Memo in support of Mtn for Entry of Consent Judgment FOR FILING

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Filed 07/26/11 Page 6 of 20 Page ID#1759Plaintiff’s land that are not imposed on neighboring properties with identicalcharacteristics, and that there is no rational basis for this difference.Plaintiff also challenges the conduct of Saugatuck Township in the aftermath ofthe adoption of the R-4 Amendment, contending that the Township impermissiblysolicited and accepted payments from local environmental activists who demandthat the Township interfere with Plaintiff’s private property rights with respect tothe entirety of the Subject Property. Plaintiff alleges that these payments evince animpermissible and irreparable bias against Plaintiff’s lawful exercise of its privateproperty rights.Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring the R-4 Amendment void ab initio, adeclaration that the operative zoning of the property is the classification in effectbefore the unlawful adoption of the R-4 Amendment, a restraint against furthergovernmental action by the Township Board members with respect to any of theSubject Property, and statutory attorney fees incurred in bringing this litigation.C. Procedural History of this LitigationPlaintiff filed this action on March 2, 2010. All parties have actively litigatedthis matter since it was filed. Defendants not only denied the substantive aspects ofall of Plaintiff’s claims, but Defendants also denied that this Court had subjectmatter jurisdiction over this matter. Defendants’ arguments were set forth in fiveseparate motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment that Defendants filed inAugust 2010, seeking dismissal of this action in its entirety on a variety of differentgrounds.6
Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Filed 07/26/11 Page 7 of 20 Page ID#1760The Court subsequently determined that the challenge to the Court’sjurisdiction would be considered first, with the remaining motions held in abeyance.After full briefing and a hearing on the jurisdictional challenge, in an Opinion andOrder dated March 18, 2011, this Court denied Defendants’ jurisdictional motionand ordered an expedited discovery schedule for the completion of discovery onCounts I, II, and VII of Plaintiff’s complaint.As a consequence of the Court’s ruling, the parties have been actively engagedin discovery. Plaintiff served additional document requests, interrogatories, anddeposition subpoenas on important third-party witnesses. Defendants likewiseserved additional interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admissions.All parties have also worked to schedule the depositions of the witnesses for eachside, expected to be more than 15 depositions to be completed by August 30, 2011.All told, Defendants have served two sets of interrogatories, three sets of documentrequests, and three sets of requests for admission. Plaintiff has served two sets ofinterrogatories, two sets of document requests, and eight third-party subpoenas.In addition to this discovery, there have been five motions for summaryjudgment, three motions to compel, one motion for supplementation of an order, anamended complaint, a motion to strike, and an appeal of the decision on thatmotion.In short, in the 17 months that this litigation has been pending, all parties havezealously advocated their respective positions and fully sought to protect theirinterests.7
Page 2 and 3: Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Fil
Page 20: Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Fil

Memo in support of Mtn for Entry of Consent Judgment FOR FILING

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?