Concerned Pastors for Social Action et al v. Khouri et al

Filing 152


Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CONCERNED PASTORS FOR SOCIAL ACTION, MELISSA MAYS, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN, and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Plaintiffs, Case Number 16-10277 Honorable David M. Lawson v. NICK A. KHOURI, FREDERICK HEADEN, MICHAEL A. TOWNSEND, JOEL FERGUSON, MICHAEL A. FINNEY, SYLVESTER JONES, and CITY OF FLINT, Defendants. _______________________________________/ ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE The plaintiffs in this case filed the present lawsuit seeking, among other things, immediate and long-term remedial action to address lead contamination found in Flint’s public water system. The plaintiffs and defendants, along with the State of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, have agreed to resolve this case through a Settlement Agreement. They filed a stipulation, attached the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 1 to that stipulation [dkt. #147-1, 147-2], and requested that the Court hold a hearing to review and approve the settlement. The Court held such a hearing in open court on March 28, 2017. The parties presented the terms of the Settlement Agreement and asked the Court to approve it. There were no objections placed on the record. Based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the representations of the parties to it, the Court finds as follows: A. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case and jurisdiction to order the relief requested; B. The Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, consistent with the public interest, and “further[s] the objectives” of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including the Lead and Copper Rule, 40 C.F.R. §§ 141.80 et seq. See Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, AFL CIO C.L.C. v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525 (1986); C. Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Court has the authority to provide broader relief than the Court could have awarded after a trial under the law which forms the basis of the claim. Ibid.; D. In the Settlement Agreement, the parties have requested the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce it; and E. By incorporating the Settlement Agreement in full into this order, the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement according to its terms. 202 N. Monroe, LLC v. Sower, --- F.3 ---, 2017 WL 782442, at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2017). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement [dkt. #147-1, 147-2] is incorporated in full into this Order. It is further ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement is APPROVED. It is further ORDERED that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all defendants. -2- It is further ORDERED that the motion and amended motion to vacate the preliminary injunction [dkt. #110, 111] and the emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction [dkt. #116] are DISMISSED as moot. s/David M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge Dated: March 28, 2017 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 March 28, 2017. s/Susan Pinkowski SUSAN PINKOWSKI -3-

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?