Bowling Alley Lawsuit

Case 1:21-cv-00066 ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 01/20/21 Page 1 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SKATEMORE, INC., d/b/a ROLL VERIFIED COMPLAINT

HAVEN SKATING CENTER, a Michigan AND JURY DEMAND
corporation; SLIM’S REC, INC.,
d/b/a SPARTAN WEST BOWLING FILE NO: _____
CENTER/BEAMERS RESTAURANT, a
Michigan corporation; MR. K ENTER- HON.
PRISES, INC, d/b/a ROYAL SCOT GOLF
& BOWL, a Michigan corporation; M.B.
AND D. LLC, d/b/a FREMONT LANES, a
Michigan limited liability company; and
R2M, LLC, d/b/a SPECTRUM LANES &
WOODY’S PRESS BOX, a Michigan
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official
capacity as Governor of the State of
Michigan; ROBERT GORDON, in his
official capacity as Director of the
Michigan Department of Health and
Human Services; MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, a Michigan
Administrative Agency,
Defendants.
/
David A. Kallman (P34200)
Stephen P. Kallman (P75622)
KALLMAN LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5600 W. Mount Hope Hwy.
Lansing, MI 48917
(517) 322-3207
Case 1:21-cv-00066 ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 01/20/21 Page 2 of 14
NOW COME the above-named Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys,
Kallman Legal Group, PLLC, and together bring this Complaint against the above-
named Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support
thereof allege the following upon information and belief:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs bring this action under the Takings Clauses of the United
States and Michigan Constitutions, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging Defendants’
acts, orders, policies, practices, customs, and procedures, which deprived Plaintiffs
of their property without just compensation.
2. As set forth in this Complaint, the acts, orders, policies, practices,
customs, and procedures of Defendants were the cause of, and the moving force
behind, the constitutional violations in this case.
3. Plaintiffs seek a judgment awarding damages and compensatory
damages for the taking of Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation.
4. Plaintiffs also seek an award of their reasonable costs of litigation,
including attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and other applicable
law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States
and of the State of Michigan. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court pursuant to 28
2
U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343, as well as under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article III of the United
States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a).
7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction regarding the remaining state
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
8. Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this
district.
10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as residents of,
entities of, and officials of, the State of Michigan.
PLAINTIFFS
11. Plaintiff Skatemore, Inc., d/b/a Roll Haven Skating Center is a
Michigan corporation located in Genesee County, Michigan. It employed
approximately 51 people with annual revenues of approximately $800,000.00 prior
to being shut down by Defendants.
12. Plaintiff Slim’s Rec, Inc., d/b/a Spartan West Bowling Center/Beamers
Restaurant is a Michigan corporation located in Mason County, Michigan. It
employed 12 people with annual revenues of approximately $460,000.00 prior to
being shut down by Defendants.
3
13. Plaintiff Mr. K Enterprises, Inc, d/b/a Royal Scot Golf & Bowl, is a
Michigan corporation located in Clinton County, Michigan. It employed 90 people
with annual revenues of approximately $4,400,000.00 prior to being shut down by
Defendants.
14. Plaintiff M.B. and D., LLC, d/b/a Fremont Lanes is a Michigan limited
liability company located in Newaygo County, Michigan. It employed 35 people
with annual revenues of approximately $950,000.00 prior to being shut down by
Defendants.
15. Plaintiff R2m, LLC, d/b/a Spectrum Lanes & Woody’s Press Box is a
Michigan limited liability company located in Newaygo County, Michigan. It
employed approximately 80 people with annual revenues of approximately
$5,500,000.00 prior to being shut down by Defendants.
DEFENDANTS
16. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer is the Governor of Michigan, controls the
agencies involved in this matter pursuant to Article V, Section 8, of the Michigan
Constitution, and directed the other defendants to issue and enforce the emergency
orders at issue in this case. She also was responsible for issuing the Executive Orders
which are at the heart of this litigation. She is being sued in her official capacity.
17. Defendant Robert Gordon is Director of the Michigan Department of
Health and Human Services (MDHHS). He issued Emergency Orders on November
4
15, 2020, and on December 7, 2020, that are being enforced against Plaintiffs in this
matter. He is being sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendant Michigan Department of Health and Human Services is a
Michigan State Administrative Agency that is enforcing Director Gordon’s orders
against Plaintiffs.
COVID-19 ORDERS
19. The following information regarding the orders issued by Defendants
shall collectively be referred to as the “COVID-19 Orders.”
20. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-9 on
March 16, 2020, and it required that bowling alleys be closed and those businesses
be shut down to the public.
March 22, 2020, which continued the mandated closure of bowling establishments
until April 13, 2020.
April 13, 2020, which continued the mandated closure of bowling establishments
until April 30, 2020.
April 30, 2020, which continued the mandated closure of bowling establishments
until May 28, 2020.
5
24. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-100
on May 22, 2020, which continued the mandated closure of bowling establishments
until June 12, 2020.
on June 1, 2020, which continued the mandated closure of bowling establishments
indefinitely.
on July 29, 2020, which rescinded and replaced EO 2020-110, and continued the
mandated closure of bowling establishments indefinitely.
on September 3, 2020, which rescinded and replaced EO 2020-160, and continued
the mandated closure of bowling establishments indefinitely.
on September 25, 2020, which rescinded and replaced EO 2020-176, and continued
the mandated closure of bowling establishments indefinitely.
29. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer’s Executive Orders (EO) were
determined to be unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court on October 2,
2020. In re Certified Questions (No. 161492, October 2, 2020).
30. As a result of Defendant Gretchen Whitmer’s unconstitutional conduct
and EOs, Plaintiffs’ businesses and property were forcibly closed and taken by
6
Defendants from March 16, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with no just compensation paid.
31. Defendant Robert Gordon, through MDHHS, issued an Emergency
Order pursuant to MCL 333.2253 on November 15, 2020 which again closed down
all bowling establishments, including Plaintiffs’ businesses, from November 18,
2020 to December 8, 2020.
32. Defendant Robert Gordon issued another Emergency Order pursuant to
MCL 333.2253 on December 7, 2020 which continued the mandatory shutdown of
all bowling establishments, including Plaintiffs’ businesses, until December 20,
2020.
33. Defendant Robert Gordon issued another Emergency Order pursuant to
MCL 333.2253 on December 18, 2020 which permitted bowling alleys to reopen on
December 21, 2020.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
34. Because Defendant Gretchen Whitmer’s EOs that closed Plaintiffs’
businesses were declared to be unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court, the
EOs were not a valid exercise of the State’s Police Power.
35. Defendants unlawfully closed Plaintiffs’ businesses and property for a
public use, specifically, in the name of preventing the spread of COVID-19.
36. Plaintiffs’ businesses were shut down to the extent that they were
unable to operate, unable to earn an income, and unable to function in any way.
7
37. Plaintiffs have received no just compensation from Defendants for the
taking of their businesses and property.
38. Director Gordon’s orders are being enforced by MDHHS in violation
of Plaintiffs’ rights as set forth herein.
39. Plaintiffs’ are being materially affected by these orders in that they are
being forced to close operations in violation of their constitutional rights and under
threat of civil and criminal sanctions.
COUNT I – FEDERAL TAKINGS CLAUSE

(Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
40. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 as
if fully restated herein.
41. Defendants actions are a seizure of Plaintiffs’ property without just
compensation, all in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
42. This claim is being made against all Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and § 1988.
43. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made
applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, is a constitutional provision
and right requiring the payment of just compensation upon a taking of private
property by Defendants. See Knick v. Twp. Of Scott, 588 U.S. ____ (2019).
44. Defendants’ COVID-19 policies have required the complete closure of

8
Plaintiffs’ businesses, thereby effectively taking their businesses through
governmental policy and regulation without offering any compensation for these
takings.
45. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders to close Plaintiffs’ businesses did not
substantially advance a legitimate state interest.
46. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders to close Plaintiffs’ businesses denied
them any economically viable use of their property.
47. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders to close Plaintiffs’ businesses required
them to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses of their property in the name of
the common good.
48. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders that required Plaintiffs to close their
businesses for months had a severe and destructive impact on Plaintiffs’ businesses
and property.
49. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders interfered with Plaintiffs’ distinct,
investment-backed expectations as to their businesses and property.
50. As outlined above, Defendants have taken Defendants’ property for
public use without providing just compensation.
51. Defendants have provided no compensation to Plaintiffs for the closure
and taking of their businesses, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their constitutional
rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
9
52. As a result of Defendants’ actions and failure to pay just compensation,
Plaintiffs have been injured and suffered damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.
COUNT II – MICHIGAN TAKINGS CLAUSE

(Article X, § 2, Michigan Constitution of 1963)
53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 52 as
if fully restated herein.
54. Defendants actions are a seizure of Plaintiffs’ property without just
compensation, all in violation of the Article X, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution of
1963.
56. This claim is being made against all Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367.
57. Article X, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 is a provision and
right requiring the payment of just compensation upon a taking of private property
by Defendants. See Knick v. Twp. Of Scott, 588 U.S. ____ (2019).
58. Defendants’ COVID-19 policies have required the complete closure of
Plaintiffs’ businesses, thereby effectively taking their businesses through
governmental policy and regulation without offering any compensation for these
takings.
10
59. Defendants have provided no compensation to Plaintiffs for the closure
and taking of their businesses, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their constitutional
rights in violation of Article X, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963.
60. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders to close Plaintiffs’ businesses did not
substantially advance a legitimate state interest.
61. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders to close Plaintiffs’ businesses denied
them economically viable use of their property.
62. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders to close Plaintiffs’ businesses required
them to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses of their property in the name of
the common good.
63. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders that required Plaintiffs to close their
businesses for months and months had a severe and destructive impact on Plaintiffs’
businesses and property.
64. Defendants’ COVID-19 orders interfered with Plaintiffs’ distinct,
investment-backed expectations as to their businesses and property.
66. As a result of Defendants’ actions and failure to pay just compensation,
Plaintiffs have been injured and suffered damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.
11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court:
A. Enter an order that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs constitutional
rights by taking their property for public use without just compensation;
B. Enter an order for damages and/or compensation for the value of the
property taken by Defendants;
C. Enter an order for any and all damages available under federal law as
applicable, including, but not limited to, an award for nominal and punitive damages;
D. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable law; and
E. Grant such other and further relief as is just and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
12
I HEREBY STATE AND AFFIRM THAT I HAVE HAD READ THE

FOREGOING VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND THAT IT IS TRUE AND
ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF.
DATED: January 20, 2021.

Donn Slimmen, President Slim's Inc.

~~=--~
eyette, Member 'Fremont Lanes

Dan Brown, President Skatemore Inc.
Prepared By:
Isl David A. Kallman

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lansing, MI 4891 7
517-322-3207
13
I HEREBY STATE AND AFFIRM THAT I HA VE HAD READ THE

FOREGOING VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND THAT IT IS TRUE AND
ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY lNFORMA TION, KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF.
DATED: January_, 2021.

Donn Slimmen, Pres. Slim's Inc.

Todd Kwiecien, Pres. Royal Scot

Dwayne Meyette, Fremont Lanes
20 2021.
DATED: January_,

Mike Eaton Jr., Member Spectrum Lanes
Prepared By:
Isl David A. Kallman

Attorney for Plaintiffs
Lansing, MI 48917
517-322-3207
13

Bowling Alley Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bowling Alley Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bowling Alley Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:21-cv-00066 ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 01/20/21 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SKATEMORE, INC., d/b/a ROLL VERIFIED COMPLAINT

NOW COME the above-named Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys,

thereof allege the following upon information and belief:

States and Michigan Constitutions, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging Defendants’

of their property without just compensation.

2. As set forth in this Complaint, the acts, orders, policies, practices,

behind, the constitutional violations in this case.

3. Plaintiffs seek a judgment awarding damages and compensatory

damages for the taking of Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation.

4. Plaintiffs also seek an award of their reasonable costs of litigation,

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

and of the State of Michigan. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343, as well as under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article III of the United

States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a).

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction regarding the remaining state

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

8. Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial

entities of, and officials of, the State of Michigan.

11. Plaintiff Skatemore, Inc., d/b/a Roll Haven Skating Center is a

Michigan corporation located in Genesee County, Michigan. It employed

approximately 51 people with annual revenues of approximately $800,000.00 prior

to being shut down by Defendants.

Restaurant is a Michigan corporation located in Mason County, Michigan. It

employed 12 people with annual revenues of approximately $460,000.00 prior to

being shut down by Defendants.

Michigan corporation located in Clinton County, Michigan. It employed 90 people

with annual revenues of approximately $4,400,000.00 prior to being shut down by

liability company located in Newaygo County, Michigan. It employed 35 people

with annual revenues of approximately $950,000.00 prior to being shut down by

Michigan limited liability company located in Newaygo County, Michigan. It

employed approximately 80 people with annual revenues of approximately

$5,500,000.00 prior to being shut down by Defendants.

16. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer is the Governor of Michigan, controls the

agencies involved in this matter pursuant to Article V, Section 8, of the Michigan

17. Defendant Robert Gordon is Director of the Michigan Department of

Health and Human Services (MDHHS). He issued Emergency Orders on November

matter. He is being sued in his official capacity.

18. Defendant Michigan Department of Health and Human Services is a

Michigan State Administrative Agency that is enforcing Director Gordon’s orders

shall collectively be referred to as the “COVID-19 Orders.”

20. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-9 on

be shut down to the public.

21. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-20 on

until April 13, 2020.

22. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-43 on

until April 30, 2020.

23. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-69 on

until May 28, 2020.

24. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-100

until June 12, 2020.

25. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-110

on June 1, 2020, which continued the mandated closure of bowling establishments

26. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-160

mandated closure of bowling establishments indefinitely.

27. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-176