Sanders v. Wayne, County ofCASE CLOSED-ALL ENTRIES MUST BE MADE IN 23-10973., 2:23-cv-10789-LVP-KGA

Matthew and Brianne Sanders lost six properties to tax foreclosure by Wayne County, Michigan; the City of Taylor later purchased the properties for the minimum bid amount.
The Sanders were not refunded any surplus value (property value minus taxes owed) after the foreclosure.
On April 6, 2023, the Sanders filed suit claiming the county unlawfully retained the surplus equity in violation of federal and state law.
A similar class action, Bowles v. Sabree, covering similarly-situated property owners, was already pending during the relevant time, and the Sanders were part of that putative class.
The Sanders' case was initially consolidated with Bowles and later severed after changes to the class definition in Bowles excluded them.
Wayne County filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were time-barred and not subject to class action tolling.

Issue	Sanders’ Argument	Wayne County’s Argument	Held
Was the § 1983 claim time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations?	Statute was tolled by pendency of Bowles class action, as Sanders were within class definition.	Class action tolling does not apply; Bowles class didn't include properties not sold at public auction; statute began running at final judgment in 2018.	Not time-barred; tolling applies because Sanders were putative class members of Bowles.
Did the Bowles class definition include Sanders’ claims (properties transferred via right of first refusal, not sold at auction)?	Class included all property owners whose properties were worth more than tax delinquency, regardless of sale type.	Class was limited to properties sold at public auction, not by alternative mechanism.	Sanders' properties fit the Bowles class as originally defined, so tolling applies.
Should the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim if the federal claim is dismissed?	No, federal claim remains viable, so state claim should remain.	Court should decline if federal claim dismissed.	Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction since federal claim survives.
Impact of prior cases involving similar foreclosure surplus claims	Claims and procedural posture are covered and/or distinguished by Bowles and related authority	Similar claims denied tolling due to differences in auction sale or class definition.	Facts here support tolling and inclusion in the Bowles class.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Plausibility standard for complaints)
Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (Class action tolls statute of limitations for putative class members)
Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (Tolling continues until certification is denied or class redefined)
Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland Cnty., 952 N.W.2d 434 (Former owner’s rights to surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure)