Shaw v. City of Riverview

• Decision Date: 14 February 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-11693
• Parties: Craig Shaw, Plaintiff, v. City of Riverview, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Craig Shaw, Plaintiff, v. City of Riverview, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-11693

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

February 14, 2019

Sean F. Cox United States District Court Judge

OPINION & ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case is currently before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, that challenges Plaintiff's two remaining claims in this action. The motion has been fully briefed by the parties and the Court orders that the motion shall be decided without a hearing. Local Rule 7.1(f). As explained below, the Court shall deny the motion as to Plaintiff's procedural due process claim. This Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's declaration of rights count because doing so will not fully settle the controversy, given that Plaintiff has since filed another action in state court seeking additional, and related, declaratory relief.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Craig Shaw ("Shaw") filed this action on May 11, 2016. Shaw's original complaint asserted claims against five Defendants: 1) the City of Riverview ("the City"), 2) the City of Riverview Retirement Board of Trustees ("the Board"), 3) Gary Chevillet, 4) Douglas Drysdale, and 5) Managed Medical Review Organization, Inc. ("MMRO").

At this juncture, following an amended complaint and multiple motions to dismiss, Shaw has the following two claims remaining in this action, asserted against the City and the Board: 1) "Declaratory Relief (Deprivation Of Property Without Due Process)" (Count III of Shaw's First Amended Complaint); and 2) "Declaration of Rights" (Count VI of Shaw's First Amended Complaint).

In Count III of Shaw's First Amended Complaint, titled "Declaratory Relief (Deprivation of Property Without Due Process)," Shaw asserts a claim that he was deprived of property without due process of law. More specifically, Shaw alleges that he "has a property right in the continuation of his duty disability retirement and the other benefits afforded him under the City's retirement System, and defendants are prohibited from depriving [him] of that property absent due process of law." (Am. Compl. at ¶ 67). Shaw alleges that while he was afforded the opportunity to address the Board at its scheduled meeting, the hearing was not meaningful and did not comport with the constitutional-minimum due process protections for a number of reasons." (Id. at ¶ 70).

In Count VI of Shaw's First Amended Complaint, titled Declaration of Rights, he alleges as follows:

89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs set forth above as though fully set forth herein.

90. On the effective date of his duty-disability retirement, July 1, 2010, Plaintiff's rights in his duty-disability retirement vested under the Ordinance in Effect at that time to wit: (1) prior to reaching 55 years old, he could only be subjected to a medical examination once every three years; (2) those examinations were to be conducted by or under the direction of a teaching hospital with specialists in the field of claimed disability; and (3) he is no longer subject to examinations having reached 55 years of age.

91. Riverview passed certain amendments to the Retirement Ordinances in December of 2015. Riverview Ordinance 679.

92. These amendments contain no language to indicate any retroactive effect. See id. 93. Ordinances are reviewed in the same fashion as statutes. Bonner v. City of Brighton, 848 N.W.2d 380, 388 (Mich. 2014); cert den sub nom. Bonner v. City of Brighton, Mich., 135 S. Ct. 230; 190 L. Ed. 2d 134.

94. Michigan courts do not give retroactive effect to statutes that do not contain clear, unequivocal expressions of legislative intent for retroactivity. Davis. v. State Employees' Ret. Bd. 725 N.W.2d 56, 60 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

95. Because there is no language of retroactivity in the December 2015 Amendments, Plaintiff's duty-disability retirement is subject to the Retirement Ordinance as it existed on July 1, 2010; specifically as stated in ¶ 21, above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order declaring that his rights pursuant to his duty-disability retirement vested fully when said retirement was awarded; that his duty-disability retirement remains unaffected by the 2015 Amendments to the Riverview Retirement Ordinance; and that Plaintiff can no longer be subjected to medical examinations.

(Am. Comp. at 16-17).

Discovery in this case has closed. Defendants now seek summary judgment in their favor as to Shaw's remaining two claims. Shaw opposes that motion.

This Court's practice guidelines, which are expressly included in the Scheduling Orders issued in this case, provide, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, provide in pertinent part that:

a. The moving party's papers shall include a separate document entitled Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute. The statement shall list in separately numbered paragraphs concise statements of each undisputed material fact, supported by appropriate citations to the record. The Statement shall include all necessary material facts that, if undisputed, would result in summary judgment for the movant.

b. In response, the opposing party shall file a separate document entitled Counter-Statement of Disputed Facts. The counter-statement shall list in separately numbered paragraphs following the order or the movant's statement, whether each of the facts asserted by the moving party is admitted or denied and shall also be supported by appropriate citations to the record. The Counter-Statement shall also include, in a separate section, a list of each issue of material fact as to which it is contended there is a genuine issue for trial. c. All material facts as set forth in the Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute shall be deemed admitted unless controverted in the Counter-Statement of Disputed Facts.

d. The statements shall be non-argumentative and avoid the use of color words or distortions of the record in a party's favor. Conclusory, speculative, or conjectural statements in support of a position shall be avoided. Hearsay statements and other inadmissible evidence cannot be considered.

e. Facts stated in the Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute and Counter-Statement of Disputed Facts shall be supported with appropriate citations to the record, including but not limited to the pleadings, interrogatories, admissions, depositions, affidavits and documentary exhibits. Citations to the record must be specific, ie., cite to a discrete page or portion of deposition testimony or page(s) of documentary evidence, not simply the entire deposition or document . . . .

(ECF No. 61 at PageID 794 & 796-97).

Along with Defendants' motion, they filed a Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ("Bd.'s Stmt."). Along with his response, Shaw filed a Counter-Statement ("Shaw's Stmt.").

The following material facts are either undisputed, or are gleaned from the evidence submitted by the parties, viewed in the light most favorable to Shaw, the non-moving party.

The City's Retirement Ordinances

The City of Riverview Retirement System is a retiree benefit plan available to eligible City employees that is administered and managed by a Board of Trustees ("Retirement Board" or "Board") and governed by provisions of the City's ordinances. (Bd.'s & Shaw's Stmts. at ¶ 1) (see also Ex. A to Bd.'s Motion, Retirement Ordinance in effect at time of Plaintiff's disability retirement ("Original Ordinance"); Ex. B, "Amended Ordinance").

The Retirement Ordinance vests the Board with the "authority and responsibility for the administration, management, and operation of the Retirement System," and also charges the Board with the duty of "carrying into effect the provisions of the Retirement System" and doing "all things necessary to carry on the day-to-day operation of the Retirement System. . . ." (Bd.'s & Shaw's Stmts. at ¶ 2); Bd.'s Ex. A, §§ 2-266, 2-274; Ex. B, §§ 2-266, 2-274).

Eligible members of the Retirement System may voluntarily retire and obtain pension benefits after either completing 25 years of credited service and attaining age 55, or after attaining age 60. (Bd.'s & Shaw's Stmts. at ¶ 3; Bd.'s Ex. A, § 2-316; Ex. B, § 2-316).

The Ordinance provides a mechanism through which an eligible member of the Retirement System may obtain a disability pension in the event the eligible member becomes disabled while on duty, and any eligible member who becomes permanently and totally incapacitated from duty-connected causes can apply for a duty disability pension. (Bd.'s & Shaw's Stmts. at ¶ 4; Bd.'s Ex. A, § 2-351; Ex. B, § 2-351).

Individuals who are granted duty disability pensions but have not yet attained the age of 55 are required to undergo medical evaluations to ensure their continued incapacitation to perform their job. (Bd.'s & Shaw's Stmts. at ¶ 5; Bd.'s Ex. A, § 2-359; Ex. B, § 2-359).

Both versions of the Ordinance (the Original Ordinance and the Amended Ordinance) provide for the termination of a duty disability requirement pension in the event that a medical evaluation finds that the recipient is no longer permanently and totally incapacitated for a specified position or positions.

Under both versions of the Ordinance, the City Attorney serves as legal advisor to the Board. (Bd.'s Ex. A, § 2-275; Bd.'s Ex. B, § 2-275). It appears that the City Attorney at all relevant times was Kerry Morgan, who is also representing the Board in this action.

In December of 2015, the Retirement Ordinance was amended by the City Council for the City of Riverview. The amendment process began in or around 2013. (Bd.'s & Shaw's Stmts. at ¶¶ 7-8).

Section 2-359 Of Original Ordinance

Prior to its 2015 amendment, Section 2-359 of the Original Ordinance provided as follows:

Sec. 2-359. - Conditions for disability retirants.

(a) Once each three years following the retirement of a member with a disability pension the board shall require any disability retirant, who has not

...