O'Brien v. New Buffalo Township

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0232n.06
Filed: March 30, 2005
Nos. 03-2087/2123/2124
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL P. O’BRIEN et al., )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- )
Appellees, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NEW BUFFALO TOWNSHIP et al., ) WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
Defendants-Appellees/Cross- )
Appellants. )
Before: SILER, BATCHELDER, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Daniel P. O’Brien was the original owner of property in New Buffalo,
Michigan, that ultimately became the Whittaker Woods Golf Community, a mixed-use
development including a golf course, a clubhouse, a restaurant, single-family homes, and
multi-family townhouses. The remaining plaintiffs, Whittaker Woods Golf Club, L.P., and
Whittaker Woods Golf Associates, Inc., were formed by Daniel O’Brien and his wife for the
sole purpose of owning and managing the development. When defendant New Buffalo
Township, through the remaining defendants – the township’s supervisor, trustees,
employees, and its engineering consultant – denied the plaintiffs permits they needed to
complete construction of the development, O’Brien, Whittaker Woods Golf Club, and
Nos. 03-2087/2123/2124
Whittaker Woods Golf Associates filed suit against the defendants in federal district court,
alleging that:
[T]he Township defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying a
building permit to construct the first home at Whittaker Woods and in denying
approval of water and sewer systems of Phase I of Whittaker Woods; that,
following the November 2000 township elections, defendants retaliated
against plaintiffs because Mr. O’Brien had supported opposing candidates for
township office; and that defendants libeled Mr. O’Brien in a September 2000
letter that falsely accused plaintiffs of engaging in construction of Whittaker
Woods without the necessary permits.
After a suitable discovery period, the district judge issued an extensive 53-page
written opinion disposing of summary judgment motions filed by all parties and effectively
dismissing the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The plaintiffs now appeal from that opinion and order,
asserting that the district court erred in finding no merit to their claims of retaliation for the
exercise of First Amendment freedoms, violation of substantive due process by engaging
in arbitrary and capricious decision-making, and libel. The township defendants cross-
appeal, contending that plaintiff O’Brien had no standing to advance the claims asserted
in the initial and amended complaints filed in this matter. Defendants Larry Merritt and
Merritt Engineering, Inc., also cross-appeal, contending that O’Brien is without standing and
that Merritt and his engineering firm cannot properly be deemed “state actors” for purposes
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing
-2-
Nos. 03-2087/2123/2124
the complaint. The question of plaintiff O’Brien’s standing to bring the action has been
vigorously argued at each stage of the litigation. The district court opted not to examine
the issue at length, finding that although O’Brien’s standing to sue in his own name may
have been subject to dispute, “the issue ha[d] been rendered moot” by the addition of the
other plaintiffs to the suit. We agree. Moreover, because the reasons why judgment
should be entered for the defendants have been fully articulated by the district court, the
issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court based upon the
reasoning set out by that court in its opinion dated July 21, 2003.
-3-