Michigan Ass'n of R.R. Passengers v. Southeastern Michigan Transp. Authority

• Decision Date: 28 February 1985
• Docket Number: Docket No. 74560
• Citation: 140 Mich.App. 111,362 N.W.2d 904
• Parties: MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS, a non-profit Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public corporation, Defendant-Appellee. 140 Mich.App. 111, 362 N.W.2d 904
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 904

362 N.W.2d 904

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS, a non-profit Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 74560.

140 Mich.App. 111, 362 N.W.2d 904

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 9, 1984.

Decided Jan. 3, 1985.

Released for Publication Feb. 28, 1985.

[140 MICHAPP 112] Sheldon L. Kay, Southfield, and Robert S. Rollinger, Birmingham, for plaintiff-appellant.

Walter H. Clements, Gen. Counsel, and Deborah A. Thomas, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before V.J. BRENNAN, P.J., and T.M. BURNS and FORSTER, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority (SEMTA) provided rail-commuter service between Pontiac and Detroit along the Woodward Avenue corridor. SEMTA decided to discontinue this service because it was too costly [140 MICHAPP 113] and gave public notice and held public hearings. After these hearings, it was decided that the rail-commuter service would be discontinued October 14, 1983. On that date, plaintiff, the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers (MARP), a non-profit corporation which consists of approximately 250 members whose purpose is to promote rail-based transportation in Michigan, filed a complaint requesting mandamus, and an ex parte restraining order requiring SEMTA to continue the rail-commuter service. The trial court entered the ex parte restraining order and ordered SEMTA to show cause why mandamus should not be granted. At the show cause hearing, SEMTA persuaded the trial court that MARP was not entitled to the equitable relief requested, and the court dismissed MARP's complaint with prejudice. MARP appeals as of right.

We first consider whether the trial court properly dissolved the temporary restraining order. MCL Sec. 124.407; MSA Sec. 5.3475(107) states in pertinent part:

"The authority shall determine by itself exclusively, after appropriate public hearing, the transportation facilities to be operated by it, the services to be available to the public and the rates to be charged therefor. * * * Any person aggrieved by any rate or service or change of service fixed by the authority may bring an appeal against the authority in the proper court in any county in the metropolitan area in which the charge, service or change of service is applicable for the purpose of protesting against any such charge, service or change of service. The grounds for such appeals shall be restricted to an abuse of discretion or an error of law; otherwise, all such actions by the authority are final. * * * No cause of action shall exist on behalf of any person directly or indirectly, under which any court shall have jurisdiction or power to issue or grant any temporary or preliminary injunction or restraining order[140 MICHAPP 114] to prevent or suspend the operation of any order or rule of the authority which fixes rates, fares, tolls, rents or other charges for the use of or which changes any services of the transportation facilities under the jurisdiction of the authority."

It is clear under this statute that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the ex parte temporary restraining order against SEMTA. The trial court acted properly when it dissolved this order at the show cause hearing.

We next consider whether the trial court erred when it dismissed MARP's complaint for mandamus. MARP argues that a mandamus action is not precluded by MCL Sec. 124.407; MSA Sec. 5.3475(107), and therefore the trial court erred in dismissing its complaint without providing an opportunity for a show cause hearing. Mandamus ordinarily will not issue unless the defendant is under a clear legal duty to act and unless the plaintiff has no other adequate remedy. Hill v. State Highway Comm., 382 Mich. 398, 170 N.W.2d 18 (1969). SEMTA has no clear legal duty to provide rail-based transportation between Pontiac and Detroit. MCL Sec. 124.407; MSA Sec. 5.3475(107) grants SEMTA broad discretion to change its service routes. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct or control a discretionary act. Dearborn Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Dearborn, 323 Mich. 414, 35 N.W.2d 366 (1949). MCL Sec. 124.407; MSA Sec. 5.3475(107) also provides an adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to this statute SEMTA is required to give public notice and hold public hearings before making a final decision to change its service. Any party aggrieved by SEMTA's decision can appeal to the circuit court. Since MARP has an adequate alternative remedy, the trial court properly dismissed its complaint for a writ...