The Stroh Companies, Inc. v. Detroit, City of
2:12-cv-13219
E.D. Mich.Feb 20, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Stroh Properties, Inc. sues City of Detroit, Egro-Stroh Properties LLC, and Kap’s Wholesale Food Service, Inc. seeking declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief after Maple Street was vacated.
- Maple Street had long been a public street within Detroit; Kap’s petitioned to close a portion of Maple Street via Petition 744 through Callewaert.
- Petition 744 contained misrepresentations: plaintiff property was unused, ownership of Egro/Kap’s was inaccurately stated, and claimed building fronts were opposite the plaintiff property.
- Plaintiff alleges it was never served or notified of Petition 744 or the vacation proceedings; Maple Street was vacated on May 31, 2011, creating a private easement for utilities.
- After vacation, defendants began constructing a cyclone fence with posts on plaintiff’s side; construction halted only after plaintiff discovered the activity on October 7, 2011.
- Plaintiff seeks court relief to rescind the city’s vacation resolution; court later grants in part and stays in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of constitutional claim against Egro and Kap’s | Not asserted; no color of state law. | Constitutional claim against non-state actors fails. | Claim not viable; dismissed. |
| Whether declaratory/injunctive relief can sustain a claim against Egro and Kap’s | Seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as remedies. | Equitable relief is not an independent cause of action. | Remedy insufficient; dismissal as to Egro and Kap’s. |
| Whether Egro and Kap’s are necessary parties under Rule 19 | They are necessary for complete relief and to protect interests. | If no viable claims remain, they are not necessary parties. | Not necessary parties; defendants ordered to state position under Rule 19. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Dow Chem. Co., 473 Mich. 63 (Mich. 2005) (injunctions are equitable remedies, not standalone claims)
- Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 108 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 1997) (declaratory judgments vindicate substantive rights)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich. App. 644 (Mich. App. 2008) (equitable relief is a remedy, not an independent claim)