HRT ENTERPRISES v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN - Articles

All Content

HRT ENTERPRISES v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Dec 22, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for City of Detroit.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Mark Granzotto, MARK GRANZOTTO, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, for HRT Enterprises

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for City of Detroit.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Mark Granzotto, MARK GRANZOTTO, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, for HRT Enterprises.

Judge(s): GRIFFIN, THAPAR, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. After losing in state court, HRT Enterprises sued the City of Detroit in federal court under a de facto takings theory. The district court held that the state court’s prior determinations did not bar this suit and granted summary judgment in favor of HRT without deciding when the taking had occurred. The first jury determined the date of the taking and awarded HRT $4.25 million, but the district court granted the City’s motion for a remittitur and reduced the award to $2 million. The City rejected the remittitur and elected for a new trial on damages. The second jury awarded HRT $1.97 million. On appeal, the City argues that the case is not ripe because HRT’s case rests on hypothetical facts, not an actual taking, and even if it is ripe, the state court’s prior determinations bar this suit. The City also argues that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that its actions constituted a de facto taking and that it faced unfair prejudice at trial because it had to concede that a taking occurred on a particular date even though it maintained that no taking had ever occurred. HRT cross-appeals, arguing that the district court’s remittitur was an abuse of discretion because the evidence in the first trial supported that jury’s award of damages. We affirm.

Attachments: