Armstrong et al v. Peter James Management, LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES ARMSTRONG and
BEVERLY ARMSTRONG,

Case No. 15-14309
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Plaintiffs,
v.

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

PETER JAMES MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET
AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Defendants Peter James Management LLC and John Frazer filed a Motion to
Dismiss [Dkt. # 8] on January 6, 2016. Defendants Wayne County Treasurer,
Zenna Elhasan, and Richard Stanley filed a Motion to Dismiss [16] on January 13,
2016. Plaintiffs have not filed a response to either Motion to Dismiss. On
February 19, 2016, the Court issued an Order for Plaintiffs to Show Cause Why the
Court Should Not Grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and/or Dismiss the Case
in Its Entirety for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction [21]. The Court ordered
Plaintiffs to show cause in writing by March 15, 2016. On March 15, 2016,

1 of 3

Plaintiffs filed a Letter [22]. The letter does not mention the motions to dismiss,
the Court’s order to show cause, or the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court holds that Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed under the doctrine
of res judicata. Under that doctrine, the Court “must give the same preclusive
effect to a state-court judgment as that judgment receives in the rendering state.”
Buck v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, 597 F.3d 812, 816–17 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Abbott v. Michigan, 474 F.3d 324, 330 (6th Cir. 2007)). As applied by
Michigan courts, res judicata “bars a second, subsequent action when (1) the prior
action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their
privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in
the first.” Id. (quoting Abbott, 474 F.3d at 331).
Here, Defendants Wayne County Treasurer and City of Detroit Treasurer
foreclosed on Plaintiffs’ home for delinquent 2010 property taxes and sold the
home to Defendant Peter James Management LLC. Plaintiffs’ pro se complaint
appears to allege that the foreclosure and sale violated due process because
Plaintiffs were not truly delinquent on their 2010 property taxes and because
Defendants provided inadequate notice. Plaintiffs made the same arguments in an
action to quiet title that they filed against Wayne County, the City of Detroit, and
Peter James Management in the Michigan courts. The Wayne County Circuit
Court granted the defendants summary disposition, and the Michigan Court of
2 of 3

Appeals affirmed the judgment. Armstrong v. Peter James Management, LLC, No.
321222, 2015 WL 5314447 (Ct. App. Mich. Sept. 10, 2015). The Michigan Court
of Appeals specifically held that Plaintiffs “cannot demonstrate that they were
denied due process,” that “Wayne County complied with the [applicable] notice
provisions,” and that there was no merit to Plaintiffs’ argument that they actually
paid the 2010 property taxes. Id. at *2. All Defendants in this case were
defendants in the state court case or privies thereto, and all have raised res judicata
as an affirmative defense. The Court concludes that res judicata bars Plaintiffs’
claims, which must therefore be dismissed.1 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the pending Motions to Dismiss [8, 16] are
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2016

1

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

This dismissal is not for lack for subject-matter jurisdiction; res judicata does not
strip the Court of jurisdiction. Neff v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 520 F. App’x 323, 326
(6th Cir. 2013) (citing O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567, 582 (6th
Cir. 2009)).
3 of 3