Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.

1 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GLENNBOROUGH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Plaintiff, Case No. 20: -cv-

v. Hon.

THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________

THOMAS P. BRUETSCH (P57473)

SAVANA S. CIAVATTA (P82827)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SCHENK & BRUETSCH, PLC
535 Griswold, Suite 850
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(313) 965-2121
[email protected]
[email protected]
________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, GLENNBOROUGH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, states as

follows for its Complaint against Defendant:

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES:

1. Plaintiff, Glennborough Homeowners Association is a domestic

nonprofit corporation with its principle place of business in Superior Township,

Michigan.

1
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.2 Page 2 of 28

2. Defendant, the United States Postal Service, is a federal government

agency maintaining a principle place of business at 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW,

Washington, D.C. 20260-0004 U.S.

3. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1331 and 5 U.S.C. §552 because the Complaint states a claim that

arises under the laws of the United States.

4. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), as it is in the district in which a substantial part of the

events giving rise to the claim occurred.

BACKGROUND FACTS

5. Glennborough is a subdivision located in Superior Township with an

Ypsilanti, Michigan zip code of 48198.

6. In 1999, Richard Adams Russell, Inc., builder of the Glennborough

subdivision, sought to change the zip code. The builder ultimately initiated

litigation against the United States Postal Service (USPS) in an attempt to change

the zip code of the subdivision.

7. In October 1999, the parties agreed to a Consent Judgment where the

Postal Service would agree to recognize “’Superior Township, Michigan 48198’ as

an authorized last line of address in place of ‘Ypsilanti, Michigan 48198.’” (Ex. A)

2
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.3 Page 3 of 28

8. In addition, the Judgment stated that “[n]othing in this Order shall

prevent the Postal Service from considering ‘Ann Arbor Michigan’ as an

authorized last line of address for Glennborough should circumstances warrant.”

9. As the USPS itself has recognized, “For many Americans, their ZIP

Code provides not just a community boundary of some kind, but … an attribute of

their identity. ZIP Codes may mark a place as home or reflect the perceived

identity of a town or neighborhood. In some areas, your ZIP Code can be used to

determine everything from the value of your property to the school your children

attend.”

10. Indeed, the USPS has “calculated the socio-economic benefits of the

ZIP Code as an organizing and enabling system.” Its report “determined the ZIP

Code is a support structure used by a variety of industries, including utilities and

the insurance industry.”

11. USPS has developed a “ZIP Code Boundary Review Process” that

promises “every reasonable effort” to consider and, if possible, accommodate

community requests to modify the last lines of an acceptable address or modify

ZIP Code boundaries. The process places responsibility on district managers to

review requests for boundary adjustments, to evaluate costs and benefits of

alternative solutions to identified problems, and to provide decisions within 60

days. If a district manager rejects the request, the process provides for an appeal to

3
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.4 Page 4 of 28

the manager of delivery at USPS headquarters, where a review based on whether

or not a “reasonable accommodation” was made is to be provided within 60 days.

12. The process for considering requests from community groups for ZIP

Code changes dates to March 1991. On November 18, 1999, senior USPS officials

entered a directive that emphatically reemphasized the expectation that USPS

would give careful, objective consideration to community wishes, even if they

were based solely on "identity" considerations.

13. The directive stressed that, "just saying no" does not make identity

issues go away. In fact, growth and the increasing use of ZIP Codes as database

links and demographic tools tend to make them worse over time. Under USPS

policy, if reasonable means of full or partial accommodation can be identified,

USPS is to “offer it, apply the customer survey process, and move on.” Requests

can be denied, but only based on appropriate, objective reasons that are consistent

with the Review Process.

14. USPS policy is to offer any reasonable administrative or operational

accommodation that can correct, or alleviate, the municipal identity

concerns. “The objective is to find ways to say ‘yes,’ not excuses for

saying ‘no.’" The USPS is not to deny a request out of concern that "other

communities will want the same thing." The USPS has recognized that “customers

measure the Postal Service by its impact on their daily lives. When mailing

4
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.5 Page 5 of 28

identities generate negative effects on our customers' properties, households and

associations, even when caused by third-party actions, they are perceived as ‘bad

service’ and intrusive bureaucracy.”

15. The Glennborough Homeowners Association requested a zip code

change from 48198 to the bordering zip code of 48105 on November 23, 2015.

16. The Glennborough Homeowners Association is within the Ann Arbor

school district and is located significantly closer to the Ann Arbor Green Road post

office than the Ypsilanti post office for purposes of picking up undelivered mail

and packages.

17. Immediately adjacent homeowners, including homeowners east of

Glennborough that are further from Ann Arbor, already have the 48105 zip code,

so it would not become an undue burden for the Ann Arbor post office to serve this

neighborhood that is within its existing boundary.

18. The Zip Code Boundary Review Process requires the District

Manager to advise the proponent, in writing, of specific reasons for the denial of

the proposed zip code change, if it determines a denial is warranted.

19. Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s request on January 8, 2016. The letter

failed to provide specific reasons for the denial of the zip code change, as required

by the Zip Code Boundary Review Process.

5
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.6 Page 6 of 28

20. Plaintiff appealed the decision on February 16, 2016. It argued that it

was not given the opportunity to discuss the request, was not given information

regarding the metrics used to deny the request, and it was not advised of the appeal

process as required by the Postal Regulatory Commission’s Zip Code Boundary

Review Process.

21. Per the Zip Code Boundary Review Process policy, Defendant should

have responded to the appeal within 60 days. It did not. The appeal was ultimately

denied in August of 2016.

22. Upon receiving the denial of the appeal, Plaintiff re-applied for the zip

code change on November 16, 2016, including all of the information required by

the Zip Code Boundary Review Process, including a letter of support from the

Supervisor of Superior Township.

23. Subsequently, on June 27, 2017 Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff,

stating that the letter was a response to their request for zip code change of May

17, 2017. There had been no request from the Plaintiff in May of 2017.

24. In addition, the letter stated “once a request to match a municipal

boundary has been accommodated, additional requests to amend that boundary will

not be considered more frequently than once every 10 years.”

6
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.7 Page 7 of 28

25. The denial of Plaintiff’s zip code change request was not an

accommodation, and the last arguable accommodation Plaintiff did receive was in

1999, far more than 10 years ago.

26. On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff sent a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) regarding the denial of the zip code change. Defendant replied on March

23, 2018, generically citing exemptions under 5 USC §552(b)(3) and 5 USC

§552(b)(5) and refused to provide any of the requested documents. (Ex. B).

27. Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 27, 2018. Nearly one

year later, on March 7, 2019, Defendant provided a partial response to the appeal

and sent 152 pages to Plaintiff, 32 of those pages having information that was

withheld in part, and 8 pages that are withheld in its entirety.

28. The production of documents released via FOIA provided no clarity

as to the reasoning why the zip code change was denied. In addition, the majority

records provided from USPS are documents that were created by Plaintiff,

including its initial submissions and appeal.

29. From the documents provided, it is undeniable that there are no

documents to show that USPS conducted a detailed analysis of the request to

change zip codes prior to submitting their denial.

30. Defendant willfully violated the Freedom of Information Act by

failing to reply to the FOIA request within 20 days after receipt of such request and

7
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.8 Page 8 of 28

failing to provide a reason for the denial of the initial request. To date, Defendant

has failed to complete its response to the FOIA, with no additional information

provided since March 7, 2019.

COUNT I
FREEDOM OF INFORMATIONACT VIOLATION 5 U.S.C. § 552

31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.

32. 5 USC § 552 (a)(6)(A)(i) of the FOIA requires agencies to reply to a

request for records within 20 days after receipt.

33. Plaintiff filed its FOIA request on February 1, 2018. Defendant

replied with a denial on March 23, 2018, 35 working days after the receipt of

the request. In its reply, Defendant failed to provide reasons for the denial of the

FOIA request. Both of these actions in violation of the Freedom of Information

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

34. Defendant finally provided a partial response to the request on March

7, 2019, more than one year after receipt of the request. However, Defendant

failed to supplement this response and has never completely replied to the

FOIA request, in violation of 5 USC § 552 (a)(6)(A)(ii).

35. 5 USC § 552 (a)(6)(A)(ii) of the FOIA statute requires agencies to

make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days after the

receipt of such appeal.

8
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.9 Page 9 of 28

36. Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 27, 2018. On July 13,

2018, Defendant informed Plaintiff that its request qualified under “unusual

circumstances. On March 7, 2019, Defendant finally provided a partial

response, more than 300 days after Plaintiff filed its appeal.

37. In its March 7 response, the Defendant indicated: “Please be advised

that we are continuing to process your request. The remaining documents will

be processed on a rolling basis. We apologize for the delay.” However, to date,

the Defendant has failed to complete its response to the FOIA.

38. Defendants’ actions, and the actions of its employees, were arbitrary

and capricious.

COUNT II
BREACH OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT

39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.

40. The Consent Judgment from 1999 required Defendant to recognize

“‘Superior Township, Michigan 48198’ as an authorized last line of address for all

phases of the Glennborough development, in place of its current last line of

address, ‘Ypsilanti, Michigan 48198.’”

41. Plaintiff is the successor in interest to Richard Adams Russell, Inc.

with respect to the Consent Judgment.

42. Defendant has failed to honor the Consent Judgment by not offering

Superior Township as a last line of address instead of Ypsilanti for Glennborough

9
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.10 Page 10 of 28

homeowners. Instead it offers both “Superior Township” and “Ypsilanti” as an

acceptable municipal name associated with the 48198 zip code.

COUNT III
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.

44. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Postal Service’s decision that

Plaintiff may only seek an accommodation once every 10 years is unlawful.

45.The Postal Service is a governmental agency.

46. Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the people

have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

47.That right extends to the right to petition administrative agencies and all

departments of the Government.

48.On information and belief, there is no law or regulation allowing the postal

service to bar citizens from bringing grievances before the postal service for

decision. Any such law or regulation would violate the First Amendment.

49.Plaintiff seeks to petition the Postal Service on a matter of interest to the

Glennborough community as a whole.

50.The Postal Services 10-year bar on such petitions is unreasonable and

unjustly interferes with Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

10
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.11 Page 11 of 28

51.This is particularly true where, in the present case, the evidence

demonstrates that the Defendant’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and that

there were, in fact, no meaningful deliberations on the Plaintiff’s requests.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Glennborough Homeowners Association requests the

following relief:

1. An order requiring the Postal Service to immediately provide all

documents sought by Plaintiff’s FOIA request;

2. Costs and attorney fees as provided by the 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B);

3. A written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding of

information under FOIA raises questions whether Postal Service

employees acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the

withholding.

4. Entry of a judgment requiring Defendant to change the zip code of the

Glennborough subdivision from Ypsilanti 48198 to Ann Arbor 48105.

5. A declaratory judgment that Plaintiff may petition the Postal Service for

a zip code change at any time.

11
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.12 Page 12 of 28

By: /s/Thomas P. Bruetsch (P57473)

Thomas P. Bruetsch (P57473)
Savana S. Ciavatta (P82827)
SCHENK & BRUETSCH PLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
535 Griswold St., Suite 850
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 965-2121
Dated: September 14, 2020

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

NOW COMES Plaintiff, GLENNBOROUGH HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION by and through its counsel, SCHENK & BRUETSCH, PLC, and

does hereby demand a trial by jury in the above entitled cause of action.

By: /s/Thomas P. Bruetsch (P57473)

Thomas P. Bruetsch (P57473)
Savana S. Ciavatta (P82827)
Schenk & Bruetsch PLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
535 Griswold St., Suite 850
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 965-2121

Dated: September 14, 2020

12
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.13 Page 13 of 28

EXHIBIT A
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.14 Page 14 of 28
I.INITEDSTATESDTSTRICTCOTIRT
EASTERIIiDISTRICT OF I,IICHIGAN
SOUT}IER\ DIVISION

RICHARDADAMS RUSSELL,INC., et aI..

CaseNo. 97-CV-76172-DT
Plaintiffs,
PatrickJ. Duggan
Honoratrle

UNITED STATESPOSTALSERVICE, Magistrate

JudgeVirginiaMorgan

Defendant.

Ne ii J. Juliar1P 15625) P e t e r'. ' \ . Ca p la n{ P 3 0 6 43 )

Lori A. Buiteweg (P44120) AssistanrU.S- Attornev
Conlin, McKenney & Philbrick. P.C. 2lL West Fort Srreer,Suit* 2001
Attorneys fbr Plaintiffs Detroit, Michigan 48226
350 SouthMain Street,Suite400 (313) 226-9784
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 .-
(734) 761-9000

CONSENT ORDER FOR COMPRO]VIISESETTLE]VIENTAND DISMISSAL

This Orderhavingcomebefbrethc courribr cnrnrby couscntof the parties,

IT IS HE RE B }' OI\DII( ] : D r\ S iI I J i-L O w. -C:

l. r,ev illle c o g n iz" seu p e rio rT o wu s irip

TireP ost a lS e t ' v ic , h iga n4 8 1 9 8 "a s
Mic

au authorizedlast iine of'address

ibr all phasesof the Glennboroug[r in place
deveiopment.

of its cr.rrrent
lastiine of address,
"Ypsilanti.lvlichigan48198."

2. J l l g n n rti ec' i (" o-' --.t l br.entrv of thi s Order. apd the entry Of t hiS O r der ,

shallnot createauv clitirn.causeof'lctionor liabiiityon thepartof Defendant

ibr t'ailureto

delivernraii addressed
to PtaintiiT's
ol to theresidents ol createa rieht to
ol Clennborough,

danrages
if nrail is rcturnedto senclcr'. r
 ..
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG
g@'- ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.15 Page 15 of 28
3' Plainrifrsand tlteir heirs.
execriiors. acrrrnistraiors.
successors or assigns
acceprtlre tern:sa'd co.ditions
of'this orc{eri, tuii setrrement
and satisfactionof any
and
ail claiins'deurands'rights
a'd causes of'acrio'or'rvharsoever r<i'dand nature,whichthey
may have or hereatieracqtiire
againstDei'e.dant,irs agents,servants
and emproyees, on
accountof the samesubject
matterthatgaveriseto this rar.vsuit.

4' The Defbndant'sconsent

to the entry of this order shall
not constirutean
admissionof liability or
far'tltott tltepartof Detbndant.
its agents.servantsoremployees.
This Ordcris enlereclinro
bl,rlrenarticslbr tlrepurDoses
tricop..rDrourisipg.iispured
clainrs
andavoidingthe expense
and iisk or turtjierlitigation.

5' Nothing cotrtaitrediri tiris

orcier sirall preve't the postal
Service lrom
considering "Atrn At'bor'
vlichigan" ils an auihorizeci
rast ii.e oi addressfor Glennborouch
should circumstancesso
warrarli.

6' The rcliet provicledfor herei'is

the onlv relief whicli plaintiffs
may now or
hereaiterreceiveas a resuit
oi'the filing ot'thislarvsuir.
,"\llf.rther.clairnsrnadeby plaintifls
are disrnissedrvith pre.jridicc.

7' No party to this laws'it srra.ir

recoverarly cosrsor attorney
tees.

FionorablePctricl<.]. DLrgd;
UnitetjSraiesDistriut Court Judge
Approved fbr entry:
CONLIN,McKENNEY& PHILBRTCI(. Approved tbl entry:
P.C SAUL A, GREEN, United States
for plaintilfs
Attorneys Attorne-y
Attorneysfbr D.efendant

Neil .1.Juli B v : x.c -\.,(\J{/vM

35 0SoLrth Main S rreet.S Lritc400 P e t e^J_rlJ
rA . Ca p la n(t , 4 0 6 4 3)
Ann Arbor,fulichigan4St0z+ 2 l I We s rF o rt S t re e tS, u ite200I
( 7 3 4 ) 761_9000 Detroit.Michigan 49226
Date; /a/tr,/a a (313)226-9784
()cnr$€Z
Pare: ,tX /f {g
,
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.16 Page 16 of 28

EXHIBIT B
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.17 Page 17 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.18 Page 18 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.19 Page 19 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.20 Page 20 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.21 Page 21 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.22 Page 22 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.23 Page 23 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.24 Page 24 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.25 Page 25 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.26 Page 26 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.27 Page 27 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.28 Page 28 of 28