Opinion ID: 2977905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The second motion for partial summary judgment

Text: The plaintiffs’ 2006 lawsuit, in addition to challenging the constitutionality of the City’s adult-use zoning ordinances, also alleged that the City’s sign ordinances were unconstitutional. By April 2007, four years had passed since the filing of the initial sign application, and three since the revised application, without any action by the City. The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment that month, arguing that the City’s sign ordinances were unconstitutional both facially and as applied. They requested that the district court (a) enjoin the City from enforcing the challenged provisions, (b) declare that the plaintiffs were legally entitled to erect the signs described in the revised application, and (c) permanently enjoin the City from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs’ erection of the signs. The district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion. It held that the City’s sign ordinances were not unconstitutional on their face, and therefore declined to permanently enjoin enforcement of those ordinances. The court did, however, hold that the City’s failure to act on the applications within a reasonable time was unconstitutional as applied, and thus enjoined the City from preventing the plaintiffs’ erection of their desired signs. In March 2008, the plaintiffs timely appealed the portions of the district court’s ruling on the second motion for partial summary judgment that were unfavorable to them. Nos. 08-1329/1361 H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC, et al. Page 8 v. City of Detroit That appeal is docketed as Case Number 08-1361 and has been consolidated with the plaintiffs’ zoning-ordinance appeal.