Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 06-06-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 20-CV-12056
Judge: Gershwin A. Drain
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Wayne County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Detroit, Michigan civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendants wrongful ejectment.
On July 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Tiani Dodson and Lois Dodson initiated this civil rights action against Defendants Karla Nava Lopez, Dion Emanuel as well as the City of Detroit (“Detroit” or the “City”) and Detroit police officers Peter Yi, Ernest Wilson, S.K. Kue, B.I. Ferreira, F. Toti, and S.W. Choucair (collectively the “Detroit Defendants”). See ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs' claims arise from an allegedly improper ejectment from their home. Id. On January 6, 2023, this Court issued an opinion and order denying the City's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27).
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to LR 7.1(h)(2) (“Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration”). See ECF No. 36. The court ordered Defendants to respond to the motion, see E.D. Mich. LR (h)(3), and the Detroit Defendants timely did so, see ECF No. 37. Plaintiff also filed a reply. See ECF No. 38. The Court does not find that oral argument would aid in the disposition of this matter and will resolve the instant motion on the briefs. See E." Dodson v. Lopez (E.D. Mich. 2023).
On or about July 3, 2017, Plaintiff Tiani Dodson and her daughter, Plaintiff Lois Dodson, took possession of a residential property located at 6416 Barton in Detroit, Michigan (the “Residence”). T. Dodson Depo. 8-9, ECF No. 26-4, PageID.178. Defendant Nava Lopez owned the Residence, but her adopted father, Orlando Watkins, oversaw the property for her while she was in California. Id. at 910, PageID.178-79. Immediately prior to moving into the Residence, Ms.
Dodson made a verbal agreement with Mr. Watkins, Lois Dodson's basketball coach, that she could fix up the house in lieu of paying rent.[1]Id. Pursuant to this agreement, Ms. Dodson painted, installed drywall, repaired the roof, repaired the porch, painted the porch, removed “mounds and mounds of debris,” and laid a bathroom floor. Id. at 12, PageID.179.
In January or February of 2019, Ms. Nava Lopez called Ms. Dodson and informed her that she would need to start paying rent in April of that year. Id. at 11,PageID.179. Ms. Dodson was no longer able to reach Mr. Watkins from that point forward. Id. at 14, PageID.180. Instead, in March 2019, Ms. Dodson received a letter stating that Defendant Emanuel was the Residence's new property manager and that all rent payments should be made to him. Id. at 1315, PageID.179-80. Mr. Emanuel also provided Ms. Dodson with a residential lease agreement for a month-to-month term that listed Ms. Nava Lopez as the landlord and Ms. Dodson as the tenant. Id. at 13, PageID.179; ECF No. 27-13, PageID.401. It's unclear whether Ms. Nava Lopez ever signed the lease agreement as Ms. Dodson does not appear to have received a copy of the executed agreement. See T. Dodson Depo. 12-13, ECF No. 26-4, PageID.179.
Ms. Dodson received a letter in April saying that her landlord could have her evicted if she did not move by June 6, 2019 (the “Notice to Quit”). Id. at 16-17, PageID.180. Ms. Dodson tried to contact Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Watkins, and Ms. Nava Lopez about the letter but received no response. Id. at 18, PageID.181. Although she did not begin paying rent at this time, Ms. Dodson continued to pay the utilities. Id. Ms. Dodson did not start paying rent into an escrow account at this time because she did not learn what those were until after her ejectment. Id. at 63, PageID.192.
2. The Ejection
During the morning of November 9, 2019, Lois Dodson called her mother, who was out at the time, to inform her that Ms. Nava Lopez, whose name Lois did not know at the time, was at the Residence saying that she was there to evict the Dodson's. L. Dodson Depo. 18-19, ECF No. 27-14, PageID.419. Upon Ms. Dodson's arrival, Ms. Nava Lopez informed her that she had called the police.[2] T. Dodson Depo. 29, ECF No. 26-4, PageID.183. Ms. Dodson also called the police and testified that the dispatcher agreed with her that she could not be evicted without having first been to court. Id. at 29-30, PageID.18384.
Defendants Yi and Ferreira were the first to arrive to the scene, with Defendants Toti and Choucair acting as the assisting unit. Toti Depo. 12, ECF No. 27-9, PageID.322. Ms. Dodson testified that the officers initially informed Ms. Nava Lopez that there was nothing they could do. T. Dodson Depo. 29-30, ECF No. 26-4, PageID.183-84. The officers called their sergeant, Defendant Kue, for support. Kue Depo. 7, ECF No. 26-5, PageID.209. Upon his arrival, Sergeant Kue asked Ms. Dodson for any paperwork that she had. T. Dodson Depo. 30, ECF No. 26-4, PageID.184. Sergeant Kue recalled that Ms. Nava Lopez had what “appeared to be like a deed and some kind of eviction notice or paperwork,” although he could not recall what the paperwork entailed. Kue Depo. 16, ECF No. 26-5, PageID.211. When discussing the incident later with then Sergeant Wilson, Sergeant Kue explained that he had reviewed the Notice to Quit. Wilson Depo. 34-36, ECF No. 28-6, PageID.508.
In contrast, Ms. Dodson described her verbal agreement with Mr. Watkins'[], whose name she could not remember, and provided paperwork that was unsigned. Kue Depo. 16, ECF No. 26-5, PageID.211. Additionally, the officers noted the Residence had an illegal electrical hookup, which is indicative of someone illegally living at a location, id. at 17, PageID.211, although Officer Ferreira recalled Ms. Dodson providing a utilities bill that was only a couple months old, Ferreira Depo. 23, ECF No. 27-8, PageID.305. None of the officers recalled reviewing an eviction complaint or the 36th District Court docket to determine whether there were ongoing eviction proceedings involving Ms. Dodson and Ms. Nava Lopez, and there were not bailiffs present at the scene. See, e.g., Kue Depo. 16-17, ECF No. 26-5, PageID.211. Nevertheless, Sergeant Kue told Ms. Dodson that her lease was fraudulent and asked her to stay in the living room while he spoke with Ms. Nava Lopez privately. T. Dodson Depo. 30, ECF No. 26-4, PageID.184. He also spoke with Ms. Dodson privately. Toti Depo. 18, ECF No. 27-9, PageID.324.
Officer Kue unsuccessfully encouraged Ms. Dodson and Ms. Nava Lopez to peacefully resolve the issue amongst themselves. See, e.g., Ferreira Depo. 28, ECF No. 27-8, PageID.306. As such, [b]ecause Ms. Dodson could not provide proof of ownership or lawful residence other than her furniture being in the residence, Sergeant Kue advised her to leave the premises to avoid a physical altercation between her and Ms. Nava Lopez. Kue Depo. 18, ECF No. 26-5, PageID.212. Ms. Dodson specifically remembers Sergeant Kue telling her that she had to leave the Residence and Officer Ferreira telling her friend that she would be leaving that day. Id. at 31-33, PageID.184. Officer Toti testified that Sergeant Kue “was the only one to make that call.” Toti Depo. 18-19, ECF No. 27-9, PageID.324; see also Yi Depo. 12, [ECF No. 27-10,] PageID.341. Notably, the Detroit Police Department Incident Report states, “[The] supervisor arrived on scene and after reviewing the eviction paperwork and seeing that it was valid, stated to the complainant, that she had to vacate the premises.” ECF No. 26-2, PageID.171.
Outcome: "Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: