Shefa, LLC et al v. City of Southfield et al, No. 2:2020cv11038 - Document 20 (E.D. Mich. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 11 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Douglas C. Bernstein, Patrick Lannen and Defendant filed by Plunkett Cooney, and 12 MOTION to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Al Aceves, City of Southfield, Southfield Downtown Development Authority. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Download PDF

Dockets.Justia.com SHEFA, LLC, AND SIDNEY ELHADAD CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, ET AL. Shefa, LLC et al v. City of Southfield et al ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF NOS. 11, 12) Doc. 20 Monell I. BACKGROUND Id Id Id II. LEGAL STANDARD Albrecht v. Treon Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen Kottmyer v. Maas Jones v. City of Cincinnati Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Amini v. Oberlin Coll III. ANALYSIS Younger a. That the Bankruptcy Court may also have jurisdiction over this matter does not deprive this Court of subjectmatter jurisdiction Younger after Id Stern v. Marshall In re HNRC Dissolution Co In re Camall Co. b. Younger abstention is not warranted Younger Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs Younger Younger v. Harris Younger Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans NOPSI Doe Sprint Communications, Inc. Doe NOPSI Sprint Communications Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n Sprint Communications Inc. Younger NOPSI Middlesex Doe Middlesex Younger Middlesex Younger Sprint Communications Middlesex See Kircher v. Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti Sprint Communications Younger Doe Doe ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund Younger Gilliam v. Watanabe Gilliam enforce compliance with judgments already made Younger Sprint Communications Younger See McCausland v. Charter Twp. of Canton McCausland Sprint Communications Younger See e.g. Gherghel v. Canton Twp Kircher v. Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti Sprint Communications Sprint Communications Harmon v. Dep’t of Fin Younger Sprint Communications Gorodeski v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n Younger MacIntyre v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Sprint Communications Lech v. Third Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Cleveland report and recommendation adopted Younger Younger See, e.g. John J. Pembroke Living Tr. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n for WaMu Series 2006-AR11 Trust Abbatiello v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A Ozuzu v. Greenpoint Mortg Funding Younger Younger Younger Younger Younger c. Breach of contract and inverse condemnation claims (Counts One and Two) See, e.g. i. Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead breach of contract Carter v. CrossCountry Mortg., Inc ii. Plaintiffs have condemnation stated a claim of inverse substantial Hescott v. City of Saginaw Hinojosa v. Dep’t of Nat. Res Id Id Quinn v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms d. Civil rights conspiracy claims (Counts Three, Four, and Six) i. Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims are barred by the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine Hull v. Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Educ. Id Jackson v. City of Columbus Johnson v. Hills & Dales Gen. Hosp. Jackson v. City of Cleveland, Amadasu v. Christ Hosp report and recommendation adopted aff’d et seq Amadasu See, e.g., Mimi's Sweet Shop, Inc. v. Charter Twp. of Lansing Downtown Dev. Auth. Oesterle v. Vill. of Chelsea See Tina Desandre and Robert Desandre v. County of Oscoda, et al. See, e.g., Goodman v. Mady See Buckley v. City of Westland, Desandre ii. Even if Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims were not barred, Plaintiff has not alleged plausible conspiracy claims Gutierrez v. Lynch Cahoo v. SAS Inst. Inc Searcy v. Culhane In re Flint Water Cases Bartell v. Lohiser See, e.g Id Id See, e.g., Jones v. Couvreur e. Common Law Conspiracy (Count Seven) i. The “intra-corporate conspiracy” doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ Common Law Conspiracy claim Fenestra Inc. v. Gulf Am. Land Corp. Salser v. Dyncorp Int’l Inc. Tropf v. Holzman & Holzman f. Conspiracy to Interfere with Livelihood (Count Five) See, e.g., Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Marzullo Superior Consulting Co., Inc. v. Walling g. Concert of Action (Count Eight) Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co. Bauer v. Hammon Mueller v. Brannigan Brothers Restaurants and Taverns, LLC, Est. of Nickerson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC h. Malicious Prosecution (Count Nine) i. Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim is not barred by res judicata principles res judicata See, e.g. Cohen v. Lupo Xantech Corp. v. Ramco Indus., Inc. Thomas v. La-Van Hawkins ii. Plaintiffs have not alleged a plausible malicious prosecution claim Friedman v. Dozorc Id Id Kauffman v. Shefman John J. Fannon Co. v. Fannon Prod., LLC Weiner v. Klais & Co. i. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Count Ten) other Matter of Case See, e.g., GRiD Sys. Corp. v. John Fluke Mfg Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell Raymark Indus., Inc. v. Baron j. Interference with expectancy of business relationship (Count Eleven) i. Whether Defendant Aceves is entitled to immunity is not conclusively established at this stage Odom v. Wayne Cty. Est. of Barney v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n Est. of Barney See Grahovac v. Munising Twp California Charley's Corp. v. City of Allen Park Mimi’s Sweet Shop, Inc. v. Charter Twp. of Lansing Downtown Dev. Auth. SunAmerica Hous. Fund 1050 v. Pathway of Pontiac, Inc. Mimi’s Sweet Shop Mimi’s Sweet Shop ii. Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for tortious interference Dalley v. Dykema Gossett Id Id Id k. Claims against the City of Southfield on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell theory for unconstitutional policies, customs, or practices (Count Twelve) Thomas v. City of Chattanooga Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs Id Raymond v. O'Connor Ashcroft v. Iqbal see also Wooten v. Spigner, Monell Monell l. Claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1988 (Count Thirteen) Thomas-El v. Smith m. General constitutional claims (Counts Fourteen and Fifteen) Foster v. Michigan Fox v. City of Saginaw Slee v. Woodhull Twp CONCLUSION DENIED GRANTED GRANTED DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO ORDERED See Gamel v. City of Cincinnati

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.