Livonia Response To Schostak
Livonia Response To Schostak
MIDDLEBELT PLYMOUTH
VENTURE LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company,
Case No. 2:22-cv-12734
Plaintiff, HON. LAURIE J. MICHELSON
MAG. ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
v
Defendant.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ,
RELIANCE UPON JURY DEMAND,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES Defendant, by and through its attorneys, Paul A. Bernier, City
Attorney, Michael E. Fisher, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Eric S. Goldstein,
Plaintiff’s narrative portion does not conform to the requirements of Fed R Civ
P 10(b). Per general review, the narrative seems to comport to the balance of the
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.408 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 32
will reserve its substantive response to those number paragraphs as required. To the
extent Plaintiff relies on an assertion in this narrative that is not fulfilled in the
2. Reserving all legal issues and in particular, the issue of the viability of
3. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 for the reason they are
III. PARTIES
any officials committed any wrongdoing while performing their functions related to
8. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 8 for the reason they are
10. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 10,
11. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 11,
12. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 12,
13. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 13,
14. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 14,
15. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 15,
16. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 16,
17. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 17,
18. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 18,
19. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 19,
20. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 20,
21. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 21,
to Plaintiff purportedly quoting from a document without citing where the language
is drawn from within that document and without referencing its context.
that the berm has been there for decades for the reason that it is untrue.
24. Defendant denies the asserted zoning designation set forth in Paragraph
24 relative to the described land for the reason it is untrue. The balance of the
25. Defendant denies the asserted zoning designation set forth in Paragraph
25 relative to the described land for the reason it is untrue and incomplete in the form
and fashion stated. Further, upon information and belief there are more than two
“used car lots”. The balance of the allegations are admitted upon information and
belief.
26. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 for the reason they are
27. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 for the reason they are
28. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 28,
33. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 for the reason they are
38. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 38 for the reason they are
39. Defendant admits that one member of the Master Plan Steering
allegations are too imprecise and so Defendant neither admits nor denies the
narrative, cherry picking items to present conclusions inconsistent with their context.
Accordingly, without waiving the objection, and reserving the right to provide a
detailed answer should the Complaint be amended to conform with the rules,
Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 41 for the reason they are untrue in
42. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 42 for the reason they are
43. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 43 for the reason they are
untrue in the form and fashion stated. In further response, what Plaintiff describes
44. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 44 for the reason they are
untrue in the form and fashion stated. In further response, what Plaintiff describes
46. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 46 for the reason they are
48. Defendant admits the allegations with the exception of the parenthetical
Development. That aspect is denied for the reason it is untrue in the form and fashion
stated.
53. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 53 for the reason they are
55. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 55 for the reason they are
56. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 56 for the reason they are
57. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 57 for the reason they are
58. Again, Defendant does not deny the language of the cited material.
the Wonderland Flats petitions were not submitted under the Form-Based
59. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 59 for the reason they are
63. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 63,
64. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 64 for the reason they are
65. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 65 for the reason they are
66. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 66,
68. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 68 for the reason they are
69. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 69 for the reason they are
72. The City does not deny that a public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission, but as to the procedural details and the substance of public comment
topics, the City neither admits nor denies the same, leaving Plaintiff to its proofs.
8
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.415 Filed 01/18/23 Page 9 of 32
73. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 73,
74. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 74,
75. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 75,
76. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 76,
77. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 77,
78. Defendant agrees that revised plans were received on June 25, 2021.
increasing overall density and boosting the number of units from 192 to 201. As
such Defendant neither admits nor denies the incomplete allegations, leaving
79. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 79,
80. Defendant denies the implied allegation that there were no violated
density limits as the density proposed by Plaintiff exceeded Ordinance #543 and
further that such information was presented to the Planning Commission. As to the
9
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.416 Filed 01/18/23 Page 10 of 32
balance of the allegations in Paragraph 80, they are neither admitted nor denied and
81. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 81 for the reason they are
82. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 82,
83. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 83 for the reason they are
housing as a permitted use in the City’s commercial zoning district, the allegation is
85. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 85,
86. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 86,
housing as a permitted use within that zoning district, the allegations are denied for
the reason they are untrue. The balance of the allegations are neither admitted nor
88. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 88 for the reason they are
89. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 89 for the reason they are
90. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 90 for the reason they are
91. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 91,
92. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 92,
93. Defendant neither admits nor denies the assertion that building
footprints and site layout were “deliberately patterned” after those of the other
designated apartments, but to the extent such is intended to imply the architectural
widths, garage/carports and “bump outs” were similar, such is denied for the reason
94. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 94 for the reason they are
95. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 95,
11
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.418 Filed 01/18/23 Page 12 of 32
Commission to raise aesthetics during the review process for the reason that such is
untrue.
Village footprint is not codified as a special area for mixed development use in
Section 5.01(1)(B).
99. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 99 for the reason they are
comply with Fed R Civ P 10(b). Without waiving the objection, Defendant neither
admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 100, leaving Plaintiff to its proofs,
and reserving the right to respond to component parts of Paragraph 100 if properly
101. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 101,
and leaves Plaintiff to its proofs. In additional response, Defendant denies the
102. The allegations in Paragraph 102 are denied for the reason they are
untrue in the form and fashion stated. To illustrate, the alleged assertions regarding
compliance with C-2, NM2, and/or the ordinance were not issues under
consideration at the Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 2021. Rather the
12
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.419 Filed 01/18/23 Page 13 of 32
issue was whether NM2 District was appropriate for the site. This did not include
103. The allegations in Paragraph 103 are denied for the reason they are
untrue in the form and fashion stated. Proposed resolutions approving and denying
105. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 105,
106. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 106,
107. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 107,
108. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 108,
and leaves Plaintiff to its proofs. In additional response, concerns were affirmatively
raised regarding Plaintiff’s presentation. Defendant rejects the implication that City
Council was required to “challenge” the “experience and design expertise” of the
109. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 109,
110. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 110,
111. The allegations in Paragraph 111 are denied for the reason they are
untrue in the form and fashion stated. The “vote” was not adjourned for the reason
that this was a public hearing as opposed to a Regular Meeting. Resolutions put
forth at a public hearing are considered at the next Regular Meeting, which in this
comply with Fed R Civ P 10(b). Without waiving the objection, Defendant admits,
denies and neither admits nor denies components of the allegations in Paragraph 112.
Defendant denies that any bike paths were added to the plan for the reason it is
untrue. Defendant further points out that many additional pedestrian paths were
113. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 113,
114. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 114 for the reason they
are untrue in the form and fashion stated. In further response, the City considered
Application.”
115. Defendant denies this was a “Fourth Application” for the reason it is
untrue in the form and fashion stated. The balance of the allegations in Paragraph
117. Defendant denies this was an adjourned vote. See Answer Paragraph
111. Defendant admits that the matter was referred to the Law Department to
prepare an Ordinance which if passed would amend the Ordinance. The balance of
118. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 118 for the reason they
119. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 119 for the reason they
122. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 122 for the reason they
are untrue in the form and fashion stated. In further response, the Planning Director
shared the reports from various departments. The Planning Director did not offer a
123. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 123,
124. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 124,
125. With regard to the allegation that the referenced traffic expert relied on
guidelines and methodologies published by the City of Livonia, such allegations are
15
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.422 Filed 01/18/23 Page 16 of 32
denied for the reason they are untrue in the form and fashion stated. The balance of
the allegations are neither admitted nor denied and Plaintiff is left to its proofs.
126. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 126,
127. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 127 for the reason they
128. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 128,
129. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 129,
130. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 130,
131. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 131,
134. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 134,
the record of the public hearing will reflect that Mr. Gold did not state the sewer’s
“could handle any use” as alleged, but rather stated: “That sewer in the southeast
16
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.423 Filed 01/18/23 Page 17 of 32
corner is a 10-inch pipe and we’re pretty confident that it is sized for this
practices to confirm that it can handle the future uses.” Mr. Gold’s statement
136. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 136,
137. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 137,
138. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 138,
139. Defendant denies the implied allegation that the City Council could
have voted on the issue at the Public Hearing for the reason it is untrue in the form
and fashion stated. The balance of the allegations in para 139 are admitted.
141. Defendant denies the allegations to the extent they imply an irregularity
to the customary procedures for the reasons they are untrue. The balance of the
142. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 142 for the reason they
17
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.424 Filed 01/18/23 Page 18 of 32
143. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 143 for the reason they
are untrue in the form and fashion stated. In further response, there was no exclusion
144. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 144 for the reason they
145. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 145, but denies the
allegations in footnote 19 for the reason they are untrue in the form and fashion
stated.
146. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 146 for the reason they
147. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 147 for the reason they
149. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 149 for the reason they
150. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 150,
151. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 151 for the reason they
152. Defendant does not deny that there was a vote after all audience
153. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 153 for the reason they
154. Defendant denies that the alleged instructions are necessary or even
customarily given and further denies the implication that such is a procedural
irregularity for the reason that it is untrue in the form and fashion stated.
155. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 155 for the reason they
156. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 156 for the reason they
157. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 157 for the reason they
158. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 158 for the reason they
159. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 159 for the reason they
160. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 160 for the reason they
161. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 161 for the reason they
162. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 162 for the reason they
163. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 163 for the reason they
164. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 164,
165. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 165 for the reason they
166. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 166 for the reason they
167. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 167 for the reason they
168. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 168 for the reason they
169. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 169 for the reason they
170. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 170,
171. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 171,
172. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 172 for the reason they
are untrue in the form and fashion stated. In further response, that a vote for or
against a proposal is not evidence that comments from a participant were ignored.
20
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.427 Filed 01/18/23 Page 21 of 32
173. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 173 for the reason they
174. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 174 for the reason they
175. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 175 for the reason they
176. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 176 for the reason they
177. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 177 for the reason they
179. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 179 for the reason they
180. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 180 for the reason they
181. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 181 for the reason they
182. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 182 for the reason they
183. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 183 for the reason they
184. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 184 for the reason they
185. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 185 for the reason they
186. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 186 for the reason they
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and award Defendant reasonable costs
and attorney fees associated with the defense of this frivolous litigation.
188. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 188 for the reason they
189. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 189 for the reason they
190. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 190 for the reason they
191. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 191 for the reason they
192. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 192 for the reason they
193. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 193 for the reason they
194. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 194 for the reason they
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and award Defendant reasonable costs
and attorney fees associated with the defense of this frivolous litigation.
196. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 196
197. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 197 for the reason they
198. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 198 for the reason they
199. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 199 for the reason they
200. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 200 for the reason they
201. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 201 for the reason they
202. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 202 for the reason they
203. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 203 for the reason they
205. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 205 for the reason they
206. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 206 for the reason they
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and award Defendant reasonable costs
and attorney fees associated with the defense of this frivolous litigation.
24
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.431 Filed 01/18/23 Page 25 of 32
no factual allegations and thus no response is required. To the extent the allegations
are construed to suggest Defendant has violated the law, such is denied for the
reason it is untrue.
209. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 209 for the reason they
210. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 210 for the reason they
211. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 211 for the reason they
212. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 212 for the reason they
213. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 213 for the reason they
214. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 214 for the reason they
215. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 215 for the reason they
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and award Defendant reasonable costs
and attorney fees associated with the defense of this frivolous litigation.
217. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 217 for the reason they
218. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 218 for the reason they
219. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 219 for the reason they
220. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 220 for the reason they
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and award Defendant reasonable costs
and attorney fees associated with the defense of this frivolous litigation.
no factual allegations and thus no response is required. To the extent the allegations
are construed to suggest Defendant has violated the law, such is denied for the
reason it is untrue.
223. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 223 for the reason they
224. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 224 for the reason they
225. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 225 for the reason they
no factual allegations and thus no response is required. To the extent the allegations
are construed to suggest Defendant has violated the law, such is denied for the
reason it is untrue.
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and award Defendant reasonable costs
and attorney fees associated with the defense of this frivolous litigation.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Eric S. Goldstein
City of Livonia
Attorney for Defendant
33000 Civic Center Drive
Livonia, MI 48154
(734) 466-2520
[email protected]
27
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.434 Filed 01/18/23 Page 28 of 32
P45842
Bernier, City Attorney, Michael E. Fisher, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Eric
S. Goldstein, Assistant City Attorney, and states that it relies upon the Jury Demand
advanced by Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Eric S. Goldstein
City of Livonia
Attorney for Defendant
33000 Civic Center Drive
Livonia, MI 48154
(734) 466-2520
[email protected]
P45842
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES Defendant, by and through its attorneys, Paul A. Bernier, City
Attorney, Michael E. Fisher, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Eric S. Goldstein,
Assistant City Attorney, and for its Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint,
5. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
8. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred in total,
or at least in part, by virtue of the equitable doctrines of consent, waiver and estoppel.
10. The ordinances at issue in this case and their application are presumed
to be constitutional.
12. The Court may not substitute its judgment for that of local officials
process.
18. The mere pursuit of gain or financial enhancement does not provide a
19. There remains a reasonable use of the property without waiver use
approval being granted for an apartment complex. The Livonia Zoning Ordinance
need only allow a reasonable use, and need not sanction the highest and best use.
The mere allegations that Plaintiff’s use of property has been restricted does not in
itself constitute confiscation of the property or provide a sufficient basis upon which
to grant relief.
20. The actions taken by the Defendant pursuant to a good faith reliance on
the duly adopted City Charter of the City of Livonia cannot be used as the basis for
a claimed violation of constitutional rights. The law presumes that public officials,
691.1407, et seq.
23. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for the violation of substantive due
process in that the action complained of was based upon and rationally related to
24. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a violation of equal protection in
the United States Constitution with respect to the causes of action asserted by
Plaintiff.
26. Plaintiff is placed on notice that Defendant reserves the right to bring a
motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that Plaintiff has failed to present
27. Plaintiff is placed on notice that Defendant reserves the right to bring a
motion per Fed R Civ P 56 to the extent that Plaintiff cannot provide a factual basis
herein.
31
Case 2:22-cv-12734-LJM-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.438 Filed 01/18/23 Page 32 of 32
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Eric S. Goldstein
City of Livonia
Attorney for Defendant
33000 Civic Center Drive
Livonia, MI 48154
(734) 466-2520
[email protected]
P45842
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 18, 2023, I electronically filed and served
Answer to Complaint, Reliance upon Jury Demand and Affirmative Defenses, with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, and a copy was electronically
served upon Counsel for Plaintiff, Michael A. Cox via email at
[email protected], using the CM/ECF System.
/s/Brenda K. Smyser
Program Supervisor
City of Livonia, Department of Law
33000 Civic Center Drive
Livonia, MI 48154
[email protected]
[email protected]
32