UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

COMMODITIES EXPORT COMPANY,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

CITY OF DETROIT, UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, 

Defendants/Cross-Defendants,

and

DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE

COMPANY,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/CrossPlaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

WALTER LUBIENSKI and DEAN AYTES,

Third Party Defendants.

Case No. 09-CV-11060-DT

 /

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

RENEWED MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff Commodities Export Company filed a “Renewed

Motion for a Permanent Injunction and a Declaratory Judgment.” On March 5, 2010, the

court entered an order holding in abeyance Plaintiff’s renewed motion pending

resolution of other motions before the court. Additionally, “because the resolution of the

other motions could and likely will alter the landscape of the issues presented in

Plaintiff’s renewed motion,” the court also ordered that the briefing on the motion be

suspended until the other motions were resolved. (3/05/2010 Order at 1.) While the
1For example, a substantial portion of Plaintiff’s motion deals with the duties of

the United States to control the actions of its alleged agent or instrumentality, the Detroit

International Bridge Company (“DIBC”). On June 29, 2010, the court issued an order

holding that DIBC was not a federal instrumentality. Thereafter, DIBC filed both a

motion for reconsideration and a motion to vacate the June 29 order. Whatever the

resolution of these motions, the procedural and factual landscape will have significantly

changed since the filing of Plaintiff’s renewed motion for permanent injunction on this

issue and will necessarily require supplemental briefing. 

2

court has resolved some of the issues impacting the renewed motion, the parties have

subsequently filed additional motions, also impacting the resolution of the motion for

permanent injunction. As a practical matter, at this point, the procedural posture of this

case, as well as the factual circumstances underlying the motion for permanent

injunction, have already shifted so much that the motion is too stale to address, yet

simultaneously not yet ripe for review.1

 Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s motion for permanent

injunction seeks the final injunction to end this case, it should not be presented until the

issues have sufficiently narrowed in order to address Plaintiff’s request. Accordingly,

the court will deny the renewed motion without prejudice to the right of Plaintiff to bring

the motion at a later date, preserving all of Plaintiff’s rights until that time. After

resolution of the currently pending motions, the court will set a status conference to

determine whether the time is ripe for Plaintiff’s motion or whether any party is entitled

first to a bench or jury trial or to any other hearing. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Renewed Motion for a Permanent Injunction and

a Declaratory Judgment” [Dkt. # 57] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 28, 2010
3

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

on this date, September 28, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-11060.COMMODITIES.DenyWithoutPrejudiceRenewedMotion.wpd