![]() Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion focuses only on amended Counts 8 and 9. In a conference call on December 14, 2015, the Court instructed Defendants to only address new issues raised by the Second Amended Complaint. They say the Second Amended Complaint fails as a matter of law for the reasons previously briefed in its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed the Motion now before the Court. Pittsfield then filed a Second Amended Complaint incorporating these changes. The Court instructed Pittsfield to remove statements of law from the complaint. 1 The Court granted Pittsfield’s request to amend its complaint by adding Ordinance 316 in Count 8. Count 11 (State Zoning Law) was initially dismissed but reinstated on reconsideration. The Court previously dismissed individual defendant Candice Briere, as well as Plaintiff’s due process and substantive due process claims. Background On September 25, 2015, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Judgment on the Pleadings. Because Plaintiff Pittsfield TSHP Gifts, LLC (“Pittsfield”) sufficiently states plausible claims for relief, the Motion is DENIED. The Motion is fully briefed and the Court dispenses with oral argument. Introduction Charter Township of Pittsfield and Pittsfield Board of Zoning Appeals (“Defendants”) move to dismiss Counts 8 and 9 of the Second Amended Complaint. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS UNDER FED. ROBERTS CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PITTSFIELD PITTSFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS and CANDICE BRIERE, Defendants. 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION PITTSFIELD TSHP GIFTS, LLC, Plaintiff, CASE NO: 14-14276 V. ![]() Pittsfield, Charter Township of et al Doc. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |