Concerned Pastors for Social Action et al v. Khouri et al
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CONCERNED PASTORS FOR SOCIAL
ACTION, MELISSA MAYS, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN,
and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
Case Number 16-10277
Honorable David M. Lawson
NICK A. KHOURI, FREDERICK HEADEN,
MICHAEL A. TOWNSEND, JOEL
FERGUSON, MICHAEL A. FINNEY,
SYLVESTER JONES, and CITY OF FLINT,
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
Based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the representations of the parties to it,
the Court finds as follows:
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case and jurisdiction to order the
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);
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.;
In the Settlement Agreement, the parties have requested the Court to retain
jurisdiction to enforce it; and
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
It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all
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.
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?