City of Potterville v. County of Eaton
333221
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Benton Township and the City of Potterville are neighboring municipalities in Eaton County that previously operated joint fire/EMS services; the City formed its own fire department in 2014 and contracted out EMS.
- In July 2015, Benton Township contracted with Potterville Public Schools to provide fire and EMS services to the School District for compensation.
- The City sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging it had exclusive authority to respond to fire/EMS calls within its jurisdiction (including the school) and that the Township’s contract was unauthorized.
- Eaton County and Eaton County Central Dispatch were named defendants; the City sought an order preventing Central Dispatch from dispatching the Township to calls within the City.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (and the Township also raised standing). The trial court held the 911 Act requires dispatch of the closest available unit, rendering the City’s challenge moot, and granted summary disposition for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county dispatch must honor contracts or must dispatch the closest available unit | City: Dispatch is governed by contracts; County cannot send outside provider over City’s authority | County/Central Dispatch: 911 Act directs dispatch of the closest available public safety unit; contracts do not govern dispatch | The 911 Act’s direct-dispatch provision requires dispatch of the closest available unit; contracts do not control dispatch |
| Whether a township must have a contract to provide emergency services outside its jurisdiction | City: Township must have a valid contract to provide services outside its borders | Township: Statutes permitting contracts are permissive, not mandatory; no statute requires a contract | The statutes cited are permissive (“may”) and do not require a contract; a contract is not required |
| Whether the City has standing to challenge the Township–School District contract | City: Has interest in exclusive response authority and can challenge contract validity | Township: City lacks standing to contest a contract between Township and School District | Court declined to reach contract-validity and standing issues because dispatch question resolved the case; held no need to decide contract validity |
| Whether declaratory or injunctive relief was available given 911 Act dispatch scheme | City: Relief appropriate to prevent unauthorized responses within City | Defendants: Relief unnecessary because dispatch must send closest unit; allowing Township to be dispatched is lawful under statute | Court denied relief as moot with respect to contract challenge and affirmed summary disposition for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Michigan State Police Department, 303 Mich. App. 162, 841 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard of review for MCR 2.116(C)(8))
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 597 N.W.2d 817 (Mich. 1999) (pleading standards and deference on (C)(8) motions)
- In re Certified Question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 468 Mich. 109, 659 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. 2003) (clarifies that unambiguous statutes require no judicial construction)
- NL Ventures VI Farmington, LLC v. City of Livonia, 314 Mich. App. 222, 886 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App.) (distinction between permissive “may” and mandatory “shall")