# Anders v. Cuevas

> District Court, E.D. Michigan · October 8, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10212727

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Michigan
- **Decided:** October 8, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10212727

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHANE ANDERS, STAR TOWING
AND RECOVERY, LLC, and AREA
TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC.,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 19-10989
v.
Hon. George Caram Steeh
TONY CUEVAS, in his individual capacity
as Post Commander for the Michigan State
Police, DARZEIL HALL, in his individual
Capacity as a Michigan State Trooper,
CITY OF TAYLOR, HERMAN “BUTCH”
RAMIK, in his individual and official
Capacities as an elected member of the
Taylor City Council, and RICK SOLLARS,
in his individual and official capacities as
the elected Mayor of the City of Taylor,

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING CITY OF TAYLOR DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 24)

The City of Taylor Defendants seek reconsideration of the court’s
September 12, 2019 order granting in part and denying part their motion to
dismiss. Specifically, Defendants request that the court amend its opinion
to reflect that qualified immunity was denied as to the individual City of
Taylor Defendants – Herman Ramik and Rick Sollars. The court will deny
Defendants’ request as to Ramik, because it granted Defendants’ motion to

dismiss on the basis that the complaint contained no allegations of
wrongdoing against him. The court did not consider whether Ramik was
entitled to qualified immunity.

The court will also deny Defendants’ request as to Sollars because it
did not consider whether Sollars was entitled to qualified immunity.
Defendants did not raise the issue of qualified immunity in their principal
brief. See ECF No. 10. They argued that Anders did not have standing to

assert a retaliation claim and that Area Towing did not engage in protected
activity. Id. They did not argue that Plaintiffs failed to establish a
constitutional violation or that Sollars did not violate a clearly established

constitutional right. See Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond, 641 F.3d
673, 681 (6th Cir. 2011) (“When the qualified immunity defense is raised at
the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint
‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established

law.’”).
In their reply brief, the Taylor Defendants “concurred” in the
arguments made by the State of Michigan Defendants and asked that “they

be considered by the Court in conjunction with their own Motion to
Dismiss.” ECF No. 21. They did not, however, develop any argument with
regard to why Sollars was entitled to qualified immunity. “[I]ssues adverted

to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed
argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to
mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to

. . . put flesh on its bones.” McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96
(6th Cir. 1997). Moreover, “it is not the office of a reply brief to raise issues
for the first time.” Sundberg v. Keller Ladder, 189 F. Supp. 2d 671, 682-83
(E.D. Mich. 2002) (citing United States v. Perkins, 994 F.2d 1184, 1191

(6th Cir. 1993)). See also Summe v. Kenton Cty. Clerk’s Office, 604 F.3d
257, 269 (6th Cir. 2010) (failure to raise and brief qualified immunity issue
resulted in waiver).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Taylor Defendants’
motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 24) is DENIED.
Dated: October 8, 2019
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 8, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10212727. Public record. Not legal advice.