Appellees Brief - MLive.com

4. DIBC’s parallel efforts to avoid compliance with the
February 1, 2010 Opinion
Concurrent with DIBC‘s direct attempts to avoid the February 1, 2010 Order
and avoid facing the April 27, 2010 Order to Show Cause thru its federal court
removals, DIBC and its owners mounted an indirect attempt to interfere with and
prevent completion of DIBC‘s portion of the Gateway Project in accordance with the
Gateway Agreements as ordered by the Court in the February 1, 2010 Order.
RECEIVED by Michigan Court of Appeals 1/27/2012 7:20:43 PM
On June 9, 2010, three trucking companies owned by and under the control of
DIBC‘s owners filed a federal complaint against MDOT‘s director and the chairman
of the State Transportation Commission.(Appendix 18). These DIBC affiliates
sought a mandatory preliminary injunction to force MDOT to open certain newly
constructed Gateway Project interstate ramps that would force traffic directly into
the middle of DIBC‘s portion of the Gateway Project. This would prevent DIBC‘s
construction of the public roads DIBC agreed to construct under the Gateway
Agreements and as ordered in the February 1, 2010 Order.
On June 30, 2010, MDOT‘s Director and the State Transportation
Commission Chairman filed a Motion to Dismiss DIBC‘s affiliates‘ complaint,
pointed out that DIBC was under a State court order to build the public roads it
agreed to build in the Gateway Agreement, and that the relief DIBC‘s affiliates
were seeking would prevent completion of this project MDOT. (Appendix 20 at p. 2).
They also opposed the affiliates‘ request for a mandatory preliminary injunction.
(Appendix 21). The federal court heard oral argument on DIBC's affiliate's Motion
for a Mandatory Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
15