Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIP LETTEN, Plaintiff,
vs.

Hon. Case No.

SCOTT HALL, Detroit Police Department Police Officer, in his individual capacity,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

Jessie J. Rossman (P72869) Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P49759) Kary L. Moss (P49759) American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6823 jrossman@aclumich.org dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff

_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 13
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1. This is a federal civil rights action brought to protect the right of a political activist to
distribute pamphlets on a public walkway without fear of arrest, prosecution, retaliation, or interference by the police. 2. On July 31, 2009, Plaintiff Phillip Letten was in the City of Detroit to advocate with the non-profit organization Vegan Outreach to end animal cruelty. He and several other activists stood on a public walkway outside of Comerica Park and distributed informational booklets to passers-by as they left a concert. Letten remained on the walkway, and his peaceful advocacy efforts neither impeded the flow of pedestrian traffic nor created any other type of disturbance. Nevertheless, a police officer ordered Letten to stop leafleting because he did not have a permit and then charged him with a crime for allegedly violating an unspecified Detroit city ordinance. 3. In this action, Letten alleges violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also brings a supplemental state-law claim for malicious prosecution. 4. Letten seeks a declaration that his rights were violated, damages and other appropriate relief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this is a civil action
seeking redress for the deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claim is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 13
6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to the claims asserted occurred in Wayne County, which is within the Eastern District of Michigan.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Phillip Letten is 22 years old and a resident of Howell, Michigan. He holds a
bachelor's degree in political science from Michigan State University and is a political activist who has been dedicated to the effort to end animal cruelty for several years. 8. Defendant Scott Hall, is, or was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a police officer in the Detroit Police Department. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
FACTS 9. Letten’s involvement in animal rights advocacy began when he adopted a vegetarian
diet during his final year in high school after reading a Vegan Outreach pamphlet that changed his perspective on the treatment of animals. 10. When he enrolled at Michigan State University, Letten joined a student organization called Students Promoting Animal Rights. It was here that Letten learned about the efficacy of Vegan Outreach’s focus on public education. 11. Letten soon began to hand out informational pamphlets for Vegan Outreach on campus. 12. Prior to July 31, 2009, Letten never had any problems with police, security guards, or members of the general public while leafleting.
3

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 13
13. On July 31, 2009, the popular traveling music festival, the Warped Tour, was hosted by Comerica Park in downtown Detroit.
14. Letten learned about an opportunity to distribute Vegan Outreach pamphlets on the public walkways outside of the Warped Tour through Students Promoting Animal Rights and decided to participate.
15. When Letten arrived downtown on the day of the concert, he was first instructed to prevent confrontations, to remain on public walkways and to avoid impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic. He then began to distribute Vegan Outreach’s pamphlets while standing on the public walkway between Woodward and Comerica Park.
16. The Vegan Outreach pamphlet was solely for informational purposes and was not a business solicitation. Its contents described the mistreatment of animals in modern animal agriculture and suggested healthy alternative food options for vegans and vegetarians.
17. For approximately two hours, Letten peacefully distributed literature to the steady stream of individuals who were exiting the concert without any disturbances. He did not obstruct pedestrian traffic and no one complained about his presence.
18. At approximately 7p.m., Letten moved further down the walkway to retrieve a few pamphlets that some pedestrians had dropped on the ground. When he returned to his original location, he saw Officer Hall speaking to another Vegan Outreach volunteer.
19. Upon information and belief, Officer Hall was not advised by anyone of a disruption or disturbance caused by the Vegan Outreach volunteers’ presence, nor did any such disruption or disturbance occur.
4

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 5 of 13
20. Officer Hall ordered Letten and several other Vegan Outreach volunteers to stop pamphleting. Letten immediately stopped leafleting. He then explained to Defendant Hall that he was on a public walkway.
21. Officer Hall stated that there was a city ordinance that required Letten to obtain a permit in order to distribute leaflets.
22. When Letten asked if he could see this ordinance, OfficerHall said “no,” and then demanded that Letten give him his driver's license so he could write him a ticket.
23. In response, Letten asked if he was being detained. Officer Hall only replied, “give me your license.”
24. Letten again asked if he was being detained, and Officer Hall again asked for Letten's license.
25. Eventually, Officer Hall stated that Letten was being detained and ordered him to provide his license. Letten immediately complied.
26. Officer Hall wrote and signed a misdemeanor complaint against Letten and handed Letten a copy.
27. According to the complaint Officer Hall handed to Letten, Letten had violated a city "license ordinance" described only as "Distribute flyers w/o permit."
28. The complaint does not contain a numerical citation to the provision of the city code that Letten allegedly violated.
29. Although Officer Hall ordered several other Vegan Outreach volunteers to stop distributing pamphlets, Letten was the only one who questioned Hall's authority to stop the leafleting and Letten was the only individual whom Hall ticketed for distributing flyers without a permit.
5

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 6 of 13
30. Once Letten received his ticket, he and the other Vegan Outreach volunteers packed up their belongings and went home.
31. As a result, they lost the opportunity to express their views to several thousand individuals who exited Comerica Park at the conclusion of the concert.
32. The misdemeanor complaint that Officer Hall eventually filed in 36th District Court materially differed from that which Officer Hall originally provided to Letten.
33. While the misdemeanor complaint Officer Hall handed to Letten on the street did not cite a provision of the Detroit City Code, the complaint filed in court included a citation to Detroit City Code § 3-2-1.
34. Furthermore, while the complaint Letten received on the street alleged only that Letten had distributed flyers without a permit, the complaint filed in court also alleged that had refused to comply with an “order to stop” and had interfered with pedestrian traffic.
35. Detroit City Code § 3-2-1 provides: a. It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute or cause to be distributed any commercial handbills, circulars or advertising cards that solicit patronage for goods, wares, merchandize, services, real estate or any other thing within the Loop or Loop District, which is defined in section 1-1-2 of this Code as the area bounded on the south by the south line of East Jefferson Avenue and West Jefferson Avenue; on the east by the east line of St. Antoine Street; on the north by the north line of Columbia Street; and on the west by the west line of First Street. b. The provisions of this section shall not apply to established newspapers or periodicals or to noncommercial circulars, handbills, or cards which do not solicit patronage for profit.
36. Letten did not distribute any commercial pamphlets on July 31, 2009. The Vegan Outreach pamphlets that he distributed were noncommercial, educational materials that did not solicit patronage for profit.
6

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 7 of 13
37. At no time did Letten refuse to comply with a police officer's order to stop leafleting.
38. At no time did Letten interfere in any way with pedestrian traffic.
39. Upon information and belief, Officer Hall altered the misdemeanor complaint himself
after he realized that it is not a crime to distribute flyers without a permit.
40. Both the original and the altered misdemeanor complaint differed yet again from the
set of claims recorded in the 36th District Court's official register of actions, where
Letten was charged with allegedly soliciting trade in a public place in violation of
Detroit City Code § 50-1-13.
41. Detroit City Code § 50-1-13 provides:
No merchant, storekeeper, shopkeeper, commercial vehicle operator or any other owner or operator of any business, calling or pursuit shall, by himself under his direction, stand or remain in any public street or in any doorway or other place adjacent to a public street and, by calls, cries, ringing of bells, blowing of horns or by the operation of any noise making, noise producing or noise amplifying device or by reaching out into the street and using force, solicit passers-by to enter into any store, shop, place of business or place of commercial pursuit or any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire; nor shall any person stand or remain in any public street or any doorway or other place adjacent to a public street and seek by any of the means or methods heretofore enumerated to detain passers-by or attract their attention or trade to such store, shop, place of business or place of commercial pursuit or to any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire.
42. Letten is not a merchant, storekeeper, shopkeeper, commercial vehicle operater or any
other owner or operator of any business, calling or pursuit.
43. Additionally, at no time did Letten detain pedestrians or solicit them to enter into, or
attract their attention toward, a place of commercial business or a motor vehicle
carrying passengers for hire.
7

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 8 of 13
44. On the basis of Officer Hall’s misdemeanor complaint, Letten was arraigned in 36th District Court on September 1, 2009. Personal bond was set at $500 and a pre-trial hearing was scheduled for November 18, 2009.
45. Upon information and belief, no prosecuting attorney independently review Officer Hall’s criminal complaint before Letten was sent a notice to appear for arraignment or before he was arraigned.
46. The proceedings and the charges and accusations of Officer Hall were malicious and without probable cause, and after Letten's arraignment, the city attorney agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.
47. On November 17, 2009, the charges against Letten were ordered dismissed with prejudice.
48. Letten was forced to endure the embarrassment and humiliation of being detained, chastised and wrongly ticketed by Officer Hall on a public street in front of numerous pedestrians. Because Officer Hall ordered Letten to stop pamphleting before the concert was finished, Letten lost the opportunity to express his views to several thousand individuals who exited Comerica Park at the end of the night. Letten lives with his parents, and their initial expressions of anger and disappointment in response to an official misdemeanor complaint from a police officer added to his already significant anxiety and mental anguish about the pending charges. His pecuniary damages include the day of lost wages when he was forced to miss work for his arraignment, as well as his travel costs to attend the same.
COUNT ONE VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
8

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 9 of 13
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH (RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE LEAFLETS IN A PUBLIC FORUM) 49. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits abridgement of the freedom of speech, and the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons violating the First Amendment under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 50. The First Amendment protects the right to distribute leaflets on a public walkway. 51. Officer Hall, acting under the color of state law, violated Letten’s clearly established rights under the First Amendment by ordering him to stop distributing pamphlets on a public walkway, detaining him for distributing pamphlets on a public walkway and charging him with a crime for distributing pamphlets on a public walkway.
COUNT TWO VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH (RETALIATION)
52. The freedom to express disagreement with a police officer without fear of reprisal based on that expression is protected by the First Amendment.
53. Officer Hall, acting under color of state law, violated Letten’s clearly established rights under the First Amendment because Hall’s decision to detain him and charge him with a crime was motivated at least in part by the fact that Letten questioned his authority to prevent him from distributing pamphlets on a public walkway, which is constitutionally protected speech.
COUNT THREE VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
9

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 10 of 13
RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
(DETENTION WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION/PROBABLE CAUSE) 54. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable
searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons violating the Fourth Amendment under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 55. Officer Hall, acting under color of state law, violated Letten’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures by detaining him without reasonable suspicion that he had committed any offense and without probable cause that he had committed any offense.
COUNT FOUR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)
56. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibition of unreasonable seizures encompasses the right to be free from malicious prosecution.
57. Officer Hall, acting under the color of state law, violated Letten’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures by unlawfully and maliciously causing a criminal prosecution to be instituted against him.
58. Officer Hall lacked probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against Letten; a reasonable person in Officer Hall’s position would have known that the facts and circumstances were insufficient to justify a reasonable belief that Letten had
10

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 11 of 13
committed any offense; the criminal proceedings ended in Letten’s favor; and the criminal proceedings were the result of malice by Officer Hall.
COUNT FIVE VIOLATION OF COMMON LAW AND M.C.L. § 600.2907
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 59. In Michigan, malicious prosecution is recognized under the common law and by
M.C.L. § 600.2907. 60. Officer Hall violated Letten’s right to be free from malicious prosecution under
common law and M.C.L. § 600.2907. 61. Specifically, Officer Hall caused the criminal proceedings against Letten to be instituted; the proceedings terminated in Letten’s favor; there was no probable cause
to support the prosecution; and Officer Hall acted with malice.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: a. assert jurisdiction over this matter; b. declare that Letten’s rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments were violated by Officer Hall; c. declare that Letten’s rights under M.C.L. § 600.2907 were violated by Officer
Hall; d. award Letten compensatory damages for the violation of his constitutional
rights and treble damages for malicious prosecution under M.C.L. § 600.2907; e. award costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and f. grant or award other such relief that this Court deems just and proper.
11

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 12 of 13

Dated: June 2, 2010

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Jessie J. Rossman___
Jessie J. Rossman (P72869) Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P49759) Kary L. Moss (P49759) American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6823 jrossman@aclumich.org dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Jessie J. Rossman___
Jessie J. Rossman (P72869) Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P49759) Kary L. Moss (P49759) American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6823 jrossman@aclumich.org dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org

12

Case 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 13 of 13

Dated: June 2, 2010

Attorneys for Plaintiff

13

 
 Settlement Agreement
\:r 1. This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement") is made th~~-l·l,.o.,., day of (.Ltvl--v;
20 11 by and between Phillip Letten, Ken Anderson, the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan ("ACLU Fund of Michi gan"), Officer Scott Hall, Officer LaShawn Peoples, and the City of Detroit ("the City") (collectively, the "Pm1ies").
2. This Agreement fu lly and completely resolves Letren v. Hall (Case No.1 0-cv-12182) and Anderson v. Peoples (Case No. I0-cv- 12183), two civil actions filed by Phillip Letten and
Ken Anderson on June 2, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, whi ch are now consolidated as a single case, Lellen v. Hall
(Case No. I0-cv-12182) ("this Action").
3. Attorney Daniel S. Korobkin is authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of Phillip Letten, Ken Anderson, and the ACLU Fund of Michigan, and Jane K. Mills is authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of Officer Scott Hall , Officer LaShawn Peoples, and the City.
4. Phillip Letten agrees, on behalf of himself, agents, family members, fr iends, pal1nerS, associates, attomeys, heirs and assigns, to release Officer Hall, the City, and all other employees and agents of the City from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action, suits or injuries of any kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, to person, property or otherwise, which have resulted or may in the future arise out of his encounter with Officer Hall on July 31, 2009, including but not limited to those damages alleged in this Action.
5. Ken Anderson agrees, on behalf of himself, agents, family members, friends, partners, associates, attorneys, heirs and assigns, to release Officer Peoples, the John Doe police officer named as Officer Peoples' co-defendant, the City, and all other employees and agents of the City from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action, suits or inj uries of ally kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, to person, property or otherwise, which have resulted or may in the [1lture arise out of his encounter with Officer Peoples and the John Doe defendant on November 12,2008, including but not limited to those damages alleged in this Action.
6. The City agrees to adopt "Training Directive - First Amendment Right to Distribute NonCommercial Pamphlets and Handbills" ("First Amendment Training Directive"), attached as Exhibit L
7. The City agrees to distribute copies of the First Amendment Training Directive to all members of the Detroit Police Department ("Department") via an A-Distribution within 30 days of this Agreement
Page 1 of3

8. The City agrees Ihat the First Amendment Training Directive shall be read aloud to every Depat1ment shift for a span of one week during roll call as an Administrative Messageffeletype within 30 days of this Agreement, and then again to every shift for a span of one week 6 months after the first reading.
9. The City agrees to adopt "Training Directive - Reta liation" ("Retaliation Training Directive"), attached as Exhibit 2 .
10. The City agrees to distribute copies of the Retali ation Training Directive to all members of the Department via at1 A-Distributi on within 30 days of this Agreement.
II . The City agrees that the Retaliation Training Directive shall be read aloud to every Department shi h for a span of one week during roll call as an Administrative Messagerreletype withi n 30 days of this Agreement, and then agai n to every shift for a span of one week 6 months after the first reading.
12. The City agrees to adopt "Training Directive - Loitering" ("Loitering Training Directive"), attached as Exhibit 3.
13. The City agrees to distribute copies of the Loitering Training Directive to all members of the Department via an A-D istribution within 30 days of this Agreement.
14. The City agrees that the Loitering Training D irective shall be read aloud to every Department shift for a span of one week during roll call as an Administrative Messageffeletype within 30 days of this Agreeme nt, and then again to every shift for a span of one week 6 months after the first reading.
s.1 The City agrees to place a direct link to its online citi zen complaint fOim on the main page of
the Department's website within 30 days of this Agreement.
16. The City agrees to ensure that posters explaining its ci tizen compla int form are on public display in the lobby and/or entrance of every precinct station and at the Department headquarters within 30 days of this Agreement.
17. The City agrees to ensure that printed brochures explaining its citizen complaint form are placed in racks andlor display areas at every precinct station and at the Department headquarters within 30 days of this Agreement. This Agreement does not requi re the City to create racks andlor display areas where none exist.
18. The City agrees that a citizen may file a citizen complaint form even if there are charges pending against him or her.
19. The City agrees to distribute a wri tten statement regarding paragraph 18 to all members of the Department via an A-Distribution within 30 days of this Agreement.
Page 2 of3

20. The City agrees that thi s statement regarding paragraph 18 shall be read aloud to every Department sh ift for a span of one week during rolJ call as an Administrative Messageffeletype withi n 30 days of this Agreement.

2 1. The City shall pay the total amount of$ 20,000.00 to Phillip Letten, Ken Anderson, and their counsel at the ACLU Fund of Michigan.

22. The Parties agree to the fonn and content of the proposed order dismissing this Acti on, attached as Exhibit 4. The proposed order shall be filed upon execution of this Agreement.

~led and agreed to by:
'0?-~~
J$ne K. Mills
Ci ty of Detroit Law Department 660 Woodward Ave., Ste. 1650
Detroit, MI48226
W s./<:..L
Daniel S. Korobkin ACLU Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MJ 48201

DATE:

Page30f3

Exhibit 1 First Amendment Training Directive

Detroit Police Depa,tmeru(
Training Directive

Numbered Directives shall be retained by all members Number: ~
Date: 11/0/10

SUBJECT: FIRST AMENDME NT RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE NONCOMMERPAL PAMIftLETS AND HANDBILLS
Th is Training Directive is intended to remind members of the department that the First Amendment protects the right of persons in public places to distribute non-commercia l handbills and pamphlets. No permit or license is required and there are no statutes or ordinances that limit an individual's right to do so.
Detroit City Code Section 3-2-1 does not apply to non-commercial handbills , circulars, pamphlets or other written material. Section 3-2- 1 states:
a. It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute or cause to be distributed any commercial handbills, circu lars or advertising cards that solicit patronage for goods, wares, merchandise. services , real ~state or any other thing with in the Loop or Loop District, which is defined in Section 1-1-2 of this Code as the area bounded on the south by the south line of East Jefferson Avenue and West Jefferson Ave nue; on the east by the east line of St. Antoi ne; on the north by the north line of Columbia Street; and on the west by the west line of First Street.
b. The provisions of this section shalf not apply to
established newspapers or pe riodica ls or to noncomm ercial ci rculars, ha ndbill~r or cards whi ch
do not solicit patronage for profit.
Furthermore, there is no perm it or license requ ired to distribute noncommercial handbills or pamphlets.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects, among other things , the right of freedom speech and expression . The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that this constitutional right includes written as well as verbal expres·sion. It is of the utmost importance that members understand ~~ and act in accordance with that understanding -- that the First Amendment protects a freedom of expression without regard to the content of the message or whether an officer or others find it offensive, contemptuous or objectionable.
Questions can be directed to the Police Legal Advisor at 596-2151 .

Delmit Police D~parlmenl

This Training DirecHve is [or Internal deparlmenlal use only, and violations of the procedures oulilned In Ihls Tralning Directive may form the basis for

Departmenlal admlnls\rallve sancllons, This dOl;umenl \s not Intended for Ullrd-parly use or benenl No criminal or elvll duly or standard of care Is

lnl<>nrl ..rl In h" nr I" 1".r.. "I"," h1J Ih" i.~"'''.n",,, nf thf.q Tr;olntnn fll,,,,,Uv,,

.

Exhibit 2 Retaliation Training Directive

SUBJECT: RETALIATION

DPD Training Directive ~"'N

The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to verbally oppose, verbally criticize, or verbally question police action without thereby risking arrest or a citation. Although the First Amendment does not protect the right to physically obstruct a police officer or refuse to comply with a lawful police order, verbally opposing, criticizing or questioning police action does not constitute physical obstruction or resistance. These expressions are not criminal and cannot be punished constitutionally.

An individual has the right to question the basis for a police stop, ask for the ordinance underlying a police stop, and express his displeasure with a police stop. This protection extends to expletives and other language that an officer may find annoying or provocative. In the face of such verbal challenges, an officer must exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen.

It is unlawful to arrest or ticket an individual for speech that verbally opposes or verbally questions police action. It is similarly unlawful to retaliate against an individual who verbally opposes or verbally questions police action by arresting or ticketing them for another offense. An officer cannot arrest such an individual for another offense unless the same action would have been taken even in the absence of the speech.

This directive is constitutionally required. It also is in keeping with our Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, in which every officer pledges Uta maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self restraint and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others:

Exhibit 3 Loitering Training Directive

SUBJECT: LOITERING

DPD Training Directive
13 ' t~'J~fI

Members of the department are reminded that "loitering," by itself, is not a crime, and cannot be the basis for an arrest or an investigative stop.

The Constitution protects the right to loiter or remain in a public place for an innocent purpose, or for no purpose at all. LOitering is not a crime in itself and cannot be punished constitutionally. Merely being present in an area where illegal activity is taking place or tends to take place is not illegal.

Section 38-1-3 of the Detroit City Code provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter on any street, sidewalks,
overpass or public place. For the purpose of this section, loitering is
defined as the act of standing or idling in or about any street, sidewalk,
overpass or public place so as to hinder or impede or tend to hinder or impede the passage of pedestrians or vehicfes.

No violation of section 38-1-3 occurs unless the person is engaged in conduct that hinders or impedes, or tends to hinder or impede, pedestrian or veh icle traffic. The act of standing or idling in or about a public place is not, by itself, a loitering offense.

Section 38-11-6 of the Detroit City Code provides:

A person shall not knowingly remain in any building, apartment, store, automobile, boat, boathouse, airplane, or any other place where any controlled substance is illegally sold, dispensed, furnished, given away, stored, or kept with the intent to unlawfully use or possess such controlled substance.

No violation of section 38-1 1-6 occurs unless the person knows of a drug offense in that place and intends to commit a drug offense. Merely being present in a place where a drug offense occurs is not illegal.

Because loitering by itself is not a criminal offense, it does not give rise to the "reasonable suspicionn required to justify an investigatory stop. The reasonable suspicion standard is not satisfied merely by loitering in a high-crime area or near a place where illegal activity occurs. To justify an investigatory stop for loitering, there must be reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, purpose, or intent on the part of the person being stopped.

Exhibit 4 Stipulated Order of Voluutary Dismissal

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICf COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICf OF MlCmGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIP LETTEN, et ai., Plaintiffs,
vs.

HOIl. Avern Calm
Case No. 10-ev-12182

SCOTT HALL, et ai.,

Defendants. I

STIPULATED ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

A settlement having been reached in this matter, and the parties having stipulated

to thi s order by and through counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated:
Stipulated to by: lsi Jessie 1. Rossman Daniel S. Korobkin Counsel for Plaintiffs Dated:

Is! Hon. Avern Cohn United States District Judge
Is! Jane K. Mi ll s
Counsel for Defendants Dated:

 
 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 54

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIP LETTEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, vs. SCOTT HALL, et al.,

Case No. 10-cv-12182 Hon. Avern Cohn

Defendants. /

Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (P49759) American Civil Liberties Union Fund
of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6824 dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org

Jane Kent-Mills (P38251) City of Detroit Law Department 1650 First National Building 660 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 237-5060 millj@law.ci.detroit.mi.us
Attorney for Defendants

Attorneys for Plaintiffs /

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPOSE SANCTIONS, AND AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES

Plaintiffs hereby move for enforcement of their settlement agreement. This case was

settled over eight months ago, subject only to approval by city council. City council approved

the settlement over three months ago. Plaintiffs’ counsel have repeatedly implored defendants to

carry out their obligations under the settlement agreement, to no avail. Plaintiffs therefore

request the following immediate relief:

1. Enforcement of the settlement agreement by an order for specific performance.

2. Sanctions for the extraordinary delay caused by defendants.

3. Attorney’s fees for having to bring this motion.

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 55

Local Rule 7.1(a) requires plaintiff to ascertain whether this motion will be opposed.

Plaintiffs’ counsel telephoned defendants’ counsel on December 5, 2011, to explain the nature of

this motion and its legal basis. Defendants’ counsel did not answer, and her voicemail system

was full such that no message could be left. Plaintiffs’ counsel therefore sent defense counsel a

letter by fax and email explaining the nature of this motion and its legal basis. Plaintiffs’ counsel

requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought.

A supporting brief and evidentiary material accompany this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 6, 2011

/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (P49759) American Civil Liberties Union Fund
of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48201 (313) 578-6824 dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org

2

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIP LETTEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, vs. SCOTT HALL, et al.,

Case No. 10-cv-12182 Hon. Avern Cohn

Defendants. /

Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (P49759) American Civil Liberties Union Fund
of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6824 dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org

Jane Kent-Mills (P38251) City of Detroit Law Department 1650 First National Building 660 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 237-5060 millj@law.ci.detroit.mi.us
Attorney for Defendants

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPOSE SANCTIONS, AND AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 57
TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 FACTS .............................................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5
I. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. ......................................................................................5 A. This court has the inherent power to enforce the settlement agreement..................5 B. The parties reached an agreement on all material terms..........................................5 C. The city is in breach of the agreement. ....................................................................6 D. Specific performance is the appropriate remedy. ....................................................6
II. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY DELAY. ............................................................................................................................7
III. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES. .............................................8 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................9
ii

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 58
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Anderson v. Gaines, Case No. 09-cv-11193 (E.D. Mich.)...........................................................7, 8 Bamerilease Capital Corp. v. Nearburg, 958 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1992) ..........................................6 Brock v. Scheuner Corp., 841 F.2d 151 (6th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................5 Doe v. Hogan, 421 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (S.D. Ohio 2006) ..................................................................8 Green v. City of Detroit, Case No. 09-cv-11589 (E.D. Mich.) ....................................................6, 7 Limbright v. Hofmeister, 566 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009)...................................................................6 Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010)............................................8 Re/Max Int’l, Inc. v. Realty One, Inc., 271 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2001) ..............................................5 Ruegsegger v. Bangor Twp. Relief Drain, 127 Mich. App. 28 (1983) ............................................6 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1927..............................................................................................................................8 42 U.S.C. § 1983..............................................................................................................................8
iii

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 59
INTRODUCTION Soon after this case began in June 2010, there were promising signs of an impressive settlement. Then-deputy city attorney Saul Green and corporation counsel Krystal Crittendon, along with defense counsel of record Jane Mills, met with plaintiffs’ attorneys and agreed that the parties would negotiate a comprehensive settlement that would include revised city policies, police training, and a monetary payment. Negotiations continued over the next several months, and by this spring the parties had reached agreement on all material terms of settlement. Several more months elapsed while plaintiffs waited for city council to approve the settlement. City council finally did so on September 6, 2011. Unfortunately, plaintiffs’ subsequent efforts to bring this case to a swift resolution have been met with extraordinary periods of silence and inaction by the city. Plaintiffs have signed all necessary releases and other paperwork required by the city as a condition of settlement. The parties’ agreement now requires the city to do two things. First, it must implement the police policy and training requirements enumerated in the settlement agreement. Second, it must pay plaintiffs and their counsel $20,000 as agreed to in the settlement agreement. The city has failed to carry out these obligations for several months with no explanation or excuse. Consequently, plaintiffs have little choice but to request the following immediate relief. First, this court should enforce the settlement agreement by an order of specific performance so that this case may be closed. Second, the court should impose sanctions for the extraordinary delay. Third, the court should award plaintiffs attorney’s fees for having to bring this motion.
FACTS This motion is based on the following facts:
1

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 60
1. On June 2, 2010, this case began as two separate civil actions alleging police misconduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Korobkin Declaration, ¶ 3.) The two cases were later consolidated under a single docket number and judge, Case No. 2:10-cv-12182-AC. (Id.; Dkt. ## 13-14.)
2. On August 9, 2010, plaintiffs’ counsel met with then-deputy mayor Saul Green, corporation counsel Krystal Crittendon, and defense counsel Jane Mills. The parties agreed that instead of litigating the individual disputes, they would focus on revising the city’s policies and implementing new police training regarding retaliation, citizen complaints, leafleting on a public sidewalk, and loitering. (Korobkin Declaration, ¶ 4.)
3. Between September 2010 and February 2011, attorneys for both sides (along with a representative of the Detroit police department) negotiated a comprehensive written settlement agreement on police policies, training, and monetary compensation to plaintiffs and their attorneys. (Id., ¶ 5.)
4. On February 10, 2011, the parties’ attorneys met with Judge Cohn at a status conference and reported that agreement had been reached regarding police policies and training, but that they had not yet reached a final agreement on monetary compensation. (Id., ¶ 6.)
5. On March 29, 2011, the parties’ attorneys met with Judge Cohn at a status conference and reported that agreement had been reached regarding monetary compensation, but that they had not yet reached a final agreement as to whether the court would retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement after the case was dismissed. (Id., ¶ 8.)
6. Also on March 29, 2011, the parties’ attorneys reviewed the written settlement agreement line by line and finalized every part of the agreement with the exception of the term
2

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 61
that would provide for the court to retain jurisdiction. (Id., ¶¶ 9-10 and Exhibit A, with annotations in the handwriting of defense attorney Jane Mills.)
7. On April 5, 2011, the parties’ attorneys conferred by telephone and agreed that the court would not retain jurisdiction after the case was dismissed. They further agreed that the settlement was complete and ready for submission to city council for approval on or before April 8, 2011. Defense counsel stated to plaintiffs’ counsel that she would sign the settlement agreement after it received final approval from city council. (Korobkin Declaration, ¶ 11.)
8. On April 6, 2011, plaintiffs’ counsel sent the final version of the written settlement agreement to defense counsel by email, fax, and first-class mail. (Id., ¶ 12 and Exhibit B.)
9. On May 17, 2011, the parties’ attorneys met in Judge Cohn’s chambers and agreed to release-of-liability language that plaintiffs would sign after city council’s approval of the settlement agreement. (Id., ¶¶ 13-14 and Exhibit C, with handwritten annotations and initials of defense attorney Jane Mills.)
10. On August 9, 2011, the parties’ attorneys met with Judge Cohn at a status conference and reported that the case had been settled pending final approval by city council. In chambers, Judge Cohn drafted and read aloud the following proposed order, which the parties’ attorneys agreed to verbally before it was entered: “This case has been settled. All that remains is final approval of the Detroit City Council. . . .” (Id., ¶ 15.)
11. The next day, the above order was signed and entered by the court. (Dkt. # 22.) 12. On September 12, 2011, the parties’ attorneys conferred by telephone. Defense counsel informed plaintiffs’ counsel that city council had approved the settlement on September 6, 2011. She further stated that she would sign the written settlement agreement after plaintiffs
3

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 62
signed the city’s release-of-liability forms which she would send to plaintiffs’ counsel by September 16. (Korobkin Declaration, ¶ 17.)
13. On September 19, 2011, plaintiffs’ counsel received release-of-liability forms in the mail, but the forms did not have the language agreed to by the parties at the May 17, 2011 status conference. Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately sent defense counsel a letter listing the deficiencies and requesting corrected versions of the release forms. (Id., ¶¶ 18-19 and Exhibit D.)
14. Several weeks elapsed while plaintiffs’ counsel waited for defense counsel to correct the errors in the release-of-liability forms. Defense counsel left a voicemail for plaintiffs’ counsel stating that she would revise the release-of-liability forms, but she never did. (Id., ¶ 20.)
15. On October 13, 2011, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defense counsel a letter stating that his office would prepare corrected versions of the release forms for plaintiffs to sign, at which point defense counsel was expected to sign the settlement agreement. (Id., ¶¶ 21-22 and Exhibit E.)
16. On October 25, 2011, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defense counsel fully executed release-of-liability forms and the written settlement agreement signed by plaintiffs’ counsel. In his cover letter, plaintiffs’ counsel asked defense counsel to promptly sign and return the settlement agreement. (Id., ¶¶ 23-24 and Exhibit F.)
17. On November 8, 2011, the parties’ attorneys conferred by telephone. Defense counsel acknowledged having received the October 25 mailing and specifically agreed to sign and return the settlement agreement by November 11, 2011. (Id., ¶¶ 25-26 and Exhibit G.)
18. On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs’ counsel mailed and faxed defense counsel a letter asking her to sign and return the settlement agreement immediately. (Id., ¶¶ 26-27 and Exhibit H.)
19. Defense counsel did not respond to the November 23 letter. (Id., ¶ 28.)
4

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 63
ARGUMENT I. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. A. This court has the inherent power to enforce the settlement agreement. The legal standard governing the relief sought by this motion is clear:
It is well established that courts retain the inherent power to enforce agreements entered into in settlement of litigation pending before them. A federal court possesses this power even if that agreement has not been reduced to writing. Before enforcing settlement, the district court must conclude that agreement has been reached on all material terms. The court must enforce the settlement as agreed to by the parties and is not permitted to alter the terms of the agreement. Brock v. Scheuner Corp., 841 F.2d 151, 154 (6th Cir. 1988) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). B. The parties reached an agreement on all material terms. In this case, the parties reached an agreement on all material terms. The following order was entered with the consent of the parties, and without objection: “This case has been settled. All that remains is final approval of the Detroit City Council. . . .” (Dkt. # 22.) City council gave final approval to the settlement on September 6, 2011. Therefore, as of September 6, 2011, there was a final enforceable agreement. The terms of the settlement are memorialized in writing. (Exhibits A, B, C, and F.) Although defense counsel has not actually signed the settlement agreement, neither a written instrument nor a signature is required for an agreement to be enforceable. If “the objective acts of the parties reflect that an agreement has been reached,” each party is obligated to perform. Re/Max Int’l, Inc. v. Realty One, Inc., 271 F.3d 633, 646 (6th Cir. 2001).
5

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 64
C. The city is in breach of the agreement. The settlement agreement requires the city to adopt new policies, distribute copies of those policies within 30 days, read those policies aloud to police officers within 30 days, and take other actions regarding those policies within 30 days. (Exhibit F, ¶¶ 6-20.) It also requires the city to pay plaintiffs and their counsel $20,000. (Id., ¶ 21.) The city has not done any of those things. D. Specific performance is the appropriate remedy. A settlement agreement is essentially a contract, and state-law contract principles govern a federal court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement. See Limbright v. Hofmeister, 566 F.3d 672, 674 (6th Cir. 2009); Bamerilease Capital Corp. v. Nearburg, 958 F.2d 150, 152 (6th Cir. 1992). Specific performance is an appropriate remedy for breach of contract where a damages remedy is inadequate or impracticable. See Ruegsegger v. Bangor Twp. Relief Drain, 127 Mich. App. 28, 31 (1983). In this case, the court should order specific performance. With respect to paragraphs 620 of the settlement agreement (Exhibit F), a damages remedy would be inadequate. In settling this case, the parties agreed on new police policies and training as a component of the settlement because monetary compensation alone would not have accomplished substantial justice. They are entitled to the benefit of that bargain. As for the monetary component of the settlement (paragraph 21 of the settlement agreement), the court should order immediate payment. Specific performance of the settlement agreement entails plaintiffs dismissing their claims against defendants in exchange for all of the city’s promises in the settlement agreement—including payment of $20,000 within a reasonable amount of time. It is not reasonable for the city to delay payment for several months without explanation. See Green v. City of Detroit, Case No. 09-cv-11589 (E.D. Mich. filed July 22,
6

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 65
2011, Pg ID 275) (Zatkoff, J.) (Exhibit I) (ordering payment of $50,000 settlement within 10 days after four-month delay).
Accordingly, plaintiffs request that the court order the following relief: (1) specific performance of ¶¶ 6-20 of the settlement agreement (Exhibit F) to begin
within 14 days of the court’s order. (2) specific performance of ¶ 21 of the settlement agreement ($ 20,000 payment in full)
within 14 days of the court’s order. (3) sworn statements to be filed with the court when performance has begun. (4) sworn statements to be filed with the court when performance is complete. II. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY DELAY. The City of Detroit’s dilatory conduct in consummating and complying with settlement agreements is becoming notorious in this district. In Green, supra, Judge Zatkoff ordered the entire city council to appear before him and explain why it failed to take action on a settlement agreement for nearly three months. See Green, supra (order filed June 29, 2011, Pg ID 258) (Exhibit I). Judge Zatkoff noted that his was “not the only recent case where City Council has been egregiously dilatory in approving a settlement for a case that stemmed from alleged misconduct by City of Detroit police officers.” Id., Pg ID 257, slip op. at 3 n.1 (Exhibit I). Similarly, in Anderson v. Gaines, Case No. 09-cv-11193 (E.D. Mich. filed Mar. 7, 2011, Pg ID 97) (Exhibit J), Judge Roberts granted the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. Judge Roberts also awarded sanctions based on the city’s egregiously dilatory conduct: $ 250 per day that the settlement remained unpaid, retroactive to the date of the plaintiffs’ motion. Id. (Pg ID 99) (Exhibit J). Those sanctions
7

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 66
amounted to over $20,000 on a $25,000 settlement that, as in this case, went unpaid for approximately eight months. See id. (motion filed Dec. 16, 2010, Pg ID 88) (Exhibit J).
A similar sanction is appropriate here. When the parties agreed on a settlement figure, they agreed that payment would be made within a reasonable time. It has been over eight months since an agreement was reached in this case. Such a lengthy delay is inexcusable, and of course any further delay should not be countenanced. Plaintiffs therefore request sanctions as follows:
(1) $ 250 per day since November 11, 2011. (See supra p. 4, ¶ 17 and Exhibit G.) (2) $ 250 for every day the settlement sum is unpaid after this motion is filed. (3) $ 250 for every day after this motion is filed that performance of paragraphs 6-20 of
the settlement agreement (Exhibit F) has not begun. III. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES.
The court should also award attorney’s fees for having to bring this motion. See Anderson, supra (order filed Mar. 7, 2011, Pg ID 99) (Exhibit J) (awarding over $ 1,000 in fees under circumstances similar to this case). Attorney’s fees may be awarded as a sanction for dilatory conduct. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Additionally, because this is a case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, attorney’s fees should be awarded because plaintiffs will be prevailing parties as a result of this court’s order of specific performance. See Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 451 (9th Cir. 2010); Doe v. Hogan, 421 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1057 (S.D. Ohio 2006).
In this case, plaintiffs’ counsel have spent well over six hours preparing this motion at a reasonable hourly rate of $ 250. Plaintiffs therefore request a fee award in the amount of $ 1,500. Plaintiffs are able to submit billing records upon request.
8

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 67

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs request the following relief:

1. Enforcement of the settlement agreement by an order for specific performance.

2. Sanctions for the extraordinary delay caused by defendants.

3. Attorney’s fees for having to bring this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (P43759) American Civil Liberties Union Fund
of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6824 dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org

Dated: December 6, 2011

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 68
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 6, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with
the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
Daniel S. Korobkin dkorobkin@aclumich.org
Jane K. Mills millj@detroitmi.gov
Michael J. Steinberg msteinberg@aclumich.org bbove@aclumich.org
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin Daniel S. Korobkin (P72824) American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6824 dkorobkin@aclumich.org

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-1 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 69

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Declaration of Daniel S. Korobkin

Exhibit A:

Settlement Agreement Annotated 3/29/11

Exhibit B:

Letter to Mills with Final Settlement Agreement 4/6/11

Exhibit C:

Release Form Annotated 5/17/11

Exhibit D:

Letter to Mills 9/19/11

Exhibit E:

Letter to Mills 10/13/11

Exhibit F:

Letter to Mills with Final Signed Settlement Agreement and Signed Releases 10/25/11

Exhibit G:

Letter to Mills 11/8/11

Exhibit H:

Letter to Mills 11/23/11

Exhibit I:

Green v. City of Detroit

Exhibit J:

Anderson v. Gaines

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-2 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 70

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-2 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 71

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-2 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 72

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-2 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 73

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-2 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 74

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-3 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 75

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-3 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 76

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-3 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 77

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-3 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 78

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 79

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 16 Pg ID 80

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 3 of 16 Pg ID 81

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 4 of 16 Pg ID 82

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 5 of 16 Pg ID 83

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 6 of 16 Pg ID 84

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 7 of 16 Pg ID 85

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 8 of 16 Pg ID 86

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 9 of 16 Pg ID 87

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 10 of 16 Pg ID 88

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 11 of 16 Pg ID 89

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 12 of 16 Pg ID 90

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 13 of 16 Pg ID 91

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 14 of 16 Pg ID 92

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 15 of 16 Pg ID 93

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-4 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 16 of 16 Pg ID 94

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-5 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 95

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-5 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 96

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 97

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 18 Pg ID 98

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 3 of 18 Pg ID 99

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 4 of 18 Pg ID 100

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 5 of 18 Pg ID 101

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 6 of 18 Pg ID 102

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 7 of 18 Pg ID 103

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 8 of 18 Pg ID 104

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 9 of 18 Pg ID 105

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 10 of 18 Pg ID 106

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID 107

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 12 of 18 Pg ID 108

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 13 of 18 Pg ID 109

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 14 of 18 Pg ID 110

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 15 of 18 Pg ID 111

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 16 of 18 Pg ID 112

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 17 of 18 Pg ID 113

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-6 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 18 of 18 Pg ID 114

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-7 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 115

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-7 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 116

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 39 Pg ID 117

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 39 Pg ID 118

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 3 of 39 Pg ID 119

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 4 of 39 Pg ID 120

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 5 of 39 Pg ID 121

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 6 of 39 Pg ID 122

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 7 of 39 Pg ID 123

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 8 of 39 Pg ID 124

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 9 of 39 Pg ID 125

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 10 of 39 Pg ID 126

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 11 of 39 Pg ID 127

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 12 of 39 Pg ID 128

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 13 of 39 Pg ID 129

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 14 of 39 Pg ID 130

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 15 of 39 Pg ID 131

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 16 of 39 Pg ID 132

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 17 of 39 Pg ID 133

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 18 of 39 Pg ID 134

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 19 of 39 Pg ID 135

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 20 of 39 Pg ID 136

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 21 of 39 Pg ID 137

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 22 of 39 Pg ID 138

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 23 of 39 Pg ID 139

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 24 of 39 Pg ID 140

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 25 of 39 Pg ID 141

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 26 of 39 Pg ID 142

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 27 of 39 Pg ID 143

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 28 of 39 Pg ID 144

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 29 of 39 Pg ID 145

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 30 of 39 Pg ID 146

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 31 of 39 Pg ID 147

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 32 of 39 Pg ID 148

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 33 of 39 Pg ID 149

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 34 of 39 Pg ID 150

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 35 of 39 Pg ID 151

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 36 of 39 Pg ID 152

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 37 of 39 Pg ID 153

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 38 of 39 Pg ID 154

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-8 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 39 of 39 Pg ID 155

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-9 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 156

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-9 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 157

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-10 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 158

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-10 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 159

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 160

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 161

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 162

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 163

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 164

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 165

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 166

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 167

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-11 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 168

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 169

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 170

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 171

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 172

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 173

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 174

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 175

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 176

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 177

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 178

2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 23-12 Filed 12/06/11 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 179

 
 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM Doc # 31 Filed 03/14/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 211

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIP LETTEN, et al., Hon.
Plaintiffs, Case
vs.

Avern Cohn No. 10-cv-12182

SCOTT HALL, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

WHEREAS a settlement has been reached in this matter; the plaintiffs have filed

notice that they are withdrawing their motion to enforce the settlement agreement,

impose sanctions, and award attorneys’ fees; and the parties have stipulated to this order

by and through counsel as indicated by their signatures below; it is hereby ORDERED

that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated: March 14, 2012
Stipulated to by: /s/ Daniel S. Korobkin Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Counsel for Plaintiffs Dated: March 14, 2012

s/Avern Cohn Hon. Avern Cohn United States District Judge
/s/ John A. Schapka (by consent) John A. Schapka (P36731) Counsel for Defendants Dated: March 13, 2012

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM As of: 05/30/2012 04:23 PM EDT 1 of 4

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−12182−AC−VMM

CLOSED

Letten v. Hall Assigned to: District Judge Avern Cohn Referred to: Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/02/2010 Date Terminated: 03/14/2012 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Phillip Letten

represented by Daniel S. Korobkin American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578−6824 Fax: (313) 578−6811 Email: dkorobkin@aclumich.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Steinberg American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 313−578−6814 Email: msteinberg@aclumich.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessie J. Rossman American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 313−578−6800 Fax: 313−578−0811 Email: jrossman1828@gmail.com TERMINATED: 04/27/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ken Anderson Consolidated from 10−12183

represented by Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessie J. Rossman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Scott Hall

represented by Jane K. Mills Detroit City Law Department

Case: 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM As of: 05/30/2012 04:23 PM EDT 2 of 4

660 Woodward Avenue Suite 1650 Detroit, MI 48226−3491 313−224−4550 Fax: 313−237−5060 Email: millj@detroitmi.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
LaShawn Peoples Consolidated from 10−12183

represented by Jane K. Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Doe Consolidated from 10−12183

Date Filed 06/02/2010
06/03/2010 06/03/2010
06/03/2010 06/11/2010 07/01/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010 11/12/2010 11/12/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Phillip Letten against Scott Hall with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645−2492291 − Fee: $ 350. County of 1st Plaintiff: Livingston − County Where Action Arose: Wayne − [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Rossman, Jessie) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
2 SUMMONS Issued for *Scott Hall* (BSoc) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (BSoc) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel S. Korobkin on behalf of Phillip Letten. (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Steinberg on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
5 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Scott Hall served on 6/18/2010, answer due 7/9/2010. (Rossman, Jessie) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
6 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Scott Hall. (Mills, Jane) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
7 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 8/16/2010 11:00 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
8 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference RESET for 9/1/2010 11:30 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MWil) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
9 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference reset for 9/7/2010 11:30 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MWil) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 9/7/2010 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (SJa) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
10 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 11/12/2010 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SJa) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 11/12/2010 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
11 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 1/18/2011 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 11/12/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM As of: 05/30/2012 04:23 PM EDT 3 of 4

01/14/2011 01/14/2011 02/10/2011 02/17/2011 02/17/2011
02/17/2011 03/29/2011 03/29/2011 04/22/2011 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 04/28/2011 05/17/2011 05/17/2011 06/22/2011 06/22/2011 08/09/2011 08/10/2011 12/06/2011
12/07/2011
12/19/2011 12/20/2011

12 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference RESET for 2/3/2011 11:00 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference RESET for 2/10/2011 10:30 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 2/10/2011 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
13 ORDER of Consolidation. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (DWor) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
14 Notice to Parties Regarding Consolidated Case: Order of consolidation entered on *2/17/11*. Designated lead case number is *10−12182*. (DWor) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
15 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 3/29/2011 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 3/29/2011 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
16 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 5/3/2011 11:00 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
17 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference RESET for 5/17/2011 11:00 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
18 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Jessie J. Rossman by All Plaintiffs. (Rossman, Jessie) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
19 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Jessie J. Rossman by All Plaintiffs. (Rossman, Jessie) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
20 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Jessie J. Rossman by All Plaintiffs. (Rossman, Jessie) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 5/17/2011 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
21 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 6/28/2011 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Status Conference set for 06/28/2011 is Cancelled re 21 Notice to Appear (JOwe) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference RESET for 8/9/2011 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 8/9/2011 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
22 ORDER. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
23 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement, MOTION for Sanctions, MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Korobkin Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J) (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
24 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference re: 23 Plaintiffs' MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement, MOTION for Sanctions, MOTION for Attorney Fees set for 12/19/2011 11:30 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 12/19/2011 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
25 NOTICE of hearing on 23 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Attorney Fees. Motion Hearing set for 1/20/2012 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 12/20/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-12182-AC-VMM As of: 05/30/2012 04:23 PM EDT 4 of 4

01/17/2012 01/17/2012 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 02/09/2012
02/15/2012 02/15/2012 03/14/2012 03/14/2012 03/14/2012

TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Motion Hearing on 01/20/2012 is Cancelled re 25 Notice of Hearing on Motion (JOwe) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
26 NOTICE of hearing on 23 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Attorney Fees. Motion Hearing RESET for 1/25/2012 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 01/25/2012 is Cancelled re 26 Notice of Hearing on Motion (JOwe) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
27 NOTICE of hearing on 23 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Attorney Fees. Motion Hearing RESET for 2/15/2012 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
28 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 23 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Attorney Fees and Request that Specific Persons Be Ordered to Appear on February 15, 2012 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Steinberg Letter to Mills and Signed Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Korobkin Email to Zarembski Cole 1/11/2012, # 4 Exhibit Korobkin Email to Zarembski Cole 1/18/2012) (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
Minute Entry − Motion Hearing held on 2/15/2012 re 23 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Phillip Letten, Ken Anderson before District Judge Avern Cohn. Disposition: to be continued in 30 days(Court Reporter Sheri Ward) (JOwe) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
29 NOTICE of hearing on 23 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Attorney Fees. Motion Hearing continuation set for 3/29/2012 10:30 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (JOwe) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
30 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of withdrawal of 23 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Motion Hearing on 03/29/2012 is Cancelled re 30 Notice to Withdraw Motion (JOwe) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
31 STIPULATED ORDER of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 03/14/2012)