1

The Court originally scheduled this matter for hearing. Upon review of the

parties’ papers, however, the Court finds that oral argument is not necessary. See E.D.

Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN HAMILTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 01-CV-74698

(LOCAL CASE)

SUSAN HALL, et al., HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.

______________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENYING THE ROMULUS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT1

I. Introduction

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 with pendent state

claims. Broadly stated, plaintiffs claim that defendants conspired to deprive them of

their civil rights arising out of the operation of topless bars/sexually oriented business

that are located in the downriver Detroit area and owned by John Hamilton. Plaintiffs

seek injunctive relief and damages. 

Before the Court is the Romulus defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

the grounds of res judicata. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

II. Background

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 1916
2

This case has a complicated procedural history. The following is a recitation of

the relevant portions of its history.

• Plaintiffs are:

John Hamilton - sole owner of the 4 adult entertainment

establishments involved in this case

John Hamilton Trustee of the John L. Hamilton Retained Annuity Trust

John Hamilton Jr. - John Hamilton’s son

Jeremy Hamilton - John Hamilton’s son

Michael Hamilton - John Hamilton’s son

Jo-Bet Inc., d/b/a Henry the VII South - an adult entertainment

establishment located in the City of Southgate

The Garter Belt, Inc., d/b/a/ Legg’s Lounge - an adult entertainment

establishment located in Van Buren Township

Hamilton’s Henry VIII Lounge - an adult entertainment establishment

located in City of Inkster

Hamilton’s Bogart, Inc. d/b/a Bogart’s Joint - an adult entertainment

establishment located in the City of Inkster

• On December 12, 2001, plaintiffs filed this action naming the following

defendants:

Jennifer Granholm

Daniel Gustafson

Walter Keck

Claudia Gartin

James Storey

Ena Walters

Susan Hall

Lt. Lawrence Hall

Det. Paul Martin

Det. Lawrence Lokuta

Hilliard Hampton III

Bryce Kelley

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 1917
3

Helen Foster

City of Southgate

City of Inkster

Township of VanBuren

Unknown John Doe Enforcement Officers

• Plaintiffs did not name the City of Romulus or any of its employees.

• On May 20, 2002, Billy Martin, James Martin, Bobby Martin, John

Hamilton, The Garter Belt, Inc. And Hamilton’s Henry the VII Lounge, Inc. filed an

Emergency Complaint for Money Damages, Injunction with Order to Show

Cause, Ex-Parte TRO and Motion for Return of Property in Wayne County Circuit

Court against Van Buren Township, the City of Romulus, March Abdilla (a Van

Buren Township police officer), and Michael Ondejko (a City of Romulus police

officer) (“the Wayne County case”). 

• As best as can be gleaned from the complaint, on May 3, 2002, Abdilla

obtained a search warrant for Legg’s Lounge and a residence located in the back

parking lot area of Legg’s Lounge, owned by John Hamilton and occupied by a

Bobby Martin. The warrant was executed that same day, at approximately 9:00

am at which time certain items were seized, including a substantial portion of

cash from a safe at Legg’s Lounge. On May 14, 2002, Michael Ondejko obtained

a search warrant for a safety deposit box belonging to Billy Martin, Bobby Martin,

The Garter Belt, Inc., Legg’s Lounge, or John Hamilton. Again, a substantial

amount of cash was seized from certain safety deposit boxes. 

• Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the search warrants and requested that

all of the seized items be returned to plaintiffs. The complaint also mentions the

federal lawsuit, as follows:

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 1918
4

In December 2002, John Hamilton, Legg’s, Henry’s and the two

other corporations owned by Hamilton and various members of the

Hamilton family, filed suit in the United States District Court pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Van Buren, together with the City of Inkster and

others, were conspiring to put Hamilton and his corporations out of

business.

Complaint at ¶ 81. The complaint also alleged that the defendants, including

Ondejko, “set about to harass the dancers and staff working for Hamilton’s four

corporations” (Complaint at ¶ 85) and “defendants have set on a campaign to

harass and interfere with Plaintiff corporations and the business owned by John

Hamilton (Complaint at ¶ 88). 

• In addition to a claim for the return of the seized property, the complaint

contained a claim of negligence by defendants in the execution of the search

warrants and a defamation claim against “representatives of Van Buren.”

• On November 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order which, inter alia,

bifurcated plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants into two cases, the “state

case” and the “local case.” 

• On December 4, 2002, the Court directed plaintiffs to file within 10 days

two separate Third Amended Complaints, one for the “state case” and one for the

“local case.” 

• On December 20, 2002, after the 10 days, plaintiffs filed two Third

Amended Complaints, naming the following defendants:

LOCAL CASE:

Susan Hall

Lieutenant Lawrence Hall

Det. Paul Martin

Det. Lawrence Lokuta

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 1919
5

Bryce Kelley

City of Romulus

City of Southgate

City of Inkster

Township of Van Buren

Det. Marc Abdilla,

Det. Michael Ondejko

Det. Kenneth Brown

Anthony (Tony) Abdullah

Unknown “John Doe” Law Enforcement and Liquor Control Enforcement 

Officers

STATE CASE:

Jennifer Granholm - in her individual capacity

Daniel Gustafson - in his individual capacity

Maxine Perry - in her individual capacity

Phillip Arthurhultz - in his individual capacity

Michigan Liquor Control Commission

• Again, plaintiffs did not name the City of Romulus or any of its employees.

• On December 18, 2002, the Wayne County Circuit Court entered an

Amended Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Return of Personal Property and

Order Dismissing All Claims with Prejudice Against all Defendants. This

effectively ended the Wayne County case; this order is the only order in the

record.

• Two days after the dismissal of the Wayne County case, on December

 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in “the local case.” The

complaint, for the first time, names the City of Romulus and Michael Ondejko. 

• Plaintiffs did not serve the Third Amended Complaint on the City of

Romulus or Ondejko. 

• On December 27, 2002, the defendants in “the state case” filed a motion

to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs complaint is “nothing more than a

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 1920
2

Plaintiffs retained new counsel during the pendency of the stay.

6

collateral attack upon Liquor Control administrative hearing enforcement actions

taken against Plaintiffs’ liquor licenses” and that the Court should abstain from

adjudicating plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief. 

• Before the motion could be heard, on January 22, 2003, the Court stayed

all proceedings in both the state case and the local case “until the criminal

charges currently pending against plaintiff John Hamilton in the 34th Judicial

District Court are resolved either by dismissal or trial.” 

• The case remained stayed for over two years, until June 16, 2005, when

the Court, by stipulation of the parties, entered an order lifting the stay.2

 

• On July 14, 2005, the Court held a status conference with the parties at

which it said, inter alia, the following:

1. Plaintiffs shall file a Fourth Amended Complaint within 2 weeks, naming

only the plaintiffs and defendants which currently exist in the case

2. New parties may only be added by motion

• On July 15, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, naming the

following defendants:

Susan Hall

Lt. Lawrence Hall

Det. Paul Martin

Det. Lawrence Lokuta

Bryce Kelley

Michigan Liquor Control Commission

City of Romulus

City of Southgate

City of Inkster

Township of Van Buren

Det. Marc Abdilla,

Det. Michael Ondejko

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 1921
7

Det. Kenneth Brown

Anthony (Tony) Abdullah

Unknown “John Doe” Law Enforcement and Liquor Control Enforcement 

Officers

Nida R. Samona

• Because the Fourth Amended Complaint added new parties in

contravention of the Court’s directive, namely the MLCC and Nida R. Samona, it

was stricken from the record.

• On October 17, 2005, plaintiffs filed a corrected Fourth Amended

Complaint in both “the state case” and “the local case.” The local case names

the following defendants:

Southgate Defendants:

Susan Hall

Lt. Lawrence Hall

Det. Lawrence Lokuta

City of Southgate

Unknown John Doe Enforcement Officers

Inkster Defendants:

Det. Paul Martin

Det. Kenneth Brown

Anthony (Tony) Abdullah

City of Inkster

Unknown John Doe Enforcement Officers

Van Buren Defendants:

Det. Marc Abdilla

Bryce Kelley

Township of Van Buren

Unknown John Doe Enforcement Officers

Romulus Defendants:

Michael Ondejko 

City of Romulus

• The parties have since been proceeding in discovery. 

• On May 16, 2006, the City of Romulus and Ondejko (the “Romulus

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 1922
8

defendants”) filed the instant motion.

III. Analysis

A.

Summary judgment will be granted when the moving party demonstrates that

there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). There is no genuine issue of

material fact when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to

find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475

U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

The nonmoving party may not rest upon his pleadings; rather, the nonmoving

party’s response “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). Showing that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the

material facts is not enough; “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of

the nonmoving party is not sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Rather, the nonmoving party must

present “significant probative evidence” in support of its opposition to the motion for

summary judgment in order to defeat the motion. See Moore v. Philip Morris Co., 8

F.3d 335, 340 (6th Cir. 1993); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. Additionally, and

significantly, “affidavits containing mere conclusions have no probative value” in

summary judgment proceedings. Bsharah v. Eltra Corp., 394 F.2d 502, 503 (6th Cir.

1968).

The Court must decide “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement

to require submission to a [trier of fact] or whether it is so one-sided that one party must

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 1923
9

prevail as a matter of law.” In re Dollar Corp., 25 F.3d 1320, 1323 (6th Cir. 1994)

(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52). The Court “must view the evidence in the light

most favorable to the non-moving party.” Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Petroleum

Specialties, Inc., 69 F.3d 98, 101 (6th Cir. 1995). Determining credibility, weighing

evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences are left to the trier of fact. See Anderson,

477 U.S. at 255. Only where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law may summary judgment be

granted. Thompson v. Ashe, 250 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2001).

B.

The Romulus defendants’ motion for summary judgment is based solely on res

judicata. Michigan courts broadly apply res judicata to claims previously litigated and

those arising out of the same transaction that could have been raised with the exercise

of reasonable diligence. Dart v. Dart, 460 Mich. 573, 586 (1999). The doctrine is

employed to prevent multiple suits litigating the same cause of action. Adair v. State,

470 Mich. 105, 121 (2004). Res judicata bars a second action when (1) the prior action

was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and

(3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first. Id.

The Romulus defendants say that the Wayne County case is res judicata to this

action. Plaintiffs, in a rather unusual series of argument, say that (1) the Romulus

defendants were “agents” of Van Buren Township and therefore “implicitly” included in

the original complaint, (2) the Third Amended Complaint first naming the Romulus

defendants “relates back” to the original complaint, (3) the dismissal in Wayne County

was not a adjudication on the merits and did not contain all of the same plaintiffs. The

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 1924
10

latter argument is the only one which responds to the issue of res judicata. 

C.

The results of the Wayne County case does not bar plaintiffs from suing the

Romulus defendants. The Wayne County case essentially challenged the legality of the

search warrants and the clear thrust of the complaint was to seek the return of the

seized property as well as damages. While some of the plaintiffs in the Wayne County

case are the same as the plaintiffs in this case, particularly John Hamilton, the Garter

Belt, and Hamilton’s Henry VII Lounge, the Wayne County case had other plaintiffs not

named in this case who were impacted by the search warrants. Although the Wayne

County case referred to this case in the complaint, the allegations in this case are not

the type that could have, or should have, been brought in the Wayne County case. 

Moreover, the dismissal of the Wayne County case, so far as the Court can tell, does

not appear to be an adjudication on the merits sufficient to invoke res judicata. 

Plaintiffs say that the Romulus defendants did not file a motion for summary judgment in

the Wayne County case and that the case was dismissed because the claims

surrounding the seizure had to await resolution of any criminal action against any of the

plaintiffs; the Romulus defendants do not dispute this assertion. There is no indication

that plaintiffs are trying to split any cause of action against the Romulus defendants by

not naming them in this case until the filing of the Third Amended Complaint. 

D.

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 1925
11

The Court is constrained to observe that the plaintiffs have proceeded in a

manner which suggests they are more interested in litigating than obtaining relief. The

defendants have encouraged this approach by responding in kind. The instant motion

is an example. The parties are better advised to complete discovery and agree on a

joint final pretrial statement and then have the Court set the case for trial.

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 15, 2006

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

record on this date, August 15, 2006, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 157 Filed 08/15/06 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 1926