Boulevard & Trumbull Towing, Inc. v. Detroit, City of
2:17-cv-12446
E.D. Mich.May 28, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Boulevard & Trumbull Towing (B&T) held a five-year Detroit Police Department towing permit issued June 1, 2016 (expires May 31, 2021).
- On May 31, 2017 B&T owner Gasper Fiore was federally indicted for bribery; he later pleaded guilty and is incarcerated.
- On June 15, 2017 the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC) met in closed session and rescinded/suspended B&T’s towing permit; B&T alleges no prior notice or hearing was provided.
- B&T sued the City asserting procedural and substantive due process claims and Open Meetings Act/ordinance violations; the federal case was removed and only the federal substantive due process claim remained here.
- A Michigan state court later found B&T’s procedural due process rights were violated for lack of a timely hearing and ordered a hearing; it granted the City summary judgment on the substantive due process claim under state law.
- The federal court granted the City summary judgment on B&T’s federal substantive due process claim, concluding state-created permit rights are not generally protected as substantive due process interests and the City had a rational basis (Fiore’s indictment) for rescission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rescission/suspension of the towing permit violated substantive due process | B&T: termination without notice/hearing, closed-session resolution, Open Meetings Act and ordinance deviations are arbitrary and shock the conscience | City: permit is a state-created property/contract right only triggering procedural protections; even if substantive review applies, the decision had a rational basis (Fiore’s indictment/bribery) and did not shock the conscience | Court: Entry of summary judgment for City; B&T’s substantive due process claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether a state-created towing permit qualifies for substantive due process protection | B&T: permit is a protected property interest supporting substantive claim | City: state-created contract/permit rights do not typically create substantive due process protections | Court: State-created contract/permit rights do not generally warrant substantive due process protection; procedural protections are distinct |
| Whether the City’s actions “shock the conscience” | B&T: closed process and failure to follow procedures evidence arbitrary, conscience-shocking conduct | City: mere termination of a contract/permit is not conscience-shocking; decision followed rational concern about corruption | Court: No conscience-shocking conduct established; rescission after bribery indictment is not shocking |
| Whether the City’s action lacked any rational basis | B&T: deviation from procedures and absence of hearing suggests irrationality | City: rescission was rationally related to avoiding business with entities tied to corruption—supported by indictment and guilty pleas | Court: City had a rational basis; substantive due process claim fails under rational-basis review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment and allocation of proof)
- Mansfield Apt. Owners Ass’n v. City of Mansfield, 988 F.2d 1469 (6th Cir. 1993) (distinguishing procedural from substantive due process and noting not all property interests trigger substantive protection)
- Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014) (defining scope of substantive due process protections)
- In re City of Detroit, 841 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2016) (state-created rights typically do not qualify as fundamental rights for substantive due process purposes)