffs failed to disclose their claim
for punitive damages in accordance with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. (See ECF No. 163.) Plaintiffs filed a response to the Township’s
objection. (See ECF No. 165.)
On July 7, 2022, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the Township filed a reply brief
in further support of its objection to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. (See ECF
No. 167.) In that reply brief, the Township argues, for the first time, that punitive

1

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 169, PageID.6014 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 3

damages are not available against a municipality. (See id.) That argument arguably
comes too late to the extent that it is offered in support of the Township’s pending
objection to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. A party generally may not offer a
new argument for the first time in a reply brief.
However, the Township does seem to have raised its new argument in time to
object to any jury instruction on punitive damages. Therefore, it is essential that
both parties are fully heard on the question of whether Plaintiffs may recover
punitive damages on their federal claims against the Township. The Court believes
that the best course of action is to attempt to resolve this important dispute, if
possible, prior to the start of trial. Therefore, the Court directs both parties to file
an additional supplemental brief, by no later than 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 11,
2022, addressing the following two questions:
(1) Are punitive damages available against the Township under the
Plaintiffs’ claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983? In answering
this question, the parties shall address, among other things, the Supreme
Court’s decision in City of Newport v. Facts Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S.
247 (1981).
(2) Are punitive damages against the Township available under
Plaintiffs’ claims brought pursuant to the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act?
The Court is ordering both parties to file supplemental briefs because it
believes additional input from the Township as well as Plaintiffs is important.
2

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 169, PageID.6015 Filed 07/07/22 Page 3 of 3

During the on-the-record status conference that the Court will hold on July
11, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., the Court will address (1) whether Plaintiffs should be
precluded from seeking punitive damages based upon their alleged failure to
properly plead and disclose those damages; and (2) whether punitive damages are
available to Plaintiffs under either of the statutes under which they bring their claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2022

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on July 7, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

3