Wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula Ass'n v. Twp. of Peninsula
| Decision Date | 27 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-1744 |
| Citation | 41 F.4th 767 |
| Parties | WINERIES OF THE OLD MISSION PENINSULA ASSOCIATION; Bowers Harbor Vineyard & Winery, Inc; Brys Winery, LC ; Chateau Grand Traverse, Ltd.; Grape Harbor Inc.; Montague Development, LLC; OV The Farm LLC ; Tabone Vineyards, LLC; Two Lads, LLC; Villa Mari, LLC; Winery at Black Star Farms LLC; Chateau Operations, Ltd, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TOWNSHIP OF PENINSULA, MICHIGAN, Defendant, Protect the Peninsula, Inc., Movant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Tracy J. Andrews, LAW OFFICE OF TRACY JANE ANDREWS, PLLC, Traverse City, Michigan, for Appellant. Joseph M. Infante, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Tracy J. Andrews, LAW OFFICE OF TRACY JANE ANDREWS, PLLC, Traverse City, Michigan, for Appellant. Joseph M. Infante, Stephen M. Ragatzki, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellees.
Before: MOORE, STRANCH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.
After the plaintiffs, a group of wineries and an association representing their interests (collectively, the "Wineries"), sued a Michigan municipality over several zoning ordinances that regulate vineyards, a local advocacy group, Protect the Peninsula, Inc. ("Protect the Peninsula"), moved to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). The district court denied this motion. Because Protect the Peninsula satisfied Rule 24(a)(2) ’s requirements, we REVERSE and REMAND .
Located in Michigan's Grand Traverse County, Peninsula Township (the "Township") is aptly named. The approximately twenty-mile-long municipality occupies Old Mission Peninsula, a landmass that juts north out into, and is surrounded on three sides by, Lake Michigan. R. 41-4 (Jacobs Aff. ¶ 4) (Page ID #2091). The Township is between one to three miles wide at various points with a narrow land bridge connecting it to the mainland. Id. Access to the Township is limited due to this geography. For car-bound travelers, a sole primary road provides the means of ingress and egress. Id . Traffic tends to concentrate on this road as a result. R. 41-2 (Nadolski Aff. ¶ 30) (Page ID #2074). Overall, the Township is marked by farmland and residential communities with approximately 5,800 people residing in these communities. R. 41-4 (Jacobs Aff. ¶¶ 5–6) (Page ID #2091); R. 169 (Mot. for Stay at 1) (Page ID #6225).
The Wineries also inhabit Old Mission Peninsula, and the Township has adopted zoning ordinances that regulate the vineyards’ activities. R. 29 (Page ID #1088–90); R. 35 (Answer ¶ 28) (Page ID #1885). Notable for this appeal, § 6.7.2(19) of the Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinances provides that a winery with at least forty acres may host a tasting room, but only with limited retail sales, R. 29-1 (Zoning Ordinances at 42, 44) (Page ID #1183, 1185), and prohibits the hosting of "weddings, receptions, and other social functions for hire" at these venues. Id . at 42 (Page ID #1183). Section 8.7.3(10) of the zoning ordinances allows a winery situated on at least fifty acres to host a tasting room, maintain limited guest rooms and residences, and provide other guest activities by special permit, id. at 127, 130–32 (Page ID #1268, 1271–73), with the intent that such a facility "maintain the agricultural environment, be harmonious with the character of the surrounding land and uses, and ... not create undue traffic congestion, noise, or other conflict with the surrounding properties." Id. at 127 (Page ID #1268). Section 8.7.3(12) meanwhile provides that a winery may, by special permit, sell limited amounts of wine produced at one location at the tasting room of another location. Id. at 137–38 (Page ID #1278–79).
Aware that some of its zoning ordinances were unpopular with the Wineries, the Township attempted to negotiate changes. R. 24 (Resp. at 4–6, 16–18) (Page ID #948–50, 960–62). When these negotiations stalled, the Wineries initiated this lawsuit against the Township, claiming that the zoning ordinances were both unconstitutional on various grounds and violated state laws, including being preempted under the Michigan Liquor Control Code, Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.110, et seq . R. 29 (Amd. Compl. at 31–42) (Page ID #1116–27). As relief, the Wineries requested that the district court enjoin the Township preliminarily and permanently from enforcing the ordinances. Id . ¶ 307 (Page ID #1128). The Wineries also sought monetary damages. Id. The Wineries subsequently moved for partial summary judgment on their state-law preemption claim, and the Township moved for summary judgment on all the Wineries’ claims. R. 53 (Wineries’ Mot. for Summ. J.) (Page ID #2270–71); R. 54 () (Page ID #2272–2303); R. 142 (Township's Mot. for Summ. J.) (Page ID #4961–5004).
Relations between the Wineries and the Township soured further during these proceedings. The parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the case before the Township backed out of the agreement. R. 127 (12/07/21 Dist. Ct. Order at 1) (Page ID #4389). This led the Wineries to move for sanctions and attorney fees against the Township. Id. After holding a hearing, the district court granted these requests. Id . at 2 (Page ID #4390); R. 139 (01/05/22 Dist. Ct. Order at 9) (Page ID #4958). Despite this inauspicious start, settlement talks have continued throughout the litigation. See R. 154 (04/11/22 Minutes) (Page ID #5854); R. 180 (07/05/22 Minutes) (Page ID #6804).
None of these maneuvers escaped the attention of another resident of Old Mission Peninsula: the equally well-named proposed intervenor, Protect the Peninsula. Protect the Peninsula describes itself as a "watchdog" that monitors the Township's "policies[ ] and decisions related to land use inconsistent with the community's agricultural and residential character." R. 41 (Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Intervene at 10) (Page ID #1976). Protect the Peninsula has intervened in previous lawsuits involving the Wineries and the Township's zoning ordinances and has organized referenda and negotiations to defend or modify ordinances. R. 41-2 (Nadolski Aff. ¶¶ 20–21) (Page ID #2070–71). The organization represents various property owners who reside in the Township. Id . ¶¶ 1, 5–6 (Page ID #2068); R 41-3 (Wunsch Aff. ¶¶ 1–2, 58) (Page ID #2078, 2087); R. 41-4 (Jacobs Aff. ¶¶ 1–2, 14–15) (Page ID #2091, 2093); R 41-5 (Phillips Aff. ¶¶ 1, 5) (Page ID #2096, 2097); R. 41-6 (Zebell Aff. ¶¶ 1–2, 4) (Page ID #2102, 2103).
Soon after the Wineries initiated this lawsuit, Protect the Peninsula moved to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). R. 40 (Mot. to Intervene) (Page ID #1965–66). After the Wineries moved for partial summary judgment on their state-law-preemption claim, Protect the Peninsula moved to supplement its motion to intervene and argued that the Wineries’ state-law claims should be dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. R. 56 (Mot. to Supp.) (Page ID #2553–66); R. 56-1 (Mot. to Dismiss) (Page ID #2567–2627). Neither the Wineries nor the Township had disputed that the district court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. R. 37 (Rule 26(f) Report at 1) (Page ID #1959).
The Wineries did, however, contest Protect the Peninsula's motion to intervene and its motion to supplement. R. 59 (Mot. to Strike) (Page ID #2719–20); R. 60 () (Page ID #2721–32). The Township did not oppose Protect the Peninsula's motion to intervene. R. 47 (Joinder & Concurrence) (Page ID #2150–56). Ultimately, the district court denied both of Protect the Peninsula's motions. R. 108 (10/21/21 Dist. Ct. Order) (Page ID #4167–75). Protect the Peninsula timely appealed. R. 121 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID #4343).
While this appeal was pending, the district court ruled on the Wineries’ motion for partial summary judgment and on the Township's motion for summary judgment. The district court found that parts of §§ 6.7.2(19), 8.7.3(10), and 8.7.3(12) of the zoning ordinances were either preempted by state law or unconstitutional. R. 162 (06/03/22 Dist. Ct. Opinion & Order at 13, 21, 28, 34, 36, 39, 41) (Page ID #5993, 6001, 6008, 6014, 6016, 6019, 6021). The district court enjoined the Township from enforcing these aspects of the zoning ordinances. Id . at 49 (Page ID #6029). The district court denied the Township's motion for summary judgment. Id . at 50 (Page ID #6030).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), district courts must permit anyone to intervene who, (1) in a timely motion, shows that (2) they have a substantial legal interest in the case, (3) their absence from the case would impair that interest, and (4) their interest is inadequately represented by the parties. Providence Baptist Church v. Hillandale Comm., Ltd. , 425 F.3d 309, 315 (6th Cir. 2005). Our standard of review depends on which of these four elements we are reviewing. "Except as to issues of timeliness, which are not presented here, this Court's review of a district court's denial of a motion to intervene under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo ." Id. at 315 (footnote omitted).1 Because the district court ruled that Protect the Peninsula failed to satisfy the substantial-legal-interest, impairment, and adequate-representation requirements, we focus on those elements, reviewing each de novo .
At the outset, Protect the Peninsula "must show that [it has] a substantial interest in the subject matter of this litigation." Grutter v. Bollinger , 188 F.3d 394, 398 (6th Cir. 1999). We hold that the property interests of Protect the Peninsula's members satisfy this requirement.
What counts as a "substantial interest" depends on countervailing considerations. On the one hand, we have adopted "a rather...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendrix v. Hudson
... ... arises. Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula Ass'n v ... ...
-
Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
...a would-be intervenor must show only that impairment of [her] substantial legal interest is possible if intervention is denied.” Wineries, 41 F.4th at 774 (quoting Grutter Bollinger, 188 F.3d 397, 399 (6th Cir. 1999)). Thus, if she can show that “disposition of the present action would put ......