Opinion
File No. 2:97-CV-67
July 16, 2002
Conly J. Schulte, Monteau, Peebles Marks, Omaha, NE, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
John M. Cahill, Eric J. Eggan, Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General Casino Control Division, Lansing, MI, Morley Witus, Barris, Sott, Denn Driker, Detroit, MI, Attorneys for Defendants.
John D. Pirich, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz Cohn, Lansing, MI, James D. Oegema, Kiffi Y. Ford, Dykema Gossett, Lansing, MI, Laurence B. Deitch, Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess, et al, Southfield, MI, Michael H. Perry, Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis Dunlap, PC, Lansing, MI, Peter H. Ellsworth, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Lansing, MI, Bruce Richard Greene, Greene, Meyer, McElroy, PC, Boulder, CO, E. Michael Stafford Labor Division Civil Service Section, Lansing, MI, Thomas R. Wheeker, Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General Tort Defense Division, Lansing, MI, Attorneys for Intervenor-defendant.
Michael B. Nicholson Legal Department UAW, Detroit, MI, Carl G. Becker, Attorneys for Movant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
This matter is before the Court on a motion for injunction pending appeal filed by Plaintiff Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians ("Lac Vieux"). Lac Vieux requests this Court to enjoin Defendants and Intervenors from entering into or implementing any new development agreements for the development of permanent casino developments pending Lac Vieux's appeal from this Court's order of July 9, 2002.
In determining whether to enter an injunction pending appeal, the court considers the same four factors that are considered in evaluating a motion for preliminary injunction:
(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay.Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991).
Upon consideration of these factors, this Court concludes that an injunction pending appeal is not warranted. The July 9, 2002, opinion denying Lac Vieux's motion for further relief contains the basis for this Court's conclusion that the balance of the equities required a denial of the relief sought by Lac Vieux. Lac Vieux has not convinced this Court that it reached this result in error, or that Lac Vieux is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal.
Lac Vieux attempts to minimize the harm to the Defendants and Intervenors by suggesting that the scope of the relief pending appeal should be limited to an injunction against the planning and construction of permanent casinos. Lac Vieux suggests that as long as the temporary casinos are permitted to operate pending the appeal, no one can be heard to complain. As this Court noted in its July 9, 2002, opinion, there is not one set of development agreements for the temporary casinos and another set of development agreements for the permanent casinos. Lac Vieux's attempt to divide the two phases is arbitrary and artificial. The developers were selected to create permanent casinos. All of the development agreements, planning, and financing have been directed to that goal. An injunction against efforts to complete the projects would be harmful to the City, the developers, and the public.
The Court weighed the equities in its July 9, 2002, opinion and determined that Lac Vieux was not entitled to the further relief it requested. Lac Vieux has not persuaded this Court that injunctive relief pending an appeal of that decision is warranted. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Lac Vieux Desert Band's motion for injunction pending appeal (Docket # ___) is DENIED.