UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

JENNIFER ZYNDA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEVE ARWOOD, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

Case No. 15-11449

ORDER TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND TERMINATING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SUBMIT

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS AS MOOT 

Pending before the court is Defendants’ second Motion to Dismiss based on their

argument that Plaintiffs’ claims have been mooted by the discontinuation of the

Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (“MiDAS”). (Dkt. # 23.) During the

pendency of this Motion, on March 29, 2016, the court issued its Opinion and Order,

(Dkt. # 27), resolving Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. # 10). That Opinion

addressed and clarified a number of important issues in this case. Since then, Plaintiffs

have filed an Ex Parte Motion to Submit Supplemental Exhibits, (Dkt. # 30), which in

large part appears to be related to some of the issues the court addressed in its March

29, 2016 Opinion and Order. Because many of the claims and issues addressed in that

Opinion have an impact on the mootness argument Defendants advance in their second

Motion to Dismiss, the court will deny that Motion without prejudice, and allow

Defendants, if they still seek to argue that the case is entirely moot,1

 to recalibrate their

1

 Defendants should proceed thoughtfully, mindful of significant hurdles in

arguing that this case is moot. The court does not impose a limit on what motions 

2:15-cv-11449-RHC-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 635
arguments to account for what is now law of the case. Relatedly, Plaintiffs’ Motion

seeking to supplement their response to the Motion to Dismiss is now moot. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ second Motion to

Dismiss (Dkt. # 23) is TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants’ will have

until June 1, 2016 to refile a motion to dismiss based on mootness. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Submit

Supplemental Exhibits (Dkt. # 30) it TERMINATED AS MOOT. 

____________________________________ 

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 12, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, May 12, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

Defendants may properly raise, but hopes at least to focus whatever further briefing

may emerge should another mootness motion be filed. First, while many of Plaintiffs’

concerns may be ameliorated by discontinuing use of MiDAS, the claims here appear to

relate to systemic concerns. Aside from the MiDAS mechanism, the First Amended

Complaint also attacks the use of self-incriminating fraud questionnaires and the

allegedly threadbare fraud determination notices, which Plaintiffs claim provide

insufficient information about the factual basis for the fraud determination to allow

claimants a meaningful opportunity to respond. (See Dkt. # 13, Pg. ID 151-53.) Even

assuming that Defendants’ use of MiDAS has permanently ceased, a reasonable

reading of the complaint related to fraud determinations and notices reveals claims of

continuing, but non-MiDAS, defects.

2

2:15-cv-11449-RHC-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 636