F.P. Dev. v. Charter Twp. of Canton

• Decision Date: 07 December 2022
• Docket Number: 18-CV-13690
• Parties: F.P. DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CANTON, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

F.P. DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CANTON, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

No. 18-CV-13690

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

December 7, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES (ECF NO. 56)

GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff/counter-defendant F.P. Development, LLC (“F.P.”) after finding that Charter Township of Canton (“Canton”) violated F.P.'s constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Canton appealed and the Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court's decision. The mandate issued back to this Court on January 11, 2022. The matter is before the Court on F.P.'s motion to recover its appellate attorney's fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), L.R. 54.1.2, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). For the reasons explained below, F.P.'s motion is denied.

1

ANALYSIS

A. Procedural Posture

F.P. filed its five-count complaint on November 26, 2018. The complaint alleged facial and as-applied challenges to Canton's Tree Ordinance under the U.S. Constitution. The counts included theories alleging an unconstitutional taking, unreasonable seizure, unconstitutional conditions and excessive fines. Canton filed a counter-complaint against F.P. alleging violations of the Tree Ordinance. The parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment. On April 23, 2020, this Court entered an Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of F.P. on its two takings counts on the basis that the Tree Ordinance is an unconstitutional taking as applied to F.P. under the Penn Central balancing test and the Nollan/Dolan rough proportionality test. The Court granted summary judgment to Canton on F.P.'s unreasonable seizure and excessive fine counts. F.P. Development, LLC v. Charter Township of Canton, 456 F.Supp.3d 879, 897 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (ECF No. 44). On the same date, the Court entered final judgment in the case. (ECF No. 45). Notably, F.P. did not file a motion for attorney's fees and related non-taxable expenses as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2).

Canton filed is notice of appeal on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. 46), and

2

F.P. filed a cross-appeal on May 19, 2020 (ECF No. 48). The Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court's decision on October 12, 2020 (ECF No. 51). F.P. Development LLC v. Charter Township of Canton, Michigan, 16 F.4th 198 (6^th Cir. 2021). The Sixth Circuit's mandate issued on January 11, 2022 (ECF No. 51).

On February 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the parties' stipulated motion to extend time to file motions for attorney's fees by 21-days, until March 1, 2022 (ECF No. 53). This was done to facilitate settlement discussions on the matter of fees. The parties requested a further 21-day extension, which was granted on February 28, 2022 (ECF No. 55). F.P. filed its motion for attorney's fees on March 21, 2022 (ECF No. 56). Settlement discussions continued...