1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 896 F.Supp.2d
  5. 896 F.Supp.2d 650 (2012)
 

MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT v. KILPATRICK

Case No. 11-13101.

896 F.Supp.2d 650 (2012)

MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Plaintiff, and City of Detroit and Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. Kwame KILPATRICK, et al., Defendants.

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

September 17, 2012.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lauren Duval Donofrio, Donofrio Law, Warren, MI, Lawrence M. Scott, O'Reilly, Rancilio, Sterling Heights, MI, Patrick S. McKay, Raechel M. Badalamenti, Kirk, Huth & Lange, P.L.C., William W. Misterovich, Clinton Township, MI, for Plaintiff.

Irene B. Hathaway, Jerome R. Watson, Joseph W. Uhl, Saura J. Sahu, W. Mack Faison, Miller, Canfield, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Intervenors.

Kwame Kilpatrick, Cedar Hill, TX, pro se.

David J. Poirier, David W. Williams, Kevin B. Hirsch, Michael F. Jacobson, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C., Christian P. Collis, Moss and Colella, Southfield, MI, Gordon D. Todd, Thomas C. Green, Sidley Austin, LLP, Washington, DC, Thomas M. Fallucca, Fallucca and O'Shea, Paul M. Mersino, Butzel Long, Stephen P. Stella, Simon, Stella, Detroit, MI, David M. Zack, Don W. Blevins, Marcus R. Sanborn, Mark L. McAlpine, McAlpine and Assoc., Auburn Hills, MI, Martin H. Leaf, Martin H. Leaf PLLC, Ronald E. Kaplovitz, Kaplovitz & Associates PC, Sylvan Lake, MI, Jeremy R. Heuer, Randall M. Lending, Vedder Price P.C., Erik R. Nelson, John S. Mrowiec, Conway & Mrowiec, Chicago, IL, Chris M. Parfitt, Matthew C. Herstein, Deneweth, Dugan, Patrick A. Facca, Facca, Richter, Troy, MI, Daniel J. Donahue, Saint Clair Shores, MI, Scott S. Yaldo, Yaldo Law, PLLC, Anthony S. Spokojny, Birmingham, MI, for Defendants.

Victor M. Mercado, Stuart, FL, pro se.

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING CONCURRING DEFENDANTS' "AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT"; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS FUTURENET GROUP, INC., AND PERRY MEHTA'S "MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT"; (3) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF MACOMB INTERCEPTOR TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF NON-MOVING DEFENDANTS ON NON-CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS; (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF MACOMB INTERCEPTOR'S "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT"; AND (5) TERMINATING AS...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases